An Ethics Meltdown and Failure to Hold Judicial and Officer Accountability from the Johnson County District Court up to the Kansas Federal Judiciary is Apparent
Kansas City, Kansas Feb 2, 2024 (Issuewire.com) - The family court in Johnson County, Kansas appears to be facing significant crisis and ethics issues according to available information acquired from the federal judiciary and the Johnson County judiciary. The Chief Judge of Johnson County is currently a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by a pro se father(Case No. 2:23-CV02536). Additionally, Judge Paul W. Burmaster of the family court is now a defendant in a protection order case that alleges Burmaster was online stalking that same pro se father most of 2023 and improperly using his administrative assistant to also lurk and spy on the father on Facebook. Burmaster was just also defendant in two prior federal civil rights lawsuits in the last three months. While the higher court dismissed these two federal cases against Judge Burmaster, most recently just last week, the same pro se plaintiff was granted the beforementioned protective order hearing and case directly against Defendant Judge Burmaster (Jo Co Protection Order Case No. 24-CV00369). It was on the same day that the high court released Burmaster that the sheriff shows serving Burmaster in his own courtroom. This new protection order case is scheduled for an initial hearing on February 7th, 2024. A new federal filing has appeared that is directly related to the Court of Judge Burmaster, that raises a large alarm to the overall seemingly failure of Kansas to discipline the family court judge and his court supporters.
Judge Burmaster is meant to preside over family court cases, yet he continues to be involved in matters before both higher and lower courts regarding claims of factual issues that do not appear to have been disputed formally as any non-fact by any court. Further concern regarding significant amounts of prolonged Johnson County unaddressed judicial misconduct is raised by the fact that Judge Burmaster will be undergoing his fourth inquiry panel review by the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct on February 2nd, 2024 regarding multiple ethics filings that have been submitted of recent by the Pro Se dad. It must also be mentioned that the dad, shows over four dozen ethics dockets were formed by the Commission against Burmaster between March 20, 2023 and Dec 31, 2023, and they have all disappeared.
This is the Ethics Docket #3130 is seen in the photos, being heard amongst other complaint numbers by the Kansas Commission of Judicial Conduct, of alleged actions that also landed Burmaster behind a protection order case 24-CV00369.
Separate from Burmaster's questionable ethics as a family court judge, is another federal Case (2:23-CV02491) It was against a Guardian ad Litem, attorney, and the mother of the Escalante children regarding alleged conspiracy to interfere with the father and his children's civil rights. While this case was dismissed on January 31st, 2024, it was not dismissed based on the facts presented, but rather over subject matter jurisdiction issues. The plaintiff was instructed to pursue these matters in state court, which would presumably involve Judge Burmaster's court again.
However, Judge Burmaster's involvement in the plaintiff's county cases has been noted as Burmaster being removed since October 16, 2023, by Order of the Chief Judge Charles Droege, indicated in bench notes of Escalante cases that an 'out-of-county' judge would be assigned. Yet no replacement judge is currently shown, to date and the Chief Judge remains a defendant in the higher court by the father in the ongoing federal lawsuit, Escalante vs. Droege. The Plaintiff is seen in Doc #51, stating that Droege is retaliating on him and his children by now holding the county custody case and stating that a company called Livingston Counseling LLC is needed for parent re-integration and that Livingston LLC informed the Court that they would not participate in Burmaster's order and to Amend the Order that contains them. The father states the Chief Judge is refusing to do that and keeping the children from him.
The plaintiff has now filed a sworn misconduct affidavit pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 144 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 144. Bias or prejudice of judge (Document 51) into the Guardian/Attorney/Mother federal case 2:23-CV02491 right after it was dismissed on Thursday the 31st. This is against the federal judge, John Broomes who had been presiding over all of the Escalante high court cases. The sworn declaration is under federal oath asserting a visible prejudice and the doc 51 contains over 60 pages of county court case record evidence indicating potential fraud in the Johnson County civil cases of Escalante vs. Escalante. The plaintiff argues the grounds used for the federal dismissal of 02491 by Broomes was very improper, prejudicial to the administration and under federal law Doc 51 just asked the Magistrate to review the federal case records. The document states that Hon. Broomes was ignoring all of the case record evidence from the lower courts facts and frauds that could warrant resuming the federal case of 2:23-CV02491 in the high court and potential consequences for Hon. Broomes. There is evidence, in doc. 51, that was also included and dismissed in the Burmaster lawsuits, and they strongly show a probable cause that Burmaster has not only engaged in misconduct against Kansas judicial codes but also that he has been engaged in breaking federal laws. It further suggests that Judge Broomes aided in letting Defendant Burmaster escape the federal proceedings by precluding evidence and then barring them under doctrines that can't apply to the cases. The plaintiff states of Fraud Exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine should be applied and/or FRCP Rule 21(a)(2) should have also freely granted Leave to Amend, as Justice So Required as the Rule states. Which would have given Plaintiff the opportunity to Amend/Remove the questionable supplement claim that Broomes threw them all out for the one. This misconduct report will be reviewed in the coming days. And the father is demanding to the federal judiciary to explain Hon. John Broomes questionable candor and dismissals of case record evidence that implicates a family court judge of crimes.
Document 51 references direct knowledge by Judge Burmaster is held of alleged court officer(Chris Wilson attorney) and guardian(Lewanna Bell Lloyd) fraud in the plaintiff's cases in Johnson County, which involve the civil rights and custody matters pertaining to his two minor daughters.
Any court of law in the United States must serve solely in the interest of justice. In the Johnson County, Kansas family court, there is compelling evidence that Judge Paul Burmaster has not served in the interest of justice nor in the best interest of children. However, now there is a federal affidavit filed in the Escalante federal mattes that alleges the high court judiciary chamber of Hon. John Broomes attempted to conceal case record evidence that was revealing a prolonged and extensive misconduct hierarchy has developed and has now been discovered stemming from the Johnson County judiciary and originating in the family court of Judge Burmaster. If a large misconduct discovery continues to unfold in the direction it has been headed, this Country will be shocked at how many judges and court officers are showing potentially linked to the Defendant family court judge Paul W. Burmaster.
Doc #51, can be found on Academia, stamped by the court.
In the Photos:
The Petition for the Protection Order Case 24-CV00369, with Family Court Judge Burmaster as Defendant for Online Stalking of a Pro Se Father. Page 3 image of evidence that Burmaster improperly used his administrative assistant to lurk and spy on the Pro Se plaintiff.
And seen in the image is also Exhibit H, in Doc 51 of case 2:23-CV02491. Page 60 is a court transcript. This court transcript is also seen in the case records of 2:23-CV0471, which is the Burmaster dismissed lawsuit, & transcripts show a Protection Order being served again indicating the first was flawed. The father claims that the order is now void because that's his kids custody hearing that the improper serve is being done and no case record exists for the second serving to be legal.
Doc 51 in US Case 2:23-CV0491, page 6. The plaintiff's Certificate of Counsel of Record of Good Faith is required when reporting federal misconduct. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51275048/Escalante_v_Escalante_et_al
Source :Riverside Media
This article was originally published by IssueWire. Read the original article here.
