Judge Burmaster Obstruction of Justice in Johnson Co. Family Court 2023

KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE

The Commission only has authority to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or disability by persons holding state judicial positions. The Commission has no jurisdiction over and does not consider complaints against federal judges, lawyers, law enforcement and detention center officers, district court clerks, and court personnel.

The Commission does not act as an appellate court and cannot review, reverse, or modify a legal decision made by a judge in a court proceeding. Please review the accompanying brochure which describes the functions of the Commission. Note in particular the examples of functions which the Commission cannot perform.

Please Note: Complaint form must be typed or legibly hand-printed, dated, and signed before it will be considered. Complaint forms may be submitted by U.S. Mail or scanned and submitted by e-mail.

I. PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT

II. JUDGE AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS MADE

III. COURT CASE INFORMATION

If the complaint involves a court case, please provide:

IV.STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the following section, please provide all specific facts and circumstances which you believe constitute judicial misconduct or disability. Include names, dates and places which may assist the Commission in its evaluation and investigation of this complaint.

If additional space is required, attach and number additional pages.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 07:50:56 AM CST, Pennell, Stacey, DCA

<******* Bench Notes *********>

THIS CASE IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO DIVISION 6. NO MOTIONS WILL BE FILED, SCHEDULED OR HEARD AT THIS TIME.(JUDGE: BURMASTER)

(Exhibit E)

And the Exhibit F, was refering to this Orignal Bench Note, that Indicated Respondent and Petitioner has been handed over to Judge Wornall in Div 6 on 12/13/22

On 12/13/2022 <******* Bench Notes *********>

THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO DIVISION 6 FOR JUDGE-ASSISTED MEDIATION.(JUDGE: BURMASTER)

(Exhibit G)

Three Identifications can be made of this Case 18CV03813 from the Docket appearance by Jan 30, 2023.

1) Mediation under another Judge umbrella occurred on 12/13/22

2) Motions were RESTRICTED FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT OF TIME. And by directives implemented by Judge Burmaster.

3)ACustodyDocument192,hadbeenruleduponpriorinthecasewithinapprox7monthsandtheRuling

(TRANSCRIPT EXHIBIT D) remained.

This Ethics Complaint filings adds a Fact to the 3 in that

THE MEDIATION INITIATED THE RESTRICTION OF THE14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW REGARDING RESPONDENTS RIGHT TO ENTER A MERITED KSA 60-260 MOTION RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT AND/OR A DISTRICT COURT APPEAL MOTION

And the Restriction was never lifted... Depriving Right of Due Process after Exhibit E date 12/14/22

To the Ethics Commission, Did Judge Burmaster have a Right or Justification to RESTRICT and/or Bar for consideration a merited entry of KSA 60-260 Motion from the Respondent on Jan 30th 2023 and after prolonged still occurring? This with the every Fact showing that No previous KSA 60-260 had been considered or heard in 18CV03813 ever and No Complaint mentions are showing

orcanbeshownthatsupportaRestrictionofFilingsbyJudgeBurmasteronJan30th,2023wasineligible ifJudgeweregoingtoutilizethe

Summary of Authorities for Judges Considering Whether to Restrict Court Filings (Exhibit Q)

Respondent is Seen in (Exhibit H) speaking to the Court respectfully, and declaring that a few motion entries he had submitted from Jan 1, 2023 to Jan 30, 2023 had gone "missing" and/or "lost". Respondent stated in AOL email to parties and Admin:

I do respectfully request after this mediation hearing that any motions I have submitted that will not be heard are returned to me as denied. I do hope that there is consideration being taken in Feb on KSA 60-260 Section D - Matthew Escalante AOL EMAIL-TO MISS PENNELL 1/30/23

Judge then Offers Response to the 1/30/23 email, a month later to Respondent, and Respondent feels the Display and show of Bad Faith communication by the Judge to the Parties occurs, regarding the Respondent Pleading offerings during Jan 1, 2023-Feb 27, 2023.

RESPONDENT would like this Commission of ethics to see what Burmaster did here in his Response from the Bench to the Inquiry Respondent made of "Lost" motions.

Exhibits I is that the Email chain dating February 27, 2023, it was just mentioned above and is titled:

RE: "Lost' motions in 18CV03813 - A contempt motion attached for consideration not to be 'Lost" please

Judge on Feb 27th, 2023 is seen in Exhibit O, denying and not considering the Contempt Motion. That wasnt just a Contempt motion that Respondent Father says got "Lost", Judge calls it Denied. But the Descriptions above/below show and the evidence attached to Lettered Tags of Evidence show many motions given to Judge. Not just a Contempt, but Judge is seen hiding them under the Radar using Supreme Court Rule 133 to trash them from Consideration.

Exhibit J Motion to rehear in front of Hearing Officer submitted Jan 23, 2023 to Div 14

Exhibit K Motion to Recuse Escalante 18-CV03813 submitted Feb 16, 2023

Exhibit L Motion of Contempt - Perhaps Questionable of Legally Sufficient, but Honorable does not indicate in his later verbiage that of Exhibit L submitted on Feb 22, 2023. The motion was attempting to honestly call to Light a visibility of False Claims of Domestic Violence that have and/are being continually given without base of fact. Opposing Counsel Wilson chimed in to the Submission in email of this Exhibit L when it occurred and Counsel stating to the Judge Admin Assistant on Feb 22, 2023, the below was a message that Got sent to the Judge.

Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>

To:MATTHEW ESCALANTE,Pennell, Stacey, DCA

Cc:Lewanna Bell-Lloyd

Wed, Feb 22 at 12:20 PM

Stacey: Good afternoon. Related to Mr. Escalante’s proposed filing, we would oppose the filing of the same. The legal term is “frivolous” –the contempt claim has no basis in fact or law based on the allegations. The everyday term is “nonsense.” Secondly, the proposed filing continues to reflect a pattern of harassment of Ms. Escalante by this continued conduct. This filing should be rejected. I would ask for a sanction of $100 for the time needed to deal with this issue. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Wilson

Beam-Ward, Kruse, Wilson & Fletes, LLC

8645 College Blvd. #250

And the Contempt Motion (exhibit L) as loose and clandestine as it may be, was entirely factual based with dates/times/prima facie descriptions of events, and Judge made no mention of Insuffiency as applicable.

Exhibit M Emergency Motion to Strike on certain statements in Doc 283 Feb 21, 2023 as affecting the best interest of children negatively - This was a Motion with Merit seeking to stop Baseless Claims of Domestic Violence mentionsthat continued to be made on bad faith in 18CV03813 by Petitioner and Counsel for years. And then Parties(Mom/Dad) get to Date of Feb 27, 2023 And Judge shows Bad Faith communication to Father if all the Facts are viewed:

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:49:26 PM CST, Pennell, Stacey, DCA <stacey.pennell@jocogov.org> wrote:

EXHIBIT O

The Court has reviewed and considered the Motion submitted by Respondent on 2-24-23 entitled "EMERGENCY DOCKETING MOTION FOR PETITIONERAND COUNSEL CONTEMPT OF COURT".

The Court has determined pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 133 that oral argument would not be of further assistance to the Court in ruling on this matter. The Court finds that the matters raised in this motion that the Court may rule on have previously been addressed by the Court. In addition, this motion contains matters beyond the scope of the case pending in this Court and which the Court will not address. Accordingly, the Motion is denied and will not be allowed to be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Paul W. Burmaster District Court Judge Judge Paul W Burmaster took Respondents motion submissions, Exhibits J-M, and compiled them and threw them out, not to be considered and Judge did it with Compiling all those Motions INTO one Exhibit L as a Mention, making Essentially Motion of Contempt attached to 3 other motions(Exhibits J,K,M)in which Judge intentionally does not Mention. So that he could throw all 4 motions out together, as one unit, of Motion Of Contempt. And then Judge said what he says above of his Actions under the Authority of Supreme Court Rule 133. Specifically--> The Court finds that the matters raised in this motion that the Court may rule on have previously been addressed by the Court

In addition, this motion contains

And Judge wasnt truthful on that, while using Supreme Court Rule 133 to Run it. Judge Burmaster has never fairly entertained Admissible evidence or discussion in his court that a Petitioner Female might have lied or is misleading the Court under oath or in the Court while speaking, or be causing False Claims of False Domestic Violence, that is Alienating Children and causing emotional and pyschological harm to them.

As everyone knows lies and domestic violence deceit of claims

CAN and DOES occur in divorce hearings and frequently (Depp v Heard Fairfax CA) And its Both Sexes in this Country that do it, regardless of the Majority whom are Female.

In 18CV03813 Transcipts from PFS hearings JOCO 22CV3391 7/27/22 and 22CV6300 12-21-22 9:00 AM both cases of Petitioner and Respondents alleging, logged how Judge enables the Petitioner false claims and disables the Respondents truthful claims. Example, 7/27/22, Speaking on the Stand, Petitioner blames Father for her No sleep for Months b/c of Him and discourse, and its Pointed out that Petitioner is diagnosed Insomnia, Pre Marriage diagnosis, and has never slept . Judge says "interesting" and ignores it and lets her run a narrative that is false. That is on 7/27/22 transcript on the stand.

Same with JOCO 22CV6300 12-21-22, Petitioner attempts to use the words "Judge I feel like thats a Safety concern" "um oh sorry" -J.E. Is what Petitioner states under Oath, attempting to not answer a legal question on the stand that was given to her. And transcript reveals it was not actually ever any "safety concern" she held. Her answer to the Question, reveals why she didn't want to answer it. She then disclosed her Sister Jewel Anspaugh, was using a Fake Facebook account to infiltrate Respondents Facebook account, in stalkerish type behavior and spy on him. And judge of course, denied Matthew protections from Petitioner. That is logged event that Petitioner is on court record disguising a Truth by Omission and covering with a 'Claim' thatisNOTLEGITof"SafetyConcerns"inthissituation,thison12-21-22,Judgeisfacilitatingfalsevictimhood.thatshurtingtheChildren/Father

Respondent Father is Pointing Out to the Ethics Commission, an Ethical Concern, that I ask and beg the Commission of this State of Kansas on 5/28/23, to please consider, of how much the below occurring could potentially be affecting two minor children negatively and perhaps permanently, if it were still ongoing, and never intervened. Its Judge Paul W Burmaster enabling a Parental Alienator, the Petitioner in 18CV03813, and her counsel. These facts above all can show:

1) Judge didn't say any one of the submission given to him from a Male Father from Jan 1, 2023- Feb 27, 2023 was legally insufficient, when he threw them out of the court for consideration. He gave a different explanation.

2) Judge used Supreme Court Rule 133 to grant himself ability to toss out 3 motions that all spoke of a Topic that has not been discussed in 18CV03813 - And that is the Evidence and Potential Probable Cause that False Claims regarding Domestic Violence topics/events/mentions are continually being made in 18CV03813, undiscussed, unethically, and uninterrupted by the Court

3) Judge made statement in his Order (exhibit O) that was not True of 3 motions and their mentions, in regards to Scope and whether they would Futher Assist the Court. Those motions and the discussions had in them, Would further Assist the Children. Div 14 The Family Court of Judge Burmaster has it Very Wrong. The Court needs Serve the Children, its why it exists.

Respondent provided a prior Complaint of Dishonest Judge Buramster regarding Judge statements on 4/18/23.

Keeping in mind the Potentiality of Doc 262 "Order Restricting Matt Escalante's Contact with the Court" as being potentially Unconsitutional....

This contact below can be seen (Exhibit P)

ON March 12, 2023, 8 days before this Doc 262 No Contact Order against a Male Divorced Father in Div 14.

Respondent is seen trying to exercise his 14th Amendment right that Remained of Doc 192 and utlization 14th Amendment Guaranteed Right to use merit/good faith of KSA 60-260 Relief From Judgement of Doc 192 Its available.

To: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <stacey.pennell@jocogov.org>; DCC-Help Center <dcc-helpcenter@jocogov.org>

Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>; Lewanna Bell-Lloyd <lewannalaw@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 11:29:28 PM CDT

Exhibit P

Subject: Re: Respondents Relief from Judgement of Doc 192 in 18CV03813 in reliance of KSA 60-260 -Statemen ts Misleading/false/Perj of petitioner

March 12, 2023 Respondent submitted for Relief hearing possibility under KSA 60-260 to Div 14.

That was March 12 2023 Above, but Respondent is now Barred, Unconstitutionally from using KSA 60-260 statute allowances and doc 192. And that is fact because of what happened 8 days later:

JUDGE IS SEEN SUA SPONTE COMMENCING DOC 262 ORDER RESTRICTING MATTHEW ESCALANTE'S CONTACT WITH THE COURT.

But this evidence and details given under Oath to Ethics Commission by a Father in Judges court, suggest and shows Judge was already prior to March 20, 2023 unethically and unfairly

Restricting/Eliminating Motionentries of the Respondent, without Grounds for Judge to Cross the Constitution In this specific case, the entire Restriction of 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS SURROUNDING KANSAS LAW OF KSA 60-260 RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT PLEADINGS

Restriction beginning in January 2023. (exhibit

Another Peaceful attempt below by the Respondent, who having to watch a Division 14 Judge abuse the Children, with Negligent handling of their Child Rights.

MATTHEW ESCALANTE <eskie678@aol.com>

To:Pennell, Stacey, DCA

Cc: Chris Wilson, Lewanna Bell-Lloyd

Wed, Feb 8 at 8:45 AM

I respectfully request a hearing to touch base with Judge on follow up of his review, of the custody matter in 18CV03813. This being asked in light of being released from Div 6.

Thank you.

Matthew Escalante

Judge issued Doc 262, off another man's Admin Order, copied it, quickly and left elements that cannot apply to Respondent, as they are untrue and Judge did it to Stop the Respondent Father from Speaking in the Courts, of what He sees of Unethical Behavior, and experiences of Parental Alienation, & this Commission can help my baby girls. Please If there is a Canon 2, that applies to the Bias shown that this Creates, please address it. If the merit exists.

V. ATTACHMENTS

Relevant documents: Please attach any relevant documents which you believe directly support your claim that the judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability. Highlight or otherwise identify those sections that you rely on to support your claim. Do not include documents which do not directly support your complaint, for example, a copy of your complete court case.

*Keep a copy of all documents submitted for your records as they become the property of the Commission and will not be returned.*

I In filing this complaint, I understand that:

 The Commission’s rules provide that all proceedings of the Commission, including complaints filed with the Commission, shall be kept confidential unless formal proceedings are filed. The confidentiality rule does not apply to the complainant or the judge against whom a complaint is filed.

 The Commission may find it necessary to disclose my identity and the existence of this complaint to the involved judge. By filing this complaint, I expressly consent to any such disclosure.

VI.SIGNATURE

I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above information is true, correct and complete and submitted of my own free will.

Date Signature

E-document rejected in Johnson County District Courts

From: jococourts@jocogov.org

To: CWILSON@BKWFLAW.COM; SHARTLAND@BKWFLAW.COM; ESKIE678@AOL.COM

Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 11:15 AM CDT

E-filing 22EF156837 for case 22CV03317 ESCALANTE vs ESCALANTE has had a document rejected by Judge PAUL BURMASTER because: THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING BUT WILL NOT RULE BY RULE 133. PWB The submitting attorney will not be charged for rejected document(s) and/or associated service(s).

The original submitted document is attached.

Please do not reply to this e-mail as it has been automatically generated.

19710364.DOC

48kB

Pro Se Motion for Rehearing before the Hearing Officer

Please read directions completely (NO filing fee)

If you wish to have a rehearing before the Hearing Officer, you must complete the Motion for Rehearing and specify the reason that justify the rehearing.

File the original Motion with the Self-Help Center Clerk. The clerk will provide you back a copy of the document you file and will email a copy to the Hearing Officer on your behalf. If you are not filing your motion with the Self-Help Center Clerk, a copy may not be provided to the hearing officer on your behalf.

If approved: The hearing office will contact you with a hearing date and you will need to file a NOTICE OF HEARING with the Self-Help Center.

If denied: Written notice will be sent to you and your ex-spouse and their attorney of record by the Hearing Officer's Office.

If you wish to appeal this decision, you may file a Motion to Appeal the Hearing Officers Decision. Please see https://courts.jocogov.org/local_civ26.aspx (section 13(C1))

Motion for rehearing shall be provided to counsel for all parties, on all pro se parties, by the moving party. A motion for rehearing shall be summarily granted or denied by the Hearing Officer within 10 days of the filing of the motion. The moving party shall have 14 days following the filing of an order denying rehearing to request a review hearing before the assigned district Judge.

Self-Help Center contact: 150 W Santa Fe St, Olathe KS 66061

Phone: 913-715-3385 Email: DCC-Helpcenter@jocogov.org

1. Fill out completely: Typed or printed legibly, complete the Motion for Rehearing and The Certificate of Service & Mailing, one for each party to be served (opposing party or attorney of record).

2. Hearing date and time: Upon completion of all forms, contact the Johnson County Courthouse, 1st floor, "Self-Help Center” to obtain a hearing date and time. For specific question about your hearing, please contact the Hearing Office of at 913-715-3668 or 913-715-3669.

3 Mail a copy of the documents to the other party: The preferred method of service is to mail the documents to the opposing party at their last known address whether they reside in this state or another. Service must be completed at least five (5) days prior to hearing date (excluding weekends and holidays), so documents must be mailed no later than eight (8) days prior to the hearing.

Clerk of the District Court is open Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM Last completed filing taken at 4:30PM

SERVICEC METHOD:

1. Service by US Mail - Postage pre-paid, to opposing parties at last known address by the undersigned pro se litigant.

2. Certified mail service by the undersigned Pro Se Litigant - Return of service for Certified Mail Form, must be filed with the Clerk of the Court after green card is returned and before court date.

:

3. Hand Delivery - A) At the person's office with a clerk or other person in charge, or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office; or (B) if the person has no office or the office is closed, at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.

4. Fax - Sending it by tel-facsimile communication, in which event service is complete upon receipt of a confirmation generated by the transmitting machine.

MOTION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER

The □ Petitioner □ Respondent moves the court to rehear the motion previously heard on for the following

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS

Janelle Escalante

Petitioner

CaseNo. vs Court No.

18-CV03813

14

Respondent

Matthew Escalante 1/23/23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MAILING

Motion For Rehearing before the Hearing Officer

On ___ a true copy of: _ was sent to the below listed parties by US prepaid postal mail and in addition to electronic delivery of email to the following addresses:

Sheriff of Johnson county b/c of 2022 PFS order regarding 2018 questions on this matter

Name:

Address: ____________________________ City, State, Zip Code:

Email: _____________________________

Janelle Escalante 121 Cherry Hills Circle Gardner KS 66030 janelle.goch@yahoo.com

Name: _____________________________

Address: ___________________________ City, State, Zip Code: __________________

Email: _____________________________

Name: _____________________________

Address: ____________________________ City, State, Zip Code: __________________

Email: _____________________________

Filing Party's Signature or Digital Signature

Name: _____________________________

Johnson County Self-Help Center

Rev. 12/2021

Address: ____________________________

City, State, Zip Code: __________________

Email: _____________________________

20815 W 99th St Lenexa KS 66220 eskie678@aol.com

RE: 18CV03813--ESCALANTE vs. ESCALANTE

From: Pennell, Stacey, DCA (stacey.pennell@jocogov.org)

To: eskie678@aol.com

Cc: cwilson@bkwflaw.com; SHARTLAND@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com; LAWYERS214@gmail.com

Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 at 07:50 AM CST

12/14/2022<******* Bench Notes *********>

THIS CASE IS CURRENTLYASSIGNED TO DIVISION 6. NO MOTIONS WILL BE FILED, SCHEDULED OR HEARDAT THIS TIME.(JUDGE: BURMASTER)

From: MATTHEW ESCALANTE <eskie678@aol.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 5:14 AM

To: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>

Cc: cwilson@bkwflaw.com; SHARTLAND@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com; LAWYERS214@gmail.com

Subject: Re: 18CV03813--ESCALANTE vs. ESCALANTE

*** This email originated from outside the organization. Use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or performing any actions requested in this message. ***

Good morning,

Respondent feels the decision of hearing deferral unfair. I am hopeful Honorable is up for consideration that perhaps we can rectify this situation differently eventually. I do respectfully request after this mediation hearing that any motions I have submitted that will not be heard are returned to me as denied. I do hope that there is consideration being taken in Feb on KSA 60-260 Section D And if not for Vacate of Doc 82 it is felt for timing, then it to be applied for a new motion against Doc 192. And I do have counsel entering soon and we wish to apply the statute for relief of judgement of Doc 192 as merited with new discoveries, in a mid February motion within timing. 192 is built around a center of that 2018 event with all its mentions and it is not accurate or of oath. Please do consider my counsels proper entries when the time comes soon. Thank you.

Other Party presses 2018-2019 actions shown in pleading.

Other Party then discusses those pleading topics with children (2020 OFW offered evidence in 2022 hearings)

Father is then the only one disciplined in 2022 for not further putting up with other party actions of prolonged alienation as Doc 192 is entered. Making many claims of 2018, woven with its construct.

This is Disappointing to say the least.

Motion to Recuse Escalante 18-CV03813

From: eskie678@aol.com (eskie678@aol.com)

To: dcc-helpcenter@jocogov.org; stacey.pennell@jocogov.org; jasa.dumontelle@jocogov.org

Cc: cwilson@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com

Date: Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 05:54 PM CST

Good evening,

My expectation here by the Statute is that Judge is gonna view his own bias actions of opening and closing discovery scopes as he pleases and thats its not in accordance with state judicial expectations or the Best Interest of my kids. And Judge will then hand off the motion to Chief Judge to be in line with the Statute of Recuse to proceed.

Thank you.

Matthew Escalante

Motion to Recuse 2-16-22.pdf

86.9kB

From: Pennell, Stacey, DCA(Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org)

Sent: 1/5/2023 10:04:00 AM

To: MATTHEW ESCALANTE

Subject: 18CV3813 ESCALANTE

Mr. Escalante and Mr. Wilson,

I am in receipt of Mr. Escalante's motions and requests submitted over the break, but this matter is on pause in this division while it is assigned to Division 6. I will, of course, still address the pending Motion to Recuse on January 18 at 2:00 by Zoom. I am required by the rules to address that. However, all other matters should be discussed with Judge Wonnell in Division 6 at your upcoming date. All other hearings scheduled in this division (except the Motion to Recuse) are now cancelled including the review scheduled January 30 at 2:30.

I will have Ms. Pennell forward all of the submissions by Mr. Escalante to Judge Wonnell and copied to Mr. Wilson. As you know, I am limited as to the matters which I may address in this court, as I have already ruled. However, Judge Wonnell may address a wide range of issues under the umbrella of mediation. Both parties are directed to filing nothing further and submit nothing further to this Court, including emails, until this case is released by Judge Wonnell. Thank you for your patience.

Paul W. Burmaster

District Court Judge

Thank you, Stacey Pennell, Administrative Assistant

Hon. Paul W. Burmaster, Div. 14 Johnson Co. District Court

Stacey.pennell@jocogov.org

EXHIBITS

*ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF HEARING OR THEY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TIMELY (WEEKENDS NOT INCLUDED) ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE COMBINED INTO ONE PDF AND BOOKMARKED ON THE SIDE

MOTIONS

*WHEN FILING MOTIONS WITH THE COURT, DO NOT INCLUDE EXHIBITS

*EMERGENCY MOTIONS MUST BE EMAILED TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW BEFORE A HEARING WILL BE SET

*MOTIONS WILL ONLY BE SET FOR 30 MINUTES

NOTICES

*WHEN FILING YOUR NOTICE, PLEASE INCLUDE ALL DOCUMENT NUMBERS BEING ADDRESSED

COUNSELS

*PLEASE BE ADVISED THE AA WILL SET A HEARING FROM REQUESTING ATTORNEY AFTER 48 HOURS OF NO RESPONSE FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL OR PRO SE PARTY

*ZOOM LINKS ARE EMAILED TO THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD ONLY-COUNSEL IS RESPONSIBLE TO FORWARD ZOOM LINKS TO CLIENTS

*PRETRIAL CONFERENCES WILL NO LONGER BE CONTIUED UNLESS CASE RESOLVED

PRO SE PARTIES

*DO NOT EMAIL THE JUDGE DIRECTLY OR INCLUDE HIM ON GROUP EMAILS

*YOU MUST ATTEND MEDIATION BEFORE FILING A MOTION TO MODIFY

*PARENTS FOREVER CLASS MUST BE COMPLETED OR DIVORCE WILL NOT BE FINALIZED

*IF THE COURT DOES NOT HEAR FROM YOU WHEN GIVING A COURT DATE WITHIN 48 HOURS, THE DATE WILL BE SET AND YOU WILL NEED TO MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE

*CHILDREN ARE NOT PERMITTED IN COURT OR IN ZOOM HEARINGS-ARRANGEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE FOR YOUR CHILD/REN PRIOR TO THE HEARING

*** For the foreseeable future, hearings scheduled in family court, including matters set before the child support hearing officers, will remain remote unless otherwise determined by the court. If parties or counsel believe special circumstances exist compelling an in person hearing, a motion may be filed. The request can also be made at the final pretrial conference (if one is scheduled). The child support hearing officers might begin contempt and bench warrant dockets earlier***

RE: 18CV03813--ESCALANTE vs. ESCALANTE

From: Pennell, Stacey, DCA (stacey.pennell@jocogov.org)

To: eskie678@aol.com

Cc: cwilson@bkwflaw.com; SHARTLAND@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com; LAWYERS214@gmail.com

Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 at 07:50 AM CST

12/14/2022<******* Bench Notes *********>

THIS CASE IS CURRENTLYASSIGNED TO DIVISION 6. NO MOTIONS WILL BE FILED, SCHEDULED OR HEARDAT THIS TIME.(JUDGE: BURMASTER)

From: MATTHEW ESCALANTE <eskie678@aol.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 5:14 AM

To: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>

Cc: cwilson@bkwflaw.com; SHARTLAND@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com; LAWYERS214@gmail.com

Subject: Re: 18CV03813--ESCALANTE vs. ESCALANTE

*** This email originated from outside the organization. Use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or performing any actions requested in this message. ***

Good morning,

Respondent feels the decision of hearing deferral unfair. I am hopeful Honorable is up for consideration that perhaps we can rectify this situation differently eventually. I do respectfully request after this mediation hearing that any motions I have submitted that will not be heard are returned to me as denied. I do hope that there is consideration being taken in Feb on KSA 60-260 Section D And if not for Vacate of Doc 82 it is felt for timing, then it to be applied for a new motion against Doc 192. And I do have counsel entering soon and we wish to apply the statute for relief of judgement of Doc 192 as merited with new discoveries, in a mid February motion within timing. 192 is built around a center of that 2018 event with all its mentions and it is not accurate or of oath. Please do consider my counsels proper entries when the time comes soon. Thank you.

Other Party presses 2018-2019 actions shown in pleading.

Other Party then discusses those pleading topics with children (2020 OFW offered evidence in 2022 hearings)

Father is then the only one disciplined in 2022 for not further putting up with other party actions of prolonged alienation as Doc 192 is entered. Making many claims of 2018, woven with its construct.

This is Disappointing to say the least.

Stamped pleading attached, as previous send was not with clerk stamp I was advised, and was not proper service without. This other division action is with merit.

Most Respectfully sent, M.

Escalante

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2023, at 11:11 AM, Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org> wrote:

Good morning all, The review hearing set for Monday has been canceled due to this matter being currently assigned to Division 6.

Thank you, Stacey Pennell, Administrative Assistant

Hon. Paul W. Burmaster, Div. 14

Johnson Co. District Court

Stacey.pennell@jocogov.org

EXHIBITS

*ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF HEARING OR THEY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TIMELY (WEEKENDS NOT INCLUDED) ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE COMBINED INTO ONE PDF AND BOOKMARKED ON THE SIDE

MOTIONS

RE: Escalante 18CV3813

From: DCC-Help Center (dcc-helpcenter@jocogov.org)

To: Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org; DCC-HelpCenter@jocogov.org; eskie678@aol.com; cwilson@bkwflaw.com; lewannalaw@gmail.com

Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:26 PM CDT

Thank you Stacey, I miss-typed that. With the amount of emails we are receiving in reference to this case, it is hard for the team to keep everything organized.

Mr. Escalante, please submit your response directly to the Self-Help Center.

Thank you,

Vannessa Rockers

Self-Help Center Supervisor

Johnson County 10th Judicial District Court Clerk’s Office

150 W. Santa Fe St

Olathe, KS 66061

913-715-3401 -Faxing documents only

913-715-3405 -Faxing payment and documents

913-715-3385 –SELF-HELP CENTER

913-715-3354 -SMALL CLAIMS

JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT (jocogov.org)

From: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:37 AM

To: DCC-Help Center <DCC-HelpCenter@jocogov.org>; eskie678@aol.com; Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>; LEWANNALAW@GMAIL.COM

Subject: RE: Escalante 18CV3813

Importance: High

That is Mr. Wislons motion that needs to be filed. Mr. Escalante was given permission to file his response with NO exhibits attached.

From: DCC-Help Center <DCC-HelpCenter@jocogov.org>

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:36 AM

MrEscalante,onMarch16,2023MustenterPleadings withNoExhibits. AndintheNextJudicialExhibitR CounselWilsonispermittedtobreakevidencerulesofthe CourtandJudgesspecificrulinggivenonOct18,2022

To: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>; eskie678@aol.com; Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>; LEWANNALAW@GMAIL.COM

Cc: DCC-Help Center <DCC-HelpCenter@jocogov.org>

Subject: RE: Escalante 18CV3813

Mr. Escalante, due to the numerous emails, can you please forward to DCC-Helpcenter@jocogov.org the motion that Judge has approved to file. We want to ensure that we have the appropriate document.

Thank you, Vannessa Rockers

Self-Help Center Supervisor

Johnson County 10th Judicial District Court Clerk’s Office

150 W. Santa Fe St

Olathe, KS 66061

913-715-3401 -Faxing documents only

913-715-3405 -Faxing payment and documents

913-715-3385 –SELF-HELP CENTER

913-715-3354 -SMALL CLAIMS

JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT (jocogov.org)

From: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:53 AM

To: eskie678@aol.com; Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>; LEWANNALAW@GMAIL.COM

Cc: DCC-Help Center <DCC-HelpCenter@jocogov.org>

Subject: RE: Escalante 18CV3813

Mr. Escalante, you may file your response but you need to remove emails and other exhibits in order to file. You can submit any exhibits 48 hours before the hearing.

From: eskie678@aol.com <eskie678@aol.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 2:28 PM

To: Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>; LEWANNALAW@GMAIL.COM; Pennell, Stacey, DCA

MrEscalanteProSeFatherhasattemptedtoaddevidencetopleadings alsoandthatBecauseJudge PaulWBurmasterinactsofMisconduct grantsandallowsAttorneyChristopherWilsontoactinAttorney Misconductin18CV03813ashedoesallthetime.Showinginevidenceforovera wholecalendaryearJudgelettingWilsondoittomoveanagendaagainstbestinterest,honesty,alongsidea CustodyModificationDoc192,fullofPerjury

EMAILABOVEFROMFIRM CONTAININGDOCUMENTONTHERIGHT WITHEXHIBITSATTACHEDWHENFILED

AndananotherexampletoshowlongetivityofMisconductoccurringin18CV03813,fromalmostoneyearagobelow CounselbeingallowedtoPredisposeaJudgetoEvidenceExhibits byattachingthemtoPleadings

Itsallover22CV3391CaseJOCOaswell,andthatwasPFSguys. JUDGEBURMASTERANDCHRISWILSONBOTHINMISCONDUCT

EMAILABOVEFROMFIRM CONTAININGDOCUMENTONTHERIGHT WITHEXHIBITSATTACHEDWHENFILED

FILEDINTHEDOCKETWITH EXHIBITS

ANDTHISALLOCCURINGOFATTORNEYANDJUDGEMISCONDUCT WHILETHEDIV14JUDGEANDCOURTARETELLINGPROSEFATHER THATFATHERCAN'TBREAKTHERULESOFEVIDENCE ONLYBURMASTERANDWILSONAREALLOWEDTODOTHAT IWANTTHESEMEN,PAULWBURMASTERANDCHRISTOPHERTWILSONHELDFULLYACCOUNTABLE IWANTTOSEECHRISWILSON'SIMMEDIATEWITHDRAW,ASMERITED.ANDDISBARMENTSEEMSAPPROPRIATE.AJUDGEOFTHEDISTRICTCOURTINJOHNSON COUNTYKANSASWHODOESTHESEACTSOFDEPRIVINGRIGHTSANDHURTINGFATHERSANDCHILDRENWITHMISCONDUCTSHOULDBESUSPENDED IMMEDIATELYANDCONSIDERATIONGIVENTOHISTERMINATION.THATISHOWITHEFATHEROFTHECHILDRENFEELANDDEMANDSHOULDHAPPEN. THEY NEEDTOBEMADEANEXAMPLEOFFORTHESEAMERICANFAMILYCOURTS.

IWANTTOBRINGTHECHARGE(S)ONTOTHEMBOTHATRECOMMENDATIONFORMAXIMUMPENALTYALLOWEDBYTHELAW,ASTHEMERITISSHOWNTOTHE STATETOBRINGIT ANDTHIS

ONBEHALFOFTHE2LITTLEGIRLSTHATTHESEMENHAVEHURT. MY2DAUGHTERS.IFICOULDSHOWTHISSTATECOMMISSIONANDTHEDISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATORTHETEARSONMYDAUGHTERSFACESTHATIHAVESEENASJUDGEHASACTEDAGAINSTTHEIRBESTINTERESTTIMEANDTIMEAGAIN,I WOULDN'TMAKEYOUSEEIT. NOONESHOULDHAVETOSEEITOREXPERIENCEIT,YETALONECHILDREN. GUARDIANADLITEMISFAILINGSHENEEDSTOHOLD ACCOUNTABILITYONPARENT(S)PLURAL IPLACEJUDGEBURMASTERSINFRONTOFTHEETHICCOMMISSIONOFTHISSTATEFORACTIONAGAINSTHIMFORHURTINGMYCHILDRENWHILEHEAIMED TOHURTME.IPLACECHRISTOPHERWILSONINFRONTOFTHEKANSASBARFORDISBARMENT. HEISJAGVETERAN,ITSMEMORIALDAY,ANDHEISOUTINKANSASRUNNINGALAWFIRMTHATDESTROYSBESTINTERESTOFCHILDRENINTHEMANNERTHAT ISSEENABOVEDOING.

MAKETHESEMENEXAMPLESINTHEJUDICIARYANDINTHEBARS.

WILSONOWESTRISHABROWN,OVERLANDPARK,MYKIDSMENTALHEALTHCLINICIANANAPOLOGY,SHEISWORKINGTOREINFORCE

MYLITTLEGIRLSMENTALHEALTHANDMOTHERSATTORNEYISOVERHEREIN18CV03813DESTROYINGIT,WITHDECEIVINGADIVISIONCOURT

<Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>; Flaucher, Lisa, DCT <Lisa.Flaucher@jocogov.org>

Subject: Re: Escalante 18CV3813

Needed Response from Respondent given under the oath of the District Court as true and placed subject to the penalties of Perjury

Respondent requesting in this pleading, that ALL parties are sworn in at the next set of hearings, If I may make such a request.

Thank you.

Matthew Escalante

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 09:03:10 AM CST, Pennell, Stacey, DCA <stacey.pennell@jocogov.org> wrote:

Good morning, I have forwarded to the judge but we are out for Spring break until the 21st. I will be in and out during this time checking emails. I will reach out once I am able to hear back from the judge.

Thank you,

Stacey Pennell

Administrative Assistant, Division

Johnson Co. District Court

Stacey.pennell@jocogov.org

14

From: Chris Wilson <cwilson@bkwflaw.com>

Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 8:54 AM

To: Pennell, Stacey, DCA <Stacey.Pennell@jocogov.org>; eskie678@aol.com; LEWANNALAW@GMAIL.COM

Subject: Escalante 18CV3813

*** This email originated from outside the organization. Use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or performing any actions requested in this message. ***

Stacey: Good morning. Petitioner requests permission from the Court to file the attached motion. Petitioner would also request that the matter be set on the previously scheduled hearing date of April 5, 2023 at 11:00 am. If you could kindly advise once the judge has had an opportunity to review, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Wilson

Beam-Ward, Kruse, Wilson & Fletes, LLC

8645 College Blvd. #250

Overland Park, Kansas 66210

(913) 339-6888

(913) 339-9653 (fax)

cwilson@bkwflaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is from the law firm of Beam-Ward, Kruse, Wilson, & Fletes L.L.C. The message and any attachments may be confidential or privileged and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy or distribute this message or any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and any attachments and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at (913) 339-6888. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.