James Bolden Is African-American

The first disciplinary complaint forming the action In the matter of Bret D.

Landrith, Case No. DA8893 is based on the May 9, 2003 ethics complaint made by Judge

G. Joseph Pierron, Jr., Judge David S. Knudson, Judge Lee A. Johnson and Jonathan M.

Paretsky, Carol Green’s motions attorney for the respondent’s representation defending the liberty interests of a controversial African American client, James Bolden and his witness David M. Price, who is of American Indian descent. The two client’s controversy arises from a federal civil rights suit against the City of Topeka for taking Bolden’s two houses in furtherance of a joint county and city resolution to use one lot for a park and the other for public housing, both to be developed with federal funds without compensating

Bolden for the takings.

The neighborhoods where James Bolden’s houses were located have substantial

African American populations. One, Tennessee Town is of historical significance as a settlement of freed slaves after the Civil War. One home purchased by Bolden was on the historic registry. The 2000 US Census and Topeka Planning Department statistics cited by the Topeka Capital-Journal, in a March 8 th, 2004 article entitled “Tennessee Town;

Central Topeka area seeing benefits of its efforts to rid itself of crime, ‘bad neighborhod’ stigma” show that the neighborhood has 363 non white residents, 230 of which are said to be “black” compared with 420 white residents. The article quotes a Topeka official stating that the stigma “may be related to race and socio economic status.”

During the proceedings of a city administrative hearing where the respondent did not represent Bolden, the Topeka-Shawnee County Planning Commission adopted the

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan on October 22, 2001, and that this plan was approved by the Topeka City Council on November 13, 2001, and by the Shawnee County Board of

Commissioners on November 26, 2001.” City’s Admissions Apdx 520-1 ¶ 21. “The

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan”, consolidates the City of Topeka’s planning for the neighborhoods James Bolden’s property is located in. The City of Topeka filed a complaint seeking to demolish James Bolden’s house at 1146 Washburn shortly after the

City of Topeka identified a public use for the land Mr. Bolden’s house sits on:“The

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan Working Group began meeting in May of 2001.” (Apdx., pg. 1030) The West side of the 1100 block on which James Bolden’s house sits is marked in green and depicted without any structures. See Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan Map 4

“adopted 6/12/01” (Apdx., pg. 1040)

Shortly after the City of Topeka Planning Departments’ adoption of this plan and map, Bolden’s House at 1146 SW Washburn was given complaint and notice of hearing on 79-2001 (see Apdx., pg. 1083, Complaint signed by Meg Perry ). The Washburn-

Lane Parkway Plan was adopted by Topeka City Council on November 13, 2001 (see

Apdx., pg. 1025) and shows Bolden’s property between 11 th and 12th made into a green way, the map key color is green and states this is “open space.”

A hearing was held before the Honorable Eric S. Rosen, District Judge, on October

30, 2002. Bolden was represented by counsel other than the respondent and was permitted to present evidence and make arguments to the court during this hearing. Judge

Rosen denied Bolden’s request for an injunction and ordered that the City could proceed with the demolition of the structures located at 1146 S.W. Washburn and 421 S.W.

Tyler in accordance with the previous orders of the administrative hearing officers.

Judge Rosen also found that Bolden had failed to comply with the requirements set forth by the City’s Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development

(“HND”) to participate in the relevant funding program, and thus he denied

Bolden’s request for an injunction requiring HND to “follow its own rules.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23

On November 8, 2002, Bolden filed a pro se request for a new trial, alleging that

Judge Rosen had abused his discretion in a manner that prevented Bolden a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and to be heard on the merits of the case, that Judge

Rosen had erred in granting the City’s motion for a directed verdict, and that Judge

Rosen’s decision was made under the influence of prejudice. Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 #

On November 21, 2002, the City notified Bolden that his services would only be retained at 515 S. Kansas Avenue through December 31, 2002. On November 25, 2002, a hearing was held on the motion referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Bolden’s request for a new trial was denied.On December 18, 2002, Bolden filed a notice of appeal with regard to the above-described rulings by the District Court of Shawnee

County, Kansas. This act was referred to as a retaliation against Bolden for his protected speech. Jonathan Paretsky used this assertion to justify retaliating against Bolden and the respondent in the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Ms. Marybeth Mudrick, counsel for the City telephoned Bolden’s counsel upon

Mayor Felker’s receipt of the December 11, 2002 demand letter stating James Bolden would seek an injunction in federal court and damages if the city continued its actions to injure Mr. Bolden and Ms. Mudrick told Bolden’s counsel that he should not represent

Mr. Bolden because of “who he is.” She also recounted that he had many other attorneys representing him, that had withdrawn from the case. Magistrate O’Hara questioned both

Mr. Bolden and the plaintiff’s counsel about these circumstances during the November

20th pretrial hearing. Mr. Bolden’s previous attorney still cannot be found.

Bolden filed a docketing statement in the Kansas Court of Appeals on January 21,

2003. He alleged that the statutory authority for the appeal was “violations of constitutional rights and due process” and that the appeal challenged the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Bolden further stated that the issues raised by the appeal were that he “challenges trial court’s criteria for evaluating the lawfulness of city ordinances allowing demolition on a 15% basis. [Bolden] believes city agency made determination on invalid ordinance and defective due process. [Bolden] challenged the validity of legal assertions made to trial court about the validity of the city ordinance under state statute requirements. Finally, [Bolden] challenges the constitutional validity of the city ordinance, even if it had been properly enacted.”

Bolden also stated that a “determination of lawfulness of city action is required for federal civil rights action.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23 The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected the docketing statement because the certified Shawnee District Court documents were deemed insufficient to establish Kansas Appeals Court jurisdiction. A show cause order was issued. Apdx. Pg. 602 “”Bolden has with reluctance been forced to choose withdraw over the threatened dismissal or continued bad faith prosecution of this appeal…”, See also ¶¶ 1-3 pg. 603-4.

The unsafe structures at 1146 S.W. Washburn were demolished on January 7th

2003. The unsafe structures at 421 S.W. Tyler were demolished on February 12th 2003 before Bolden could have a chance to have his appeal heard. Apdx. Pg. 605-6 ¶ 9., Apdx. Pg. 526 ¶38

On April 21, 2003, Bolden moved to “withdraw” the above-described appeal. On May 5, 2003, the Kansas Court of Appeals granted Bolden’s motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissed his appeal. An ethics complaint was filed by Judge G.

Joseph Pierron, Jr., Judge David S. Knudson, Judge Lee A. Johnson and Jonathan M.

Paretsky against Bolden’s counsel, the respondent in this action on May 9, 2003 for representing Bolden and his witness David Price, two controversial clients CITE HERE before the Kansas Court of Appeals. The conduct complained of appeared to be performance as required by the KRPC, under sections 1.1, 1.2,1.3, 2.1 1.4, 6.1.

The complaining witnesses accused the respondent of conduct required by the

Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and he is now being prosecuted for citing to a

Mississippi case, using the word “prosecute” to describe the actions in carrying out an appeal as in to prosecute an appeal1 and discussing the application for mandamus as redress for denying a parent access to SRS records required to defend against the termination of parental rights as this court stated was appropriate in Nunn v. Morrison,

608 P.2d 1359, 227 Kan. 730 syl. 1-4 (Kan., 1980).

The respondent withdrew the appeal of the African American client James Bolden who had been denied access to his Shawnee County court records, retaliated against by the City of Topeka for his Shawnee District Court testimony, the city canceled his

1 Prosecute is not used in this context by the State of Kansas, but is used in this context by the Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Partrick J. Fischer Jr. in a memo enclosed in every packet of instructions for counsel entitled “Prosecuting Appeal.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000 has as its first definition of prosecute as an intransitive verb “1. To initiate and conduct legal proceedings.”Neither the KRPC nor any ethics case describe a penalty for use of this verb. janitorial contract and prevented him from bidding on federal contracts and the Shawnee

District Court also denied copies of records required to docket the appeal. When the respondent sought a clarification of a motion order, the Kansas Court of Appeals took what Mr. Paretsky described were informal sanctions against the respondent for raising due process and equal protection concerns in appellate court motions.

In his motion to voluntarily withdraw the appeal and to assign costs, the respondent provided the appellate court information regarding the costs to date, believing this was required by the express language of Kansas Supreme Court Rule 5.04. The complaining witnesses made the costs part of this motion into an attempt to “sanction the court” (sic) one of the most serious ethics “violations” alleged against the respondent.

The witness against the City of Topeka who the respondent represented as appellate counsel in defending against the termination of parental rights had his son taken and placed in adoption in another state in retaliation for his protected speech before the

Topeka City council about the misuse of federal housing funds which was leading to heightened crime in his neighborhood. During the appeal pre-hearing motion process, the respondent observed that none of the adoption and child custody statutes had been complied with, that interstate compact adoption records had been visibly altered to fraudulently represent the adopting parents as residing in Kansas when they lived in

Colorado. Judge Pierron, despite filing the prejudicial ethics complaint and serving as a director of one of the state’s largest adoption contractor corporations2, strongly

2 “Judge Pierron has served as President of the Kansas Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse and on the board of directors of the Kansas Children's Service League.” Kansas Court of Appeals Home Page http://www.kscourts.org/ctapp/gjp_coaj.htm admonished the respondent for raising concerns about the legitimacy of the adoption. The appellate opinion inaccurately stated that the respondent sought only SRS records the father was not entitled to despite numerous appellate motions for many kinds of court records the respondent and his client had been denied access to. Despite this new issue giving the respondent an appeal by right under K.S.A. 60-2101(b), the Kansas Supreme

Court denied review.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court ordered that the respondent’s American Indian client, the above putative father, be denied entry to the Kansas Judicial Center and specifically the offices of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General of

Kansas. The Capitol Police and the Kansas Highway Patrol told the client that Carol

Green had ordered the denial of access when the client had tried to enter and obtain a copy of a mandate in his pro se appeal of a case where he was driving busloads of soldiers embarking for Iraq to Forbes field3. When asked why by the client, Carol Green stated she had never had any problems with the client. On December 7th 2004, Jason

Oldham testified that he had never experienced any problem behavior from the client.

On December 3, 2003, Sherri Price, counsel representing the City of Topeka.

filed an ethics complaint against Bolden’s counsel for including as an exhibit in this action the prior ethics complaint filed by a state agency against Bolden’s counsel for representation in Bolden’s federal case.

3 An interesting case, the client defendant was prosecuted for failing to yield the right of way, though having stopped to avoid an inattentive oncoming driver. The state prosecuted him for driving the lead bus in a military convoy despite the clear language of the statute that even private vehicles in a military convoy have right of way over all vehicles except emergency vehicles and postal vehicles. See 48-252a. Movement of state and national military forces; exemption from traffic regulations; priority of right-of- way, exceptions and 48-252b covering private vehicles including the defendants contract carrier under Army orders. On July 24th, 2003, Bolden’s janitorial van was firebombed as it sat parked next to his single wide mobil home.The assistant city counsel, Sherri Price was made aware of the failure of the police to make a report of the incident despite Bolden’s request during

Bolden’s deposition on the October 16, 2003 and no report was ever made. Bolden testified that he was in fear that next his trailer would be burned while he was sleeping.

On November 6th, 2003, James Bolden’s two witnesses David M. Price and Janice

Lynn King took evidence they had collected for James Bolden to the District Attorney’s

Office showing the misappropriation of federal housing funds by City government and the role of the City Attorney’s office in assisting the mayor by creating ordinances not complying with state statute that were not signed by the City Attorney Brenden Long as required by statute. The District Attorney’s investigator remarked that Brenden Long should be disbarred.

On November 7th, 2003 Mayor Harry Luckert Felker announced his resignation and an agreement with the District Attorney Robert Hecht not to prosecute Mayor Harry

Luckert Felker was also announced. See Topeka Capital Journal 11/07/03.

During a Pre Trial order Conference held on November 20th, 2003,Magistrate

O’Hara suggested Bolden sue his counsel for malpractice. In the Magistrate’s report and recommendation he stated “the court is deeply troubled with Mr. Landrith’s apparent incompetence.” And that Bolden ”appears more articulate than Mr. Landrith. Plaintiff may be better served by representing himself without any attorney if indeed Mr. Landrith is the only attorney willing to take the case.” Apdx. Pg. 711

On November 25th, 2003 Sherri Price, attorney for the City of Topeka entered the property of Bolden’s American Indian witness Fred Sanders with two police cars, a fire department car and a code compliance officer alleging the failure to have a privacy fence though no statute requirement for one could be named. Sherri Price threatened to criminally prosecute Fred Sanders in what Bolden’s fellow African American witness

Frank Kirdoll described was an attempt to intimidate him into not giving testimony against the City. See affidavit of Frank Kirtdoll Apdx. Pg. 1022

The Disciplinary Administrator wrote the respondent stating he would be

“formally prosecuted” immediately after the respondent called an African American witness to testify about Topeka officials retaliating against protected courtroom speech in an unrelated federal case. The City of Topeka Housing Authority issued an eviction notice against another of the respondent’s clients seen in the federal courtroom (a disabled veteran that was forced out on the street, homeless, despite never missing a payment or being untimely and having prepaid the following month’s rent) later that week against the testifying witness.

The Disciplinary administrator omitted affidavits of City of Topeka retaliation against process servers and the respondent’s federal witnesses used to explain the decision not to subject volunteer process servers to substantial risk which were included in the respondent’s timely answer to the second ethics complaint and obtained a

“probable cause” finding to prosecute the respondent for a second ethics complaint brought by the city attorney for including the first ethics complaint in the evidentiary attachments of the respondent’s African American client’s federal civil rights action defending against the demolition of his two homes to take his land for a planned city and county public use without compensation. The complaint also alleged that the respondent had harmed his client by not serving process on individual city officials when clearly at law (and even case law later cited by the city attorney), officials cannot be held individually liable for acts in their official capacity. The respondent had obtained jurisdiction over the city by the voluntary appearance of its counsel per K.S.A. 60-203(c) where the city attorney failed to make a timely challenge to jurisdiction as required by K.S.A. 60-212(h). The respondent utilized this alternative state basis for effecting process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,

Rule 4 (e)(1) and Rule 4(h)(1).

On April1 14th, 2005, the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator filed in the Kansas

Supreme Court the recommendation of a tribunal that James Bolden’s attorney, the respondent be disbarred. The respondent is still representing James Bolden before the

Tenth Circuit, appealing the City of Topeka’s argument it is immune for acts of discrimination against African Americans because 42 U.S.C. §1981 no longer provides rights enforceable under 42 § 1983.

On Wednesday, April 20 th, 2005 the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided

Topeka City Homes, Inc., described on the fourth page of the second amended federal complaint as one of the instrumentalities created by the city to self deal HUD funds and seized its records. The April 21st and 22nd, 2005 Topeka Capital Journal article described the agency’s problems for the time period of James Bolden’s complaint. During the proceedings of a city administrative hearing where the respondent did not represent Bolden, the Topeka-Shawnee County Planning Commission adopted the

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan on October 22, 2001, and that this plan was approved by the Topeka City Council on November 13, 2001, and by the Shawnee County Board of

Commissioners on November 26, 2001.” City’s Admissions Apdx 520-1 ¶ 21. “The

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan”, consolidates the City of Topeka’s planning for the neighborhoods James Bolden’s property is located in. The City of Topeka filed a complaint seeking to demolish James Bolden’s house at 1146 Washburn shortly after the

City of Topeka identified a public use for the land Mr. Bolden’s house sits on:“The

Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan Working Group began meeting in May of 2001.” (Apdx., pg. 1030) The West side of the 1100 block on which James Bolden’s house sits is marked in green and depicted without any structures. See Washburn-Lane Parkway Plan

Map 4 “adopted 6/12/01” (Apdx., pg. 1040)

Shortly after the City of Topeka Planning Departments’ adoption of this plan and map, Bolden’s House at 1146 SW Washburn was given complaint and notice of hearing on 79-2001 (see Apdx., pg. 1083, Complaint signed by Meg Perry ). The Washburn-

Lane Parkway Plan was adopted by Topeka City Council on November 13, 2001 (see

Apdx., pg. 1025) and shows Bolden’s property between 11 th and 12th made into a green way, the map key color is green and states this is “open space.”

In his state court petition in Case No. 01-C-1438, Bolden alleged that he “made arrangements for a Community Development Block Grant (hereinafter ‘CDBG’) from the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department (HND) with the City of

Topeka for $28,000. HND initially advised me that I was to provide $15,000 in financing later after receiving my commitment letter the amount jumped to $30,000. The HND department is not following its own rules.” In addition, Bolden alleged that “HND’s inconsistencies and the refusal to follow its own guidelines have caused me delays and uncertainty in acquiring financing.” Bolden further stated that the City was “block[ing his] efforts to rehabilitate [his] property located at 1146 Washburn, . . . causing [him] financial injury after relying upon its promises.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23

On March 18, 2002, an administrative hearing was held with regard to the structures located at 421 S.W. Tyler, Topeka, Kansas. On March 26, 2002, the administrative hearing officer issued an order finding that the structures located at 421

S.W. Tyler were unfit for human use or habitation, and further that repair, alteration or improvement to the house could not be made at a reasonable cost. As a result, the hearing officer ordered the house and all outbuildings to be removed or demolished within 30 days of the date of service of the order. Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23

Bolden filed a second suit on April 19, 2002 in the District Court of Shawnee

County, Kansas (No. 02-C-557), requesting a temporary and permanent injunction to

“stop the demolition of the property located at 421 S.W. Tyler and to allow Bolden an opportunity to address rehabilitation possibilities with defendant before his property is destroyed.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23 On June 27, 2002, Bolden filed a pleading in Case No. 02-C-557 claiming that the

City’s ordinance regarding unsafe and dangerous structures was unlawful. Bolden attached to his pleadins a copy of the Kansas Supreme Court decision in William R.

Hickman Trust v. City of Clay Center, Kansas, 266 Kan. 1022, 974 P.2d 584 (1999).

Bolden asserted that it was “controlling authority in unsafe & dangerous structure

(in pari materia) to City of Topeka Code 26-546 in getting its authority from K.S.A. 17-

4759 a Urban Renewal law, that the City of Topeka has no such plan on record as K.S.A.

17-4759 requires. K.S.A. 12-1750 et seq. should be the Authority.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-

894 # 1-23

The two above-described state court suits filed by Bolden were consolidated and a hearing was held before the Honorable Eric S. Rosen, District Judge, on October 30,

2002. Bolden was represented by counsel and was permitted to present evidence and make arguments to the court during this hearing. Judge Rosen denied Bolden’s request for an injunction and ordered that the City could proceed with the demolition of the structures located at 1146 S.W. Washburn and 421 S.W. Tyler in accordance with the previous orders of the administrative hearing officers. Judge Rosen also found that

Bolden had failed to comply with the requirements set forth by the City’s

Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HND”) to participate in the relevant funding program, and thus he denied Bolden’s request for an injunction requiring HND to “follow its own rules.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23

On November 8, 2002, Bolden filed a request for a new trial, alleging that Judge

Rosen had abused his discretion in a manner that prevented Bolden a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and to be heard on the merits of the case, that Judge Rosen had erred in granting the City’s motion for a directed verdict, and that Judge

Rosen’s decision was made under the influence of prejudice. Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 #

On November 21, 2002, the City notified Bolden that his services would only be retained at 515 S. Kansas Avenue through December 31, 2002. On November 25, 2002, a hearing was held on the motion referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Bolden’s request for a new trial was denied.On December 18, 2002, Bolden filed a notice of appeal with regard to the above-described rulings by the District Court of Shawnee

County, Kansas.

Ms. Marybeth Mudrick, counsel for the City telephoned Bolden’s counsel upon

Mayor Harry Luckert Felker’s receipt of the December 11, 2002 demand letter stating

James Bolden would seek an injunction in federal court and damages if the city continued its actions to injure Mr. Bolden and Ms. Mudrick told Bolden’s counsel that he should not represent Mr. Bolden because of “who he is.” She also recounted that he had many other attorneys representing him, that had withdrawn from the case. Magistrate

O’Hara questioned both Mr. Bolden and the plaintiff’s counsel about these circumstances during the November 20th pretrial hearing.

Bolden filed a docketing statement in the Kansas Court of Appeals on January 21,

2003. He alleged that the statutory authority for the appeal was “violations of constitutional rights and due process” and that the appeal challenged the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Bolden further stated that the issues raised by the appeal were that he “challenges trial court’s criteria for evaluating the lawfulness of city ordinances allowing demolition on a 15% basis. [Bolden] believes city agency made determination on invalid ordinance and defective due process. [Bolden] challenged the validity of legal assertions made to trial court about the validity of the city ordinance under state statute requirements. Finally, [Bolden] challenges the constitutional validity of the city ordinance, even if it had been properly enacted.”

Bolden also stated that a “determination of lawfulness of city action is required for federal civil rights action.” Apdx. PTO pg. 889-894 # 1-23 The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected the docketing statement because the certified Shawnee District Court documents were deemed insufficient to establish Kansas Appeals Court jurisdiction. A show cause order was issued. Apdx. Pg. 602 “”Bolden has with reluctance been forced to choose withdraw over the threatened dismissal or continued bad faith prosecution of this appeal…”, See also ¶¶ 1-3 pg. 603-4.

The unsafe structures at 1146 S.W. Washburn were demolished on January 7th

2003. The unsafe structures at 421 S.W. Tyler were demolished on February 12th 2003 before Bolden could have a chance to have his appeal heard. Apdx. Pg. 605-6 ¶ 9., Apdx.

Pg. 526 ¶38

On April 21, 2003, Bolden moved to “withdraw” the above-described appeal. On May 5, 2003, the Kansas Court of Appeals granted Bolden’s motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissed his appeal. An ethics complaint was filed by the state appellate clerk’s office against Bolden’s counsel on May 9, 2003 for representing Bolden and his witness David Price, two controversial clients before the Kansas Court of

Appeals. The conduct complained of appeared to be performance as required by the

KRPC, under sections 1.1, 1.2,1.3, 2.1 1.4, 6.1. On July 24th, 2003, Bolden’s janitorial van was firebombed as it sat parked next to his single wide mobil home.The assistant city counsel, Sherri Price was made aware of the failure of the police to make a report of the incident despite Bolden’s request during

Bolden’s deposition on the October 16, 2003 and no report was ever made. Bolden testified that he was in fear that next his trailer would be burned while he was sleeping.

During a Pre Trial order Conference held on November 20th, 2003,Magistrate

O’Hara suggested Bolden sue his counsel for malpractice. In the Magistrate’s report and recommendation he stated “the court is deeply troubled with Mr. Landrith’s apparent incompetence.” And that Bolden ”appears more articulate than Mr. Landrith. Plaintiff may be better served by representing himself without any attorney if indeed Mr. Landrith is the only attorney willing to take the case.” Apdx. Pg. 711

On November 25th, 2003 Sherri Price, attorney for the City of Topeka entered the property of Bolden’s American Indian witness Fred Sanders with two police cars, a fire department car and a code compliance officer alleging the failure to have a privacy fence though no statute requirement for one could be named. Sherri Price threatened to criminally prosecute Fred Sanders in what Bolden’s fellow African American witness

Frank Kirdoll described was an attempt to intimidate him into not giving testimony against the City. See affidavit of Frank Kirtdoll Apdx. Pg. 1022

On December 3, 2003, Sherri Price, counsel for the City filed an ethics complaint against Bolden’s counsel for including as an exhibit in this action the prior ethics complaint filed by a state agency against Bolden’s counsel for representation in this matter. Apdx. Pg. 989

On April1 14th, 2005, the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator filed in the Kansas Supreme Court the recommendation of a tribunal that James Bolden’s current attorney while preparing this appeal be disbarred. Wednesday, April 20 th, 2005 the Federal

Bureau of Investigation raided Topeka City Homes, Inc., described on the fourth page of the second amended complaint as one of the instrumentalities created by the city to self deal HUD funds and seized its records. The April 21st and 22nd, 2005 Topeka Capital

Journal article described the agency’s problems for the time period of James Bolden’s complaint.

In Moore v. St. Paul Fire Mercury Ins Co. The Kansas Supreme Court recognized the vast spectrum of fee shifting statutes:

“There are well over 200 federal fee statute provisions. The largest growth in fee- shifting statutes has been in the civil rights field. 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d 2675.2 (1998). The United States Supreme Court has held that attorney fee award provisions in civil rights actions are sufficiently similar so that decisions interpreting one are applicable to all. Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 759, 105 L. Ed. 2d 639, 109 S. Ct. 2732 (1989); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, n. 7, 76 L. Ed 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983).”

Moore v. St. Paul Fire Mercury Ins Co., 3 P.3d 81 (Kan., 2000). Unlike sanctions, fees are to be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff in § 1983 actions unless there are special circumstances making such award unjust. Miller v. City of Mission, Kan., 516 F.Supp.

1333, 1338 (D.Kan.1981). An impartial observer would reasonably conclude that

Jonathan Paretsky, Stanton Hazlett and the tribunal are profoundly racist and prejudiced against African Americans for making the respondent’s disclosure of costs in a voluntary dismissal which Kansas Supreme Court rule 5.04 provides will be can be assessed against the respondent and his client. Surprisingly this rule is unfamiliar to the Kansas Judicial

Branch officials who make it into an ethical violation or threat of sanction and demand the disbarment of a Kansas attorney. This court recognizes state courts can award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party, See Gumbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy at syl.1 and also “…an inquiry that cannot even commence until one party has 'prevailed.'”

Gumbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 646 P.2d 1078 at 1085 (Kan.,

1982). So an observer could conclude that Jonathan Paretsky might competently understand the mechanics of fee shifting statutes when attorneys are representing a non

African American party. Jonathan Paretsky, Stanton Hazlett and the tribunal had the motion before them and saw that James Bolden had a concurrent jurisdiction federal case where his attorney is required to keep track of hours.