15 JUN-2 1\11 :51

10 0,,',0'1'l rt~t

Number of Signatures Presented

A petition requesting a grand jury was filed in the office of the Clerk of the district court

of Crawford County, Kansas May 19,2015. As required by Kansas law, the Petition was

transmitted by the Clerk of the District COUlito the Crawford County Commissioner of

Elections. On June 2nd, 2015, the Commissioner of Elections filed a Certification with the Clerk

of the District Court in which he stated that the signatures on the Petition had been compared

with those on file in his office. Based on this comparison, the Elections Commissioner found that

the Petition requesting a Grand Jury contained valid signatures of 121 registered voters in

Crawford County. In the last general election 10,746 votes were cast for the office of Governor,

therefore 2% plus 100 of the total votes cast for governor in the last preceding general election as

required by K.S.A. 22-3001(2) requires 315 valid signatures to call a grand jury.

The petition fails for a want of valid signatures.

Nature of Allegations

Each signature page contained the following statement in attempted compliance with the

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

GRAND JURY PETITION*TO THE DISTRICT COURT CRA WFORD COUNTY, KANSAS

The undersigned qualified electors of the county of Crawford, State of Kansas hereby requestthat the District Court of Crawford County, within 60 days after filing this petition cause a grandjury to be summoned in the county to investigate alleged violations oflaw and to perform suchother duties as may be authorized by law: 1. Hear testimony and investigate alleged violations ofFederal and Kansas DUE PROCESS constitutional law by the systematic and blatant usurpationof judicial office and the disturbing conflicts of interest between the Judges** and attorneys (esp.

their former Law partners) including instances of conformed I shocking economic conflict ofinterests. The reasonable people of this county have decided that there needs to be an immediatestop to this practice by the implementation of a new 11th District local rule that bars all Judgesfrom hearing their former law partner's cases. The people have NO CONFIDENCE in thejudiciary when judges act at times in a manner that does NOT promote public confidence in theindependence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and believe it is inappropriate for aJudge to hear cases with openlhidden conflicts of interest. 2. Guilty Judges parties attorneysshould be indicted, ousted from office, moneys earned returned and all related NO DUEPROCESS cases voided, vacated and reheard. Attorneys who knowingly practiced law in frontof a judge with a conflict of interest should face disciplinary action and restitution of client andstate income for every case.

*Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3301(c) and K.S.A. 60-1206(a)** A.J.WACHTER, KURTIS LOY, OLIVER LYNCH, JEFFRY JACK, ROBERTFLEMING, & LORI B. FLEMING(Bold print, capitalization and other grammar as it appears on petition)

The statute governing the required contents of a petition to summon a grand jury provides

in pertinent part:

(2) The petition, upon its face, shall state the name, address and phone number of theperson filing the petition, the subject matter of the prospective grand jury, a reasonablyspecific identification of areas to be inquired into and sufficient general allegations towarrant a finding that such inquiry may lead to information which, if true, would warranta true bill of indictment.(3) The petition shall be in substantially the following form:The undersigned qualified electors of the county of and state of Kansashereby request that the district court of county, Kansas, within 60 days afterthe filing of this petition, cause a grand jury to be summoned in the county to investigatealleged violations of law and to perform such other duties as may be authorized by law.The signatures to the petition need not all be affixed to one paper, but each paper towhich signatures are affixed shall have substantially the foregoing form written or printedat the top thereof... K.S.A. 22-3001. 2014, ch. 50, 1, eff. July 1,2014

The petition, as presented to the Clerk ofthe district court requires additional description.

The above statement in support appears atop each of 48 pages which include up to 10 signatures,

names and addresses. As filed the petition includes a coversheet entitled "In the Matter of the

Grand Jury Petition," under which pictures and names of the District Judges of the 11th District

are then imposed, followed by the subtitle(s) "Grand Jury Petition to Investigate, Disqualify and

Oust All Above 11th District Judges" and "We the People Demand and Ethical, Fair and

Impartial Judiciary." Appended to the 48 pages of signatures above described is an 11 page

document entitled "Damages, Declaratory or Injunctive Relief Defendants" which then lists the

11th District Judges, Judge Janice Russell, Judge John E. Sanders, "Commission on Judicial

Qualifications," Stanton A. Hazlett, Michal Gayoso, Jr., Tim Grillot and Kansas Attorney

General Derek Schmidt. The ensuing 11 pages seems to both explain why these additional

persons (including Stephen Phillips, who is not included in the prefatory list) require

investigation while apparently citing authorities in support of the petitioners' assertion these

persons and or entities (in the case of the Commission on Judicial qualifications refereed to,

presumably, as "panels A and B") do not have immunity from actions for "damages, declaratory,

and injunctive" relief. As no cause of action is stated against these persons and or entities, the

reason for this portion of the petition is, at best, a mystery.

The only reasonable interpretation of his petition seems to suggest the petitioners are

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

ouster pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1205, et. seq., a request for injunctive relief pursuant to K.S.A. 60-

901 et. seq. and, possibly, action(s) for other relief. But, as stated above, no causes of action are

actually plead.

Whether the allegations of the petition meet the statutory requirements will be determined

from the 48 pages with signatures as they are the only documents that have been verified as the

containing the information officially "petitioned" by the individual signatories. There is no

indication any of the individuals who signed the petition read and/or agreed to the allegations set

forth on the coversheet or, more importantly, the 11 page document attached by the three

petitioners at the time of filing. Although there may be no way to be assured beyond any doubt

that the petitioners so intentionally framed this action, the reasonable causes of action divined

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

signature pages combined with an action for other civil relief filed by the 3 petitioners.

The statutory threshold of sufficient allegation by way of citizen petition compelling the

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

and general accusation of "alleged violations of law" required by subsection (3) ofK.S.A. 22-

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

prospective grand jury" (2) "a reasonably specific identification of the areas to be inquired into"

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

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

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

juries may do is indict. There are no other functions. Grand juries have no powers or

responsibilities other than those that flow from their role in the criminal justice system of brining

criminal charges.

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

jury system that it is protected by our Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamouscrime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment right of

indictment by a Grand Jury is not binding on the individual states through the Fourteenth

Amendment. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Notwithstanding, nearly all of the

states continue to use Grand Juries as a way to investigate criminal conduct and to commence

criminal prosecutions. Moreover, in most states, Grand Juries continue to bear a significant

resemblance to those which existed at common law.

The United States Supreme Court has explained the scope of a grand jury's powers as

follows:

"Traditionally the grand jury has been accorded wide latitude to inquire into violationsof criminal law. No judge presides to monitor its proceedings. It deliberates in secret andmay determine alone the course of its inquiry. The grand jury may compel the productionof evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operationgenerally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing theconduct of criminal trials. 'It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation andinquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions ofpropriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether anyparticular individual will be found properly subject to accusation. Blair v. United States,250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468,471,63 L.Ed. 979 (1919)." (Emphasis added.)United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974).

In reviewing the development of the Grand Jury at common law, one of the best

summaries which this Court has read is found in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island's decision in

Opinion to the Governor, 62 R.I. 200, 203, 4 A.2d 487 (1939). In its decision, the Rhode Island

Supreme Court wrote:

"It is unnecessary here to go at great length into the history of the grand jury. It was sodefinitely fixed and established in the law of England that its composition, purpose andscope of power in certain criminal matters were universally known and accepted, andthey are not now open to dispute. Almost from time immemorial, the grand jury wascomposed of not more than twenty-three sworn members and the concurrence of at leasttwelve of such members was always necessary in order to return a valid indictment. Oneof its main purposes was to protect the rights of the individual citizen against possibleoppression by the crown or its agencies in the prosecution of crimes; or ... to safeguardthe individual's rights against private malice, party passion or governmental abuse."

The powers of the grand jury were indeed broad and were not specifically limited merelyto matters presented by the crown or the charge of the court. Certainly the common lawgrand jury in England was not so limited. This readily appears from the form of oathadministered, under which it could investigate and act upon matters which might comeproperly before it through such knowledge of any of its members as was based upon theirown observations or evidence, but not on mere rumor or reports. A grand jury thus

constituted functioned in this manner in England without any substantial change forseveral hundred years prior to the adoption of our constitution. No other kind of grandjury was known."62 R.I. at 203.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island further stated:

"[W]e must keep in mind the fact ... that every grand jury under common law had thepower to investigate all kinds of indictable crimes committed in its county and not merelyinto certain kinds of such crimes or only those called to its attention by a prosecutingattorney or the court. Such broad powers were inherent in the nature of every grand juryat common law and, therefore, in our opinion, it follows that 'a grand jury' within themeaning of that term ....must have the same full powers as a common law grand jury."supra.

Even though there has been legitimate criticism of the grand jury system throughout the

history ofthe United States, it has withstood the test oftime. Although Grand Juries are the

exception rather than the rule in Kansas, they have continued to be used on various occasions

throughout the history of Kansas. Just as it did in colonial times, the Grand Jury continues to

give representatives of the community a voice in deciding who should and should not be

prosecuted for a violation of our criminal laws.

"In Kansas, a grand jury is a creature of statute and not of the constitution. Its function is

investigatory and accusatory in contrast to a petit jury, which determines the guilt or innocence

of an accused." State v. Snodgrass, 267 Kan. 185,190,979 P.2d 664 (1999) (Emphasis

supplied). The role of a grand jury in Kansas "is to inquire into crimes cognizable by it and, upon

the concurrence of 12 or more jurors, an indictment may be found and presented to the district

court for filing." 267 Kan. at Syl. ~ 1.

Historically, the grand jury functioned primarily as a protection against arbitraryprosecution by the State:It frequently stood as a barrier against royal persecution, until at length it was regarded asan institution that secured the King's subjects against the oppression of unfoundedprosecutions by the Crown. Although that reason may not have been the motivatingfactor in this country, the fact remains that the grand jury system was adopted here and

for considerations quite similar to those of the mother country. Our adoption of thesystem was founded on the theory not only of bringing wrongdoers to justice, butalso of providing protection against unfounded and unreal accusations, whetherthese had their origin in governmental sources or were founded on private passionor enmity. '38 Am.Jur.2d Grand Jury 2, pp 947-98." (Emphasis supplied.), 267 Kan.at 193.

In Snodgrass, The Kansas Supreme Court found that "the fundamental purpose of a grand

jury 'is to obtain a group of men and women who represent a fair and impartial cross section of

citizens of the county, each with his or her own individual thoughts, experiences,and reactions."

, 267 Kan. at 195 (quoting 38 Am.Jur.2d Grand Jury 4, pp. 948-49). Furthermore, "a grand

jury has the right and obligation to act on its own information, however acquired" and "the oath

required to be taken by grand jurors ... requires them to inquire diligently into the commission

of crimes ...." 267 Kan. at 195 (quoting 38 AmJur.2d Grand Jury 7, pp. 951-52, emphasis

supplied).

Although once impaneled the investigative role of the grand jury must be liberally

construed, this is not suggest that one should be summoned at a mere whim, fancy or for any

subversive malevolent purpose. The statute presumes a demonstration that if the allegations are

deemed true they will "warrant a true bill of indictment." K.S.A. 22-3001 (c)(2). There are, thus,

reasonable and appropriate limitations. Obviously there must be allegations, that if proved true,

someone could be charged with a crime. In other words grand juries are limited to consideration

of criminal matters. They are not to be called to address civil or administrative matters that do

not rise to the level of the commission of a crime. Further grand juries should not be called on

mere unsupported suspicion or used in a calculated attempt to harass others. Grand juries should

not engage in, and therefore presumably should not be called for the purpose of a mere fishing

expedition in the hopes that some criminal violation might be discovered. In terms coined by the

Kansas Supreme Court, a district court must assure itself "that the grand jury has not engaged in

an arbitrary fishing expedition and that the targets were not selected ... out of malice or with

intent to harass." Also" The investigatory powers of a grand jury are not unlimited. Grand

juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor may they select

targets of investigation out of malice or with an intent to harass." Tiller v. Corrigan, 286

Kan. 30,46, Syll. ~5, 182 P.3d 719, 729 (2008)(emphasis supplied).

Outside the required form language and the requests for relief that must be deemed mere

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

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

investigate alleged violations of Federal and Kansas DUE PROCESS constitutional law by.the

systemic and blatant usurpation of judicial office and the disturbing conflicts of interest between

Judges** and attorneys (esp. their former law partners) including instances of confirmed /

shocking economic conflict of interests." ... it is inappropriate for a judge to hear cases with

open/hidden conflicts of interest. ... "

The standard this court will impose is that now generally recognized regarding pro se

litigants and their pleadings. "Any cause of action that might be divined." In other words, this

court is not employing some hyper technical or even technical or, arguably, sub-technical

requirement in determining if the petition meets the statutory threshold. The stand is any crime

this court may divine from these allegations. As will be seen, even with that standard, as low as it

may be, the petition fails to meet the necessary requirements. First the concept of "Federal" due

process is wholly irrelevant. A Kansas state grand jury cannot bring federal charges, plain and

simple. Further there are no criminal statutes that speak to a denial of due process in the Kansas

Criminal code (K.S.A. chapter 21). Clearly there may be grounds for a civil action, but there are

no such grounds for a criminal action. As demonstrated by the authorities above, the only

concern of a Kansas grand jury is whether or not to bring criminal charges.

While it is difficult to perceive of a reality where any reasonable person would disagree

with the concept that justice should be dispensed without the influence of inappropriate conflicts

of interest, just as the preceding discussion delineates the difference between civil and criminal

actions there is no criminal statue which can reasonable be construed to be applicable to the

conflict of interest complaints of the drafters of this instant petition.

In point of fact, outside the parameters ofK.S.A. 20-311d (Change of judge-dealing with the

case by case determinations of disqualification) the only entity which is able to legally determine

a conflicts of interest and appropriate sanctions regarding a trial court judge is the Kansas

Supreme Court or its designated authority the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

(KCJQ). Ironically that entity is the primary subject of the 11 page addendum to the petition as

filed with the district court. No district court either embodied as a grand jury, a petit jury, a judge

or tribunal of judges has any authority to determine a conflict of interest of a district court judge

or to impose any sanction once one has been determined. There is no crime in the Kansas

criminal code which is precipitated even if a conflict exists. That is the exclusive province of the

Supreme Court. Under Article 3 section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Supreme Court has

empowered the KCJQ to assist in judicial disciplinary matters. Under rule 605, POWERS OF

COMMISSION, the commission has all powers necessary to institute, conduct and dispose of

proceedings regarding the all qualifications of judges to sit on individual cases as well as their

fitness to serve generally. Inherent in this express delegation of the Supreme Court's exclusive

jurisdiction, power and authority is the power to determine conflicts of interest and the

appropriate sanctions for any violation of the rules regarding the same. No grand jury convened

for any imaginable reason would have this authority.

No other supposed crime can be divined from this petition.

If this court were to consider the 11 pages appended to the district court filing despite the

apart lack of presentation to the required qualified voters who signed the petition, the denial of

the petition becomes even more necessary. With the allegations of the signed petition the

petitioners have the benefit of the general nature of the allegations. With the addendum added

after the voters signed their petitions the specificity provided in the 11 page attachment makes it

clear that the complaints relate not only to concerns within the exclusive province of entities

such as the KCJQ and the State Disciplinary Administrator (Attorney Discipline), but that

apparently many of these very concerns have been investigated by these agencies. What is

clearly implied if not overtly manifest is that some persons are dissatisfied with the fact that

complaints made to these agencies did not result in a desired outcome. The natural conclusion by

anyone familiar with these agencies and their processes is that unsatisfied by the action and or

inaction of these agencies parties now seek an alternative whether or not the law so provides.

Kansas law does not provide the grand jury process as an avenue to either visit or revisit

issues of these types.

Nature of Grand Jury Proceedings

In Kansas, K.S.A. 22-3012 governs the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings and the

disclosure of information. Other than limited disclosures made to the County Attorney for the

use in the performance of her official duty, ajuror, attorney, interpreter, reporter or typist who

transcribes recorded testimony is permitted to "disclose matters occurring before the Grand Jury

.only when so directed by the Court preliminarily to or in connection with the judicial proceeding

or when permitted by the Court at the request of the defendant upon a showing the grounds may

exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the Grand Jury."

Likewise, the Court may "direct an indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in

custody or has been given bail..."

The United States Supreme Court has held that "the proper functioning of our Grand Jury

system depends upon the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings." Douglas Oil Co. v Petrol Stocks

Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 (1979). Some of the vital interests which are protected by the

requirement of secrecy include: (1) Preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called

before the Grand Jury; (2) Not altering the target of an investigation who might otherwise flee,

intimidate witnesses and/or harass the Grand Jurors; and (3) Preserving the rights of the citizen

who is exonerated by the Grand Jury. 441 U.S. at 219. Thus in order to protect the integrity of

the Grand Jury system, courts "have consistently stood ready to defend [Grand Jury secrecy]

against unwarranted intrusion. In the absence of a clear indication in a statute ... [the Court] must

always be reluctant to conclude that a breach of secrecy has been authorized." United States v

Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 425 (1983) (citing Illinois v Abbott and Associates, Inc.,

460 U.S. 557, 572-573 [1983].)

"Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is regularly excluded

from Grand Jury proceedings." Brandonburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 665,684-685 (1972).

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has went so far as to describe Grand Jury secrecy

as "indispensable" to the administration of justice. United States vJohnson, 319 U.S. 503, 513

(1943). Thus, it is clear that the Grand Jury "occupies a high place as an instrument of justice in

our system of criminal law - so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution." Sells, 463 U.S.

at 418 (1983) (citing Pittsburg Plate Glass, Co. v United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399 (1959) and

Costello v United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956).

In addition to these secrecy issues another aspect of grand jury proceedings bears on the

ultimate disposition of these pleadings. Once a petition for a grand jury is filed the involvement

of the persons filing the same, with the entire process ceases. "However, upon the submission

of the petition, the role of the citizenry in the grand jury process ceases." Tiller v.

Corrigan, 286 Kan. 30, 182 P.3d 719 (2008) (emphasis supplied). In a case that is not

controlling authority as it is unpublished and yet is the only authority of which this

court isaware the Kansas Court of Appeals has held that a petitioner lacks standing to

file an appeal from an order denying a grand jury when the signatures are deemed

insufficient as their role ceases upon presentation of the petition. See In re Grand Jury

Filed by Reardon, 260 P.3d 1249 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

The matter filed by petitioners is clearly labeled a petition for grand jury and the matter

was appropriately filed as such with the designation consistent with a Miscellaneous Filing. The

fact that grand jury proceeds, as clearly held in the authorities cited above, are unique creatures

of statute, governed by the statues providing therefore there is no statutory procedure which

allows such a petition to be joined with any other cause of action. In addition to this fact the

grand jury secrecy requirements make joinder with any other action impractical if not

impossible.

This court is aware that petitioners have provided summons and service fees to the Clerk

of the District court for service of summons on many parties although the statutes concerning

grand juries make no such provision. The court hereby directs the Clerk of the Court to return

these documents and checks to the persons from whom they were received.

IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED;

Based upon the above and forgoing the petition for a grand jury to be summoned filed May 19th,

2015 in the District Court of Crawford County Kansas should be and is herby denied. The

Petition is dismissed. This order is final. A copy of this order shall be given to petitioners. The

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. ","'Uu,w"UDistrict Judge, assigned