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.
(check
III. COURT CASE INFORMATION
If the complaint involves a court case, please provide:
Case Title: ___________________________________ Case Number: _______________
COOK vs. CHANEY 22CV05542
Your Relationship to the Case: _____ Plaintiff/Petitioner _____ Defendant/Respondent _____ Other ________________________________________
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.
My custody case of 22CV005542. There is evidentiary basis showing of Unequal inconsistent Judicial actions from Judge Burmaster. Every individual sees the what that Judge is doing to men/fathers as a whole from the ethics ongoings. I have examples to of how the Judge is Creating Elements to make me fail financially that he is not doing in any other case that is being publically show by the other fathers of Division 14. That case Knoche, 22cv00890, had discovery going in their case for like 3/4 of a year, with multiple respondent attorneys just like my case, and on 2/17/2023 <******* Bench Notes *********>
PARTIES APPEAR WITH COUNSELS, E. WALSH AND D. STUART BY ZOOM. COURT HEARS ARGUMENT REGARDING TEMP ORDERS. COURT FINDS BASED ON LIMITED INFO THAT MODIFYING TEMP ORDERS HIGHER OR LOWER NOT APPROPRIATE. COURT FINDS ITS IN CHILDS BEST INTEREST AND FIAR, JUST AND EQUITABLE TO KEEP TEMP ORDERS AS IS. CONTINUE FOR REVIEW TO 4/6/23 AT 4:30 BY ZOOM. COUNSEL TO FOLLOW UP ON DOCTOR REPORT AND PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. COURT WILL ALSO CONSIDER A DISCOVERY ORDER.05/03/2023
<******* Bench Notes *********>
PARTIES APPEAR WITH COUNSELS, E. WALSH AND L. SMITH IN PERSON. PETITIONER ASSERTS DISCOVERY STILL NOT PROVIDED IN FULL. COURT REVIEWS WHAT REMAINS. RESPONDENT ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE DISCOVERY BY 5/31/23. AFTER THAT, SANCTIONS ARE $50 PER DAY. CONTINUE FOR REVIEW AND DISCOVERY TO 6/8/23 AT 3:30. CONTINUE FOR SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT ON CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE TO 5/16/23 AT 11:30. BOTH HEARINGS IN PERSON. COURT WILL REVIEW EVAL AND RULE BY EMAIL ON MODIFYING RESPONDENT FATHER'S SUPERVISED TIME.(RPTR: RECORDING)(JUDGE: BURMASTER)
50.00/day, seriously? I'm trying the best I can to be a pro se attorney and still be a Dad, and that better than some fathers who just give up. Kansas Judicial Canon 2 Rule 2.2 states
[2] Increasingly, judges have before them self-represented litigants whose lack of knowledge about the la w and about judicial procedures and requirements may inhibit their ability to be heard effectively. A jud ge's obligation under Rule 2.2 to remain fair and impartial does not preclude the judge from making rea sonable accommodations to ensure a self-represented litigant's right to be heard, so long as those accom modations do not give the self-represented litigant an advantage. Judge is not obligated to Help a Pro Se, but I feel he not supposed to be making it harder for Pro Se's. Every single case in the ethics department that those fathers have posted online show Judge Burmaster going away from 'Consistency' of case handlings to 'Inconsistencies' to create hurdles for dads, and that is a visible facts, and that sucks
Show another case that $50/day was a standard for a discovery 'overextending' per Burmaster but still within Discovery Prompted In Feb 2023 and by May 2023 I'm being threatened by the judge of 50.00 per day on a 'Late' discovery.
Evidence of Burmasters other case Knoche v Knoche, shows that Respondent going almost 3/4 of a year with ongoing discovery and not a penalty is given to him, and thats because he is bullying that Respondent, and I wont let him Bully me, so Judge is affirmed finding another method in my case to create a point onto me of Respondent weakness, in another Johnson county case, that's like 4 dads come forward.
I had no idea about the 50.00/day thing. If judge said it, he didn't do it directly or it was when he was raising voice at me. Those are tough situations for anyone that way that Burmaster gets all pissed off on the bench, there no telling what he will do, probably throw me in jail for something foolish.
Rule 2.16
ALSO Below
7/07/2023 <******* Bench Notes *********>
PARTIES APPEAR PRO SE BY ZOOM. COURT INFORMS PARTIES THAT MAINTENANCE IS CONSIDERED IN THE CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET BUT WAS LEFT OF JOURNAL ENTRY
Judge is 'Considering' topics that he is not willing to Write or log down in manuscript in that Bench Note, and that is messed up, any reasonable person can look at Courtroom cases in Div 14 as a whole and raise a big eyebrow when the Judge is saying he's considering a notion but not willing to log it down in a record on July 07, 2023. Its deceiving, he is deceiving. Judge is in many cases taking a Respondents past and holding it over decades as a cloud, for the case to be easy for him as Judge, is what that looks like. And judge is not willing to hold any young lady or old, to be accountable for their actions in div 14, thats affirmed everywhere on the internet. And if Bias has touched Order and decisions, as I see that it has, please consider that process that may be due in the case per Rule 2.2 Impartiality and 2.3 Bias/Prejudice
Than you guys.
Please consider the facts in this complaint that are offered. Thank you.
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