I am making this complaint against Judge Andrew J. Wachter of Crawford County Judicial Court. I had a

Final Divorce hearing yesterday February 6, 2013 where I should have been granted-a-default judgment

but was denied. I had filed my Divorce Petition over 60 days ago and my soorrto be -ex-=w'ifewas

suppose to file an Answer within 21 days of service; or Judgment for Default WILL BE ENTEREDAGAiNSTYOU not may be entered ag-ainst you it says on the summons!

My soon to be-ex wife did not have an attorney and when I asked Judge Wachter if I ~~:)Uld receive a"default judgment he said no because she showed -up today-and t-hat was goOO-ernwgb!r him.

Judge Wachter told my ex and myself that we BOTH needed an attorney at the next hearing. He was

tired of the way this was going and wasn't going to put up with a peanut galleryand he needed to deal

with people that were law trained. I took this as an insult that if your not a lawyer then your not smart

according to Judge Wachter. My ex lied right in the court room and told Judge Wachter that Kay Morin

of Morin and Morin was already retained by her if she needed her. Judge Waebter-saiQ that was good

enough for him. I left the hearing very humiliated, belittled and very, very angry that I was treated so

unfair and-should have atready received a-de-fault judgment.

I went home and called up to Morin and Morin's office and spoke to Kay Morin to disc~ anysettlement possibilities. Ms. Morin informed me that she does not even do divOtc@s-~ she is not the

attorney for Jeanita Moore. Ms. Morin actually called up to Crawford Countv'Dtstrtrt'Court and let the

secretary for Judge Wachter know that she is not my ex wifes attorney and told me there was no

appearance of an attorney for her.

Judge Wachter is not following court rules and procedures and he is biased against me ~cause I am Pro\

Se. He has no right to tell me 1HAVE TO GET AN ATIORN£¥-UKE HETOLD ME-li<:-aHed-=~ to Shawn

Higgins the court reporter and asked him how much a court of record was ant1n-eSc3m'1here was not one

because the judge did not want one. I have a few friends who have had Pro Se divorces and they havehad a transcript for ALL HEARINGS in their divorce case and I feel Judge Wachterdklpot give me one

because I am Pro Se and he was biased against me. I want a court of record at evervthing I do so I could

have proof of what Judge Wachter said and proof of his snide little jokes and.remarks be made to me.~

Another reason I think Judge Wachter was biased against me is because Kay Morin's husband of the Law

firm Morin and Morin used to work with Judge Wachter. William Morin and Judge Wachter worked

together in 2002 at Wilbert and Towner law firm. I think this is the reason Judge Wa(hter was so unfair

to me is when my ex stated that Kay Morin was going to be her attorney even though sh1had not

retained her or filed an entry of appearance.

I mean lets get real if she was retained, WHY WAS MY EXSPEAKING AND WHY WAS THE ATIORNEY NOT

THEREAND WHY HAD THE ATIORNEY NOT FtLEDAN ANSWER FOR HER-?-??????????Judge Wachter

allowed this and did not follow Rule 115 Entries of Appearance of Rules Relating to'J~icial Courts. He

~~~::~~:::~:~:s:~~:o:e~a~::~k;;E~~~:~:~:~~::~~dl~:v:Sr:::i~~dna°:'7:::1.~~ea:~n~o:Ulegranting me my default judgment, Judge Wachter did not follow Rules Relating To District Courts Rule

132. Judge Wachter also did not follow Rules Relating To District Courts Rule 164 in this case as well. ~ ~~

~.~~{1Y ~~\~

Judge Wachter's errors are now going to make a one day Final Hearing for Default JU~..'(l1ent divorcenow turn into, Objection's to orders I must file, Motions to-vacate orders and-:pes-sit*;~ppeal with a

Nature of Mandamus against Judge Wachter because of the lack of due pr0C6SClTIth11e unethical way

Judge Wachter has treated me in this court case. I feel he has violated numerous rules of RULES

RELATING TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT and they are the following: CANON 1 RUlEl~l;~8U.tE 1.2, CANON 2

RULE2.2, RULE2.3{A)(B), RULE2.4{BL RULE2.5, RULE2.6, RULE2.8, and when Judge W.~.,chter heard KayMorin of Morin and Morin he should have Disqualifled himself in accordanee-wlth-Rele ';~11. I want to

let the committee know that Kay Morin and William Morin should never be ~noVlied1nfront of Judge

Wachter because it's a conflict of interest and it seems like Judge Wachter either does not care or doesnot know.

Sincerely

Lester Moore

Telephone 785-296-2913

MEMBERS OFPANELB

CHAIR:Jeffery A. MasonLawyer Member

VICE-CHAIR:Dr. Mary Davidson CohenLay Member

Bruce BuchananLay Member

Robert J. FlemingJudge Member

David 1. KingJudge Member

Nicholas St. PeterJudge Member

Diane S. WorthLawyer Member

SECRETARY:Carol G. GreenKansas Judicial Center301 S.W. Tenth AvenueTopeka, KS 66612-1507

~tate of ]kansas

<!Commission on Jf ubtnal ~uaHficationsKansas JudicialCenter301 S.W. Tenth AvenueTopeka, Kansas 66612-1507judicialqual@kscourts.org

Facsimile 785-296-1028

March 11,2013

Lester MooreP. O. Box 1861Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

Re: Docket No. 1179, In the Matter of A. J. Wachter

Dear Mr. Moore:

The Commission met March 1, 2013, at which time the above-captionedcomplaint was considered. It was the decision of the Commission to docket yourcomplaint and make further inquiry. The matter will be placed on the Commission'sMay 3, 2013, meeting agenda.

Cordially,

Secretary

mm

Judge Fleming recused.

I. .,LA_·JI'~n'VISORY

l..e~hif{)()CJ'(~CD mp(1. ~ntNo violation was found when it was alleged a judge advised parties in a divorce matter

they were required to have attorneys at the next hearing. While the judge denied the allegation,the judge could not provide a corroborating transcript because a hearing was not made. Thejudge was informally advised on the importance of preserving a record of all court proceedings.

No violation was found for delay when it was alleged a judge failed to rule on a motiontaken under advisement. The judge indicated there was not a mechanism in place to helpmonitor case loads, acknowledged the delay, and took remedial steps to resolve future issues.The judge was informally advised on the importance of monitoring matters taken underadvisement.

A Notice of Formal Proceedings was filed alleging a judicial candidate, violated Rule4.1(A)(4) by posting false or misleading campaign statements and/orendorsements on thecandidate's campaign website. The candidate denied knowingly or recklessly making any falseor misleading statements but, in an abundance of caution, removed the misleading informationand clarified the endorsement. A stipulation was entered that there was insufficient, clear, andconvincing evidence to establish a violation of Rule 4.1(A)(4), but the Respondent was advisedto be more careful in restating endorsements, should the decision be made to run again forelected office.

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge appeared late for a hearing, called arecess, never returned, and instructed a deputy to clear the courtroom as a ruling would bemailed. The judge was informally advised to review nearing procedures. The judge's attentionwas directed to K.S.A. 38-2243(b) and (d), K.S.A. 38-2232, and 38-2233 authorizing placementof children in DCF Custody.

No violation was found when it was alleged a judge made a female litigant feelhumiliated and traumatized by ordering the removal of her hat which was worn to cover baldnessdue to a medical condition. While the judge acknowledged ordering the removal of the hat, incompliance with courtroom rules, the judge denied that the comments were intended tohumiliate. The judge was informally advised to refrain from commenting on personalappearance in accordance with Rule 2.8(B) and Comment [1].

•.--------- ....2013ANNuAL REpORT. PAGE 22:--------- ..•.