Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

May 7, 2019

Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

301 SW Tenth Ave., Room 115

Topeka, Ks 66612

Case Number: 13CV32P Wells Fargo vs. Julie Brunskill in Crawford County

This is a complaint against Senior judge Richard Smith of Linn County District
Court, p.o. Box 350, Mound City, KS 66056 who is hearing cases in Crawford
County.

Greetings Ethic Committee:

I didn't know that part of Judge Smith's judicial duties that the people of Kansas
pay him for is to be a comedian. He seems to think he's pretty funny while he's
on the bench attempting humor by cracking jokes instead of performing his
judicial duties competently, impartially, and without being biased.

I just got done reading the transcript from the (PRETRIAL CONFERENCE) that
was held on 4-2-2019 at 10:00 a.m. that started off with judge Richard Smith
allowing attorney Linda Tarpley to address the court instead of Judge Richard
Smith which does not comply with REPORT OF SUPREME COURT
STANDARDS COMMITTEE-GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR
THE DISTRICT COURTS (8) which says "it is the duty of the judge to the people to
run the court and not abdicate the responsibility to counsel." Attorney Tarpley states
on page (1) line 2 that "the case scheduled on this morning's docket is case no.
13CV32P. would counsel please enter her appearance"?

Judge Richard Smith says on page (6) of the court transcript that "I until late
yesterday was scheduled to be in Beloit, Kansas, tomorrow morning and so I decided that
in order to have the adequate opportunity to truly consider and reflect on her motions
and whatever argument she would like to add to that I informed the parties that I was
going to start the trial at 10:00 a.m. this morning - not the trial, excuse me, but take up
pretrial motions at 10:0 o'clock, allowing two hours to take up these motions". He had
to continue this hearing from the scheduled March 28, 2019 hearing because he
states on page (3) and (4) of the court transcript that" that the court out of an
ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION and because of the DEFENDANTS OBVIOUS
CONCERN WITH THE LACK OF A RECORD then entered no other orders from the
continued March 28, 2019 pre-trial conference except to INFORMALL Y suggest that
anything that transpired during the course of the telephone conference I would reiterate
this morning or today on the record".

On page 15 of the court transcript he states" I reiterate they have a constitutional


right to represent themselves but I just point out that there is a VALIDATION of the old
adage that a person that represents themselves in Court has a FOOL/or BOTH a
LAWYER and a CLIENT and that there's a REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION
because I even recommend that lawyers not represent themselves in Court, etc., etc. ".

Senior judge Richard Smith needs to (PERMANENTLYRETIRE)and quit


accepting judicial assignments because he is BIASEDAND PREJUDICED against
ALL Pro Se litigants or any party that represent them selves in court because he
thinks they are a FOOL!! This violates Rule 1.1 Compliance with the law, Rule 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It also
violates Kansas Supreme Court Rule 162 Conflicts In Trial Settings In District
Court because how can any Pro Se litigant have confidence in a judge who thinks
they are a FOOL for representing themselves. This also violates Rule 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness because under COMMENT [1] it says "to ensure
impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-
minded". This also violates Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment(A)(B)(C).
Under Comment [1] it states that" a judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a
proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceedings and brings the judiciary into
disrepute. COMMENT [2] says that" examples of manifestations of bias or
prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs, demeaning nicknames."

Judge Smith then goes on to state on page (4) and (5) of the court transcript that
"one of the other issues was that apparently in a pleading the defendant makes some
remark about how I admonished her and the context in which she states it makes it seem
quite critical and negative".

The admonishment was negative, that's why it is called an (ADMONISHMENT)


and it was in the court order from the March 24 and 25 hearing signed by Judge
Smith after (2) ethic complaints were filed against him on May 14 and May 18 of
• •••..•• r, .,

2018 by Julie Stover-King which is retaliation under Rule 2.16 Cooperation with
Disciplinary Authorities of the code of judicial conduct.

Judge Smith continues to show how immature he is and how unwilling he is to


take any accountability and accept responsibility when he admonishes someone
and he states it on page (5) of the court transcript. He says" actually, the
admonishment, apparently whether or not I ever gave it is not the issue."

If the admonishment is not an issue then why is it in a court order with his
signature? Did someone forge his signature?

He goes on to state on page (5) of the court transcript that "but had to do with the
fact that I like in all o/my cases either did or did not suggest to her that it was not wise
for anyone to ever represent themselves in Court, particularly someone who is not an
attorney, and I made a remark about that admonishment in a prior order, she claims I
never told her that".

He states in page (5) "I would defer to her memory, {fI didn't actually suggest like I do
in 99.99 percent ormy cases with pro se litigants that it is usually frowned upon as
prudent and wise for someone to represent themselves. If

Does he think it's unwise for parties to represent themselves in Small Claims
Court in Kansas because attorneys are not allowed under Article 27 Small Claims
Procedure chapter 61 K.5.A. 61-2701? Are all parties that go to Small Claims
Court in Kansas a fool according to Judge Richard Smith since they can't use
attorneys?

How could anyone possibly be prepared for a bench trial not a jury trial on April
2,2019 in front of a judge who thinks that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS and he
insulted her and called her the names of frankly naive, nefarious, cavalier, and
admonished her in an order from March 24, 25 2018 for not having counsel in a
prior court order signed January 15, 2018 from a hearing December 11, 2018 that
did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 170, K.5.A 60-258entry of judgment
and should have been notified to the departmental justice because it did not
comply with Supreme Court Rule 166 because he did not rule on the motion to
dismiss for lack of prosecution until (35) days instead of (30) and the
departmental justice should have been notified on why the order had not been
signed from the December 11, 2018hearing but Judge Richard Smith wont
accept any accountability, any responsibility, and won't admit it to his errors and
omissions and modify the court orders where he has made mistakes in this case.

He has not used (ANY CAUTION) let alone (AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION)
because if he used AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION he would have RECUSED /
DISQUALIFIED himself from this case under Rule 2.11(A) for not being able to
be impartial because he is prejudiced against all Pro Se litigants because he
considers them to be FOOLS and Julie Stover-King felt she had conflicts with the
judge and conflicts with the trial date at 4-2-19 at 1:15 pm because it was on the
same day as a pre-trial conference at 10 am that was expedited on (1) days notice,
continued from a March 28,2019 pre-trial conference because the judge was not
prepared and did not have a court of record, and violated Supreme Court Rule
162 Conflict In Trial Settings In District Court because he moved on even though
Julie Stover-King objected to the trial and the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 as the
court transcript shows in the email to judge Smith.

He goes on to state on page (6) of the court transcript that "I just want the record to
reflect that if there are any representations to anything being said other than what I just
reiterated they're a lie and I'm going to call it what they are because this case isfrankly
getting a little out of control and I think anybody could see that from the raft of motions.
If

This case was out of control from the start and that is why Julie Stover-King filed
a motion for change of judge with affidavit and Judge Smith should have just
stepped down/ recused from the case for the (NUMEROUS CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST) he has with Julie Stover-King. Judge Crietz stepped down and did
not have (NEARLY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST) with Julie Stover-King that
Judge Smith has. Judge Crietz does not have filing restrictions against her
husband Kasey King and he never commented about anything in a (MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT) like Judge Smith did about my
July 4, 2015 ethic complaint where I turn him in for collecting funds as a
(TRUSTEE) which is not allowed and he has now stepped down as a church
elder which he should have never commented about off the record and made
jokes.

Judge Smith-goes on to show how unethical, dishonest, and deceiving he is when


he states on page (7) of the court transcript that "I ended the communication from
my end early this morning sometime around 7:00 a.m. with an e-mail that basically said
- because she claimed in these communications that now this is all being done for the
convenience o,fsomeone else. I'm not sure who that is because actually I'm doing this for
her convenience so that her motions can be thoroughly considered and I reiterated that
fact and that this was for her convenience, no one else's, that I was going to begin at 10:0
o'clock and everyone should govern themselves accordingly. /I

Judge Smith clearly states on page (6) line 19-25 that he is scheduled to be in
Beloit Kansas and he decided on his own which did not follow the 11thdistrict
court rules for notice of hearings to have a pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m. on
4-2-19 when the motions just got filed on 4-1-19 at 4:00 p.m. and the opposing
parties attorney hasn't even read them which she admits on page (8) line 1-7 of
the court transcript and does not comply with Supreme Court Rule 162 Conflict
In Trial Settings in District Court.

This was clearly done for Judge Smith's convenience not Julie Stover-King who
had a pre-trial conference at 10:00 am and the court and both parties did not have
adequate opportunity to truly consider and reflect on the motions or arguments
that Julie Stover-King would like to add which is exactly what he said on page
(6) line 21 of the court transcript.

He states on page (8) line 8-25 when he says "The first one is a motion to stay all
proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the case. That has to do with apparently a
petition in theform o,fa writ o,fmandamus which I have to presume - I haven't seen this
yet because, I believe, I'm the defendant and it's my understanding that service o,fprocess
was issued to Lynn County. "

He also shows how funny he thinks he is by saying on page (8) line 15-18when
he says "I'm lookingforward to seeing the sher~fjany day now but it is a reference to a
new case, 19CV43P, and she's asking for a stay because o,fthat writ o,fmandamus
action."

Why would any person look forward to seeing the sheriff if they were getting
sued? The fact that Judge Smith has acknowledged on record that he knows
there is a case filed against him in 19CV43P seems to be a violation of Rule 2.4(B)
External Influences on Judicial Conduct because he is now even more biased and
prejudiced against Julie Stover-King because she has sued Judge Smith and he
has to deal with it directly as he says this on page (8) line 24-25 of the court
transcript and we already know that he thinks all Pro Se litigants are Fools.

Judge Smith then goes on to show how biased and prejudiced he is against Eric
Muathe who was my co-plaintiff in case number 15CV79P where Judge Smith
was a defendant and Mr. Muathe received filing restrictions along with Julie
Stover-King's husband me, Kasey King from the request of the defendants
(including judge Richard Smith) by referencing Mr. Muathe on page (8) line 19-25
and page (9) line 1-7. Judge Smith violates Rule 2.10(A)(B) Judicial Statements on
Pending and Impending Cases when he says "I have a - Miss Stover-King seems to
befor whatever reason following the footsteps o.fanother litigant I have in another
proceeding and this reads very similar to and I'm assuming the mandamus petition is
probably very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed actually in the Supreme Courtt not
hert so I didn't have to deal with it directlYt but I'm going to presume it's kind o.flike that
one. Andt infactt maybe it is an original action before the supremest I don't knowt I
haven't seen it yett but I'm going to deny the request to stay proceedings and it says
possibly consolidate. There will be no order o.fconsolidation with this purported
mandamus that's been filed against me. II

Judge Smith shows what a liar he is as he acts like he hasn't read the mandamus
in the following statement of:

He states on page (8) line 8-25 when he says "The first one is a motion to stay all
proceedings and-or possibly consolidate the case. That has to do with apparently a
peti tion in the form o.fa writ 0.£ mandamus which I have to presume - I haven't seen this
yet becauset I believet I'm the defendant and it's my understanding that service o.fprocess
was issued to Lynn County. II

Judge Smith contradicts himself in the statement on page (9) line 1-7 when he
says it reads very similar to:

"I have a - Miss Stover-King seems to befor whatever reason following thefootsteps o.f
another litigant I have in another proceeding and this reads very similar to and I'm
assuming the mandamus petition is probably very similar to the one Mr. Muathe filed
actually in the Supreme Courtt not hert so I didn't have to deal with it directlYt but I'm
going to presume it's kind o,flike that one. Andt infactt maybe it is an original action
before the supremest I don't knowt I haven't seen it yett but I'm going to deny the request
to stay proceedings and it says possibly consolidate. There will be no order of
consolidation with this purported mandamus that's been filed against me. "

Judge Smith just lied on the record and can't remember if he is trying to act like
he hasn't read the mandamus filed against him by Julie Stover-King or he hasn't.
There is also (1) VERY,VERY,IMPORTANT ISSUE AND DIFFERENCE between
Mr. Muathe's mandamus against Judge Smith and Julie Stover-King's and it's the
fact that Mr. Muathe never got SANCTIONED or ADMONISHED in a COURT
ORDER after he filed a motion for change of judge with affidavit against Judge
Smith or an ethic complaint against Judge Smith like Julie Stover-King received
in the court order from the March 24, 25 2019 court order.

Judge Smith is obviously annoyed with Eric Muatha/ and Julie Stover-King or he
would not make a public statement on a court of record comparing a petition
filed by Julie Stover-King to Mr. Muathe's mandamus (when he hasn't even read it
yet) or (he claims to not have read it and really has read it) which would impair the
fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, that might substantially
interfere with a fair trial or hearing which is what he did.

Judge Smith seems to be furious that Mr. Muathe filed a mandamus against him
and he is making a mockery of Mr. Muathe and using Mr. Muathe as an example
as Judge Smith attempts humor on how he is "looking forward to seeing the sheriff of
Linn County any day now" when he is supposed to be served his court summons
which he has to deal with directly.

Judge Smith then goes on to show how he doesn't use (ANY ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION) and how unethical he is on page (9) line 17 when he addresses the
next motion at the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 at 10:00 a.m. when he says "next,
is a motion to disqualify you as a potential- because you're" a potential witness in the
case."

Judge Smith then goes on to show how he doesn't use (ANY ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION) when he says on page (10) line 9 of the court transcript when he is
addressing the motion to disqualify Linda Tarpley as attorney when he states
"well, I thought this would go to that you would be a witness in the current action. It
may actually kind of be in here in a left-handed sort of way but there's a lot of stuff in
here about the loan and I think we've kind of hashed through some of this but I'm going
to make the specific finding that the defendant has failed to demonstrate even a probable
cause level of proof that Miss Tarpley would be a witness in the instant action. And,
therefore, there's no reason to believe that she is a witness and so the motion to disqualify
is going to be denied. "

Judge Smith did not disqualify Linda Tarpley and turn her into a witness because
she is a BAR attorney and he already stated that he thinks Fools represent them
selves in court so he is biased and prejudiced for attorney Tarpley as evidenced
by the court record.

Why didn't Judge Smith use any caution and just simply continue the bench trial
on 4-2-19 when he even admits that "well, I thought this would go to that you would
be a witness in the current action?" Judge Smith is biased and prejudiced against
Julie Stover-King because she is Pro Se and a fool according to judge Smith and
now the attorney Linda Tarpley's law firm has been sued and she is needed as a
witness in this case and Judge Smith is going to side with attorney Tarpley
because he thinks all Pro Se litigants are unwise, not prudent, and are FOOLS!!!!

He then goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION)


by stating on page (10) line 20-25 of the court transcript that "the last is a motion
to strike court orders on January 15th and March 24th. This is the one that said
request to strike the court order from the decision because defendant was never
admonished at the December 11, 2018, hearing. Yet the March 24,25 decision
indicated that defendant had been admonished prior for not having counsel. Aslso
says defendant has issues with the court orders from the December 11th hearing because
Rule 170 wasn't complied with and was not within 14 days of the hearing and wasfiled
on Tanuary 2, 2019, by the plaintiffs attorney, not signed until Tanuary 15th by the
Court." The plaintiff's attorney even admits on page (12) line 14 when she is
addressing the court orders from the December 11th hearing when she says" that
would probably be true but the problem is that there was no request for any discovery
until March which there's not - in fact late March, I think around the 24th or something
like that, my order speaks to that. "

The fact that Julie Stover-King is Pro Se and Pro Se litigants are held to lesser
standards by the courts and the fact that Judge Smith was not competent enough
to sign a court order from a December II, 2018 hearing when he says that
Discovery cutoff has to be completed by January II, 2019 even though he didn't
even sign the order until January 15, 2019 which was (35) days after the motion
and he should have notified the departmental justice shows how incompetent
and unprepared he has been and is a violation of Rule 2.5 Competence, Diligent,
and Cooperation.

Judge Smith then goes on to read on the court record on page (13)line 6 about
"the defendant's cavalier attitude", and mentions it again on line 16-17when he
reads "had the nerve to state in his record the defendant's cavalier attitude regarding
the upcoming trial and her decisions to engage in other activities rather than trial
preparation concerned the court greatlyfrom the standpoint that it appears she fails to
understand the severity of the circumstances re-enforcing the courts prior admonition
that she would be better off represented by counsel." He then reads on line 24 lithe
definition of caviler is arrogant and defendant is not arrogant. Defendant was
never admonished at the December 11,2018, status hearing," which I think I've
already addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on to say, "judge Smith
has also barred defendant ,from discovery because he says defendant was supposed to have
it completed. "

Judge Smith just read on the record on the court record of page (13) and (14) all
the issues that Miss Stover-King had with him calling her cavalier and
admonishing her and he never says he's sorry for his inappropriate comments or
the fact that he admonished her in a court order for not having counsel but really
never even admonished her. He also states at the March 28, 2019 pre-trial
conference that had to be continued because he had not court of record that if he
did admonish her by mistake he would change it, which he did not do because
he denied her motion to strike that order on 4-2-19 at 10:00am even though he
has not signed an order from this pre-trial hearing but signed the Journal Entry
of Judgment on 4-23-19at 08:23:52from the bench trial at 1:15pm. which was (3)
hours after the pre-trial conference at 10: 00 a.m. which still does not have an
order even though Julie Stover-King objected to the order on 4-18-19.

Judge Smith shows how incompetent and unprepared he is, since he signed an
order on 4-23-19from a bench trial at 1:15 pm but has not signed an order from
the pre-trial conference at 10 am on 4-2-19which was (3) hours earlier? Judge
Smith seems to show what a (FOOL) he seems to be since he can't follow Kansas
Court Rules and Procedures and made the mistake of not giving (2) weeks
between the last pre-trial conference and trial in this case which was on the same
day of 4-2-19. He now signed the bench trial order which did not comply with
Supreme Court Rule 170 but has not signed the pre-trial order even though it
was (3) hours prior to the bench trial.

Instead he makes absolutely no reference at all to the comment of (cavalier) and


the only reference he makes to the admonishment of Julie Stover-King was on
page (13)line 25 when he reads that Miss Stover-King put "Defendant was never
admonished at the December 11, 2018, status hearing, and (14)line 2 when he
says "which I think I've already addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on
to say, fl.

Judge Smith won't even admit for sure if he did admonish her or not as he says
"which I think" I've already addressed that because I think that's true but she goes on
to say".

Does Judge Smith not know if he admonished her or not?? If he think's he


admitted he didn't admonish her then why doesn't he go modify or alter the
court order from the March 24, 25 hearing which says she was admonished for
not having counsel like he states at the March 28, 2019 pre-trial conference that
got continued and his statements from that hearing are recorded. These are also
the motions and objections she filed for the 10 am pre-trial conference on 4-2-19
that still does not have a court order even though he denied her motions on the
record but says on page (13) line 25 when he reads that Miss Stover-King put
"Defendant was never admonished at the December II, 2018, status hearing, and
(14) line 2 when he says "which I think I've already addressed that because I think
that's true but she goes on to say,".

Judge Smith then says on page (14)line 6 "this is repetitious of when the journal
entry was done so it's really basically the same argument, the fact that the journal
entry wasn't filed until then." "I think she's kind of missing the point that the order
was effective when I entered itfrom the bench but, I mean, that's a whole other question
that I don't need to get into."

Judge Smith did not follow Kansas Supreme Court Rule 170 and K.S.A. 60-258
Entry of Judgment from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 24, 25 2019 order,
March 28, 2019 continued pre-trial conference, and the pre-trial conference on
4-2-19 at 10:00 am which states that nothing is effective until it is signed by the
judge and the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 still does not have an order from the
hearing entered in this case. Supreme Court Rule 166 Matters Taken Under
Advisement states that "when a court is called upon to rule on a motion, the elapsed
time between final submission of the motion and the ruling thereon shall not exceed
thirty (3 0) days, except that the ruling time on a motion for summary judgment shall not
exceed sixty (60) days. If the ruling on a motion is not entered within the required time,
all of the reporting requirements of the preceding paragraph shall apply, with the initial
report being filled within five (5) days after the ruling was to have been entered as
required by this paragraph. "

Why doesn't he admit like an honorable judge should and admit he made
mistakes, did not comply with Rule 170, K.5.A. 60-258, and did not admonish her
for not having counsel at the December 11, 2018 hearing and the only reason that
he put the admonishment in the March 24, 25 court order was because he
retaliated against Miss Stover-King because he thinks she is a FOOL because she
is Pro Se, her husband Kasey King made an ethic complaint against him dated
July 4, 2015, she made a prior ethic complaints against him in may of 2018, and
filed a motion for change of judge with affidavit against him and she is on his
mind just like the other litigant judge Smith had, Mr. Eric Muathe who he
referenced in this case?

Judge Richard Smith should have Judge Daniel Crietz teach him a lesson on an
abundance of caution and that is why Judge Crietz disqualified himself in this
case in accordance with Rule 2.7 Responsibility to Decide, Rule 2.11(A)
Disqualification, and K.5.A. 20-311d change of judge procedure and saved the
court time, myself time, the plaintiff time, Julie Stover-King time, and the Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications time who already had to issue a
(PRIVATE CEASE AND DESIST) in this case to judge A.J. Wachter and Judge
Richard Smith "to use a little quote of his own about Julie Stover-King following in the
footsteps of Mr. Muathe's mandamus"has followed right along in the footsteps of
A.J. Wachter by not following the code of judicial conduct and stating that (if he
admonished Julie Stover-King but really didn't that's not the issue).

Then why is the (ADMONISHMENT FOR NOT HAVING COUNSEL) in a court


order from March 24,252019 court hearing? Do we need Sherlock Holmes to
investigate this one and find out the answer to this mystery? Judge Smith needs
to follow K.s.A. 60-252(a(b) Findings by the Court and (AMEND THE
JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY) like he stated he would at the March 28,2019 pre-
trial conference that got continued.

Judge Smith goes on to show how he does not show any (ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION) as he continues to try to explain himself for the (ADMONISHMENT
HE GAVE HER IN A COURT ORDER). Judge Smith reads on page (14) line
19-24 that" defendant was stressed out, had anxiety, and could not properly prepare for
the March 28, 2019, telephonic conference because the defendant was under the
impression she had already been admonished by the court and was scared to proceed with
a proper defense at the March 28th hearing, and then the objections." He then states on
page (14) line 25 in a response the statement that she was admonished by the
court and was scared to proceed by saying "you can only have that one o,(two ways.
I either her or I didn't. ~fI did admonish her it would have been my standard
admonishment and I try to present that in asfriendly afashion as possible, it's not meant
to be mean or condescending.

Judge Smith did state that he had admonished her in a court order from March
24,252019 hearing for not having counsel at the December 11, 2018 hearing. The
fact that he really didn't admonish her at the December 11, 2018 hearing just
shows he retaliated against her and that according to K.s.A. 60-258 entry of
judgment that he had (ADMONISHED HER NOT HAVING COUNSEL)!!! It was
in the court order from the March 24, 25 2019 hearing where he stated he
admonished her prior for not having counsel. Why don't judge Smith just admit
he messed up? How does a judge admonish anyone in a friendly fashion which
is not meant to be mean or condescending yet he has called her nefarious, frankly
naive, cavalier, admonished her for not having counsel, made jokes off the record about
him being a church elder which she put in a motion for change with affidavit, and
has now called her a fool because she is Pro Se??

Judge Smith goes on to show how he doesn't use any (ABUNDANCE OF


CAUTION) on page (15) line 12-25 when he says "I don't know why she would have
been terrified of me, I think the statement that she has reasons to be afraid of me would
run contrary to everything that's happened in this action because we've been nothing but
friendly. We even had an o,(fthe record conversation after the last hearing that was real
friendly and kind of joking around about some of the stu.ffshe put in the motion about
me. And I was complementing her/or digging that information up because it was
accurate because I am an elder of the church or I was until recently so, I mean, it was an
interesting thing but I did not have a problem with any of that.1/

Why is Judge Smith violating Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment again by
attempting humor with Miss Stover-King off the record? What could possibly be
funny about someone putting the reasons that she thinks she has conflicts of
interest with the judge about as funny? She did research and found a conflict of
interest about the judge being an elder and he just suddenly is not an elder
anymore. He's mad at her because her husband made a complaint about him
being an elder and trustee at the church and had to quit that position at a church
in order to still accept judicial appointments and that's why he made his (LITTLE
JOKES) off the court transcript instead of on them so we could read how
unethical he was. He needs informal advice about keeping a (FULLCOURT OF
RECORD) and not making statements or jokes about motions that were filed in
this case off the court transcript.

Judge Smith seems to be mentally incompetent and can't remember anything


correctly because Julie Stover-King never had a conversation off the record that
was joking around about the stuff she put in a motion where Judge Smith was a
church elder. The only time she mentions it is in a (MOTION FOR CHANGE OF
JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT)that was heard by Gunner Sundy and Judge Smith
was barred from commenting on a motion for change of judge with affidavit
under K.s.A. 20-311d(b)(c). Julie Stover-King filed with that motion an exhibit
from an ethic complaint filed by me her husband Kasey King against Judge
Smith dated July 4, 2015 where I complain on Judge Smith for possible violations
of the code of judicial conduct for Rule 3.15(A)(6)because he fails to list his
position at Mound City Christian Church as "Elder" when he was previously
"Trustee". The complaint also alleged that he did not have his financial
disclosure report filled out by April 15, 2015 the last day to file taxes which
showed he was hiding economic information and alleged that he violated Rule
3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)Reporting Requirements by not filing his financial
disclosure report by tax time.
Why would Judge Smith think that there is anything funny and joking about
Julie Stover-King trying to get him recused/ disqualified from a case and trying
to get him to step down from his church elder, church trustee position, and for
not filling out his finances correctly by April 15, 2015?

This is the (EXACTREASON) why Judge Smith should have a court of record at
all times to prove what he says and what he doesn't say and why Julie Stover-
King asked on the telephone at the telephone pre-trial conference on March 28,
2019 if there was a court of record because she did not want judge Smith to make
any jokes or comments about anything she put in a motion or an ethic complaint
that was not on record that could be proven as a retaliation. She also was scared
to go on with the March 28,2019 pre-trial conference without a court reporter
because she had already been ADMONISHED in a court order from March 24,25
2019 that really never happened.

The following statement shows what he thinks of all Pro Se litigants:

"I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent themselves but I just point out
that there is a VALIDATION of the old adage that a person that represents themselves in
Court has a FOOL/or BOTH a LAWYER and a CLIENT and that there's a REASON
FOR THAT EXPRESSION because I even recommend that lawyers not represent
themselves in Court, etc., etc. "," I reiterate they have a constitutional right to represent
themselves but I just point out that there is a VALIDATION of the old adage that a
person that represents themselves in Court has a FOOL/or BOTH a LAWYER and a
CLIENT and that there's a REASON FOR THAT EXPRESSION because I even
recommend that lawyers not represent themselves in Court, etc., etc. ".,

The attorney Tarpley then states how unethical Judge Smith is on page (16) line
6-19 when she says "your honor, I don't remember honestly you ever admonishing
her. "

If Judge Smith never admonished her at the December 11, 2018 hearing then why
did he put that in a court order from a March 24,252019 hearing that he thinks is
not an issue?

Judge Smith then states on page (17) line 3-5 that" on the record she had the
opportunity to be here, sorry I had you here so early, counsel. I really thought she would
come and argue these motions."
Why is Judge Smith telling counsel Linda Tarpley "he's sorry when Julie Stover-
King is the one who has been called, naive, nefarious, cavalier, fool, admonished for
not having counsel, and got to listen to the attempted humor off the record about stuff she
put in a motion about him being a church elder."

Judge Smith knew that Miss Stover-King was not going to come argue the
motions at 10:00a.m. because she told him that in the email that she could only
be there at 1:15because his expedited pre-trial hearing at 10:00a.m. did not
comply with court rules and he states this on the court transcript.

Judge Smith then shows that he is violating Rule 2.9 ex-parte hearings and
having an ex-parte conversation by collaborating with attorney Tarpley on page
(17)line 21 when he says to her "well, again, she's raised a lot a/issues, I don't know
where we're going to go with those.

Judge Smith must of not thought that Julie Stover-King was going to purchase
the court transcript for the 10:00a.m. hearing that she could not attend and must
of forgot that he had a court reporter typing away as he and attorney Tarpley are
planning as a (WE'RE) like they are a TEAM!! Judge Smith says he doesn't know
where we're going to go with those??

Where is Judge Smith and attorney Tarpley going to go with the motions and
objections that Miss Stover-King filed?? Are they going to go have lunch
together and have an ex-parte hearing?

Judge Smith goes on to show how unprepared, incompetent, and unethical he is


on page (18)line 4-8 of the court transcript by concluding the ex-parte hearing at
10:00a.m. that did not follow any proper notice of hearings, or pre-trial or final-
pre-trial conferences as he says" anything else to come before the court on this matter
at this point? And attorney Tarpley shows how incompetent she is as well since
she replies with "nothing, your honor. Judge Smith replies with a "thank you, court
will be recessed and attorney Tarpley replies with thank you, judge".

Neither the attorney Tarpley nor Judge Smith ever stated that there would be an
order/journal entry entered by Rule 170 or any other fashion after the pre-trial
conference at 10:00a.m. Neither attorney Tarpley or Judge Smith stated they
would sign the order and this incompetence shows that now none of the orders
from the December 11, 2018 hearing, March 24,25,2019 hearing, the March 28,
2019 continued pre-trial conference for not having a court reporter, and the April
2,2019 pre-trial conference have complied with Kansas Supreme Court Rules 166
matters taken under advisement, Journal Entries and Order 170, and K.5.A.
60-258 entry of judgment. The departmental justice should have been notified (5)
days after a motion goes past (30) days to rule like the December 11, 2018 hearing
that was signed on January IS, 2019. The journal entry signed on 4-23-19 from the
4-2-19 bench trial did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 170 as there was an
objection filed by Julie Stover-King on 4-18-19.

I don't think Judge Smith has shown any competence in this case which violates
Rule 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation because he has not cooperated
with Miss Stover-King because he is prejudiced against her and that is why he
scheduled a trial that was only 3 hours after the only pre-trial conference in the
case on 4-2-19 after he tried to schedule a final pre-trial conference in July of 2018
before she filed her motion for change of affidavit!!! He also has not changed/
amended any of the mistakes that he made in the prior court orders. He defers to
Miss Stover-King about him admonishing her but he never says that he is going
to modify or alter the court order that admonished her for not having counsel
like he states at the continued March 28, 2019 pre-trial conference and never says
he's sorry like he does to Linda Tarpley.

Please investigate this matter and give judge Smith a (CEASEAND DESIST)
from this case and a (CAUTION LETTER)because he tried to use an
(ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION) himself on 4-2-19 but instead made more ethical
errors and used more inappropriate word choices like the validated statement he
made that all Pro Se litigants are FOOLS. He showed he is not honorable as he
never would never actually admit on the court transcript if he ever admonished
Julie Stover-King or not. He said he thinks he addressed that and he thinks it's
true what she says but does he say "yes it's true I made a mistake and
admonished her when she really wasn't admonished and I am sorry and I will
have to amend the court order from the March 24,252019 pre-trial conference
that was held 3 hours before bench trial before a judge who acknowledged that
he had a mandamus filed against him directly but he doesn't continue the bench
trial but think's he is using an abundance of caution.
I have included the definition of 1 "FOOL" which says" a person without good
sense or judgment". It also says "JESTER"

The definition of 2 "FOOL" says" to speak or act in a playful way or in fun"


JOKE, TRICK.

The definition of "FOOLISH" is "showing or resulting from lack of good sense".

Judge Smith should be disqualified from hearing any Pro Se cases when he states
on record that only a fool represents themselves and he validates it as well by
calling Pro Se litigants people without good sense or judgment and a jester.

He also showed that what he did off the record with Julie Stover-King about the
stuff she put in motions about him is the definition of (FOOL) to JOKE, TRICK!!

He admitted on record that he was trying to joke and trick Julie Stover-King after
she filed a motion for change of judge with affidavit and an ethic complaint
where he can't retaliate and did with a court order admonishment.

He did trick/fool Julie Stover-King on 4-2-19 at 10:00 am. When he expedited the
pre-trial conference without a proper notice of hearing and the court order still
has not been signed from this hearing. He did trick/ fool Julie Stover-King when
he admonished her in a court order on March 24, 25 when she really never was
admonished which messed her mind up to not be able to prepare for pretrial
conferences or trial on 3-28-19 and 4-2-19.

Judge Smith did not follow Supreme Court Rule 166 Matters Taken Under
Advisement because he had a hearing on December 11, 2018 on a motion to
dismiss for lack of prosecution and the order was not signed by him until
January 15, 2019 which is (35) days after the motion was filed. Supreme Court
Rule 166 says the court has (30) days to rule on a motion and if it has not ruled
within (30) days then a report with the judicial administrator needs made within
(5) days which he did not do. According to Supreme Court Rule 170 no
judgment is final until it is signed by the judge in accordance with K.s.A. 60-258
Entry of Judgment.

He also didn't follow Supreme Court Rule 170(b) at the 4-2-19 ex-parte hearing at
10:00 a.m. because orders or other documents containing rulings of the judge
other than judgments shall be prepared in accordance with the directions of the
judge. The court transcript shows (HE MADE NO DIRECTIONS ABOUT HOW
THE ORDER WILL BE DONE) and the (30) days to rule on the motion under
Supreme Court Rule 166 is up on May 2, 2019. On the date of May 7, 2019 it will be
(35) days past the date 0/4-2-19.£or the pre-trial motions to have a court order signed by
Judge Smith. Judge Smith needs to make a report with the departmental justice
on May 7, 2019 to explain why a judgment, ruling or decision has not been
entered, yet the journal entry from the 4-2-19 bench trial at 1:15 pm is already
signed on 4-23-19 even though an objection was filed to the journal entry on
4-18-19 but attorney Tarpley never submitted it to the judge.

He also needs to follow Supreme Court Rule 165 Reasons For Decisions at the
bench trial on 4-2-19. How can he have a bench trial at 1:15 p.m. on 4-2-19 when
the motions from the pre-trial hearing at 10:00 a.m. on 4-2-19 did not have an
ORDER signed by the judge so therefore none of his rulings on the motions have
been effective under K.5.A. 60-258 entry of judgment.

What seems like (THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK) is that Judge Smith
is the one who says he is joking around off the record with Julie Stover-King
about her trying to get him disqualified as a judge about her husband trying to
get him to step down as a church (elder) which he did and (trustee) which he did
and one of the definitions of FOOL is "JOKE", "TRICK" "to speak or act in a
playful way or in fun". That definition of FOOL seems to be exactly what Judge
Smith did off the record when he was joking with Julie Stover-King. A person
without good sense would seem to be one who can't follow Supreme Court Rule
140 Final pre-trial conference, K.5.A. 60-216 pre-trial procedure, Supreme Court
Rules 166 and 170 by not notifying the departmental justice within (5) days after
you don't sign a motion after (30) days because K.5.A. 60-258 entry of judgment
was not complied with and under K.5.A. 60-252(a)(b) Findings by the Court it
needs to be amended accordingly. A fool also seems to be one who is joking
around, attempting tricks, and attempting humor by being a court jester which is
what he did off the record when he made jokes with Julie Stover-King.

Please reprimand Judge Smith for him not following Rule 2.5 since he is not
performing his judicial duties competently and instead is using the bench that he
sits on as a platform to foolj trick parties, tell jokes off the record that we have to
pay him for since he does it on the bench and I honestly don't think he is
anywhere near the caliber and quality of a (PROFESSIONAL COMEDIAN) such
as GEORGE CARLIN, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Steve Martin,
Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Andrew Dice Clay, Dennis Leary, Chevy Chase, Dan
Akroyd, Roseanne Barr, Ellen De Generes, and all (3) stooges Moe, Larry, and
Curly Neil for his incompetence and his inappropriate word choices in which he
has shown no remorse, no regret, and has accepted no responsibility for his word
choices as the court transcript from the 4-2-19 pre-trial conference on the same
day as bench trial shows.

I found a picture of the (3) stooges on the internet for being (PROFESSIONAL
PAID COMEDIANS) but I did a search for Richard Smith under Comedians but
nothing popped up and that's why I don't think it's right for him to foolj trick
parties, attempt humor by making wise cracks and telling jokes in a courtroom
while he is wearing the judicial gown and has a gavel in his hand and is getting
paid as a SENIOR judge to make judicial determinations not attempt to entertain
us with (wise cracks) and attempted humor. And it was attempted humor
because it was not funny at all!!!!

And we were (EXTREMELYOFFENDED)!!!!!!

I was told by Judge Wachter to go to the (peanut gallery) in the matter of A.J.
Wachter 1114, 1115, and 1116 in 2011 where he received a caution letter and now I
have been called a (JESTER/FOOL) by Judge Smith. Those (2) comments seem
to go hand in hand since the peanut gallery is the section where people sit who
(HECKLES THE PERFORMER). Since Judge Smith was joking, fooling around,
tricking Julie Stover-King off the record it seems he is the (JESTER) as he was the
one attempting humor and attempting jokes and he should be reprimanded.

I think judge Smith should receive the (tri-fecta/ triple crown reprimand) from
your ethic committee by giving him some informal advice about not having a
court of record at the March 28,2019 hearing, a letter of caution for his bias/
prejudice, retaliation, inappropriate word choices and trying to be a jester/
comedian, and a cease and desist for his incompetence of not being able to follow
simple court rules and procedures on court orders/ pre-trial conferences, and his
bias and prejudice against parties without attorneys and thinking they are fools
that has led to all Pro Se litigants and every party in Kansas Small Claims Court
not having any confidence in the judiciary under Rule 1.2 because we have all
been called (FOOLS) and don't have the confidence to file a (MOTION FOR
CHANGE OF JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT, OR AN ETHIC COMPLAINT) against
Judge Smith without him retaliating with an order of (ADMONISHMENT/and
by calling us demeaning nicknames such as FOOL,JESTER and by him
attempting to JOKE/TRICK ABOUT WHAT WAS PUT IN THE MOTION FOR
CHANGE OF JUDGE WITH AFFIDAVIT which he was barred and prohibited
from commenting on.)

I also enclosed the journal entry of judgment from the 4-2-19 bench trial which
was signed on 4-23-19, and page 5 shows approved by Linda Tarpley signature
but not Julie Stover-King's signature. Page 6 of the journal entry of judgment
says "with a copy to the honorable Richard Smith@kscourts.org

And that _ no written objections thereto have been received

And that __ the approval of said party has been received as indicated above.

What is Judge Richard Smith talking about in this journal entry of judgment as
Julie Stover-King filed an objection to this order with the court on 4-18-19. So
Julie Stovev-King definitely filed a written objection to the 4-2-19 bench trial and
Julie Stover-King never gave her approval of said party as the indication above
shows because aULIE STOVER-KING NEVER SIGNED IT)!!!! So she obviously
never gave her approval and she filed a written objection. The certificate of
compliance with Rule 170 shows it was mailed out on (APRIL 5,2019) not (APRIL
23,2019) after the Order was signed by Judge Richard Smith even though he
never entertained Julie Stover-Kings objection with the court which was filed on
4-18-19. Julie Stover-King mailed out her objection to attorney Tarpley on 4-18-19
the day before good Friday. Attorney Tarpley probably didn't even get the
objection to the order filed on 4-18-19 until 4-22-19 the day before judge Richard
Smith signed the order that (ATTORNEY TARPLEY) prepared which was
(OBJECTED TO ON 4-18-19) but yet Judge Smith shows his incompetence and
not being able to follow Supreme Court Rule 170 and just signed the order
stating that there were no written objections even though it was filed on 4-18-19
and the Journal Entry of Judgment on 4-23-19 is not VALID.

Once again Judge Richard Smith shows how incompetent and unprepared he is
by signing a court order from the 4-2-19 bench trial stating that there were no
written objections received even though Julie Stover-King filed it with the court
on 4-18-19.

I also enclosed the 2017 CONDUCT EXAMPLESfrom the commission on judicial


qualifications 2017 annual report under (VIOLATION) which shows "a judge who
was found to have violated Rule 1.2 and 2.5 by filling an inaccurate report with the office
of judicial administration, was cautioned to perform judicial duties competently and
diligenilq."

I have also enclosed a copy of the court ROA dated 4/29/2019 which shows that
Judge Smith was assigned the case on 1/10/2018 and had a rearing rescheduled
on 4/24/2018 for a (Pre-trial Conference and all pending motions and FINAL
Pre-Trial Conference. The court then shows a (notice of intent to dismiss) on
9/12/2018 where the court was about to dismiss the entire case!!! Judge Smith
then on 11/15/2018 scheduled a Pre-trial conference for 12/11/2018 and calls it a
Final Pre-trial Conference which it was not supposed to be a final pre-trial
conference because the case was just set to be dismissed on 9/12/2018!
According to the court on ROA on 12/11/2018 Judge Smith had a hearing held
and it was a Final PTC, a final Pre-trial Conference. Judge Smith then scheduled
on 12/11/2018 a Pre-trial Conference on 3/4/2019 at 3:45 p.m. and a court trial
scheduled for 4/2/2019.

Judge Smith has shown how incompetent he is because he scheduled a pre-trial


conference for 3/4/2019 after he had a FINAL PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE on
12/11/2018 that was not RIPE YET FOR A FINAL PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE
because the case was just set to be dismissed on 9/12/201811

According to the court ROA on 4/29/2019 on 3/25/2019 there is an order


denying Defendant's pretrial motions which is the order that has the
ADMONISHMENT for not having counsel in it which is not correct and should
have been MODIFIED/ALTERED from the motions and objections filed on
4/1/2019 which still do not have a court order!!! Judge Smith states on the
transcript of 4-2-19 at the pre-trial conference that he denied the motion to alter
or amend court orders issued on January 15, 2019 and March 24/252019 even
though he states at the continued March 28, 2019 telephone conference which
was recorded by us because there was no (COURT RECORD) that he would
change that if he put that in the order.
According to the court ROA on 4/29/2019 there still is no court order from the
March 28, 2019 telephone continued conference or the pre-trial conference on
4-02-19 that was (3) hours prior to bench trial which is not allowed according to
Supreme Court Rule 140 Final Pre-trial Conference.

Also Judge Smith needs reminded that you can't have a (PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE) after the (FINAL PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE) because the last
pre-trial conference is the final pre-trial conference and even us Pro Se FOOLS
are smarter enough to figure that out!!! Judge Smith should have rescheduled
the pre-trial conference on 4-2-19 as a Final Pre-trial Conference and then gave (2)
weeks after that date for bench trial. Instead he has entered a Journal Entry of
Judgment on 4/23/2019 from the bench trial on 4-2-19 at 1:15 pm even though
she objected to the Journal Entry in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 170 and
mailed it to attorney Tarpley on the date of April 18, 2019 and filed it with the
court just to make sure her objection to the proposed journal entry attorney
Tarpley sent on AprilS, 2019.had an objection within the (14) days.

Judge Smith has not signed the pre-trial order from the 10 am pre-trial conference
on 4-2-19 by May 7, 2019 and therefore has not made his report with the judicial
administrator which is a violation of the code of judicial conduct. This
Complaint is also being carbon copied to the Judicial Administrator for Judge
Smith not following Supreme Court Rules, 140 Final Pre-trial Conference, Rule
170 Journal Entries and Orders, Rule 166 Matters Taken Under Advisement
because he can't sign Orders from Motions within (30) days and does not make a
report (5) days later with the judicial administrator informing the judicial
administrator what is going on in this case. He also signs orders under Rule 170
the incorrect way because he ignores objections by the party that is not an
attorney and then just signs the proposed journal entry anyway.

Did Judge Smith forget that he had a continued pre-trial hearing on March 28,
2019 and a pre-trial conference at 10:00 a.m. on 4-2-19 that need court orders from
him and he is causing (DELAY)in this case?

How does a Senior Judge in Kansas sign a court order from a bench trial at 1:15
p.m. on 4-2-19 but does not sign court orders from pre-trial conferences on
3-28-19 and 4-2-19 even though the bench trial was after the pre-trial
conferences? How does a judge move on to bench trial when he does not
modify / alter the court order from March 24, 25,2019 when he ADMONISHED
Julie Stover-King?

The answer to that question is that he is totally incompetent and biased and
prejudiced and he violated the code of judicial conduct under Rule 1.1 and needs
reprimanded for it!!

Ii/~.
Sincerely,

Kasey King
r.o. Box 101
Opolis, Ks 66760

Cc

Office of Judicial Administrator

301 SW 10th Avenue

Topeka Ks 66612
P.S.

This is the March 28, 2019 pre-trial conference telephone conference recording that was made
because Judge Smith is not trusted in Crawford County and at the March 28, 2019 hearing because he
had already admonished Julie in an order dated March 24, 25 2019 from the hearing on December 11,
2018 which he never really did.

Judge Smith said that he would direct Linda Tarpley to do a pre-trial order and she says ok.

He says he don't understand why Julie is not ready to move on. She says she should have 14 days to
respond to her other response which it hasn't even been (14) days yet.

The only reason Judge Smith kept the trial date the same is because attorney Tarpley had a witness
coming in.

He says it's not true that Judge Wachter got in trouble with the ethic committee and was not forced to
retire.

He then calls Julie (RED HEARING) which is another demeaning (nickname) because he calls her a liar.

He says it's irrelevant if a judge violates Rule 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5 of the ethic code in a case.

After % of the court hearing Julie asks if this is being recorded and he said (no) and says he will take this
up Tuesday which is legally correct.

He then stops it because Julie wants a record and he says he will make the pre-trial questionnaire as the
pre-trial order.

You raise all this at the trial he then says.

If I forgotten something remind me and it will be on the record.

She asks about being priorly admonished for not having counsel

And he says I don't remember saying that,

And Julie reads the order and says she don't recall that.

He just has a long pause and says he will have to go back and look.

If I said something that I don't remember remind me so it can be on the record.

Julie said she don't remember being admonished so she called Sean Higgins the court reporter about the
December 11, hearing.

He studders and says he don't remember admonishing her and I will correct that.
He then says, I will say more like a warning, theres a reason for law school, the res a reason for an
attorney, he doesn't remember saying that in the order frankly then if I did and I might have umm I will
correct that and we don't need to go back and look at I never made a suggestion that if I can't
remember then I will be happy to retract it, and he's not to afraid to admit when he's wrong and no
problem on back tracking on that.

He also calls himself a (research nerd) which is another demeaning nickname to people who like to do
research (like myself) which is not appropriate in court.

There is still no order from this March 28, 2019 pre-trial conference without a court reporter that was a
complete waste of time and should have been scheduled at least (2) weeks prior to the bench trial on 4-
2-19 that he allowed just to accommodate Linda Tarpleys witness and to make this case now an
assembly line and expedite it without following court rules and procedures after the case sat for 3 ]h
years because judge Wachter violated the code of judicial conduct with delay.

This March 28, 2019 hearing does not comply with Supreme Court Rule 170 Journal Entries and Orders
as there is still no court order from this hearing.

Judge Smith never corrected or retracted his prior admonishment in the court order of March 24, 25
2018 even though there were pre-trial motions denied on 4-2-19 at 10:00 am. pertaining to him
modifying/ altering/ striking what he put in the March 24, 25 2019 order about admonishing Julie.

I don't appreciate the comment (RESEARCHNERD) because he must be calling anyone that does
research a nerd and I'm DEFINITELY NO NERD!!! I've spent years researching all Commission on Judicial
of Qualification Annual reports and all the examples of misconduct on Kansas judges since 1999 and I
have read Chapter 61 and chapter 60 court rules and procedures book and seem to be able to
understand the court rules on pretrial orders better than Judge Smith who calls all pro se litigants fools
and now seems to think people that do research are NERDS and he must be calling my wife Julie Stover-
King a nerd since she gets paid to be a librarian and all they do is research so I'd call that an (expert) on
research not a (nerd) which is a demeaning nickname and attempted humor which was not funny.

Please reprimand Judge Smith for not re-tracking/correcting the admonishment for not having counsel
of Julie Stover-King.