Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/77939037/Second-Motion-to-Amend
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 07:56:16
Document Index: 323346112

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 82', '§ 82', '§ 1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§1981', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 9', '§ 1981', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 1985', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 1986', '§ 1986', '§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 1986', '§ 1986', '§ 1981', '§ 1983', '§ 981', '§ 981', '§1983', '§1981', '§1981', '§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1983', '§ 1981', '§ 1983']

Second Motion to Amend | Pleading | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Second Motion to Amend
Bret Landrith
сохранитьСохранить «Second Motion to Amend» для последующего чтения
Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing Pro se Apartment 209, 5308 SW Tenth St. Topeka, KS 66604 Cell 913-951-1715 bret@bretlandrith.com
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS
BRET D. LANDRITH
Case No. 10C1436
DON JORDAN SECRETARY OF SRS, et al
SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC § 1983
Comes now the plaintiff Bret D Landrith appearing pro se and makes the following motion to
amend his second petition before this court identified as First Amended Complaint, giving notice of the
amendment as a right under K.S.A. 60-215 in 2010 HB 2656, § 82 (see memorandum i n f r a ) and in the
alternative as a motion for leave to amend.
The second amendment adds the defendant DAVID WEBER ( previously voluntarily dismissed )
to correct a defect asserted by C. William Ossmann on behalf of DON JORDAN with the new defendant
JOHN BADGER and DON JORDAN regarding vicarious liability (disputed by the plaintiff) and for post
complaint conduct by DAVID WEBER.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT
The plaintiff amends his complaint as a right in response to the defendant SECRETARY OF SRS’s
Motion to Dismiss which the plaintiff responded to with an answer while simultaneously filing this
Amendment as a Right
K.S.A. 60-215(a) allows a party to file an amended pleading as a matter of right any time before a
responsive pleading is served. Housh v. Kenneth L. Hay, et al. KS Appl Ct. Case No. ! 94,425 (2006).
The plaintiff’s amendment by right is now after July 1, 2010 triggered after the defendant YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC filed a Motion to Dismiss:
“Tracking 2009 changes to Federal Rule 15, amended K.S.A. 60-215[2010 HB 2656, § 82] alters the time in which a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right, shortening the time in one situation and lengthening it in another. Under former law, if the pleading was one to which a responsive pleading was required, the filing of a motion under K.S.A. 60-212, including a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, did not affect the pleader’s ability to amend once without leave of court. Amendment was of right even after an order ruling on the motion as long as no responsive pleading had yet been filed and the order did not expressly cut off the right to amend. Under HB 2656, the right to one amendment without leave of the court expires 21 days after service of a motion under K.S.A. 60-212(b), (e), or (f). The change creates an incentive for the pleader to consider promptly the arguments in a motion. As the Federal Advisory Committee explained, “A responsive amendment may avoid the need to decide the motion or reduce the number of issues to be decided, and will expedite determination of issues that otherwise might be raised seriatim.”[ Fed. R. Civ. P 15, Advisory Committee Note to 2009 amendment] On the other hand, under former law when no pre-answer motion was made, service of a responsive pleading immediately cut off the right to one amendment. Now, amendment continues to be of right if the amendment is served no later than 21 days after service of the responsive pleading. Like a pre-answer motion, a responsive pleading may identify issues the original pleader had not considered, justifying a prompt amendment of right.” [Emphasis added]
Civil Code and Time Computation Changes Effective July 1, Prof. James Concannon, The Journal
of the Kansas Bar Association, June 2010 Vol. 70 No. 6 pgs. 20-31.
http://www.dc18.org/info/KBA_Journal_Civil_Code_and_Time_Computation.pdf
Argument in Support of Leave to Amend
In the alternative the plaintiff seeks leave of the court to amend his complaint to include new relief
for the continuing conduct described in the original complaint.
"If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. the leave sought should as the rules require, be `freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962). Accord Dutoit v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 233 Kan. 995, 1002, 667 P.2d 879 (1983) (quoting 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 1487
[1971]).”
Johnson v. Board of Pratt County Comm'rs, 259 Kan. 327-328, 913 P.2d 119 (1996)
“’Consideration of the amendment provisions of our Code of Civil Procedure provide support for our conclusion that leave to amend was properly given in this case. Leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires.’" K.S.A. 60-215(a). K.S.A. 60-215(b) authorizes the court to amend the pleading to conform to the evidence ‘by express or implied consent of the parties" or "when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits.’ The policy of permitting amendments to the pleading ‘when justice so requires’ and when the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the opposing party would not be prejudiced, as expressed in K.S.A. 60-215(a), is also reflected in the statute governing the contents of an eminent domain petition. K.S.A. 26-502 provides that ‘[n]o defect in form which does not impair substantial
rights of the parties shall invalidate any proceeding.’”
Landau Investment Company, Inc., v. City Of Overland Park, 261 Kan. 394,930 P2d 1065 (1997).
Statute 60-215: Amended and supplemental pleadings (d) Supplemental pleadings states in its
“Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a claim for relief or defense…”
WHERE AS for the above reasons the plaintiff respectfully submits the attached Proposed 1st
S/Bret D. Landrith Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing Pro se
I hereby certify I have provided on November 25, 2011 a true copy of the above to the defendants via US Mail First Class postage pre-paid as indicated:
Defendant BRIAN FROST through his attorney J. Steven Pigg, FISHER PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, LLP PO Box 949, Topeka, KS 66601-0949. Via US Mail.
Defendants ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER and BOB CORKINS to their counsel David W. Davies and C. William Ossmann, Chief of Litigation at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 915 SW Harrison, 6th Floor, 66612-1354. Via US Mail
Defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney Amy Raymond, 120 SE 6th Street Suite 106, Topeka, KS 66603. Via US Mail
Defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS at 3209 SW Bell Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66614. Via US Mail.
Defendant STANTON HAZLETT through his attorney Steve Phillips via US Mail.
Chambers Copy, Hon. Judge Hendricks, Shawnee County District Court, Shawnee County Courthouse, 200
SE 7th Street Suite 209, Topeka, KS
66603 via US Mail
Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing Pro se 12820 SW Hwy K4 Topeka, KS 66610 Cell 816-783-7495 bret@bretlandrith.com
BRET D. LANDRITH Plaintiff
DON JORDAN former Secretary of SRS (In his personal capacity)
Case No. 10C1436 Div. 6
ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS (In his official capacity) BOB CORKINS SRS GENERAL COUNSEL (In his official capacity) JOHN BADGER former Chief Counsel of SRS (In his personal capacity) STANTON A. HAZLETT, DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR (In his official capacity) BRIAN FROST CRAIG E. COLLINS YOUNG WILLIAMS PC DAVID WEBER SRS Caseworker Defendants
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC § 1983
Comes now the plaintiff Bret D. Landrith appearing pro se and makes the following Second
Amended Petition complaint under 42 USC §1983 for the violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights to Due
Process and Equal Protection Under the Law secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law
and guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States against conduct to deprive the plaintiff of property and due course of justice in violation of 42 U.S.C.
sec. 1981, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985 (3) and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. Additionally, the plaintiff seeks prospective
injunctive relief against the defendants ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS , BOB CORKINS SRS
GENERAL COUNSEL and STANTON A. HAZLETT DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR under 42
U.S.C. sec. 1983. DON JORDAN and the added defendant JOHN BADGER are charged with the added
violation of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1986. ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS, DAVID WEBER,
BRIAN FROST and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC are added under damages claims for post complaint
1. The plaintiff was disbarred in 2005 for bringing the racial discrimination Civil Rights claims of
James L. Bolden, Jr., an African American to federal court 1 and for the pro bono representation of Bolden’s
witness David M. Price in an appeal of a parental rights termination case where the Kansas SRS deprived
the natural father of access to interstate compact against child trafficking documents used to place the
American Indian child in an adoption out of state prior to the termination of parental rights.
2. The plaintiff was also disbarred for raising the Indian Child Welfare Act which prohibited the
taking and placement of the child without notice to the natural father 2 .
3. This action arises from continuing conduct against the plaintiff after the disbarment with new
violations under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of his federal statutory and constitutional rights in
violation of 42 USC §1983 including his right to earn a living and his statutory right to Food Stamps as part
of an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice DON JORDAN former Secretary of SRS and the other original
defendants have joined and taken affirmative actions to fulfill.
3.1 The plaintiff now has standing for prospective injunctive relief five years after disbarment to be
considered for reinstatement to the Kansas Bar and is being considered for admission in other jurisdictions
because of the unlawfulness of the State of Kansas disbarment under 42 USC §1981 in taking his property
right to practice law for his conduct of advocating on behalf of two protected class citizens.
3.2 The plaintiff is endangered by the probability of irreparable future injury by ROB SIEDLECKI
SECRETARY OF SRS withholding exculpatory evidence proving the plaintiff’s fitness and moral
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision reinvigorated 42 USC Sec. 1981 as a cause of action against government discrimination and real estate takings in Bolden v. City of Topeka. 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006). The decision has been favorably cited by the Sixth Circuit in Coles v. Granville Case No. 05-3342 (6th Cir. May 22, 2006). 2 The Kansas Supreme Court later adopted the plaintiff’s argument that the Indian Child Welfare Act applied to American Indians living off the reservation in its decision on In The Matter Of A.J.S., Kansas Supreme Court Case No. 99,130 (2009). The Kansas Supreme Court has also adopted the plaintiff’s argument that misrepresentations by a natural mother to conceal the existence of a child from a father could not disqualify a father’s reasonable efforts to parent his child. In The Matter Of The Adoption Of Baby Girl P. Case No. No. 102, 287 at 13-16 (Kan., Oct. 2010).
character at the direction of BOB CORKINS SRS GENERAL COUNSEL, the agency’s chief policy
making authority in legal matters if the plaintiff’s requested prospective injunctive relief is denied.
4. This action arises under Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court over claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is based on Prager v.
State, 271 Kan. 1, 11-12, 20 P.3d 39 (2001) holding that Kansas state courts are open to entertaining claims
for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. Venue is proper because the principal defendants, the SRS Officials are believed to reside in the
State of Kansas, and the corporations are registered to do business in the State of Kansas.
7. The acts complained of occurred in Shawnee County in the State of Kansas.
8. Plaintiff BRET D. LANDRITH resides at the time of filing this amended complaint at 12820 SW
Hwy K4, Topeka, KS 66610.
9. Defendant DON JORDAN is being sued in his private individual capacity and is the former
Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services doing business at 915 SW
Harrison, 6th floor, 66612-1354.
10. ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS is being sued in his personal and official capacity and
is the head of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services doing business at 915 SW
10.1 BOB CORKINS SRS GENERAL COUNSEL, the agency’s chief policy making authority in legal
matters is being sued in his official capacity as the head of the legal department of the Kansas Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services doing business at 915 SW Harrison, 6th floor, 66612-1354.
10.2 JOHN BADGER is being sued in his private individual capacity and is the former SRS General
Counsel, his address is unknown.
STANTON A. HAZLETT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR is the chief policy
making authority in litigation and is being sued in his official capacity as the State of Kansas Disciplinary
Administrator doing business at 701 SW Jackson Street, 1st Floor
Topeka Kansas 66603-3729.
Defendant BRIAN FROST is an attorney of Alderson Law, 2101 SW 21st Street, Topeka, Kansas
66604.
Defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS, 3209 SW Bell Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66614.
Defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, is a child support contractor whose registered agent is The
Corporation Company, Inc., 112 SW 7th Street Suite 3C, Topeka, KS 66603.
13.1 Defendant DAVID WEBER SRS Caseworker doing business at 500 S.W. VanBuren
Topeka, KS 66603.
14. The defendant former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN through JOHN BADGER the former SRS
General Counsel *! his counsel Bill Ossmann, Matthew W. Boddington, accomplices BRIAN FROST and
CRAIG E. COLLINS along with their agents in the Kansas Office of Attorney Discipline/ Board of Law
Examiners worked to keep the plaintiff from employment and from supporting his children during the
period of time John Gutierrez, the attorney representing former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN is
seeking to have the plaintiff jailed for contempt in an ongoing court action in Crawford County, Kansas
District Court Case No. CR03DM00296P. !
A. FACTS SUPPORTING CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
15. The receipt of food stamps is a factor to be considered and weighs in favor of a respondent in an
Answer to Show Cause for Civil Contempt.
16. The defendant former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN obtained cancelation of the plaintiff’s
food stamp benefits in a facially false termination by former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN’s case
manager DAVID WEBER.
17. Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
had notice that it is clearly established under law that the wrongful termination of food stamp benefits is a
violation of 42 USC §1983 and it is settled case law that the plaintiff has standing resulting from this
violation and no duty to give additional notice or exhaust any administrative remedies.
18. Despite this notice, former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former
SRS General Counsel continued this misconduct in violation of the plaintiff’s rights to Due Process and
Equal Protection Under the Law secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law and
guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
to deprive the plaintiff of property and due course of justice in violation of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981, 42 U.S.C.
sec. 1985 (3) and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
19. Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
chose to commit more violations including the unlawful termination of food stamp benefits in retaliation
for the plaintiff’s earlier notice that the former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and the defendants were
violating the plaintiff’s property rights in earning a non law based living.
20. Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
also ignored the gravamen of the noticed misconduct and the resulting financial liability.
21. Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
participated with other defendants and non defendant state officials in concerted misconduct that retaliated
against the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s former clients and associates for their association with the plaintiff
and for past and possible future Civil Rights advocacy on their behalf during the period information is
sought by John Gutierrez in the ongoing court action in Crawford County, Kansas District Court Case No.
CR03DM00296P.
22. This misconduct repeatedly kept the plaintiff from earning salary, wage and independent
contractor income, directly preventing me from supporting my family and depleting what remained of my
resources to obtain employment.
23. Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
participated in concerted misconduct that included extrinsic fraud and obstruction of justice in ongoing
litigation involving the State of Kansas SRS. Similar misconduct has resulted in adverse media coverage
and State of Kansas legislative hearings this year.
Former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN joined and continued a pattern and practice of JOHN
BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, SRS counsel Bill Ossmann, and Matthew W. Boddington of
obtaining control over the legal representation of Kansas citizens litigating against the SRS to assert rights
and claims in redress from former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN’s misconduct.
25. This extrinsic fraud now includes on information and belief the control of the Kansas licensed
attorney CRAIG E. COLLINS to defeat effective representation exposing the misconduct of the SRS.
26. This extrinsic fraud also includes on information and belief the participation of the Kansas
licensed attorney BRIAN FROST in altering domestic court case management billing records to cause a
potential employer of the plaintiff to be prevented from practicing law in participation with the non
defendant Attorney Discipline prosecutor Gayle B. Larkin for associating with and being represented by the
plaintiff in Huffman v. ADP, Fidelity et al, W.D. of Missouri Case No. 05-CV-01205.
27. As a third party business expectation and contract beneficiary, the plaintiff has been injured by
this conduct in violation of federal laws.
28. When former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General
Counsel, and the defendants’ associate, Attorney Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT
was placed in legal jeopardy by an ethics complaint filed by Stewart Webb against Attorney Discipline
employee Gayle B. Larkin, a former witness to the taking of an Oklahoma infant through fraud and
extortion was contacted, intimidated, extorted for the purpose of obstructing any investigation into the
misconduct of Attorney Discipline Office and SRS officials.
29. This intimidation and extortion resulted in death threats and when it was not successful, resulted in
the plaintiff being subpoenaed to testify in an ongoing federal criminal case USA v. Carrie Neighbors and
Guy Neighbors, KS Dist. Ct. Case No. 07-20124, 08-20105, 07-20073.
30. On July 26, 2010, the night before the plaintiff’s testimony, the plaintiff provided required notice
at 4:55 pm to Attorney Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT, that the testimony may
involve evidence related to the frauds committed in the disbarment proceeding.
31. Attorney Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT subsequently claimed to have
dismissed the investigation of Stewart Webb’s ethics complaint against his employee Gayle B. Larkin at
approximately 7:00 pm on the night he received notice from the plaintiff.
",!
The Assistant US Attorney was then barred in court from asking any questions related to the
The plaintiff performed over a year of legal work as an attorney on an action that would have
provided for the support of his children.
34. The action was styled Huffman v. ADP, Fidelity et al, W.D. of Missouri Case No. 05-CV-
01205 3 and was based on skimming of undisclosed fees from Simple IRA Mutual Fund accounts, presaging
the New York Attorney General’s class action against H&R Block on the company’s Express IRA’s and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit repudiation of implied securities antitrust
immunity in Billing v. Credit Suisse 2005 WL 2381653 (2d. Cir. Sept. 28, 2005).
35. The plaintiff became ineligible for his property right in the contingent fees when he was
summarily denied a new trial on his State of Kansas disbarment, the morning the Western District of
Missouri Court inquired about the effect of the plaintiff’s timely motion for a new trial on the disbarment
under Kansas law and was reciprocally disbarred by the federal court without a hearing.
36. The defendants and former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , and JOHN BADGER the former
SRS General Counsel and or co-conspirators acting on their behalf in furtherance of the continuing Civil
Rights conspiracy became concerned when the plaintiff’s former client David M. Price filed an action for
prospective injunctive relief in the Kansas District Court to permit the plaintiff to represent him and
numerous other prospective class members in a Civil Rights Action against the SRS officials responsible
for the misconduct publicized by state legislative hearings and frauds committed by SRS contractors and
their counsel to remove his teen age daughter from his home.
37. A week after the petition for injunctive relief was filed by David M. Price in federal court, the
Kansas Attorney General’s office refilled their action for contempt of court against Price that had been
earlier dismissed.
38. The plaintiff’s witness to extrinsic fraud in the procurement of Attorney Discipline rulings Jim
Vanderbilt has also been jailed for non-payment of child support.
39. The plaintiff’s process server in an earlier injunctive relief action against Attorney Discipline
Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT, Janice Lynn King has been injured by duplicative
$ ! http://securities.stanford.edu/1035/ADP05_01/20051129_f01c_Huffman.pdf !
proceedings in this Shawnee County District court instigated by Assistant Kansas Attorney General Steve
Phillips in the preceding year and has also filed a detailed complaint against Kansas attorneys that have
deprived her of parenting time with her children over five years, federal tax returns, and of support awarded
in this court in retaliation for her association with the plaintiff.
40. Assistant Kansas Attorney General Steve Phillips made a material misrepresentation to the Tenth
Circuit US Court of Appeals to obtain an order upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff’s injunctive relief
action against Attorney Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT.
41. Evidence of kidnapping by deception, extortion and fraud related to three other infants in unlawful
Kansas child trafficking under the negligent jurisdiction of the SRS that was filed in that injunctive relief
action against Attorney Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT resurfaced in the ethics
complaint by Stewart Webb described supra.
42. The plaintiff was subpoenaed to testify in federal court in a hearing held on behalf of the African
American Guy Neighbors by his defense counsel in the afternoon shortly after Stewart Webb had
transmitted the affidavit related to the kidnapping through fraud and extortion of an Oklahoma infant in
Kansas to former US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Todd Graves who is representing
former Kansas Attorney General and Johnson County District Attorney Phil Kline before the Attorney
Discipline Office.
B. SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF A CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY
43. On May 18, 2009, the State of Kansas SRS under the control of former Secretary of the SRS DON
JORDAN is reported by media sources around the state as coming under a legislative investigation over
complaints by Kansas citizens over the conduct of the agency:
“State lawmakers inundated with complaints about the SRS foster care system want answers. A special committee has been set up to investigate as families come forward wondering how their kids ended up in the system. Kathy Winters brings her memories to the Kansas statehouse, pleading for help from lawmakers. "I don't take anything for granted. I pray every day that someone will listen to us," said Winters as she walked up the steps to the Capitol building in Topeka last week. For more than a year Winters cared for two of her grandsons, Caleb and Wyatt, after SRS removed them from their mother. Then, last year, SRS took the boys from Winters and placed them into foster care. "It has devastated my family," she says. "It has torn us apart." SRS claims Winters lost the boys because of poor communication, not complying with visitation requirements and problems getting them proper medical treatment. Winters, however, believes the foster care system is broken. She claims it's a system driven by greed.
"#!
"The real reason is they make more money from the children if they do have them in foster care and if they adopt them out," she said. SRS contracts with private agencies to run the foster care system. According to SRS records, the state paid $153,000,000 in 2009 to the contractors who place kids in foster care. There is also a monthly case rate paid for each child that is in foster care. "I'm hoping this hasn't become a money making proposition on the backs of our children," said State Senator Julia Lynn of Johnson County. Complaints from Winters and hundreds of other families got the attention of Senator Lynn and Representative Mike Kiegerl. "There has been some progress made, but i still see some difficulties and I still get a lot of complaints," said Kiegerl. They head the Children's Services Committee, and they are investigating the complaints.”
Fixing SRS - A KAKE Special Report.
44. A previous legislative investigation revealed that the State of Kansas SRS under the control of
former Secretary of the SRS DON JORDAN , and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
was influencing the outcomes of Sedgwick County court cases through extrinsic fraud driven by
Sedgwick County District Attorneys.
Audit Shows Over 50% of Wichita Social Workers Say They've Been Pressured by DA's Office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O57nCusVtvo
Fixing SRS - A KAKE Special Report ( Sen. Julie Lynn, Rep Mike Kiegerl head Children Services
Committee and are concerned it may be driven by the money)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mQTfHjy84A&feature=related
THEY'RE MAKING BILLIONS OFF THE BACKS OF OUR CHILDREN ( Senators in an Olathe
Town Hall meeting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDS2uRD12ac&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqBFHIaa0w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iM_ZJTUd9M&feature=related
45. On April 1, 2010, continuing retaliation by State of Kansas Officials against the plaintiff’s son is
mentioned in letter to Missouri State Judge Honorable Robert Schieber:
“This racketeering tactic of Hobbs Act extortion by the Novation LLC co-conspirators was used against my former counsel’s son in Pittsburg, Kansas, causing him to drop out of school. When my former counsel finally obtained custody of his son, the Kansas City Missouri School District resisted letting him attend school and both school principals Linda Collins of North East and Tom Herrera of East denied his son the opportunity to re-enter high school last year.
think it is the lowest form of gangsterism to misuse public offices to retaliate against people’s
children for the purpose of obstructing justice and here it is my seventeen-year-old nephew who has no connection to my Medical Supply Chain or Medical Supply Line businesses. There is no reason my nephew should be forced to abandon his high school studies and forfeit an opportunity to go to college because of the defendants’ criminal conduct like my former counsel Bret Landrith’s son was forced to.”
April 1, 2010 Letter of Samuel Lipari to Honorable Robert Schieber.
46. On March 26, 2010, the SRS action to terminate parental rights of David M. Price over his
daughter Heavenly was continued until May after his daughter will age out of jurisdiction.
47. CRAIG E. COLLINS was not called to testify about his role alleged by Price to have been an
attempt by CRAIG E. COLLINS and former Secretary of the SRS DON JORDAN to place Heavenly with
Janice Lynn King and secure the arrest of his former client in the proceeding David M. Price.
48. On March 22, 2010 (evening) the plaintiff’s former client David M. Price is featured on a
nationwide television news broadcast:
“ Fox News: Our most outrageous example of licensing madness is the plight of David Price, a man
who learned the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished, especially when messing with lawyers. Price made the mistake of helping Eldon Ray, a fellow Kansan who was fined for practicing architecture without a license. Price didn’t represent Ray in court; he just helped Ray by writing a letter to respond to the fine. In states like Kansas, that practically makes Price Perry Mason. A judge (a lawyer with a robe) threw Price into jail on contempt charges, not to be released until he promised to never give legal advice again – ever.”
http://www.breitbart.tv/stossel-do-we-really-need-a-license-for-everything/
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-03-09/price_to_speak_on_fox
Video Stossel interviewed about his upcoming show with David Price on Internet
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2468641/posts
49. On October 22, 2009 the plaintiff prepared an apartment in Donna L. Huffman’s building for
Housing and Urban Development tenants.
50. On September 17, 2009 the plaintiff accepted the contracts and business expectancies, including a
1/3 interest in a real estate business in return for doing the work for Donna L. Huffman.
51. On September 17, 2009 the plaintiff borrowed his mother’s truck and went to Oskaloosa, to look
over what he can do for Huffman and attends Oskaloosa City Council meeting where problems with
Huffman’s 1880’s Landmark building resulting from water damage of the foundation are discussed.
"%!
On September 15, 2009 Donna L. Huffman asks Landrith to come to work with her in Oskaloosa,
Kansas out of her Mortgage banking building where she is intending to form a real estate business.
The position would not pay but would lead to ownership in the real estate business, providing a broker
could be recruited.
53. Donna L. Huffman stated that her income from the mortgage banking business has been severely
reduced by the three years she has spent trying to be allowed to take the Kansas Bar exam.
54. The Kansas Board of Law Examiner’s repeatedly declined to come to a decision in her case until
Bar preparation for each exam cycle is already underway.
55. Donna L. Huffman was also concerned she would be without her full time assistant who will be
going on maternity leave and fears receiving the news of an adverse decision on her appeal to the Kansas
Supreme Court while alone at work.
56. Donna L. Huffman explained the Kansas Banking rules prevent her from employing the plaintiff
as her mortgage banking assistant because of the plaintiff’s disbarment.
57. The Kansas Attorney Discipline Chief Counsel STANTON A. HAZLETT provided testimony to
support former Secretary of the SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General
Counsel’S counsel Matthew W. Boddington’s letter alleging Donna L. Huffman lacked the character and
fitness to be a Kansas attorney because STANTON A. HAZLETT maintained appealing a government or
court decision demonstrates a lack of ethics, character and fitness to be an attorney.
58. CRAIG E. COLINS publicly stated that Stephen M. Joseph of Joseph & Hollander, P.A. originally
representing Huffman before the Kansas Board of Law Examiners gave up Donna L. Huffman’s cause
while he was her attorney of record in exchange for permission for a Casino.
59. Matthew W Boddington authored a letter to the State of Kansas Board of Law Examiners that
Donna L. Huffman lacked the character and fitness to be a Kansas attorney because as parent of an injured
child represented by a State of Kansas licensed attorney Jim A. Vanderbilt she appealed and prevailed in a
district court review of an SRS Agency decision that found a minor child was not in danger despite a report
from a respected Kansas Pediatrician about physical and sexual injury and abuse, a police report and an
earlier agency determination of abuse regarding the incident. See 03/11/2008 MEMORANDUM
DECISION AND ORDER 3rd District State of Kansas Court Case No. 07C 001035.
60. The plaintiff was forced to abandon his Missouri residence and returned to his mother’s home in
Topeka, Kansas with 17 year old son Thomas because the plaintiff was repeatedly denied the opportunity to
place Thomas in a Missouri school by a school district and principals in contact with State Of Kansas
61. Parental Custody of Thomas was reassigned to the plaintiff in Lee’s Summit, Missouri.
62. Former Secretary of the SRS DON JORDAN appears to have repeatedly attempted to terminate
the plaintiff’s ex-wife’s parental rights over the plaintiff’s 17 year old son without notice to the plaintiff due
to non attendance of school with accompanying physical diagnosis of stress induced Irritable Bowel
Syndrome in the wake of State Of Kansas Officials trying to accuse Thomas of terrorism as a result of the
plaintiff’s role in a press release by Samuel Lipari that broke the story that US Attorney Todd Graves was
targeted for wrongful termination.
63. The State of Kansas Attorney General determined it was likely that the State of Kansas SRS failed
to protect Baby C from being kidnapped, trafficked and sold when the agency failed to enforce ICPC
requirements and prevented the plaintiff from obtaining records on behalf of his client the natural father:
“294. Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison met with David Martin Price and his attorney Craig Collins over the kidnapping of Baby C in retaliation for Price’s protected public speech against former Mayor Joan Wagnon (later campaign treasurer for Governor Kathleen Sebelius and currently Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue).
295. The petitioner’s attorney Bret D. Landrith had represented David Martin Price pro bono on the
appeal when Price’s Kansas State appointed attorney refused to do so.
296. David Martin Price (like Mark Hunt) was a crucial witness to the City of Topeka’s theft of
HUD funds in the Kansas District Court Civil Rights and Fair Housing Act case James Bolden v.
City of Topeka, brought by the petitioner’s attorney Bret D. Landrith.
297. Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison before was shocked that the career staff of the Kansas
Attorney General’s office had kept the matter from him and examined the evidence with Craig
Collins concluding the child had been unlawfully taken.”
MSC v. Neoforma et al KS District Court Case Notice of Concurrent State Litigation Lipari v. Novation
LLC Pg. 40
64. Kansas Attorney Discipline Administrator Stanton Hazlett and Assistant Attorney General Steve
Phillips made false representations of fact to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Landrith v. Hazlett, et al
, Case No. 04-3364 by filing a motion entitled "Motion for Summary Disposition due to Mootness" on
February 3, 2005, to secure a moot ruling against the plaintiff’s attempt to enjoin this prosecution.
65. The motion argued that after the conclusion of the hearing, the disciplinary panel was unlikely to
recommend the plaintiff for disciplinary action, therefore the federal case should be dismissed as moot.
66. However the panel had ruled that the plaintiff was to be recommended for discipline, something
STANTON A. HAZLETT witnessed and his agent Steve Phillips was responsible for knowing.
67. The action was not at that time moot but the delay in the briefing scheduled caused by STANTON
A. HAZLETT and Steve Phillips’ extrinsic fraud on the Tenth Circuit prevented the court from having the
opportunity to protect the plaintiff’s constitutional rights before the Kansas Supreme Court heard the
plaintiff’s attorney discipline case.
68. The plaintiff had the clear right to enjoin the prosecution of Hazlett’s enforcement under Leclerc v.
Webb, No. 03-30752 (Fed. 5th Cir. 7/29/2005) (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005) and Dubuc v. Michigan Board of Law
Examiners (6th Cir., 2003).
69. The clear and repeated error of Kansas state officials is that Landrith is wrongly deemed to have
violated the KRPC for factually describing STANTON A. HAZLETT and Steve Phillips’ fraud.
70. STANTON A. HAZLETT and Steve Phillips violated KRPC 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly making a
false statement of material fact to a tribunal in order to evade the injunction.
IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
71. The plaintiff makes the following averments in support of allegations the defendants violated 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3):
COUNT I VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
72. The defendants DON JORDAN, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E.
COLLINS, acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of his legitimate and certain property
interests the plaintiff had a claim of entitlement to through the following violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A. TERMINATION OF SNAP BENEFITS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Defendant DON JORDAN)
73. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
In July, 2010 the plaintiff applied for supplementary nutritional assistance provided for under federal
statutory Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) in person at the Topeka SRS office.
"(!
74. On that same day, the plaintiff was given an interview based on his application and lack of income
or savings and awarded emergency food stamps under the SNAP program for $200 a month.
75. On August 22, 2010 the plaintiff was served process in person by a Shawnee County Process
Server for an action by former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN against the plaintiff for contempt of court
in Crawford County Kansas case In the Marriage of Donna and Bret Landrith Case No. CR03DM00296P.
76. The plaintiff was served process in the threshold of his residence at Apartment E, 5306 SW West
Dr., Topeka, KS 66606 (the address used by the plaintiff to apply to the SRS for his federal food stamp
benefit under the SNAP program).
77. On August 26, 2010 the plaintiff wrote the former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN, showing
how the misconduct of his agency, its chief counsel and the Kansas Attorney Discipline Agency was the
reason the plaintiff was disbarred losing his constitutionally protected property right to earn a living and
that the misconduct has continued for the purpose of keeping the plaintiff from being able to work in jobs
outside of law, even during 2009 and 2010.
78. The August 26, 2010 letter was cc’d to JOHN BADGER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SRS
and John Gutierrez, Staff Attorney of YOUNG WILLIAMS PC.
the conduct complained of was committed by
former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and DAVID WEBER acting under color of state law
79. On August 31, 2010 former Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and DAVID WEBER with
knowledge the plaintiff has no income and required emergency food assistance canceled the plaintiff’s
federal food stamp benefits under SNAP.
80. On August 31, 2010 SRS case manger DAVID WEBER used the reason “LOSS OF
CONTACT…BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO CONTACT AND/OR LOCATE YOU ” to
terminate the plaintiff’s federal food stamp benefits under SNAP.
81. The plaintiff received no calls and no letters from the SRS or SRS case manger DAVID WEBER
despite residing at the address given on the application and using the phone number also provided the SRS
82. The August 31, 2010 reason given by the SRS case manger DAVID WEBER acting under color of
state law was a pretext and materially and fraudulent.
")!
83. (Paragraph removed by amendment)
(2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
84. The plaintiff suffered a loss of supplemental nutrition under the federally provided SNAP program
during September and October during two months he was also unable to pay rent in his federally subsidized
85. The plaintiff’s roommate has asked the plaintiff to move out but the plaintiff lacks the resources to
obtain other shelter.
B. ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC)
86. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
87. The defendant DON JORDAN as Secretary of SRS and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General
Counsel through the defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC caused the plaintiff to be served process on
August 22, 2010 for an action against the plaintiff for contempt of court in Crawford County Kansas case
In the Marriage of Donna and Bret Landrith Case No. CR03DM00296P.
88. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and the
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC alleged that the plaintiff was in arrears on child support over $20,000.00.
Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC acting under color of state law
89. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and
the YOUNG WILLIAMS PC acting under color of state law asked the Crawford District court to arrest
and jail the plaintiff in contempt for up to six months.
90. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and
the YOUNG WILLIAMS PC are responsible for knowing that the in Crawford County Kansas case In the
Marriage of Donna and Bret Landrith Case No. CR03DM00296P never obtained in personam jurisdiction
over the plaintiff to award child support payments.
91. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and
the YOUNG WILLIAMS PC are responsible for knowing that the plaintiff never appeared in Crawford
County Kansas case In the Marriage of Donna and Bret Landrith Case No. CR03DM00296P until after
being served by process on August 22, 2010.
92. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and
the YOUNG WILLIAMS PC are responsible for knowing that the appearance docket showing service of
the plaintiff in the Crawford County Kansas case In the Marriage of Donna and Bret Landrith Case No.
CR03DM00296P contains a question mark ;”?” (sic) and occurred while jurisdiction over the parties and
the dissolution of the marriage was exclusively the jurisdiction of Shawnee County District Court in the In
the Marriage of Bret and Donna Landrith action Case 01D 001961.
93. The Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and the
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC are responsible for knowing that the plaintiff never waived the requirement of
valid service of process and service of process was never reattempted after Shawnee County District Court
and the Kansas Court of Appeals relinquished jurisdiction over the matter without granting a divorce or
ordering a transfer of venue.
94. On September 22, 2010 the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC’s
attorney John Gutierrez giving the defendants Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and YOUNG WILLIAMS
PC notice that the child support sought to be enforced is from an order in Rem that under the controlling
precedent for the State of Kansas described by In re Marriage of Salas, 28 Kan. App. 2d 553, 19 P.3d 184
(2001), awards of child support from in Rem actions are clearly established to be outside a court’s lawful
“Elrod and Buchele, 1 Kansas Law and Practice, Kansas Family Law § 9.22(1) (1999) ("The court may divide property in the forum state. But for the court to transfer property other than that located in the state or to impose any financial obligations, the court must have personal jurisdiction over both parties.")…Other orders -- e.g., having to do with child support and maintenance or dividing property outside of Kansas -- were beyond the limits of the court's power.” [Emphasis added]
In re Marriage of Salas, 28 Kan. App. 2d 553, 19 P.3d 184 (2001)
95. On September 27, 2010 the plaintiff became concerned that the defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS
PC had not received the mailed notice and faxed a copy of the plaintiff’s Answer to Show Cause to
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC’s attorney John Gutierrez representing the defendant Secretary of SRS DON
JORDAN at his Cherokee County, Kansas Assistant Prosecutor’s Office, but the defendants Secretary of
#,!
SRS DON JORDAN and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC still did not voluntarily dismiss their motion for a Show
Cause Hearing on why the plaintiff should not be sanctioned by the Crawford County District Court.
96. During the Show Cause Hearing on September 28, 2010, the plaintiff appeared but the defendant
Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC through their attorney John Gutierrez were reluctant to allow the plaintiff to appear before
97. The plaintiff repeatedly had to insist that he was responding as ordered to appear before the court
and he was asserting his right to do so.
98. Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney John Gutierrez objected to the plaintiff’s right to represent
himself because they were seeking an order of contempt that could result in jail time.
99. The plaintiff appeared before the Crawford County Court and raised orally the same affirmative
defense and objection to jurisdiction from lack of valid service of process that he raised in his written
answer to show cause, his first appearance and initial pleading.
100. The Crawford County hearing record was noted that despite the severe gravamen of proceeding
with contempt charges against a party that was not under jurisdiction for the court to award the underlying
child support, Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel
were not withdrawing his charges of contempt even after being presented irrefutable evidence that service
of process for the Crawford divorce was during the exclusive jurisdiction of Shawnee District Court over
the marriage and that the wife’s attorney knew the same and was filing motions in the Shawnee District
divorce at the time she caused the Crawford process to be issued.
101. The plaintiff had to travel to Pittsburg, a distance of over 160 miles even though Secretary of SRS
DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC were
responsible for knowing that the plaintiff had no income and that Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN and
JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel had unlawfully terminated the plaintiff’s food
supplements under the federal SNAP program.
102. The plaintiff had to ride his bicycle part of the way to the hearing and all the way back a three day
journey without funds for lodging and with less than the caloric nutrition he was entitled to.
103. The plaintiff is now placed in jeopardy of up to six months in jail by Secretary of SRS DON
JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC even though
they know he has no income from the very federal application for food stamps that Secretary of SRS DON
JORDAN , JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC used to issue
the Abusive Process against the plaintiff.
C. RETALIATION FOR 42 U.S.C. § 1981 PROTECTED ADVOCACY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Defendants BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS )
104. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
105. The defendant BRIAN FROST was a court services officer in the role of a case manager official
that was a contractor for the Jefferson County and Shawnee County District Courts.
BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS acting under color of state law
106. The defendant BRIAN FROST in his role as a case manager for State of Kansas courts changed
his case manager billing records on the letterhead of the Alderson Law Firm in demands he made against
Donna L. Huffman that he represented were on behalf of the Alderson Law Firm.
107. The defendant BRIAN FROST changed his case manager billing records at the direction of
Kansas Attorney Discipline Prosecutor Gayle B. Larkin, a non defendant co-conspirator in the defendants’
ongoing Civil Rights conspiracy.
108. The purpose of the change was to misrepresent the liability of Donna L. Huffman for case
manager fees to help Kansas Attorney Discipline Prosecutor Gayle B. Larkin procure a decision preventing
Donna L. Huffman for sitting for the Bar exam to further the racketeering objective of injuring Donna L.
Huffman’s business interests in retaliation for her association with the plaintiff.
109. The misconduct against Donna L. Huffman to prevent her admission to the bar of Kansas and the
bar of Nebraska is a continuing racketeering enterprise of over three years in duration.
110. The misconduct against Donna L. Huffman resulted in over $30,000.00 of legal bills for her
representation by counsel to vindicate her right to sit for the Kansas Bar.
111. The misconduct against Donna L. Huffman to prevent her from being admitted to the Kansas and
Nebraska Bars was also used to interfere with her post divorce proceedings and greatly added to the
expense and time of Donna L. Huffman in child custody disputes overseen by BRIAN FROST, injuring her
The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS undertook the legal representation of Donna L. Huffman in
opposing the invalid debt being collecting against Huffman by BRIAN FROST which jeopardized her
mortgage banking business and which was taking up her time and preventing her from earning an income.
The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS refused to do the work of the legal representation of Donna L.
The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS did not serve discovery on BRIAN FROST that was prepared
The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS did not serve answers to document production requests that
were prepared and delivered to him by Donna L. Huffman, subjecting the action to dismissal as a sanction
and placing Donna L. Huffman in risk of being sanctioned as a record to be used against her admission to
the Kansas Bar.
115. The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS repeatedly missed jurisdictional briefing deadlines in an
appeal of the SRS conduct against Donna L. Huffman’s minor daughter and preventing Huffman from
ending the present and real continuing danger from physical abuse her daughter had been placed in.
116. The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS was able to repeatedly compromise the defense of Donna L.
Huffman’s rights with the knowledge that the racketeering enterprise and Civil Rights conspiracy acting
against Donna L. Huffman through Kansas Attorney Discipline Prosecutor Gayle B. Larkin had placed her
under threat that she could not represent herself pro se without it being used against her as a reason to
prevent her from sitting for the Kansas Bar.
117. While committing the conduct described above, the defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS was in
actuality an agent of BRIAN FROST and Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN acting against the interest of
his client Donna L. Huffman.
118. This secret role of the defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS became obvious when CRAIG E.
COLLINS stalled withdrawing himself from the representation of Huffman in defense from BRIAN
FROST’S action as he had agreed to do and withheld from Huffman communications related to his
tardiness to make his withdrawal effective and his delay in allowing her to timely respond to the proposed
journal entry in the action.
119. The above conduct by the defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS are extrinsic frauds to obstruct justice
and commit fraud on the Kansas courts on the specific times and dates shown on the appearance dockets
for the subject actions.
120. The plaintiff was a third party beneficiary of contracts with Donna L. Huffman for compensation
for non law based services.
121. The plaintiff entered into these contracts knowing Donna L. Huffman could not pay a salary while
having her business property interests damaged by unlawful racketeering extortion by BRIAN FROST and
CRAIG E. COLLINS in retaliation for her use of the plaintiff as an attorney in Huffman v. ADP, Fidelity et
al, W.D. of Missouri Case No. 05-CV-01205 and in retaliation for the plaintiff’s continuing contact with
his former client David M. Price over Price’s challenges to the unlawful conduct of the SRS.
122. The plaintiff had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property right in contract for 1/3 of a real
estate business in Oskaloosa, Kansas.
123. The plaintiff had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property right in contract for income as a
business manager for Donna Huffman.
124. The plaintiff obtained some funds for gasoline from Donna L. Huffman to offset the gasoline in
the plaintiff’s mother’s truck, but the oppression from the defendant’s racketeering acts directed at Donna
L. Huffman for her association with the plaintiff prevented the plaintiff from replacing all the gasoline used
and eventually resulted in loss of use of the truck.
D. Prayer For Relief From 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations
125. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the termination of SNAP benefits, the Abuse of
Process in threatening the plaintiff with up to six months in jail, and retaliation for 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Protected Advocacy against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special,
compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees
should the plaintiff obtain an attorney, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.
COUNT II VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY
126. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
1. Civil Rights Conspiracy Averments
127. The defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel , YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC, BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS joined an ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy.
(1) a combination between two or more persons
128. The defendants DON JORDAN, and JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel were state
employees joining and participating in the Civil Rights conspiracy by violating laws and duties in concert
with the legally separate entity, the corporate defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC.
129. The defendant DON JORDAN was a state employee joining and participating in the Civil Rights
conspiracy by violating laws and duties in concert with the legally separate attorney BRIAN FROST
employed by Alderson Law and the legally separate solo practitioner attorney CRAIG E. COLLINS.
130. The defendant BRIAN FROST is unlawfully conspiring or in the alternative participating in
concerted action with the defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS to commit extrinsic fraud on the State of Kansas
(2) to do a criminal or an unlawful act or a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means,
The defendant BRIAN FROST participated in concerted action with the defendant CRAIG E.
COLLINS to commit extrinsic fraud on the State of Kansas courts for the purpose of collecting an unlawful
debt from Donna L. Huffman and to injure her business property interests.
132. The defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS participated in concerted action to commit extrinsic fraud on
the State of Kansas courts for the purpose of defeating Donna L. Huffman’s efforts to protect her daughter
from abuse and to prevent the unlawful conduct of Secretary of SRS DON JORDAN’s agency from being
exposed and stopped.
#&!
133. The defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC participated in concerted action to deprive the plaintiff of his property rights to SNAP
nutritional benefits for the purpose of succeeding with their Abuse of Process scheme to cause the plaintiff
to be jailed, discrediting him from being able to return to the practice of law and from representing victims
of the SRS in Civil Rights protected advocacy on behalf of protected classes including the American Indian
David M. Price.
(3) an act done by one or more of the conspirators pursuant to the scheme and in furtherance of the object,
134. The defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, and YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC did the above described violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in furtherance of an objective to
prevent advocacy on behalf of Civil Rights for victims of intentional wrong doing by SRS officials and
contractors and to prevent advocacy on behalf of Civil Rights for victims of SRS negligent supervision of
adoptions to prevent against child trafficking.
135. The defendants BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS did the above described violations of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in furtherance of an objective to prevent advocacy that would threaten the criminal
franchises flourishing in domestic relations case management and to prevent uncompromised Kansas
licensed attorneys from offering services in competition to the members of the enterprises benefiting from
the criminal franchises permitted by SRS officials’ negligent supervision.
(4) which act results in damage to the plaintiff
136. The plaintiff was injured in his legitimate expectations of property, income and the opportunity to
support his children that he had a rightful entitlement to as described in the above paragraphs of this
2. Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights Averments
137. The conspirators believe that advocacy on behalf of Civil Rights victims and to prevent Kansas
State Courts from being misused in violation of the law socially undesirable conduct that threatens their
(1) the plaintiff advocated on behalf of members of racial minorities;
#'!
138. The conspirators believe that advocacy on behalf of African American Civil Rights victims was
over done by the former Kansas attorney Fred Phelps and that attorneys making use of similar federal case
law and statutes to vindicate the rights of racial minorities should be punished.
139. The conspirators took their actions against the plaintiff for his representation of the African
American James L. Bolden, Jr. in a racial civil rights discrimination action against the City of Topeka and
for appealing the Shawnee District Court’s denial of the natural father of American Indian descent’s
protections under the Indian Child Welfare Act in the Baby C case where the Shawnee District Court found
Baby C to be of American Indian descent through his natural father.
(2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of the race of clients the plaintiff advocated for by the defendant;
140. As stated above the conspirators including the defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the
former SRS General Counsel , YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS joined
an ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy and committed affirmative acts in furtherance of the conspiracy
designed to discredit the plaintiff and maintain him as disbarred for representing two members of racial
minorities in their vindication of federal Civil Rights claims.
(3) the discrimination concerned one or more activities enumerated in the statute
141. The conduct described in the proceeding paragraphs describe retaliatory discrimination,
interference with contract rights and benefits, denial of Equal Protection Under the Law, Abuse of Process
and denial of benefits guaranteed by federal law by the defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the
former SRS General Counsel, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS.
142. DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel , YOUNG WILLIAMS PC,
BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS knowingly joined an ongoing Civil Rights conspiracy motivated
by and with the objective of "racial or otherwise class-based invidious discriminatory animus" including
violence against women, and prevention of the American Indian David M. Price from pursuing a class
action suit against the SRS with the plaintiff, and to prevent the plaintiff from returning to the practice of
law and from earning a living that may give him the opportunity to vindicate his name.
143. DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER the former SRS General Counsel, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC,
BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS injured the plaintiff in the ways described in the above
#(!
B. Prayer For Relief From 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Violations
144. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the damages resulting from the defendants’ Civil
Rights conspiracy against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special,
COUNT III VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 NEGLECT TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY (DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER )
145. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
146. The defendants DON JORDAN, JOHN BADGER, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, BRIAN FROST
and CRAIG E. COLLINS joined an ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy to injure the constitutional rights of
the plaintiff for his advocacy on behalf of two members of a protected class, which included injuring the
civil rights and business property of his former client Donna L. Huffman, and later included retaliations
against the plaintiff and his former client David M. Price and the plaintiff’s former witness Mark Hunt for
David M. Price’s attempt to obtain the plaintiff’s representation in a class action lawsuit against the SRS
through an unsuccessful injunctive relief action against the Kansas District Court and its Chief Judge.
147. The defendants DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER were state government officials in a
position to stop the injury of the plaintiff from the ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy.
148. The defendants DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER while they were state government officials
did not stop the injury of the plaintiff from the ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy or report the felonies being
committed to state law enforcement officials.
149. The defendants DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER while they were state government officials
did not stop the injury of the plaintiff from the ongoing Civil Rights Conspiracy even after the plaintiff
served them notice of their duty to do so.
150. The defendants DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER while they were state government officials
did not provide documentary evidence of adoption attorney misconduct and the fraud used to transport
Baby C out of state in violation of the ICPC to Kansas Supreme Court Counsel Steve Grieb after the
plaintiff served them notice of their duty to do so.
B. Prayer For Relief From 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Violations
151. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the damages resulting from the defendants DON
JORDAN and JOHN BADGER 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Violations and the defendants’ Civil Rights conspiracy
against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the
amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees should the plaintiff obtain an
attorney, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.
COUNT IV VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Defendants ROB SIEDLECKI, BOB CORKINS, STANTON A. HAZLETT, and YOUNG WILLIAMS PC)
152. The plaintiff hereby incorporates the averments contained in the four corners of this petition.
153. ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS is the chief policymaking authority 4 regarding the
conduct of the agency, the agency’s employees, and the agency’s agents including YOUNG WILLIAMS
PC and social workers for the agency’s child services contractors.
154. ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS is the chief policymaking authority regarding the
performance of adoption agencies, physicians and attorneys in private interstate adoptions.
155. BOB CORKINS SRS GENERAL COUNSEL is the chief policymaking authority regarding the
conduct 5 of the agency, the agency’s attorneys and the agency’s agents including YOUNG WILLIAMS PC
4 “[W]hether an official had final policymaking authority is a question of state law." Pembaur v. Cincinnati, supra, 475 U.S., at 483, 106 S.Ct., at 1300 (plurality opinion). “[W]hen a subordinate's decision is subject
to review by
for conformance with their policies. If the authorized policymakers approve a subordinate's decision and
the basis for it, their ratification would be chargeable
Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988). 5 Sec. 1983 is incurred only where "a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question." Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1300, 89 L.Ed.2d
452, 465 (1986). Consequently, only those officials having "final policymaking authority" may be sued under the statute. City of St Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107, 118 (1988).
authorized policymakers, they have retained the authority to measure the official's conduct
their decision is final.” City of St Louis v.
#+!
156. STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATOR is the
chief policymaking authority regarding the conduct of his agency, his agency’s attorneys and the agency’s
agents in litigation and in disclosing records to other states and jurisdictions.
157. YOUNG WILLIAMS PC is a law firm providing professional licensed legal services to the State
of Kansas and is the current child support enforcement contractor in the state.
158. YOUNG WILLIAMS PC chief administrating attorney for the State of Kansas has professional
ethics supervising attorney responsibility for attorneys employed by YOUNG WILLIAMS PC when they
are acting on behalf of the SRS.
159. The State of Kansas has adopted the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional
Conduct (“MRPC”) which include a policy that disbarred attorneys can apply for consideration of
readmission after five years.
160. The plaintiff was disbarred December 9, 2005.
161. The plaintiff is actively seeking admission in other jurisdictions that will rely on evidence in the control
and possession of STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATOR.
162. The plaintiff now has Article III standing resulting from the state’s adoption of the MRPC in a
prospective injunctive relief action against the ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS, BOB CORKINS
SRS GENERAL COUNSEL, and STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR to prevent continuing violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 enforceable through 42 U.S.C. §
There is a reasonable probability of irreparable future injury to the plaintiff.
163. The prospective injunctive relief is required due to the repeated pattern of the SRS to commit extrinsic
fraud in its litigation related to child protective services under the supervision of the former Secretaries of the
SRS Janet Schalansky, DON JORDAN and JOHN BADGER former SRS general counsel against natural
164. The pattern and practice of SRS extrinsic fraud has included extorting the counsel of natural parents and
withholding evidence that would have exonerated the plaintiff and was required to be produced under the
In Pembaur, the Supreme Court adopted the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' view that, under Ohio law, a prosecutor was a county official authorized to establish official county policy under certain circumstances. 475 U.S. at 476, 106 S.Ct. at 1296, 89 L.Ed.2d at 461.!
$,!
mandatory reporting rule of KRPC and 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
165. Agents of the SRS caused social worker testimony to be altered for the purposes of committing extrinsic
frauds on the Shawnee County District Court to unlawfully take and keep through fraud the daughter of David
M. Price out of her family home.
166. This is similar to the televised testimony of misconduct to alter the testimony of SRS social workers in
Sedgwick County District Court linked in the plaintiff’s initial petition.
167. Additionally agents of the SRS in the litigation Rosproy v. Roysproy, 18th Cir. Case No. 05-DM 3224
acted against abuse determinations of the sole expert witness Dr. Lance Parker to continue the abuse and
endangerment of the child for the purpose of extorting money and violating the clearly established constitutional
rights of his mother, similar to what the plaintiff’s initial petition describes the SRS and its agents doing to the
plaintiff’s former client Donna L. Huffman.
168. This pattern and practice is long standing and continuing since on or about March 3, 2000, when
the SRS posted a press release, concurrent with an attempt to get permission from the Legislature to expand
169. The SRS press release partially acknowledges and affirms what many SRS critics had been
alleging about the Kansas child-protection system -- namely, that a very high percentage of the children
taken by the state, and placed in foster care, were not victims of abuse and should not have been taken from
their parents and placed in foster care.
170. The SRS's key statements of admission were:
"Because other options have not been available, thousands of Kansas children have been taken from their homes and communities and inappropriately placed in state custody and foster care over the years "'This initiative is designed to assist the young people of Kansas for whom we have not yet made the right decisions,' Secretary Schalansky said. 'We have failed these kids because we tried to address their problems outside of their family and community. We have served them by removing them from their homes and families when the very thing they needed was to be served with their family and within their community.' "SRS recently completed an analysis of foster care caseloads in Kansas. It showed that during state fiscal year 1999, one in every five children in foster care -- up to 1,800 children -- were placed there for reasons other than abuse or neglect. Most of these children were in foster care for reasons attributed to learning disorders, behavior disorders, or medical needs."
171. The defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC is participating in extrinsic fraud on behalf of the SRS to
take a child from natural parents when attorneys from YOUNG WILLIAMS PC participate with
government attorneys in cases to collect child support where state government attorneys caused social
workers to alter testimony to take children and where substantial and competent evidence of abuse of
children was ignored by SRS officials in order to take children from natural parents and YOUNG
WILLIAMS PC attorneys failed to report the ethical misconduct under the mandatory reporting
requirements of the KRPC.
172. The defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR has a pattern and practice of selectively prosecuting the attorneys of natural parents
seeking to defend their rights while not prosecuting adoption attorneys and government attorneys involved
in terminating parental rights, and Gayle B. Larkin, Randall D. Grisell, Sally Harris and Michael Schmitt
for the facially false findings in the disciplinary tribunal’s report to the Kansas Supreme Court on the
plaintiff, even in the face of evidence of much more serious violations than the plaintiff was accused of.
173. The defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR has a pattern and practice of selectively prosecuting the attorneys in ethics
enforcement roles who commit fraud injuring the reputation of the Kansas Judicial Branch.
174. The defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR has a continuing association and beneficial relationship with the defendants BRIAN
FROST and CRAIG E. COLLINS and the non-defendant Jim Vanderbilt in their injury of the constitutional
and business property rights of the plaintiff’s former client Donna L. Huffman through misrepresentations
The defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR made misrepresentations to the plaintiff’s Missouri employment agency Accountemps
through Kansas Attorney Discipline Official Rex Sharp.
176. The defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ADMINISTRATOR’s continuing association with the defendants BRIAN FROST and CRAIG E.
COLLINS injured the plaintiff’s ability to earn a living and support his family in non law based work in
177. During the current litigation former Secretary Don Jordan violated his duty under 42 USC § 1986 to
turn over evidence of SRS wrongdoing to cause the plaintiff’s disbarment while former Secretary Don Jordan
and his non defendant co-conspirator General Counsel John Badger had knowledge of the plaintiff’s motion for
$#!
relief from the order of disbarment and despite my letter to Secretary Don Jordan which was cc’d to General
Counsel John Badger demanding they do so.
178. Kansas Attorney Discipline Official Rex A. Sharp and the private attorney Isaac L. Diel were jointly
working on an unrelated tire compound antitrust action when Rex A. Sharp on behalf of the Kansas Office
of Attorney Discipline caused misrepresentations to be made during the first week of April 2007 to
Michelle Hersh, Justin West and the Missouri office of Accountemps where the plaintiff was registered for
The misrepresentations were that Diel had a temporary job reviewing scientific articles related to the
chemical compounds and that the plaintiff was qualified even though he was not a licensed attorney.
180. The plaintiff doubted their client’s requirements and wrote a letter on April 11, 2007 to Justin West
at Accountemps informing them that they had likely misunderstood their client’s requirements.
The plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues.
181. On information and belief the scheme was for Isaac L. Diel to trick the plaintiff into saying he was
an attorney in the Overland Park office of Diel and thereby criminally prosecute the plaintiff and thereby
further the obstruction of the plaintiff’s former client Samuel K. Lipari’s healthcare antitrust litigation.
182. The plaintiff’s divorce identifies the plaintiff’s interest in this Missouri healthcare antitrust litigation
in an exception state where disbarred attorneys maintain a property interest in contingent fees as marital
183. The ethics complaint and false testimony under oath was suborned by defendant STANTON A.
HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATOR when he put the Assistant City of
Topeka Attorney Sherri Price on the stand to misrepresent that the plaintiff had been sanctioned in federal
court for his representation of James L. Bolden was after she had been awarded two infants by the SRS
along with the benefits of foster care through the region contractor for Topeka, believed to be the same
contractor falsifying social worker testimony to take David M. Price’s daughter.
184. On information and belief the Missouri Threat Fusion Center was furnished information as
intelligence by State of Kansas officials that because of the misconduct of the defendants, mischaracterizes
the protected advocacy of the plaintiff as “making false cases against government officials” and that this
information is preventing the plaintiff from finishing the last two years required to have a 20 year
retirement pension income from the Army National Guard and from being considered for other government
employment he is otherwise qualified to obtain.
185. On information and belief the defendant STANTON A. HAZLETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATOR told the US Treasury contractor Sidney J. Perceful and the Missouri
farmer Dustin Sherwood on a personal visit by them to Topeka in July 2008 that the plaintiff would never
be permitted to practice law again and the evidence of his misconduct has been lost.
The injury to the plaintiff outweighs whatever damage the injunction may cause defendants.
186. The Missouri farmer Dustin Sherwood was seeking the plaintiff’s representation in a 9 Million
Dollar bankruptcy proceeding that Sherwood and US Treasury contractor Sidney J. Perceful investigating
Bankruptcy Court fraud had documented substantial frauds injuring the US Treasury and his business and
personal property rights.
187. The Missouri farmer Dustin Sherwood was subsequently forced to settle for the representation of the
defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS at the recommendation of the plaintiff when over 40 Missouri attorneys
refused to represent Sherwood because of the law firms representing the creditors.
188. Substantial irregularities in the legal representation of Sherwood occurred after the defendant CRAIG
E. COLLINS was paid $20,000.00 and undertook the representation.
189. The plaintiff’s former client David M. Price and his wife were told several times in 2010 by the
court appointed attorney handling the appeal of the SRS’s unlawful taking of his daughter where frauds to
the court for the purpose of materially violating the trial court judges orders that she could not finish his
appeal because the State of Kansas was too corrupt and she moved to another state.
That the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
190. The plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to restrain continuing violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983,that include retaliating against him for his contracted representation
of James L. Bolden Jr. and David M. Price and Price’s infant son an American Indian child through the
plaintiff’s appellate advocacy on behalf of the natural father.
191. The plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to restrain selective investigation and prosecutions
of himself for his contracted representation of James L. Bolden Jr. and David M. Price,
through the Fourteenth Amendment protections against selective prosecution enforceable through 42
192. The plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to require the defendants to furnish all evidence in
their possession and control, free of false characterizations to law enforcement agencies and court
jurisdiction admission authorities upon request.
193. The plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to require the defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC
KRPC duties to investigate defenses and frauds brought to their attorneys attention in the course of child
related proceedings in Kansas courts.
ADDITIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) )
The plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the facts and averments in this
petition and alleges the following:
The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
SECRETARY OF SRS, BRIAN FROST, CRAIG E. COLLINS, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC violated the
plaintiff’s right to be free from First Amendment Retaliation (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police
Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) ) in chargeable conduct that constitutes a retaliation claim: 1)the plaintiff was
engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; 2)the defendant caused an injury that would "chill" a
person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that activity; 3)the defendant's adverse actions was
substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.
1). The plaintiffs court advocacy on behalf of the minorities David M. Price, Baby C and James L.
Bolden and the securities class action court advocacy on behalf of Donna L. Huffman was constitutionally
2. ) The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
SECRETARY OF SRS, BRIAN FROST, CRAIG E. COLLINS, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, and DAVID
WEBER took actions to cause a chill that would prevent anyone from challenging the conspirators’
profitable corruption.
The defendants chilling conduct included targeting the plaintiff’s intimate associates, Mark Miller,
Mark Hunt, Donna L. Huffman and David M. Price, causing their injury, subjecting them to intentional
$&!
infliction of emotional distress and depriving them of Due Process for the express purpose of injuring the
plaintiff and discouraging him from similar future protected advocacy.
3.) The defendants’ conduct was substantially motivated by the plaintiff’s published willingness to
advocate on behalf of victims of the SRS and the Conspirators’ corruption.
ADDITIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985(2), 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985(3)
WEBER acted in concert and with identified non-conspiracy defendant coconspirators STANTON A.
HAZLETT DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR, Gayle B. Larkin, Matthew W. Boddington, John
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips to retaliate against the plaintiff for his association with
protected racial minorities and advocacy against racial discrimination on their behalf, additionally the
conspirators sought to retaliate against the plaintiff for his testimony with the witness of American Indian
descent, David M. Price on behalf of an African American in a criminal case in the US District Court for
the District of Kansas and in retaliation for David M. Price attempt to get the US District Court to reinstate
the plaintiff to make a class action case against SRS officials in federal court.
The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER SECRETARY
OF SRS, BRIAN FROST, CRAIG E. COLLINS, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, and DAVID WEBER acted in
concert and with identified non-conspiracy defendant coconspirators including The Assistant US Attorney
prosecuting USA v. Carrie Neighbors and Guy Neighbors, KS Dist. Ct. Case No. 07-20124 (Terra D.
Morehead KS Bar #: 12759 ) Kansas City Missouri School Principals school principals Linda Collins of
North East and Tom Herrera of East, Janice Lynn King, Jim A. Vanderbilt Kansas Attorney Discipline
Official Rex A. Sharp, the private attorney Isaac L. Diel, former Assistant City of Topeka Attorney Sherri
Price to further the goals of the civil rights conspiracy alleged.
$'!
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips’ a conspiracy has the ‘predominant purpose’ to deter
and/or punish the plaintiff’s exercise of federal rights.
The defendants DON JORDAN FORMER SECRETARY OF SRS, BRIAN FROST, CRAIG E.
COLLINS, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, and DAVID WEBER acted in concert and with identified non-
conspiracy defendant coconspirators STANTON A. HAZLETT DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR,
Gayle B. Larkin, Matthew W. Boddington, John Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips and
later SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI reached a meeting of the minds and each at the time where
they committed acts in furtherance of the civil rights conspiracy had a knowledge of the conspiracy’s
objectives and or the rule or statute they were violating to cause their act or omission even if lawul to
further the unlawful violation of the plaintiff’s US Constitutional and federal statutory rights.
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI had knowledge that the conspirators were preventing the
possibility the plaintiff could be reinstated in Kansas District Court to bring a class action lawsuit against
the SRS on behalf of David M. Price, the Western District of Oklahoma District Court or the US District
Court and State of New Jersey Court to represent civil rights victims including Fareeda Pathan a Muslim
Woman of Afgan/Indian/Pakistani racial descent for the widespread deprivation of natural parents from the
right to parent their children for the purpose of corruptly profiting from False Claims against the US
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI refused an offer to settle the claims of the plaintiff
against the SRS officials without monetary damages, fees or costs but instead affirmatively chose to
continue the co-conspirators and private contractors continued corrupt profit from False Claims against the
US Treasury in adoptions, foster care and pharmaceutical funds for children taken through extrinsic frauds
on Kansas courts where the SRS participated by failing to perform its regular and statutory functions.
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI continued the third party profits from the corruption with
the knowledge that Kansas children were being subjected to abuse, sexual assault and battery.
$(!
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI consciously furthered the objectives and goals of the
civil rights conspiracy by what he was advised as the lawful withholding of exculpatory evidence that
would likely cause the reinstatement of the plaintiff in the State of Kansas and clear the obstacle to
admission in other jurisdictions.
civil rights conspiracy by what he was advised as the lawful failure to comply with the order of the Kansas
Court of Appeals to compensate the plaintiff’s former client Donna L. Huffman for her work to protect
from E.H. further abuse in an attempt to further the conspirators’ retaliation against the plaintiff for his
speech and his advocacy and association with the minorities David M. Price, Baby C and James L. Bolden
by perpetuating chilling injuries to associates of the plaintiff as a punishment to the plaintiff.
civil rights conspiracy by affirmatively and with foreknowledge adopting the defendant co-conspirators’
fraud on this court in SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI’s Motion to Dismiss through
misrepresenting the law that the plaintiff had no standing for 1981 and 1985(3) claims where his complaint
expressly alleged he was being retaliated for advocacy on behalf of the racial minorities David M. Price,
Baby C and James L. Bolden and vindicating their rights in protected speech under the US Civil Rights anti
discrimination laws.
civil rights conspiracy by affirmatively perpetuating the conspiracy’s fraud on this court to keep the
plaintiff from being able to find work and further the conspirators open and naked tactic of obstructing
justice by starving out the plaintiff while at the same time using the threat of failure to pay child support
when SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI knew the conspiracy was maintaining the plaintiff in a false
light to prevent his employment and even the ability to enforce rights to profits from his work in Kansas
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839 had
knowledge of the civil rights conspiracy and the Kansas SRS and the role of DON JORDAN FORMER
SECRETARY OF SRS and JOHN BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL in it. YOUNG WILLIAMS
$)!
PC through their attorney Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839 were representing DON JORDAN
FORMER SECRETARY OF SRS in prosecuting David Martin Price for child support while his appeal for
Fourteenth Amendment violations in the taking of his daughter and the constructive denial of his parental
rights was still before the Kansas appellate courts.
first hand knowledge of the loss of his appointed attorney and direct notice from R. David Martin Price’s
Formal Notice served on her.
While YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839
was in the Shawnee County District Court obtaining an untimely dismissal before the close of pleadings
utilizing misrepresentations of law to this court in violations of KRPC 3.3(a)(1), Amy S. Raymond Kansas
Sup. Ct. #20839 made the materially misleading argument that the court in Pittsburg had determined it had
jurisdiction and therefore YOUNG WILLIAMS PC had not unlawfully abused process in prosecuting the
nonpayment of child support in the name of representing DON JORDAN FORMER SECRETARY OF
The substance of this fraud on the court is that YOUNG WILLIAMS PC was in the Crawford
District Court obtaining extensions of time in which to answer the plaintiff’s timely challenge to in
personam jurisdiction of the Pittsburg, Kansas divorce court, that YOUNG WILLIAMS PC did not answer
and did not have a realistic intention of answering, allowing Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839 to
obtain dismissal before the jurisdiction issue was resolved.
The most damaging misrepresentations of fact by YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney
Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839, however concerned YOUNG WILLIAMS PC’s one possible
defense at law.
The defense is that of the agent who can argue it did not have the knowledge of the master. An
argument Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839 made on behalf of YOUNG WILLIAMS PC.
The plaintiff was unaware that YOUNG WILLIAMS PC was a defendant in that action and was
represented by their attorney Amy S. Raymond Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839:
“39.
Discipline Office Prosecutor STANTON A. HAZLETT, Janice Lynn King has been injured by duplicative proceedings in this Shawnee County District court instigated by Assistant Kansas Attorney General Steve Phillips in the preceding year and has also filed a detailed complaint against
The plaintiff’s process server in an earlier injunctive relief action against Attorney
$+!
Kansas attorneys that have deprived her of parenting time with her children over five years, federal tax returns, and of support awarded in this court in retaliation for her association with the plaintiff.”[Emphasis added]
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint at pg. 7, ¶ 39.
Janice Lynn King’s federal court complaint details how the plaintiff Bret D. Landrith’s US
Constitutional rights to Due Process were irreparably damaged by retaliation against Janice Lynn King over
King’s federally protected advocacy conduct of serving process for the plaintiff in his Kansas District Court
action Landrith v. Stanton A. Hazlett, et al Kansas Dist. Case No. 04-2215-DVB seeking prospective
injunctive relief against what evidence showed was a bad faith disbarment prosecution of the plaintiff by
the brother of a past president the American Adoption Attorney Association on a complaint made in part by
Hon. Judge G. Joseph Pierron, Jr.
Hon. Judge G. Joseph Pierron, Jr
serving as a director on the board of one of the state’s
largest adoption contractor corporations, the Kansas Children’s Service League (while the contractor in
2002 was being criticized for its performance of federal funding requirements related to adoption [see
Foster Kids in Limbo LJ World and ultimately during the plaintiff’s disciplinary panel hearing in January
of 2005, KCSL had lost a $33.6 million adoption contract with the state: “Foster care agency loses
contract” Lawrence journal World, January 28, 2005) , strongly admonished the plaintiff for raising
researched legal concerns about the legitimacy of the Baby C adoption.
The appellate opinion inaccurately stated that the plaintiff sought only SRS records the father was
not entitled to despite numerous appellate motions for many kinds of court records the plaintiff and his
client David Martin Price had been denied access to.
Janice Lynn King’s complaint details how her rights were repeatedly violated and she was not able
to obtain Shawnee County District Court ordered child support in retaliation for her service of process on
behalf of the plaintiff in federal court, then she was prosecuted for nonpayment of child support. See Janice
Lynn King Civil Rights Complaint.
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorney Amy S. Raymond’s (Kansas Sup. Ct. #20839 )
misrepresentations of fact to this court are also violations of KRPC 3.3(a)(1) under In re Benson, 275 Kan.
913, 69 P.3d 544 (Kan., 2003).
%,!
The defendant conspirators SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
SECRETARY OF SRS, JOHN BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC
participated in the misrepresentation of law in violation of KRPC 3.3(a) to this court by defendant BRIAN
FROST through his counsel J. Steven Pigg Kansas Sup. Ct. #09213 and Samuel A. Green Kansas Sup. Ct.
#24221 of Fisher Patterson, Sayler, & Smith, LLP in their untimely motion for judgment on the pleadings
before the pleadings were closed.
participated in this conduct when their agent attorney David W. Davies, Kansas Sup. Ct. # 113011 argues
that the plaintiff has no protection under 42 U.S.C. § 981 from retaliation for having represented the
African American James L. Bolden in an action for damages from racial discrimination against the City of
Topeka and for representing James L. Bolden’s witness to Housing and Urban Development fund theft and
misappropriation by City of Topeka Officials, David M. Price in an appeal in Baby C over the termination
of parental rights for having raised the Indian Child Welfare Act as an appellate issue due to David M.
Price being of American Indian descent and the Shawnee County District Court having determined that
Baby C was American Indian.
David W. Davies, Kansas Sup. Ct. # 113011 misrepresented the law to this court by stating in
support of his contention 42 U.S.C. § 981 does not protect the plaintiff that:
Further, as noted previously by Defendant Frost in the memorandum filed on his behalf, “[a] plaintiff must be a member of a protected class to assert a §1983 claim.” Hampton v.Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (10 Cir. 2001). As the Plaintiff is not a member of a protected class he may be attempting to seek protection as a prior attorney for a member of a protected ) 1981 member. However, as noted in the same previously referenced memorandum, §1981 does not afford such protection to Caucasian attorneys. See Phelps v. Wichita Eagle Beacon, 886 f.2d, 1266-67 (10 Cir. 1989). Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot rely upon a deprivation of his rights pursuant to §1981 for a § 1983 claim.”
BOB CORKINS SRS CHIEF COUNSEL Motion to Dismiss pg. 7.
The defendant BRIAN FROST’s attorneys J. Steven Pigg Kansas Sup. Ct.
#09213 and Samuel A.
Green Kansas Sup. Ct. #24221 of Fisher Patterson, Sayler, & Smith, LLP are responsible for knowing that
Hampton v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (10 Cir. 2001) does not overturn the
controlling Tenth Circuit and US Supreme Court case law finding that Caucasians advocating on behalf of
African Americans and other minorities are protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
SIEDLEKI,
SECRETARY OF SRS, JOHN BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC and
BRIAN FROST know the Tenth Circuit resolved this very issue in Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240
(C.A.10 (Okla.), 1992). The court determined that government officials are responsible for knowing that
the rights of Caucasians advocating on behalf of African Americans and other minorities are protected
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and that this protection was clearly established in the year 1988:
“The law may be found to be clearly established by reference to decisions from other circuits. Walters v. Western State Hosp., 864 F.2d 695, 699 (10th Cir.1988). Moreover, “precise factual
correlation between the then-existing law and the case at-hand is not required.” Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 699 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1622, 113 L.Ed.2d 719 (1991). We consider the law to be “clearly established” when it is well developed enough to inform the reasonable official that his conduct violates that law. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at
The principal beneficiaries of § 1981 have traditionally been racial minorities. However, federal courts have consistently broadened standing under § 1981. Beginning most decidedly with McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 296, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976), § 1981 has supported claims of racial discrimination against white as well as black
individuals. More directly on point, prior to Defendants' challenged conduct in the present case, the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals either expressly held that alleged discrimination against a white person because of his association with black persons states a cause of action under § 1981 or allowed such claims without specifically addressing the issue. DeMatteis v. Eastman Kodak Co., 511 F.2d 306, 312 (2d Cir.) (§ 1981 suit allowed where white employee alleged his company forced him to retire because he sold his house to a fellow black employee), modified on other grounds, 520 F.2d 409 (2d Cir.1975); Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F.2d 903, 906-07 (3d Cir.1980) (summary judgment inappropriate where material issues of fact remain regarding § 1981 claim brought by plaintiff allegedly discharged because he espoused the rights of company's black employees), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 970, 101 S.Ct. 2045, 68 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981); Fiedler v. Marumsco Christian Schl., 631 F.2d 1144, 1149 (4th Cir.1980) (private sectarian school prohibited under § 1981 from terminating a contractual relationship with a white student because of her association with a black schoolmate); Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, a Div. of Pullman, Inc., 678 F.2d 1211, 1229 (5th Cir.1982) (retaliatory discharge claim allowed under
§ 1981 where evidence showed plaintiff was discharged for lawful advocacy of minority and union
rights), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105, 103 S.Ct. 729, 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 802 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.1986) (white plaintiff maintained a § 1981 claim alleging discrimination because of marriage to a non-white); Winston, 558 F.2d at 1270 (plaintiff had
standing under § 1981 to sue alleging retaliatory discharge for protesting the alleged discriminatory firing of a black co-worker); Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 888, 890 (11th Cir.1986) (white plaintiff maintained a § 1981 claim alleging discrimination because of marriage to
a non-white). The remaining circuit courts had not considered the issue; therefore, no split of authority obscured the law in this area.
The above referenced cases were sufficient to inform a reasonable government official in 1988 that retaliatory actions against a white employee because of his efforts to defend the rights of racial minorities may violate the employee's rights as enumerated in § 1981. Thus, we hold, as a matter of law, that Patrick's right to sue under § 1981 was “clearly established” at the time Miller and Bloomberg terminated his employment.”
Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240 at 1249-1250 (C.A.10 (Okla.), 1992).
In adopting the journal entry that the plaintiff did not have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as a
white attorney for advocacy and injury to contracts for the representation of the African American James
Bolden and the American Indian David M. Price
by defense attorneys
J. Steven Pigg Kansas Sup. Ct.
#09213 and Samuel A. Green Kansas Sup. Ct.
#24221 of defendant BRIAN FROST through the court’s
reliance on the misrepresentation against clear controlling US Supreme Court authorities raised by the
plaintiff in his answers and at oral argument, Hon. Judge Larry Hendricks ( a reasonable government
official under Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240 at 1250) has in reasonable reliance violated the plaintiff’s
rights to redress and necessitates appeal to the ultimate tribunal upholding the Supremacy Clause and the
force of federal civil rights statutes, the United States Supreme Court if necessary.
#24221 of Fisher
Patterson, Sayler, & Smith, LLP made their untimely motion for judgment on the pleadings, submitted
written memorandum and orally argued supporting their misrepresentation that the plaintiff did not have
standing in violation of KRPC 3.3(a)(1) under In re Benson, 275 Kan. 913, 69 P.3d 544 (Kan., 2003):
“KRPC 3.3(a) “A lawyer shall not knowingly:
. (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.” (2002 Kan. Ct. R. annot. 411.)
The panel found respondent repeatedly provided false information to the Johnson County District Court, including that he had reached settlement agreements with the Erker, Norton & Hare law firm and Hartsock. The panel concluded respondent violated KRPC 3.3(a)(1).”
In re Benson, 275 Kan. 913, 69 P.3d 544 (Kan., 2003).
Green Kansas Sup. Ct. #24221 of Fisher Patterson, Sayler, & Smith, LLP met the knowing and intentional
misconduct requirement of KRPC 3.3(a) independently of the plaintiff’s repeated refutation (and citation to
controlling authorities not differentiated by Samuel A. Green Kansas Sup. Ct.
#24221) responsible for
knowing that Hampton v.Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (10 Cir. 2001) does not
overturn the controlling Tenth Circuit and US Supreme Court case law finding that Caucasians advocating
on behalf of African Americans and other minorities are protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because J.
Steven Pigg Kansas Sup. Ct.
#24221 cited Phelps v.
Wichita Eagle Beacon, 886 f.2d, 1266-67 (10 Cir. 1989) which now BOB CORKINS SRS CHIEF
COUNSEL participates in this conduct when his agent and attorney David W. Davies, Kansas Sup. Ct. #
%$!
113011 also cite in a deliberate continuation of the misrepresentation:
The Phelps v. Wichita Eagle court specifically stated:
“We agree with plaintiff that the district court erred in its analysis. As this court and other circuits have held, alleged discrimination against a white person because of his association with blacks may state a cause of action under Section 1981. See, e.g., Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1447 (10th Cir.1988) (white employee who alleged that he was terminated for assisting black employee could maintain Section 1981 action); Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 802 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.1986) (white plaintiff discriminated against because of marriage to a non-white could maintain a claim under Section 1981); Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 888, 890 (11th Cir.1986) (same); Fiedler v. Marumsco Christian School, 631 F.2d 1144 (4th Cir.1980) (Section 1981 held to prohibit a private sectarian school from terminating a contractual relationship with a white student because of her association with a black student at the school); DeMatteis v. Eastman Kodak Co., 511 F.2d 306, 312 (2d Cir.) (suit allowed under Section 1981 where white employee claimed his company forced him to retire because he sold his house to a fellow black employee), modified on other grounds, 520 F.2d 409 (2d Cir.1975). Thus, we conclude that plaintiff does have standing to sue under Section 1981.”[Emphasis added]
Phelps v. Wichita Eagle Beacon, 886 f.2d, 1267 (10 Cir. 1989).
SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER SECRETARY OF SRS, JOHN
BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC know that besides conforming to the
seminal and controlling US Supreme Court cases finding protection for a white person advocating on
behalf of a minority person which have not been reversed, Phelps v. Wichita Eagle us still cited often in
2011 and as recently as 2004 on the protection of a white attorney representing African Americans:
“Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 886 F.2d 1262, 1266-67 (10th Cir.1989) (concluding white attorney had standing under section 1981 to sue newspaper publishing allegedly false articles because attorney represented minority clients)”
Bilello v. Kum & Go, LLC., 374 F.3d 656 (8th Cir., 2004).
#24221 were
merely attempting to place the costs of the private contracting attorney case manager BRIAN FROST’s
misconduct and racketeering predicate acts of collecting an invalid debt and mail fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq. or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and manufacturing
false billing records in civil rights conspiracy with Kansas Disciplinary Prosecutor Gayle B. Larkin, solely
on the State of Kansas, its agency the SRS and state employees, socializing the losses and thereby
privatizing the profits of BRIAN FROST as a Kansas Judicial Branch Case Management Contractor in a
lengthy and unnecessary usurpation of the SRS caseworker’s role of protecting Kansas children from
substantiated sexual and physical abuse.
%%!
through their agent attorney David W. Davies, Kansas Sup. Ct. # 113011 act against the interest of the State
of Kansas, the Kansas SRS and the defendant ROB SIEDLECKI SECRETARY OF SRS by adopting the
extrinsic fraud of J. Steven Pigg, Kansas Sup. Ct. #09213 and Samuel A. Green Kansas Sup. Ct. #24221
on behalf of the defendant BRIAN FROST to retain the profits of BRIAN FROST’s racketeering at the
expense of the Kansas taxpayer and the reputation of Kansas courts in the eyes of citizens.
This court respectfully lacked the discretion to adopt SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI,
DON JORDAN FORMER SECRETARY OF SRS, JOHN BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL,
YOUNG WILLIAMS PC and BRIAN FROST’s argument that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not protect the
plaintiff from retaliation for representation of the African American James Bolden or of Bolden’s key
witness David M. Price over the interest of Price’s American Indian son Baby C.
Instead of participating in scheme to transfer the monetary and professional liability for the
defendant BRIAN FROST’s racketeering in preventing the plaintiff’s associate Donna Huffman from
succeeding in obtaining protection against the SRS substantiated abuse of her daughter which included the
racketeering predicate acts of mail fraud, collection of invalid debts and obstruction of justice in a state
proceeding through the manufacture of false billing records, via the adoption of BRIAN FROST’s
misrepresentations to this court, the defendant SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN
FORMER SECRETARY OF SRS, JOHN BADGER FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, YOUNG WILLIAMS
PC and David W. Davies, Kansas Sup. Ct. # 113011 as Kansas licensed attorneys violated their affirmative
duty to the court and the State of Kansas to report the misconduct of J. Steven Pigg,
#09213 and Samuel A. Green Kansas Sup. Ct. #24221:
Kansas Sup. Ct.
“[W]hen Oliver discovered what he perceived to be a rule violation by Wallace Saunders, his duty as an attorney was to “inform the appropriate professional authority,” i.e., the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. KRPC 8.3(a) (2008 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 585).”
Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman v. Oliver, 220 P.3d 333, 289 Kan. 891 (Kan., 2009) and to remediate the
consequences of their fraud in this action by withdrawing their pleadings under KRPC 3.3(3).
DAVID WEBER after receiving instructions from C. William Ossman to reinstate the plaintiff’s
food stamps, and knowing the plaintiff was eligible for the food stamps and the conspirators’ scheme to
escape a ruling against the conspirators in the plaintiff’s preliminary injunctive relief refused to adopt the
interview report made by an SRS official going over the plaintiff’s renewed emergency application and the
plaintiff was forced to return and contact from C. William Ossman to get the food stamps reinstated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Conspiracy (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) ) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) Civil Rights Conspiracy (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) Chavis v. Clayton County School Dist., 300 F.3d 1288 (Fed. 11th Cir., 2002) )
The conspirators violated the plaintiff’s right to be free from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Conspiracy (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) ) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
Civil Rights Conspiracy (Tenth Circuit/ Walbert v. Wichita Police Dep't (D. Kan., 2011) Chavis v. Clayton
County School Dist., 300 F.3d 1288 (Fed. 11th Cir., 2002) ) by chargeable conduct that is 1)a conspiracy ;
2)to deprive the plaintiff of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities; 3) an act in furtherance of
the conspiracy; and 4)an injury or deprivation resulting therefrom. “
1.) The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips conspired to retaliate against the plaintiff for his
testimony in federal court in the criminal case USA v. Carrie Neighbors and Guy Neighbors, KS Dist. Ct.
Case No. 07-20124 on behalf of Guy Neighbors, an African American targeted by state of Kansas officials
who used the US Attorney to prosecute Neighbors criminally when the State District Attorney for Douglas
County had declined to knowing the investigation and prosecution violated many of Guy Neighbors
constitutional and civil rights and that the misconduct was too racially biased and discriminatory in
motivation by City of Lawrence officials.
The conspirators saw it as an opportunity to further prevent the plaintiff from being reinstated to
practice law and thereby prevent interference with the corrupt profits of the conspiracy and to prevent their
%'!
conspiracy from being exposed in federal court from David M. Price’s proposed class action lawsuit
against SRS officials for civil rights violations.
2.) The conspirators shared resentment of the plaintiff for his speech and his advocacy and
association with the minorities David M. Price, Baby C and James L. Bolden which infringed on their
control of outcomes in family law courts.
The conspirators shared resentment of Guy Neighbors web site and coverage in the news that
diminished key individuals in the conspirators’ networks to control outcomes and that as an African
American Neighbors was able to get the Lawrence Police leadership in trouble, reinforcing their racial
animus against blacks vindicating their federal rights in court.
The conspirators know that the plaintiff’s complaints have consistently stated a valid claim for 42
U.S.C. § 1985(2) Civil Rights Conspiracy and have utilized fraud on this court to further the goals of their
“Although Defendants' racial animosity was not aimed at Chavis's own race directly, it was aimed at him because of his testimony, an act that enforced DW's — a person who Defendants wished to hinder on account of her race — right to equal protection of the law. We do conclude that such race-
based retaliatory efforts tied to criminal proceedings in the state courts do implicate the criminal defendant's (in this case, DW's) right to equal protection of the law. See generally Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 415, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1373, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (intentional racial discrimination tied to the administration of criminal justice violates equal protection rights); Griffin v. Illinois, 351
U.S. 12, 17, 76 S.Ct. 585, 589-90, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) ("equal protection
central aim of our entire judicial system — all people charged with crime must, so far as the law is concerned, stand on an equality before the bar of justice in every American court")(quotation and citation omitted) (emphasis added). Furthermore, given the words of the second clause, we believe that race-based retaliatory conduct aimed against a person who testified truthfully in criminal court in a way that was helpful to a person of a particular race — the "wrong" race in Defendants' eyes — is within the borders of the kind of behavior that Congress sought to prevent and punish in enacting the second clause of section 1985(2). See Cong. Globe 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 190 ("The apprehension of violence prevents good men from arresting the evils they see").
emphasize[s] the
Chavis v. Clayton County School Dist., 300 F.3d 1288 at 1293-1294 (Fed. 11th Cir., 2002) )
3.) The conspirators caused the plaintiff to have to go to Kansas City in a scheme to get the
plaintiff discredited through perjury for the plaintiff’s testimony in the criminal case.
When the plaintiff testified truthfully, the conspirators through the named individual’s specific
actions identified above in the complaint caused the plaintiff to have to go to Pittsburg under hardship and
disgrace to answer a show cause for non payment of child support the defendants were preventing the
plaintiff from earning.
%(!
4.) The Abuse of Process the plaintiff was subjected to created hardship and loss of time and
furthered the plaintiff’s alienation from his children and further cast the plaintiff in a bad light and with the
conspirators’ continuing extrinsic frauds have caused the plaintiff to needlessly have to appear in other
courts brining new actions for redress and relief from the violation of his federal rights and delayed the
redress that would result in his name being taken off criminal data bases and allow him to be employable
and to enforce his rights in court.
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Civil Rights Conspiracy (Tenth Circuit Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 886 F.2d 1262 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 1989), Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1997) )
The conspirators violated the plaintiff’s right to be free from 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy with
chargeable misconduct that constitutes:"(1) a conspiracy; (2) motivated by a racial or class based
discriminatory animus designed to deprive, directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons to the
equal protection of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to person or
property or the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States." Lake v. Arnold, 112
F.3d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1997).
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips conspired to retaliate against the plaintiff for his speech
and his advocacy and association with the minorities David M. Price, Baby C and James L. Bolden.
2.) The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips out of a motivating belief that the former attorney Fred
Phelps had upset the Kansas establishment in representing African Americans in racial discrimination
%)!
claims under federal civil rights laws and that the undesired change of control of state institutions or entities
and outcomes in courts to one where African Americans were not an underclass and instead empowered to
obtain as monetary damages some real percentage of the racial discrimination injuries they suffered was an
attorney ethics problem.
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips know that the corrupt profits from False Claims against
the US Treasury through extrinsic fraud on Kansas courts cannot be sustained without suppressing
advocates willing to represent victims in civil rights actions in federal court and more importantly, now that
pharmaceutical kick backs and foster care bounties are a big driving force in unlawfully taking Kansas
children through fraud on courts, their conspiracy and its contractors and agents by taking children from
socially disadvantaged populations who because of racial discrimination face cultural barriers to asserting
rights in court against the State.
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips continue to target the plaintiff for his willingness to
advocate on behalf of racial minorities and overcome barriers the conspirators must maintain to African
American and American Indian Sixth Amendment Rights to effective representation by counsel.
Currently, defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
WEBER who acted in concert and with identified non-conspiracy defendant coconspirators STANTON A.
Gutierrez, C. William Ossmann, and Steve Phillips are faced with having conspired to deprive African
Americans of representation and meaningful access to federal court have a racial animus at African
%+!
Americans because the conspiracy has inadvertently (through their pattern of interference to deny rights)
taken the children of African American Federal Government Employees and decorated US Military
personnel who still have protected rights the conspirators have deprived other citizens of Kansas and now
the conspirators face federal criminal prosecution for the acts the plaintiff’s complaints detail.
3.) The defendants SECRETARY OF SRS ROB SIEDLEKI, DON JORDAN FORMER
SECRETARY OF SRS, BRIAN FROST, YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, DAVID WEBER acted in concert and
with identified non-conspiracy defendant coconspirators STANTON A. HAZLETT DISCIPLINARY
ADMINISTRATOR to commit fraud on this court, affirmatively representing that the plaintiff lacks
standing and has not stated any claim in order to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying Due Process rights to
discovery and the opportunity to vindicate himself, clear his name and enjoy again the Equal Protection of
this nation’s laws.
4.) The plaintiff is injured in being denied the right to pursue a common calling, the right to earn a
living and to be free from having false information placed on criminal data bases to prevent him from
B. Prayer For Relief From 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations
194. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment of prospective injunctive relief to restrain continuing
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment protections against selective prosecution
enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and to require the defendants to furnish all evidence in their
possession and control, free of false characterizations to law enforcement agencies and court jurisdiction
admission authorities upon request; plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees should the
plaintiff obtain an attorney, and such other non monetary relief deemed to be just and equitable and no
V. PRAYER
The plaintiff respectfully seeks damages in excess the amount of $75,000.00 , the prospective
injunctive relief as the exclusive remedy against the two official capacity defendants, the costs of this
action, including attorney's fees should the plaintiff obtain an attorney, and such other relief deemed to be
&,!
I, Bret D. Landrith, declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of myself and my activities, including those set out in the foregoing
Complaint, and if called upon to testify I would competently testify as to the matters stated herein.
2. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the factual
statements in this Complaint concerning myself and my activities are true and correct.
Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing Pro se
I hereby certify I have provided on April 18, 2011 a true copy of the above to the defendants via hand delivery, US Mail First Class postage pre-paid or electronic mail as indicated:
1.Defendant DON JORDAN and Defendant DAVID WEBER to their counsel C. William Ossmann, Chief
of Litigation at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 915 SW Harrison, 6th floor, 66612-1354. Via email and hand delivery.
2. Defendant BRIAN FROST through his attorney J. Steven Pigg, FISHER PATTERSON, SAYLER, &
SMITH, LLP PO Box 949, Topeka, KS 66601-0949. Via email and hand delivery.
3. Defendant YOUNG WILLIAMS PC through their attorneys Robert E. Sanders and Amy Raymond, 120
SE 6th Street Suite 106, Topeka, KS 66603. Via hand delivery.
4. Defendant CRAIG E. COLLINS at 3209 SW Bell Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66614. Via US Mail.
5. Chamber’s Copy. Via hand delivery.
&#!
Четырнадцатая поправка к Конституции США
Служба Процесса
Документы, похожие на «Second Motion to Amend»
Motion for Leave to Amend Seeking Punitive Damages
Motion for Continuance.pdf
How to Write Different Kinds of Motions (Philippines)
Daphnie Cuasay
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Elmwood Park BOE Et Al. (Docket No: BER-L-8966-11)/// Fraud Upon the Court in Bergen County Superior Court (2)
Florida Civil Rules of Procedure
328. joson vs. torres.docx
dig39
Tinnin v. FBI, 10th Cir. (1997)
Doc 31 Plaintiffs Req to Strike DBNTC Pleadings
GROSS v. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP - Document No. 14
Vallacar Transit
Heirs of Maramag v Maramag
MarioneMaeThiam
Rule 17-21
Eunice Saavedra
Obando vs Figueras
Electronic Arts Inc. et al v. Giant Productions et al - Document No. 14
Adarne vs Aldbaba
G.R. No 119190.pdf
Jayson Silot Cabello
Safari - 22 Sep 2019 at 5:50 AM 3
Cebu-Inernational Airport
Ed Nerosa
Roswin Matiga
Farrow v. Campbell et al (INMATE2) - Document No. 3
Canon 4 and 5.doc
Cases Full Text.pdf
Dave Mariano Batara
eryn a
Другое от пользователя: Bret Landrith
Landrith, Lipari v Chief Justice Roberts Plaintiff's Second Motion for Electronic Filing (PDF Version)
Landrith Lipari v. Chief Justice Roberts Motion for Leave to Amend ( Proposed 2nd Amended Complaint )
Filed Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions Against Chief Justice Roberts Landrith
Appearance Docket 5-24-2013 District of Columbia Live Database
LANDRITH_LIPARI_Answer_to_Roberts'_Dismissal_Motion
Landrith_Lipari_Motion_for_Sanctions
Landrith v Bank of New York Mellon RICO Complaint
Популярные на тему «Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution»
291669785 You Know Something is Wrong When an American Affidavit of Probable Cause
JJ Stringbender
Wilson -V- Judge Smith Mandamus
On October 11, 2016 Judge Tracie Hunter files lawsuit
Harsh Sharma v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 11th Cir. (2013)
Appellee's Response Brief
jhbryan
Obergefell v Hodges, 14-556: Thomas' Dissent
United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia Lawrence Douglas Wilder, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia Virginia Military Institute Joseph M. Spivey, Iii, President of the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors John Williams Knapp, Superintendent of Virginia Military Institute the Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute Thomas N. Downing Elizabeth P. Hoisington, Brig. Gen. Robert Q. Marston A. Courtland Spotts, III Daniel F. Flowers B. Powell Harrison, Jr. Robert H. Spilman Samuel E. Woolwine James W. Enochs, Jr. William A. Hazel Harvey S. Sadow Douglas K. Baumgartner Daniel D. Cameron Glen N. Jones John W. Roberts, Members of the Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute Vmi Foundation, Incorporated Vmi Alumni Association, and Gordon K. Davies, Director of the Virginia State Council of Higher Education the Virginia State Council of Higher Education and Its Members and Officers, Virginia Women Attorneys Association Virginia Chapter of the American Association
PLJ Volume 44 Number 5 -01- Pacifico a. Agabin - Laissez Faire and the Due Process Clause
roe v wade case summery
api-201609065
The Civil Rights Movement and the Federal Government 1958-1973
Meiners Chapter 4 Outline
wildraf
Ashley W. v. Holcomb DCS Lawsuit
Higdon-Family Law Outline-Spring 2014
CaDoanThanhGia
Mariela Solana
Evidence - Xiii. Burden of Proof and Presumptions
310829135-Griffin-v-California-380-U-S-609-1965
anton bormate
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934)
Without Prejudice Study Guide.pdf
JASON KESSLER et al vs. City of Charlottesville - Complaint (Filed 11/7/2018)
Stop JK
Three United States Defined
Abbot Et Al v. Perez Et Al Opinion
Kithier v MHSAA
Chapter 4 Business and the Constitution
Admiralty on Land!! Where's the Water?
SCButterfly