June 14, 2011

Stephen Wade Editing Manger:

I am writing to you about case number 09DM341P a divorce between Deborah King vs. Michael King.

Deborah King's attorney was Kay Morin and Michael King represented himself Pro-Se. This divorce was

filed in September of 2009. The first hearing was on August 30, 2010 and they allowed myself "Kasey

King" to sit with my dad and assist him reading his paperwork because he has trouble seeing. The case

was continued until December zr: 2010 and right when the proceedings started on page 3 of thetranscript informed myself that "YOU LEAVETHE BENCH. YOU GO SIT IN THE PEANUT GALLERY." I said

"who me" Judge Andrew Wachter then states on the same page "Yeah Thanks". Mr. Mike King

informed the Judge on the bottom of page 3 that "Well, I thought I had a right to an assistance of

counsel, Your Honor". Then Judge Wachter on page 4 ofthe transcript and says "Yeah, but he's not

counsel. HEGOES IN THE PEANUT GALLERYl I have enclosed the transcripts from the April 18, 2011

hearing where Judge Andrew James Wachter recuses himself and withdrawls from the case because of

the Ethics Complaints and he indicates that Kasey King and Mike King have been nothing but polite. I

also enclosed an ORDERthat was signed by the new out of county Judge from Johnson County RetiredJudge Janice Russell, and she had to come down and sign the ORDERfor Deborah King's attorney to

withdrawl from the case because no judge from Crawford County could hear the case due to a conflict

of interest.

Andrew James Wachter made one ruling on August 30, 2010 and let me sit there the entire hearing then

changes his mind by December 27, 2010 and did not follow the same rules. My father Mike King and

myself then filed JUDICIAL ETHICCOMPLAINTS against the judge for his violations of THE KANSASCODEOF JUDICIAL CONDUCT and made the complaint with THE STATEOF KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIALQUALFICATIONS. The first hearing was held on April 1, 2011 and it was continued until June 3, 2011 in

which the Committee sent out a letter indicating that his use of the term "PEANUT GALLERY"was clearly

INAPPROPRIATE and the committee issued him a LEDER OF CAUTION. At the bottom of the June 7,

2011 decision, the Committee states in the last paragraph that the other issues did not have enough

facts for JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT indicating that the PEANUT GALLERYwas in fact JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT. I have enclosed a pamphlet from THE STATEOF KANSASCOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

QUALIFICATIONS to show you what they do. It states the difference between DOCKETEDCOMPLAINTS

AND UNDOCKETEDCOMPLAINTS.

Judge Andrew Wachter received docket numbers 1114 and 1116. The docketed complaints go in order

so that is how many judges in Kansas has now received Judicial Misconduct 1116. I am not sure but Ithink this is the FIRSTTIME in Crawford Kansas that a judge was upheld for Judicial Misconduct andactually has a docket.

Feel free to contact Michelle the Administrator at the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka Kansas 78S-296-

2913 to verify and Andrew James Wachter to hear his side of the DOCKETEDCOMPLAINT for JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT.

S~1'1Cf'('"e~

~~/~

MUHighlight

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13-~

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE )OF )DEBORAH L. KING, )

Petitioner, ))

vs. ) CASE NO. 09DM341P)

MICHAEL L. KING, ))

Respondent. )

TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL

PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable

AJ WACHTER, Judge of the District Court

of Crawford County, Kansas, at Pittsburg,

Kansas, on the 30th day of August, 2010.

APPEARANCES:

The Petitioner appearing by and through her

counsel, Ms. Katherine Morin of Broadway Law Offices,

424 North Broadway, Pittsburg, KS 66762.

The Respondent appearing pro se. Mr. Kasey

King also appearing.

r -

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

11- ----.., 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24"'---..... . 25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE )OF )DEBORAH L. KING, )

Petitioner, ))

vs. ) CASE NO. 09DM341P)

MICHAEL L. KING, ))

Respondent. )

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE

PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable

AJ WACHTER, Judge of the District Court

of Crawford County, Kansas, at Pittsburg,

Kansas, on the 27th day of December, 2010.

APPEARANCES:

The Petitioner appearing by and through her

counsel, Ms. Katherine Morin of Broadway Law Offices,

424 North Broadway, Pittsburg, KS 66762.

The Respondent appearing pro se. Mr. Kasey

King also appearing.

OP

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

21

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DECEMBER 27, 2010

THE COURT: All right. This is Case No.

09DM343P, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of

Deborah and Michael King. Mr. King is here, as is

counsel for Ms. King, Kay Morin. Ms. Morin filed a

motion for a continuance last week, in effect,

indicating that her client had no funds to attend; is

that right?

MS. MORIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And she lives where,cPennsylvania?

MS. MORIN: She lives on the East Coast, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: East Coast.

MS. MORIN: New,llerself.

THE COURT: The Court was leaving for some

personal holidays on the 22nd of December so it issued

an order granting the continuance because if she

wasn't going to be here, we weren't going to have any

trial, set it for a status conference so that we could

discuss the situation.

And did that simply because there was no other

time to do it because I was going to be gone, I didn't

get back until last night.

So, having said that, that's the reason I took it

upon myself to grant a continuance. All right.

31

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. KING: Your Honor, I have three documents I

would like to enter into evidence I got file --

THE COURT: Is that what you filed the other. day?

MR. KING: I filed them this morning because I

didn't have time.

THE COURT: Is that a motion?

MR. KING: The holiday was the 24th, right before

Christmas.

THE COURT: Bring them up. Did you give a copy

to Ms. Morin?

MR. KASEY KING: We mailed one out on the 24th.

THE COURT: Here is what we are going to do. You

leave the bench. You go sit in the peanut gallery.

MR. KASEY KING: Who, me?

THE COURT: Yeah, thanks.

MR. KASEY KING: Last time I was allowed.

THE COURT: Yeah, but this time

MR. KING: I can't read, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, that is all right. We will

read it to you.

MR. KING: Very well.

THE COURT: We are going to have -- if you are

going to represent yourself, that is fine but

MR. KING: Well, I thought I had a right to an

assistance of counsel, Your Honor.

MUHighlight

MUHighlight

41

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Yeah, but he's not counsel. He goes

in the peanut gallery.

MR. KING: Very well.

THE COURT: All right. Did you receive a copy of

this motion?

MS. MORIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You got an extra copy, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Not with me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there is two motions,-

one for lack of prosecution and one for an objection

to the continuance and would you give those to Ms.

Morin and you can review those, Ms. Morin.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, I won't waste the Court's

time by reading the objection to the continuance and

the letter since is a fait accompli anyway. .I,did

read the motion to dismiss the case on the docket due

to lack of prosecution.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. MORIN: You want these back, Judge?

THE COURT: The parties have been divorced and --

MS. MORIN: Do you want these back?

THE COURT: Keep them for a moment because I've

read them and the others have been filed. The parties

have been divorced for quite awhile, is that correct,

Ms. Morin?

MUHighlight