'3

Dwgflrmv
Filed As Is DA
#53
DEF

IN TI-IE 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF JOIWSON COUNTY, KANSAS

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

STATE OF KANSAS )
Plaintifl )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-CR-02394
) Div. 6
LONNIE LUPARDUS, )
Defendant. )

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RECUSAL OF JUDGE THOMAS SUTHERLAND

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Lonnie Dail LuPardus, and submits this Affidavit in support of the
that his
recusal of Judge Thomas Sutherland from presiding over Case No. 23CR02394, on the grounds
of bias that any reasonable person
actions, statements, and rulings demonstrate a clear pattern judicial
the Defendant. Since at least December 6,
reviewing this case would recognize as prejudicial against
of the case, unequal procedural
2023, Judge Sutherland has exhibited dismissive behavior, prejudgment
treatment, and selective application of legal precedent,
which have compromised the fairness of these

proceedings.

LE ALB S OR C US AL N E KANSASL W

canons designed
Under Kansas law, judicial recusal is governed by both statutory provisions and judicial
to ensure impartiality and protect the integrity of the legal process.

1. K.S.A. 20—3lld Motion for Disqualification of a Judge'

—

Pursuant to K.S.A. 20-311d, a judge may be disqualified from a case if a party submits an affidavit
or an inability to provide a fair and impartial trial. The statute
asserting facts that establish bias, prejudice,
provides that:

A party may file a verified affidavit stating the facts and reasons for requesting disqualification.
If the judge does not voluntarily recuse himself, the issue must be referred to another judge for
determination.
0 If bias or prejudice is established, the judge must be removed from the case to ensure due process.

FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 20—311(d) 23CR02394 3/3/25

- -
1
See MOTION

\L\N\
State ofKansas v Lonnie LuPard
us Case 23-CR-02394
—

nd
l Hon. Judge Mamas Sutherla
A flidavit in Support of Recusa of

Sutherland has acted

affid avit vide clea r and convincing evidence that Judge
The facts set forth in this pro
the Defendant of fair treatment,
the nda nt, prej udg ed lega l matters, and deprived
with bias against Defe
sal under K.S.A. 20-3 1 1d.
warranting recu
Rule 2.11
2. Kansas Supreme Court Rul
e 6013 ~ Code of Judicial Conduct,

t himself in any
Cou rt Rul e 601 8, Canon 2, Rule 2.11, a judge mus disqualify
Under Kansas Supreme ances
be questioned. This includes inst
in whi ch the judg e's imp arti ality might reasonably
proceeding
where:

a party or a party's lawyer (Rule

o The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning

2.11(A)(1)). full arguments or evidence (Rule

issues in the case before hearing
o Thejudge has prejudged
2.11(A)(6)). m toward one party over another
has mad e stat eme nts or rulings demonstrating favoritis
o The judge
(Rule 2.1 1(A)(2)).
and
of key issues, sele ctive enforcement of legal precedent,
In this case, Judge Sutherland's prejudgment
constitute violations of Rule 2.11, necessitating
unequal treatment
of the prosecution versus the defense
his recusal.

3. Due Process Rights Under the

U.S. and Kansas Constitutions

is fundamental under the Fourtee

nth Amendment to the U.S.
A defendant's right to an impartia l judg e
conduct creates a Substantial
the Kansas Bill of Rights. If a judge's
Constitution and Section 10 of
to a fair trial. Caperton v. A.T.
of recu sal is requ ired to preserve due process and the right
likelihood bias ,
of bias violates due
556 U.S . 868 (200 9),h eld that judicial bias or even the appearance
Massey Coal Co.,
process.
is so significant that recusal is
Suth erla nd's con duc t, the appearance of bias in this case
Given Judge erland has:
afl'idavit establishes that Judge Suth
ry to prevent a constitutional violation. This
necessa
e and rulings
the Defendant through dismissiv language
o Demonstrated a pattern of bias against
that unfairly favor the prosecution.
as a pro se litigant, while
ed the Def end ant' s abil ity to present his case, particularly
o Res trict
e .
latitude in arguments and evidenc presentation
allowing the prosecution greater us had "wo n the battle but lost
case 's ome , incl udin g his statement that LuPard
o Prejudged the outc
conclusion before all evidence was presented.
the war,"signaling a foregone
irrelevant matters such as prior bond
yed legi tima te defense motions while amplifying
o Downpla his valid legal concerns.
the Defe nda nt as a problem rather than addressing
violations, framing

Page 2 of 22
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

o Contradicted himself regarding legal representation, claiming that no attorney would work with
LuPardus, yet later stating that he would reappoint Mark Bostwick while refusing to assign any
other counsel.

Judge Sutherland's conduct meets the legal threshold for recusal under K.S.A. 20-311d and Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 6018, Rule 2.11. His clear pattern of bias and prejudgment violates the Defendant's
constitutional rights, and as such, he must be removed from this case to ensure a fair trial.

DECEMBER 6TH 2023 HEARING

1. Dismissive Tone Toward the Defendant (Pro Se Litigant)

Throughout the hearing, the judge frequently cut off Mr. Lupardus, limiting his ability to fully articulate
his arguments. While judges must keep proceedings focused, the extent to which the judge interrupted and
dismissed the defendant's statements indicates a lack of patience or willingness to fully hear his
perspective.

o Example: When Mr. Lupardus attempted to reference a prior hearing, the judge immediately shut
him down:
o THE COURT: "Nope. Nope. Doesn't have to answer that question because that is not
relevant."
o Instead of allowing the defendant to make a brief argument about its relevance, the judge
made an immediate ruling without consideration.
o In contrast, the prosecution was given the floor to present background information, even when it
was not strictly necessary to the legal question at hand. The prosecutor was permitted to elaborate
on why the state was dismissing certain charges and provided extended explanations of policies
and procedures without interruption.
o The judge's tone suggested impatience with the defendant, which is particularly concerning given
that he was representing himself. The court should ideally provide pro se litigants some degree of
flexibility to ensure they receive fair treatment.

2. Disparaging Language Toward the Defendant

Judges are expected to maintain neutral and professional language when addressing parties in court.
However, in this case, the judge's language escalated in a way that suggested personal frustration with Mr.
Lupardus.

o Example of Strong Language:

2
Page 36 of12/6/2023 transcript.

Page 3 of 22
Stateof Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Afiidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

o THE COURT: "You are damn right it was. It was a lie. It was a lie to the police
department."
o This statement was made in response to an email Mr. Lupardus sent to law enforcement,
which the judge interpreted as misleading. Rather than stating that the information was
inaccurate or potentially misleading, the judge directly accused the defendant of lying.
o Such a declaration is unusually harsh and could indicate personal frustration rather than a
neutral judicial assessment.
O Additionally, the judge did not allow Mr. Lupardus to provide clarification, immediately asserting
that his statement was false. This response lacked judicial decorum and suggested bias against the
defendant.

3. Unequal Application of Procedural Leeway

A core functiou of a judge is to ensure that both sides have a fair opportunity to present their case. In this
the prosecution versus the defense.
hearing, there was an observable imbalance in how the judge treated

o More Time Given to the Prosecution:

o The prosecution was allowed to present multiple witnesses, walk through a detailed
review of emails, and introduce evidence with little interruption.
O Even when the prosecutor made statements beyond the immediate legal issue at hand, the
judge allowed her to continue.
0 Restriction of the Defendant's Testimony and Cross-Examination:
o When Mr. Lupardus requested to further question a witness, the judge shut him down:
o THE COURT: "You already did."
o In contrast to how the prosecution was able to fully develop its case, the defense was
restricted in its ability to expand on arguments or question witnesses in a meaningful way.
0 Dismissal of Defendant's Key Arguments:
o The judge stated multiple times that the issue before the court was "narrow," using this
reasoning to cut ofl' the defendant's attempts to provide context for his actions.
O While judges must keep hearings on track, this approach disproportionately harmed Mr.
Lupardus, who was attempting to explain why his communications fell within a statutory
exception.

4. Preemptive Exclusion of a Defense Argument

One of the strongest indicators of bias was the judge's decision to preemptively rule against a key
defense argument before the trial even began.

0 THE COURT: "Any communication made by Mr: Lupardus outside of simple copies of the
pleadings... may not be used as a legal defense to the prosecution, may not be
raised to the jurjz,
"5
may not be commented on, or even referred to.

Page 48 of 12/6/2023 transcript.

3

Page 35 of 12/6/2023 transcript.

4

Page 45 of 12/6/2023 transcript.

5

Page 4 of 22
 23-CR-02394
0fKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case
-
State
sal Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support ofRecu of

the defendant before a jury could evaluate the

This decision removed a central argument from
context of his communications.
er the emails constituted a legal violation, the judge
Rather than allowing the jury to assess wheth trial.
limited Mr. Lupardus's ability to defend himself at
made a sweeping legal determination that
the emails constituted a violation, while the
The prosecution was given full latitude to argue why
to argue the opposite.
defense was effectively stripped of its ability

of bias against the defendant, particularly in tone,

The judge's handling of the hearing suggests a pattern
determinations. The key concerns include:
procedural rulings, and legal
while allowing the prosecution to speak
1. A dismissive and impatient tone toward the defendant
at length.
that went beyond neutral judicial commentary.
2 Unnecessarily strong and accusatory language
where the prosecution was given more time and flexibility,
Unequal procedural treatment,
while the defense was frequently cutoff.
to a defense, giving a
A pretrial ruling that severely limited the defendant's ability present
clear advantage to the prosecution.

made incorrect legal rulings, the tone and procedural

While bias does not necessarily mean that thejudge
defendant.
an uneven playing field, particularly for a self-represented
handling of the hearing suggest

24

1. Selective Application of Legal Precedent to Favo

r the Prosecution:

did not
that the arrest was unlawful, confirming that the police
Judge Sutherland acknowledged Miller
refused to dismiss the case, citing State v. Miller. While
comply with statutory requirements, yet he
ssal, the judge's application of this
holds that an unlawful arrest does not automatically require dismi
the
selective enforcement of legal standards. Despite recognizing
ruling raises concerns about
its significance, prioritizing the continuation of the
constitutional violation, the judge chose to downplay
enabled the prosecution to
the state accountable for its misconduct. This ruling
prosecution over holding favoritism
their failure to meet basic legal requirements, which suggests
proceed with charges despite
ss of the legal process.6
toward the prosecution and undermines the fairne

Rejecting Arguments When Made by

LuPardus:
2. DiSparate Treatment of Pro Se Litigants
—

based on who
is the judge's inconsistent treatment of the same legal arguments
A glaring indicator of bias
when LuPardus represented himself, he filed a MOT
ION TO
presents them. In September 2023,

6
See Motion to Suppress an Unlawful Arrest_23CR02394

Page 5 of 22
 23-CR~02394
ofKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case
-

State
Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of

22-3208 ~ 23CR023947 that raised many of the same legal

DISMISS CASE PURSUANT TO Kan. Stat. §
his attorney, Mark Bostwick, in August 2024. At
the time, the judge
points that were later presented by
as insufficiently developed. However, when
dismissed LuPardus' motion, dismissing his arguments
them, even praising Bostwick for
his
Bostwick presented those identical arguments, the judge accepted
ard suggests that Judge Sutherland did not give
"well-reasoned" approach. This clear double stand
ion simply because he was self-represented. When
LuPardus' arguments the same fair considerat
had already been raised, the judge dismissed his concerns,
LuPardus reminded the judge that these points
the principle that
lacked the same quality as Bostwick's. This undermines
asserting that his earlier filings
treated equally in the courtroom.
all litigants, regardless of representation, should be

n the Motion to Suppress an

3. Prejudgment of the Case Indicating a Foregone Conclusio during
-

Unlawful Warrantless Arrest:

the war" is a clear indication of
ent that LuPardus had "won the battle but lost
Judge Sutherland's comm
of the proceedings. This phrase implies that thejudge had
judicial bias and undermines the integrity a lack of
ultimate outcome would be unfavorable to LuPardus, suggesting
already decided the case's se's legal
motions or evidence. The comment trivializes the defen
neutrality in evaluating future and signals a
minor obstacles rather than serious constitutional violations,
arguments, framing them as the case as an
predetermined stance, which
violates the impartial role a judge must maintain. By framing
and an obstructionist approach, effectively
inevitable loss, Judge Sutherland demonstrated bias
undermining the fairness of
the trial.

4. Favoritism Toward the Prosecution:

Sutherland displayed consistent favoritism toward

the prosecution:
Throughout the proceedings, Judge
to
ick faced a scheduling conflict, thejudge pressured him
o Scheduling Bias: When Bostw
little flexibility. In contrast, when scheduling
rearrange other commitments, showing
to accommodate their needs.
concerns arose for the prosecution, the judge was quick
n's The judge expressed impatience with
o Leniency Toward the Prosecutio Arguments:
while allowing the
Bostwick's motions, advising him not to "parrot" arguments,
case without similar dismissive remarks.
prosecution to present their
Arrest: Despite acknowledging the unlawful
o Minimizing the Impact of the Illegal
that the arrest
nature of the arrest, the judge minimized its significance, emphasizing
the case itself. This stance allowed
would only impact the suppression of evidence, not
the prosecution to continue without consequence
for their unlawful actions. These actions
of favoritism that undermines the defense's ability to
point to a recurring pattern judicial
present a fair case.

CASE PURSUANT TO Kan. Stat. § 22-3208 -

23CRO2394
See MOTION TO DISMISS
7

Page 6 of 22
Stateof Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
—

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal ofHon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

5. Disregard for Fundamental Fairness in Legal Proceedings: A fair trial requires that the judge act as
a neutral decision-maker, treating both parties equally under the law. In this case, Judge Sutherland's
actions and comments reveal a pattem of bias:

o His comments and demeanor indicated that LuPardus was expected to lose, diminishing
the value of his legal arguments.
o He dismissed legitimate concerns raised by LuPardus but accepted the same points when
presented by an attorney.
o He ignored the unlawful arrest and its constitutional implications, instead focusing on
procedural considerations that benefited the prosecution.
o He favored the prosecution's procedural needs over the defense's ability to prepare
properly for trial. These factors cumulatively show that the judge's conduct severely
undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

6. Judicial Recusal is Justified: Given the clear indications of bias throughout the case, Judge Sutherland
should recuse himself from further involvement.

The grounds for recusal include:

O Prejudgment of the case, evidenced by the "winning the battle, losing the war"
comment, which reflects an expectation of a conviction.
o Unequal treatment of pro se defendants, where identical arguments were rejected when
raised by LuPardus but accepted when presented by an attorney.
o Selective application of legal precedent, with the judge allowing the case to proceed
despite acknowledging an unlawful arrest.
o Favoritism toward the prosecution, demonstrated by scheduling accommodations,
procedural deference, and leniency toward the prosecution's arguments.
O Failure to ensure fundamental fairness, by disregarding constitutional violations and
prioritizing procedural concerns that favored the prosecution. If LuPardus is forced to
continue under such a biased judge, his right to a fair trial will be irreparably
compromised.

FEBRUARY 28TH, 2025 HEARING

Throughout the hearing, multiple indicators ofjudicial bias against LuPardus emerge, creating an
imbalance in how his concerns are addressed compared to the treatment of his attorneys. The judge
exhibits preconceived notions about LuPardus, dismisses his legitimate grievances, and pressures him into
an unfair legal position without carefully examining the facts and evidence presented.

Page 7 of 22
State ofKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
—

Thomas Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge

m Without Examining Evidence

1. Judge Assumes LuPardus is the Proble
frames LuPardus as the root
One of the strongest indications of bias is that Judge Sutherland repeatedly
cause of his attorney conflicts—without reviewing objective
evidences

the facts, the judge immediately

Presumption of Fault: Instead of impartially considering
whether Attorney
assumes that LuPardus is difficult to work with, rather than investigating
relies on his
Penland's actions contributed to the breakdown in communication. Thejudge
personal trust in Penland and Bostw
ick rather than reviewing LuPardus' claims on their merits.
s to prove that he made
Refusal to Examine Evidence: LuPardus offers to submit email record
Fenland and that Fenland failed to respond or gave
multiple attempts to communicate with
instead to
dismissive answers. However, the judge refuses to review these records, choosing
dismiss LuPardus' concerns outright.
te whether Penland
Failure to Question Attorney Conduct: The judge does not critically evalua
whether Penland met
fulfilled his duties as a defense attorney. The issue at hand is not simply
unication—a
with LuPardus, but whether he provided adequate representation and comm
fundamental part of a lawyer's obligatiOns. By not investigating
this issue, the judge allows
to go unchallenged?
potential negligence by the attorney

ented evidence, the judge deprives LuPardus of an

By assuming fault without reviewing clear, docum
his right to effective counsel.
impartial assessment and disregards

2. Judge Dismisses LuPardus' Right to Legal Representation

to obtain a new
Even after allowing Penland to withdraw, the judge denies LuPardus the opportunity
him into a no-win scenario.
court-appointed attorney, effectively forcing
ants the right to
Violation of the Right to Counsel: The Sixth Amendment guarantees defend
him
effective legal representation. Since LuPardus cannot afford a private attorney, denying
e. The judge does not
another public defender compromises his ability to mount a fair defens
other than his belief that no attorney would be able
provide a valid justification for this decision,
to work with LuPardus.
The judge acknowledges that LuPardus does
Forcing an Indigent Defendant to Self-Represent:
forces him to either
not have the financial resources to afford a private attorney, yet he still
he cannot afford. This is a fundamental violation of his right to
represent himself or find a lawyer
that the case could have criminal consequences.
adequate legal defense—especially given
The judge minimizes the complexity of the case,
Downplaying the Seriousness of the Case:
email and a narrow legal issue. However, this fails to
arguing that it involves only a single

8
See Audio Recording of 02/28/2025 Hearing provided by the court.
9
See DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CURRENT COUNSEL
DUE TO LACK OF
COMMUNICATION AND PREPARATION

Page 8 of 22
 4
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR—0239
-

Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of

for LuPardus, including criminal penalties or long-tertn

acknowledge the potential consequences dus' need
the case as insignificant, the judge undermines LuPar
legal repercussions. By dismissing
for proper legal counsel.

down his options, leaving him

Instead of protecting LuPardus' right to fair representation, the judge shuts
at a serious legal disadvantage.

3. Judge Uses Intimidation and Threats to Pressure Compliance

rable terms by using threats of trial

The judge repeatedly pressures LuPardus into accepting unfavo
deadlines and legal consequences.

Without Counsel: When LuPardus hesitates to agree to the

o Threatening to Proceed With Trial
threatens to hold the trial on March
court's framing of the trial delay, the judge immediately
LuPardus is now without an attomey. This coercive tactic puts
LuPardus in a
Nth—e ven though
a criminal trial with no
panic situati on, as he now faces the possibility of self-representation in

preparation.
that he is doing LuPardus a favor by even
e Framing Cooperation as a Favor: Thejudge suggests
rather than recognizing that granting time for an unrepresented
considering moving the trial date,
defendant to obtain counsel is a fundamental necessity. This misch aracte rizatio n manip ulates the
is unreasonable for requesting fair legal representation.
situation, making it appear that LuPardus
that if LuPardus does not
e Threat of Arrest for Failure to Appear: The judge explicitly warns
failure to appear is a standard legal
show up for trial, a warrant will be issued for his arrest. While
this threat during negotiations serves to pressure
consequence, the way the judge leverages
and with procedural fairness.
LuPardus into compliance, rather than treating the issue impartially

it difficult for him to assert his legal

These coercive tactics place undue pressure on LuPardus, making
rights without fear of retaliation.

4. Judicial Analogies and Language Minimize LuPardus' Concerns

izing
The judge repeatedly downplays and dismisses LuPardus' legitimate grievances, using patron
his complaints.
language and analogies to delegitimize
child who
o The "Little Johnny" Analogy: The judge compares LuPardus to a misbehaving
blames his teachers for his poor performance. This belittles LuPar
dus' legitimate concerns,
to childish complaints rather than
equating his dissatisfaction with legal representation
counsel.
recognizing his valid struggle to secure competent legal
ss: The judge frequently emphasizes that he has serious
o Prioritizing Efficiency Over Due Proce
on his docket, implying that LuPardus' case is a waste
felony cases (murders, rapes, arsons, etc.)
the expense of a fair
of court time. While courts do have heavy caseloads, this should not come at
should not be diminished simply
and impartial legal process. A defendant's right to due process
because the court has other serious cases to handle.

Page 9 of 22
 23-CR-02394
of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case
—

State
Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland
Afiidavit in Support of Recusal of

The judge suggests that meeting with an

o Dismissing the Importance of Trial Preparation:
LuPardus repeatedly stating that he has had almost
attorney just before trial is sufficient, despite
the role of trial preparation and
no communication with his attorney for months. This devalues
effective legal defense, reinforcing the bias against LuPardus.

a narrative that paints LuPardus as unreasonable, when

By using minimizing language, the judge creates
in reality, he is simply advocating for his right to fair legal treatment.

5. Unequal Treatment of Attorney vs. Defendant

an
The judge treats the attorneys with significantly more deference than he does LuPardus, creating
imbalance in how accountability is assigned.

The judge repeatedly praises both Fenland and

o Defending Attorneys Without Question:
never had issues with other
Bostwick, stating that they are highly respected attorneys who have
is and
clients. However, he fails to acknowledge that every attomey-client relationship unique
that Penland's specific handling of this case could have been problematic.
I When LuPardus provides clear examples of
Ignoring Attorney Misconduct Allegations:
to his actions. Instead,
non—communication, the judge refuses to investigate or ask Penland justify
he immediately shifts blame onto LuPardus, reinforcing the narrative
that he is the issue, not the

attorney.
faces no scrutiny, LuPardus is
o Holding LuPardus to a Higher Standard: While Penland
and request he has made. This unequal burden creates an
expected to justify every action, email,
in a legal representation
unfair dynamic where the defendant is forced to prove his own innocence
dispute, rather than being given the benefit
of the doubt.

In Summary: A Clear Pattern of Judicial Bias

unfair conditions, and

The judge consistently dismisses LuPardus' concerns, pressures him into accepting
refuses to acknowledge the possibility of attorney negligence. By downplaying the case, withholding

court-appointed counsel, and using intimidation tactics,

the judge undermines LuPardus' right to a fair
trial and due process.

the
This hearing reflects a systemic failure to treat LuPardus fairly, and the bias displayed compromises
integrity of the judicial process.

JOURNAL ENTRY DATED MARCH 4TH, 2025

After reviewing the Journal Entry dated February 28, 2025, multiple instances of judicial bias
in State of Kansas v. Lonnie
demonstrate that Judge Sutherland is not acting as an impartial adjudicator

Page 10 of 22
 State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Afiidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

LuPardus. The ruling reveals prejudgment, selective framing of facts, contradictions, and favoritism
toward the prosecution, all of which undermine the fairness of the
legal process."

1. Prejudgment of the Defendant's Intent and Conduct

o The judge assumes that no attorney will be able to work with

LuPardus, claiming that any
attorney will eventually face the same issues and that appointing a fourth attorney would be
"fruitless."
0 This assertion unfairly dismisses LuPardus' valid concerns about ineffective assistance of
counsel,
implying that his requests for new counsel are illegitimate attempts to delay the case rather than
good-faith concerns.
o Bias Indicator:
O This statement ignores the reality that attorneys can have difi'erent work
styles,
communication habits, and levels of preparation.
o Rather than evaluating whether LuPardus' concerns were justified, the
judge
preemptively assumes bad faith, effectively blaming him for the attorney conflicts.
o Impact:
o This creates an unfair narrative that LuPardus is the problem, rather than
recognizing that
some of his concerns about prior attorneys may have been valid.
o By deciding in advance that any new attorney will face the same conflicts, the judge
deprives LuPardus of the chance to have a fresh legal advocate who may work better with
him.

2. Contradiction: Judge Claims No Attorney Will Work With LuPardus, Yet Agrees to Reappoint
Bostwick

One of the most glaring contradictions in the

judge's ruling is the claim that no attorney can work with
LuPardus, while simultaneously offering to reinstate attorney Mark Bostwick if he
agrees to return.

o The judge explicitly states that he will not appoint another

attorney, except for Bostwick, whom
LuPardus previously had conflicts with and requested to be removed.
o However, when LuPardus states he is willing to work with Bostwick again, the
judge immediately
will reappoint him if Bostwick agrees.
states that he
0 Bias Indicator:
o This directly contradicts the judge's earlier claim that no
attorney will work with
LuPardus.
o If the judge truly believed that LuPardus was impossible to work with, he would not
allow him to return to Bostwick, proving that his earlier claim was
exaggerated or
misleading.
O
By refusing to appoint any other attorney but Bostwick, the judge is effectively
forcing
LuPardus to work with someone he previously did not trust—rather than
giving him a fair
chance to work with new counsel.

'°
See Journal Entry dated March 4th, 2025

Page 11 of 22
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

o Impact:
o This reveals that the judge's decision to revoke appointed counsel was not based on
necessity, but rather as a punitive measure against LuPardus for requesting new attorneys.
o The judge is limiting LuPardus' options, coercing him into either working with an
attorney he had conflicts with or representing himself.
O This violates the principle that a defendant should have a fair chance to work with a
competent attorney whom they can trust.

3. Selective Framing —

Downplaying Defense Arguments While Emphasizing Bond Violations

The judge minimizes the substantive legal arguments raised by LuPardus while repeatedly emphasizing
past bond violations, creating a biased portrayal of the defendant.

Minimizing a 64-Page Motion to Dismiss

0 LuPardus filed a detailed 64-page motion to dismiss outlining constitutional and procedural
violations.
O The judge reduces this complex motion to a 12-word summary, showing a complete lack of
engagement with its legal arguments.
o Bias Indicator:
O A fair judge would engage with the motion's arguments rather than dismissing them
outright.
o By summarizing a lengthy and complex motion in a single sentence, the judge reveals
that he never seriously considered its legal merit.

B. Repeatedly Highlighting Bond Violations to Undermine the Defendant

O The judge mentions multiple bond violations, including positive drug tests, multiple times
throughout the ruling, even though they are irrelevant to the legal issue of right to counsel.
O Instead of focusing on LuPardus' valid legal concerns, the judge constructs a narrative that paints
him as a problem defendant.
0 Bias Indicator:
o There was no reason to emphasize bond violations in a ruling about whether LuPardus
should have legal representation.
o By focusing on past violations, the judge attempts to discredit LuPardus rather than
addressing the fairness of the proceedings.
0 Impact:
O This selective emphasis biases the court record against LuPardus, framing him as an
uncooperative defendant rather than someone raising legitimate legal concerns.
o This can negatively impact future rulings, as other judges may view him as difficult
rather than fairly assessing his legal arguments.

4. Unjustified Forfeiture of Right to Counsel

Page 12 of 22
State0fKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23—CR-02394
-

Afiidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

o The judge declares that LuPardus has forfeited his right to counsel, despite:
o No findings of aggressive, abusive, or violent behavior.
o No refusal to cooperate with attomeys—only concerns about ineffective representation.
o The fact that LuPardus was deemed indigent and originally qualified for court-appointed
counsel.
o Bias Indicator:
o The forfeiture of the right to counsel is an extreme sanction, typically reserved for cases
where a defendant threatens or obstructs legal proceedings.
o Here, the judge admits that LuPardus was not aggressive but still strips him of legal
representation.
o This ruling appears punitive, punishing LuPardus for raising concerns rather than
addressing the merits of those concerns.
o Impact:
o LuPardus is now forced to go to trial either alone or with an attorney he previously had
conflicts with, despite the court originally acknowledging his right to counsel.
o This creates an unfair trial process, as a defendant should not be punished for requesting
competent representation.

5. Favoritism Toward the Prosecution

o The judge expresses concern that the State will have to pay for witness travel and lodging if the
trial is delayed, implying that a continuance would unfairly burden the State.
0 However, the judge does not express similar concern about whether LuPardus is receiving fair
legal representation.
O Bias Indicator:
o The judge prioritizes the prosecution's convenience over the defendant's constitutional
rights.
o If fairness requires a delay, the financial burden on the State should be secondary to
ensuring due process.
0 Impact:
o The judge's focus on the prosecution's inconvenience suggests an imbalance in how he
weighs the interests of both sides.
o This creates the appearance that the judge is protecting the prosecution rather than
ensuring a fair process for all parties.

In Summary: Strong Evidence of Judicial Bias

Judge Sutherland's language, tone, and selective framing suggest that he has already made up his mind
against LuPardus. His dismissive treatment of defense arguments, repeated focus on bond violations,
arbitrary revocation of the right to counsel, and favoritism toward the prosecution all indicate a clear
pattern of bias: "
" See DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO JOURNAL ENTRY AND RENEWED
REQUEST FOR APPOINTED
COUNSEL_23CR02394_03/06/2025

Page 13 of 22
Stateof Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23—CR-02394
-

Thomas Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge

o The judge falsely claims no attorney can work with LuPardus, yet agrees to reappoint Bostwick,
contradicting his own statement.
He minimizes a 64-page motion to dismiss while emphasizing irrelevant bond violations.
He arbitrarily revokes the right to counsel despite acknowledging that LuPardus was
not

aggressive.
o He prioritizes the State's financial concerns over the defendant's right to due process.

AT 1 CREE! MARK Egg I WIQK'S STATEMENT RESEARDIME

JUDICIAL BIAS
Further evidence of Judge Sutherland's bias against Lonnie Dail LuPardus can be found
in

statements made by Attorney Mark Bostwick, who previously represented the Defendant. During
a
Sutherland had
recorded conversation on March 8, 2024, Attorney Bostwick acknowledged that Judge
from both sides, demonstrating that the judge was not
already made a decision before hearing arguments
approaching the case with an open and impartial
mindset."

l.Predetermined Ruling Before Legal Arguments:

Bostwick noted that he had expected a standard hearing where he and the prosecutor would present legal
in court, it became clear
arguments, after which the judge would make ruling. However, upon arriving
a
to argue the
that Judge Sutherland had already made up his mind before either side had the opportunity
issues, reducing the hearing to a mere formality. This aligns
with previous observations that Judge
Sutherland prejudges legal matters before considering evidence or arguments, violating the fundamental
principle of judicial impartiality.

2. Bostwick's Alarming Statement:

to preside over a bench trial,

Moreover, Bostwick explicitly warned against allowing Judge Sutherland
find LuPardus guilty. This admission from LuPardus' own
stating that he believed the judge would likely
cannot be trusted to fairly adjudicate this case and
attorney underscores the concern that Judge Sutherland
has demonstrated clear bias against the Defendant. While Bostwick suggested that a jury
trial might
reduce the direct impact of this bias, he acknowledged that the judge's control over legal rulings and
procedural matters could still unfairly disadvantage
LuPardus.

3. Judge Allowing All Emails into Evidence in Retaliation to Unofficial Transcript:

evidence to be introduced,
Additionally, Bostwick expressed concern over the judge allowing prejudicial
even when it was irrelevant and had no probative value. He described the judge's approach as permitting
evidence that would elicit jury prejudice against the Defendant rather than proving the actual alleged
crime, which further demonstrates judicial favoritism toward
the prosecution.

on 03/08/2024
'2
See [CONFIDENTIAL] Transcript of Recorded Conversation between Bostwick and LuPardus

Page 14 of 22
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas

4. Ongoing Bias and Potential Impact on the Trial: Attorney Bostwick's statements about the potential
for bias to influence the bench trial highlight the ongoing challenges facing LuPardus in receiving a fair
trial. Despite acknowledging the clear bias of Judge Sutherland, Bostwick seemed resigned to the idea
that the judge's influence would continue to affect the outcome. This creates an untenable situation for
LuPardus, who is now at a significant disadvantage. If the trial proceeds under the current circumstances,
it risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process and the Defendant's right to a fair hearing.

5. Conclusion: The statements made by Attorney Bostwick, particularly his concerns about the judge's
Given the
predetermined stance and bias, underscore the critical need for a fair and impartial hearing.
extensive evidence of judicial bias, both through the judge's actions and Bostwick's own admissions, it is
clear that Judge Sutherland's continued involvement in this case jeopardizes the fairness of the trial. To
it is imperative that Judge
preserve the integrity of the legal process and ensure that justice is truly served,
Sutherland recuse himself from further participation in this case.

DI

It is understood that judges have broad discretion in managing hearings, making procedural
decisions, and ensuring the efiiciency of the courtroom. However, discretion is not absolute and
must be exercised within the bounds of fairness, impartiality, and due process.

1. Discretion Cannot Override Due Process

o Judicial discretion must not infringe upon a litigant's fundamental rights, including
the right to fair treatment, effective legal representation, and an impartial decision—maker.
o Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), explicitly states that even the
appearance of bias can violate due process.
o In this case, prejudgment, selective procedural enforcement, and dismissive
treatment of the defense demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
2. Unequal Procedural Application Undermines Judicial Integrity
o If judicial discretion were an absolute shield, it would allow a judge to systematically
favor one party under the guise of efficiency or case management.
o The record clearly shows that the prosecution was given significant leeway, while the
defense was frequently interrupted, restricted in presenting evidence, and subjected to
dismissive rulings.
o Courts have consistently held that a judge's duty is to ensure a level playing field. State
v. Walker, 270 Kan. 664 (2001), held that a judge's discretionary decisions must be
applied consistently and without favoritism.
3. Discretion Must Be Applied Evenly to Both Parties
o A judge's power to manage hearings is meant to facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

Page 15 of 22
 State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal ofHon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

o The judge's decision to preemptively exclude a defense argument before trial while
allowing the prosecution broad discretion is not an example of fair case management—it
is evidence of a predetermined outcome.
0 The judge's "win the battle but lose the war" statement further solidifies that he has
already decided the case outcome before trial—this is not a reasonable exercise of
discretion, but a violation of impartiality.
4. Pro Se Litigants Are Entitled to Equal Treatment
o Courts recognize that pro se litigants must be afforded the same rights as those with
legal counsel.
o The judge's difi'erential treatment—where identical arguments were dismissed when
presented by the defendant but later accepted when raised by his attorney—shows
that discretion was applied unfairly.
o Kansas Supreme Court Rule 601B, Rule 2.11(A)(l), explicitly mandates that a judge
must recuse himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Judicial discretion is not a license for bias, prejudgment, or selective enforcement of legal rules. The
pattern of behavior in this case exceeds mere case management and falls into the category of judicial
misconduct that compromises due process.

Therefore, recusal is the only remedy that can restore fairness and ensure an impartial trial.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL RECUSAL 0F JUDGE THOMAS

SUTHERLAND IN CASE 23-CR-023_Q4 STATE OF KANSAS vs. LONNIE LUPARDUS
-

The cumulative evidence presented throughout this afiidavit clearly establishes

Judge Sutherland's actions
and conduct throughout the proceedings in State of Kansas v. Lonnie LuPardus has demonstrated an
overwhelming pattern ofjudicial bias. This bias is reflected in his dismissive tone, prejudgment of the
case, selective application of legal standards, and his ongoing favoritism toward the prosecution. Eve
reasonable person reviewing the facts, statements, and actions surrounding this case would reach
l' .l ll lA l". l' I'l"llt|'
guilt or innocence, creating a clear conflict of interest and undermining the veg core of the legal

A fundamental tenet of our legal system

is that a defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, and that
justice must be diSpensed by a neutral and unbiased judge. However, the numerous examples outlined
above show that Judge Sutherland has not acted as a neutral arbiter in this case. His actions and words
suggest that he has already formed an opinion on the Defendant's guilt or innocence, rendering him
incapable of providing an objective and fair hearing. The repeated dismissal of the Defendant's
arguments, including those raised by LuPardus as a pro se litigant, while at the same time giving undue
leeway to the prosecution, further supports this conclusion.

A brief reminder of the factual bias include:

Page 16 of 22
State ofKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

1. Prejudgment of the Case: Judge Sutherland's comment that LuPardus had "won the battle but
lost the war" demonstrates that he has already determined the ultimate outcome of the case,
despite the fact that the legal arguments had yet to be presented. This comment implies that the
judge had pre—decided the Defendant's fate, which is a clear violation of the principle that judges
must remain neutral until all evidence has been reviewed.

2. Disparate Treatment of Pro Se Litigants: The Defendant, as a pro se litigant, has faced clear
and unequal treatment throughout the proceedings. Judge Sutherland dismissed LuPardus'
motions and arguments outright without fiilly considering their merit, even when those same
arguments were later accepted when presented by an attorney. This disparity in treatment, where
one set of arguments is accepted from an attorney and rejected when made by the Defendant,
shows a clear bias against pro se litigants and violates the Defendant's right to equal treatment
under the law.

3. Favoritism Toward the Prosecution: The pattern of favoritism toward the prosecution is readily
apparent in Judge Sutherland's actions throughout the case. He has consistently allowed the
prosecution more latitude in presenting their case, providing them with extended time to make
their arguments and present evidence, while at the same time restricting the Defendant's ability to
fully develop his defense. Moreover, even when the judge acknowledged the unlawful nature of
the arrest, he minimized its significance and allowed the prosecution to continue, effectively
granting them a procedural pass that was not extended to the Defendant.

4. Unjustified Forfeiture of Right to Counsel: The Defendant has consistently raised concems
about ineffective legal representation, but Judge Sutherland has dismissed these concerns and
deprived LuPardus of his right to counsel by refusing to appoint new representation. Despite the
Defendant's clear inability to afl'ord private counsel, the judge has coerced him into either
representing himself or working with an attorney he previously had conflicts with. This decision
violates LuPardus' Sixth Amendment right to effective legal counsel and puts him at a significant
disadvantage.

5. Use of Intimidation and Coercion: Judge Sutherland has used coercive tactics, including threats
of arrest and trial deadlines, to pressure the Defendant into accepting unfavorable terms and
giving up his right to competent legal representation. These tactics create an atmosphere of fear
and intimidation, making it difficult for LuPardus to assert his legal rights without the looming
threat of further consequences.

These actions and statements taken together demonstrate a clear bias and prejudgment of the case by
Judge Sutherland. His behavior creates an appearance of unfairness and raises serious concerns about his
ability to provide a fair trial. The Defendant's right to a fair and impartial hearing has been violated at
every turn, from dismissing legitimate arguments to coercing him into unfavorable positions.

Page l7 of 22
 State
ofKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support ofRecusal ofHon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

Under Kansas law, specifically K.S.A. 20-311d, a judge if an affidavit

may be disqualified from a case
asserts facts establishing bias, prejudice, or an
inability to provide a fair trial. This statute
provides the
legal foundation for recusal, and the facts presented here—ranging from dismissive
language to the denial
of counsel—clearly establish the grounds for Judge Sutherland's removal from this case.
Further, Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 601B, Canon 2, Rule 2.11, states that a judge must disqualify themselves in
any
proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and this is certainly the case here.
Judge Sutherland's conduct has consistently undermined the faimess of the trial, and as such, his
continued involvement would result in an unjust proceeding.

Furthermore, as established in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that judicial bias, or even the appearance of bias, violates due
process. The bias
exhibited by Judge Sutherland, as demonstrated by his
rulings and statements, creates a substantial risk
that the Defendant will not receive a fair trial. The
appearance of bias is so significant in this case that it
would be impossible for any reasonable observer to believe that the trial is
being judged impartially.

WEE
For the sake of justice and to preserve the integrity of the
legal process, it is imperative that Judge
Sutherland be removed from this case. His actions have
clearly compromised the fairness of the
proceedings and violated the Defendant's constitutional rights. Defendant Lonnie LuPardus
respectfully
request:

I. That the Hon. Judge Thoams Sutherland be removed as

presiding judge over case 23-CR-02394:
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus;
2. That the Chief Judge assign this to a new Judge who will
judge this case fair, and without bias or
prejudice;
3. That the Chief Judge (or newly appointed Judge)
appoint Defendant an attorney to represent him
in these matters per Defendant's 6th Amendment
Right;
4. Any and all other relief that is appropriate;

The facts laid out in this affidavit, supported by case law and
legal statutes, make it clear that Judge
Sutherland's continued involvement in this case presents an insurmountable
barrier to a fair trial. To
uphold the integrity of the judicial system and to protect the Defendant's
right to due process, it is critical
that Judge Sutherland be removed from this case
immediately. Without such a recusal, the Defendant will
be deprived of the fiindamental fairness that is the cornerstone of
any just legal system

Page 18 of 22
 State ofKansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support ofRecusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

Respectfully Submit

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

[email protected]

I, Lonnie Dail LuPardus, Defendant in the above-captioned matter, hereby certify that on this 10th of
day
March, 2025, I served a true and correct copy of the Afiidavit in Support of Recusal of Thomas
Judge
Sutherland upon the Criminal Clerks of the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas, by email at
with a formal request that it be forwarded to the Chief
Judge of the
10th Judicial District, James Charles Droege, for review and determination
pursuant to K.S.A.
20-311d(c).

Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Kansas that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Dated this 10th day of March, 2025.

Respectfully submitted

I
L'o'nnie Dail LWr'dus
Defendant, Pro Se
10212 Belmont Ave

Page 19 of 22
Stateof Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

Kansas City, MO 64134

(913) 912-2255

Page 20 of 22
 Case 23-CR—02394
0f Kansas V Lonnie LuPardus
-

State
Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland
Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of

NOT R TAT ME T

In the State of Missouri, in the County of Jackson;

/2025, before me, the undersigned Notary

Public, personally appeared Lonnie
0n this g /
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
LuPardus, known to me (or satisfactorily proven)
executed the same for the purposes stated therein.
within affidavit and acknowledged that they

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

M
[Sigfature of Notary]

Name: gailWL KWCng

Notary Public
My commission expires: @flfli/ mac?

Seal:
JOHN KRAWCZYK
N Public-Notary Seal
STATE OF MISSOURI
Jackson Gaunty
es 5/24/2026
My Commission Expir
Commission # 22660119

Page 21 of 22
State of Kansas v Lonnie LuPardus Case 23-CR-02394
-

Aflidavit in Support of Recusal of Hon. Judge Thomas Sutherland

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JIJDGE PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 20-311(d) 23CR02394 3/3/25

- -
V'PP'NT'

12/06/2024 HearingTranscript 23CR02394

-

Motion to Suppress an Unlawful Arrest_23CR02394

MOTION TO DISMISS CASE PURSUANT TO Kan. Stat. § 22-3208 -
23CR02394
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CURRENT COUNSEL DUE TO LACK OF
COMMUNICATION AND PREPARATION
6. Audio of 02/28/2025 Hearing_23CR02394
7. Lupardus Journal Entry
8: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO JOURNAL ENTRY AND RENEWED REQUEST FOR
APPOINTED COUNSEL_23CR02394_03/06/2025
Confidential Exhibits (Only for Chief Judge)
|

9
a. 03_08_2024 Call with Mark Bostwick
b. Audio of 03_08_2024 Call with Mark Bostwick

Page 22 of 22
 RICT OF JOH NSON COUNTY, KANSAS
IN THE 10TH JUDICIAL DIST
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

)
STATE OF KANSAS
)
Plaintifi'
)
) Case No. 23-CR-02394
vs. Div. 6
)
)
LONNIE LUPARDUS,
)
Defendant.

TS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT
FOR
TIO N TO FILE EX HI BI
DEFENDANT'S MO ND
RECUSAL OF JUDGE SUTHERLA
ves this Court for
rdus, and respectfully mo
COMES NOW the Defendant, Lonnie LuPa vit for Recusal of Judge Sutherland
.
leave to file the following exhibits in support of the Affida
are necessary for the
tiar y sup por t for the Defendant's motion and
These exhibits provide eviden
tter.
Court's consideration of the ma
R FILING:
LIST OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FO
ss filed in September 2023.
1. Exhibit 1* ~ Copy of Defendant's Motion to Dismi with the
ial
ge Sutherland's init agreement
2. Exhibit 2*
—

Transcript excerpt reflecting Jud

Motion to Dismiss. for dismissal.
den ce and case law supporting the arguments
3. Exhibi t 3* Leg
—
al cor res pon
and the Motion to
ibi t 4* Do cum ent atio n of Defendant's wrongful arrest
4. Exh —

court records.
s but not properly recorded in
Suppress that wa granted counsel regarding
Em ail den ce between Defendant and prior
5. Exh ibi t 5* —

cor res pon

concerns over judicial bias. No.
the February 28, 2025, hearing (Case
6. Exhibit 6** Audio Recording of
—

are evident.
herland's bias and inconsistency
23CR023 94) in which Judge Sut
Sutherland.
7. Exhibit 7* Journal Entry entered by Judge
—

in similar
ns of inconsistent rulings
8. Exhibit 8* Prior case history showing patter
—

cases.
ne call with Attorney
Exhibit 9** Audio Recording of the March 8, 2024, pho
9. herland's rulings were
—

wh ere con cer ns about the fairness of Judge Sut

Mark Bostwiclg
discussed.

SUPPORT OF RECUSAL OF JUD

GE THOMAS
Exhibit attached to AFFIDAVIT
* IN
~1 l_2025
SUTHERLAND_23CRO2394_O3
ail.
**Audio file submitted via em
 LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBMISSION
that directly impact the fairness and impartiality
The above-listed exhibits are material evidence
rules of evidence and procedure, the
of the presiding judge. Pursuant to applicable Kansas
Defendant submits these materials in support
of the motion for recusal to ensure a full and fair
adjudication of the issue
.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

that this Court:
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests
in this matter.
l. Allow the aforementioned exhibits as part of the record
her Judge Thomas Sutherland should be
2. Consider the exhibits in determining whet
recused from further proceedings.
3. Grant such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Signed,

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255 -

lu ardusvshomesite maill.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
a true copy of this motion was submitted
Via email to:
I, Lonnie LuPardus, certify that

on March 13, 2025.

Abby Olson: @abby.olson@jocogovorg
/s/ Lonnie LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

I I I Q .H
FILED AS IS

OF JOHNSO N COUNTY, KAN S

IN THE 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
\

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

)
STATE OF KANSAS
)
Plaintiff
)
) Case No. 23-CR-02394
vs.
) Div. 6

)
LONNIE LUPARDUS,
)
Defendant.

PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 20-311(d)

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE
ndant in the above-captioned matter, respectfully
COMES NOW, LONNIE LUPARDUS, Defe believes that the
to K.S.A. 20—311(d). The undersigned
moves the Court for a change of judge pursuant n.
cannot afi'ord a fair trial in this actio
Honorable Judge Thomas Sutherland

that the Court promptly hear this

motion informally Via Zoom, and
by requ ests
The undersigned here her judge by the Chief
that this matter be reassigned to anot
should Judge Sutherland disqualify himself,
will file the necessary affidavit as
If the requ est for disqualification is denied, the undersigned
Judge.
provided in K.S.A. 20-311d(b).
Respectfully submitted,

Lonnie LuPardus
/s/
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

lupardusvshomesitegfi) gmailleom

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
submitted Via email to:
that a true copy of this motion was
I, Lonnie LuPardus, certify

on March 3, 2025.
Abby Olson: @[email protected]
Lonnie LuPardus
/s/
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

Kansas
Clerk of the District Court, Johnson County
03/03/25 9:45am KM
lupardusvshomesite®gmailLoom
 UPAFDU

1N THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS

CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT WITNESSES:
ILIANA MIELCAREK
Direct Examination by Ms. OTson
STATE OF KANSAS.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Lupardus
P1aintiff, OFFICER ANGELA WINTERSCHEIDT
Direct Examination by Ms. 01son 22
Cross-Examination by Mr. Lupardus 29
VS. Case No. 23CR2394
LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS.
ILIANA MIELCAREK
Direct Examination by Mr. Lupardus 36
Defendant.

EXHIBITS: Description Admitted:

10
1O
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING State's 1 E-mai1s 24
11

12 BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 6th day of 12

13 December. 2023. that the above-entit1ed matter comes 13

for hearing before the HONORABLE THOMAS 14

14 on

15 SUTHERLAND. Judge for Division 3 of the Tenth 15

16 Judicia1 District of the State of Kansas at O1athe, 16

17
17 Kansas.
18
18

APPEARANCES: 19
19
20
20 Representing the State:
Ms. Abby O1son
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY 21
21
100 N. Kansas Avenue
OTathe, Kansas 66061 22
22
Defendant appearing pro se 23
23
24
24
25
25
'

12122: 04,?8pmDC
UflflfituéfimDC

HS. OLSON: Yes. Judge. That is correct.

1234567890

(The fo11owing proceedings were had

before the Court with a11 parties present.) Judge, the State, given numerous factors
THE COURT: Do you have anyone here with that I will put on record, is moving to dismiss the
in support? bad check case.
you today
MR. LUPARDUS: No. THE COURT: Fair enough.

THE COURT: A11 right. We are here today MS. OLSON: And, Judge, if I may, I would

on two cases. Case Nos. 230R3418 and 23CR2394. like to walk through the reasons for thatt

These are both captioned State of Kansas versus

THE COURT: And just a moment.

Lonnie Lupardus. (Discussion off the record.)

Go ahead and state your appearances, 10 THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Olson.
10
MS. OLSON: Thank you. Judge.
p1ease.
MS. OLSON: May it p1ease the Court, Your 12 Judge, first, it is a little difficult
12
13 for the State to know which motion to respond to
13 Honor, the State appears by Abby 01son.
MR. LUPARDUS: Lonnie Lupardus. the 14 necessarily. There were multiple filed, multiple
14

15 Defendant. 15 sent to office. 50 the State will not be

my

16 MS. MIELCAREK: I1iana MieTcarek. 16 addressing one specifically but, instead, the case
17 as a whole.
17 MS. OLSON: I1iana, you can stay muted

18 ti11 I ca11 your name. Okay? 18 Judge. there was a notice that was first
MS. MIELCAREK: Thank you. 19 filed in this case by the Defendant, Notice of Cash
19
MS. OLSON: Thank you. 20 Payment to Gardner Police Department, despite not
20

21 THE COURT: A11 right. So in no 21 receiving any certified letter informing me of the

first. 22 error, as per statute.

22 particu1ar order, 1et's take up 23CR3418
And, Judge, I have copy of that if you
he1p but notice that
a
23 Ms. 01$on, can't
I 23

24 it does not appear that the State has fi1ed a 24 would like.
25 THE COURT: That's all right.
25 response to the Motion to Dismiss.
1.
0438mm DC
. .

12/12/23 04.38pm DC 12122?

 implications on whether or not the normal policy or
All right. So. Judge. that

1234567890
HS. OLSON: after
protocol is followed. But in this case.
is what the State is first looking at. ic crimes
this Court knows, but Mr. staffing it with the chief of the econom
Judge. as of the victims
not one of the unit. after receiving the payment
Lupardus might not be aware. I am r Police
case comes to me once it being made whole. which was the Gardne
charging attorneys. The is
as that
Department. the State will be dismissing
has been charged. this.
the normal procedure in a case like
This case was charged on -- looks ike
I did want to address a few things
It was charged back
Judge,
November 2nd was arraignment, it perfectly clear as to
heard about why just to make
-~

on October 19th. and the case started getting

10 why the State is dismissing.
10 that first week of November.
we received a letter -- I am not
11 Judge.
Judge. until that point. the records
up
12 sure if something was filed. but it was a letter
12 that indicate Mr. Lupardus had not made whole
I have
cc'd on about why
sent a 13 addressed to me that the Court was
13 the victims in this case. However. I was
14 this case should appreciate Mr.
be dismissed. I
14 receipt Lupardus. as well as the Court. given
by Mr. into it. However.
made full. and
15 Lupardus sending this and looking
15 showing that the payments were the State
none of the reasons cited I agree with.
--

of 2023. 16
that that occurred on Novemb er 7th
15
does not agree with. and that is not why the
case is
17
Judge. the policy of the DA's Office
with
17
is little bit 18 being dismissed.
checks this one a unique
far as malicious prosecution. this is
18 bad --

19 As
because it was involving a police department rather
19
20 not malicious prosecution. And. Judge. you can see
than a normal mom-and-pop shop that we see. this
that in the fact that the State is not treating
20
defendant the opportunity to make
21
21 Normally we give a
would normal bad
22 case any differently than we a

22 the victims whole. they have done that in a

And if
23 check case where victim is made whole.
a
reasonable period of time. it is the normal policy
23
24 Judge. the statute in this case is 21 --

24 of the DA's Office and for transcript

-- purposes I
25 K.S.A. 21-5821. Judge. I understand these
25 will say there are different cases that can have
n.

when deposited as a
presumed to have been given
statutes
restricted matter in the United States mail,
--

THE COURT: Give me the number again.

Judge. in this case. if the Gardne
r
HS. OLSON: Yeah. K.S.A. 21-5821.
would have sent a certified letter
Police Departm ent
THE COURT: Thank you. of
in the mail. that would have been presumed notice
HS. OLSON: 30. Judge, looking at that
s oral the bad check. However. notice says oral or
statute. Subsection 3 states: Notice include
d thereto . 7 written.
or written notice to the person entitle in this case is a letter was
What we have
Judge, the Defendant stated their motion
sent although not certified. so we
don't know if
both in their motion
--

and their reason for dismiss

--

Mr. Lupardus receive d that. But there were two

that they 10
10 and their notice and their letters to me

r Police different oral notices that were provided by

were not given proper notice by the Gardne
sergeants with the Gardner Police Department.
One
not have 12
case should
12 Department and. therefore, the the and the other was face~to ~face in
13 was over phone
13 been charged. The State wholeheartedly disagrees Gardner Police
14 person with Mr. Lupardus at the
14 with that. Here is why. Judge.
is 15 Department.
Subsection 1 is where the defense
15
16 Judge. that satisfies the notice
Subsection
misconstruing what the statute says.
1
16 the
the 17 requirements. and. as such. the motions.
Unless the maker or drawer
--

17 says: and the multiple letters received by Mr.

18 notices.
pays the holder thereof the amount
due
Defendant
given sufficient
--
1B
Lupardus Claiming he was not
$30 for 19
thereon and a service charge not exceeding
notice. the State disagrees with,
19

each check within seven days after

notice .. and 20
20
Judge. I just wanted to make a record on
21
has been
again. that includes oral or written
—-

21
that as the State is dismissing -- the State is only
check has not 22
22 given to the maker or drawer that such whole to
dismissing because Mr. Lupardus has
made
23
been paid by the financial institution.
the victims of this case. Judge. it is the State's
23
Judge. this is where the Defendant
is 24
24
25 position that a crime two crimes of bad check
--

notice shall be
25 misreading the statute. Written
'

1:721? wisp/um
12/12/23 04 38pm DC
 vr
w
N
F
r

oa "It/85w szxzr/ZI
l 1r:r
a
w
r

so wdgz' m
mou 1q5;4 am 94049q enss; ALuo sui
r—

1 JeuleuM s;
cuoy1om
uaddeu 01 sugofi s; 1euM fiuyleEL3LL
Ass o; fiupqzflue
'aann; au; u;
JnoA uL ApeaJLe s; zeuM ueq; Jaqlo 1ou 9J2 9M 'PESqE 09 318003 3H1
aAeq noA op luyod 'snpJedn1 'Ju 'uuylom JnoA
syu) 12 'noA Mueul
-- me I
s; syn; asneaeq :SJL; o; fiu;ofi uo paueddeq seq 1eqM uaA;B 12a;
'seseo Jaulo
LSBA 'efipnr
4o pJoan e exam 01 Juem 1sn£ I
'sSLmsgq 01 uogzou s.1uepua;ea 'afipelmauxae
'u;962 'uo mou 1u6;J JJnoa sq; eJoaq s; uogqM ;o aouepgAa aseo egae;
pue pneJ49p on 1ue3u;
dn 01 Suyofi 1xau aJe 9M e
'pegzugez axe: su; ;o lunoo
NQVDONQO'O

em;Jd a sq [lens 'spun; 1uego;;4n

'aJau nusmou e 1sn[
-1u5;J LIV uaeq seq uoyqm
uo suogznzgzsu; Le;oueu;; Aq pasn;aJ
-- dn 3M MoN
am 9A;B 9x21 o1 Su;05 3J2 Jo Jexem aux xsULBBe
;o auemfled 'xoeuo e ;o JaMer
-- 3H1
'1qBLJ (la OS Iiano? sAes elnlels ames 12g;
uoLanQSOJd Aue u; as";
'nofl xueuL isnGHVdn1 'uu o; lsenbaJ plnom
'10u
;o q uoyloesqns 'eleJusnllg zsng
'Mou aogmz am o; new; p;es noA ddeu
sq: 'zuewzJedap 83;Lod Jno u1;M Buyue
91913
SuLAes xu;u1
Jo 1uelJodm; eJom 1; saxem ao;M1 1; :s;u1 op lou plnom
ueaq seq 1euM ueALS 'JeAemou
"OK ;L JEHM MDUX 1.UOD I lianofl EHL
1 asea e u; AllemJou 'efipnr :Nos1o 'su
-9ouap;Aa
'noA xueul 'panuaJB s; uo;1ou
WGJJ spew
JLSul U! 90L;JO 3.530J011v 10LJ15LG 9H3 'pJooeJ JnoA
Alzan;p s; sgu1 puv 'xoaJJoo S102; Len1se J;au1 'IHBLJ Llv llflnOO 3H1
axe Uloq SABH "0A
196 uaAs 1,uea Kaqi 'q1;M aSJeqo o1 SugxJz 'noK xueql
Raul 'zoos 'Looe 'eJe Aau: uoLuM
Aau; aeqM Mon» ueAe 1.uop ALJEaLa 'JeaLo s; e1nqens sq;
10u "L909 xoaqo e sem 1; 1eq1
sazezs euepLAe UMo o; peJgnDSJ zlueJsM
--
'Lgew p913;JlsaJ Aq 1; puss
sgu: JaupJes JedOJd aAgfi pgp
J;au; u; eAeu Aeu: eJeq uo Juaweuels
Aeu; zen; p;es ueAe Jo 'asguou
Sq 01 lsnr ZSnGHVdHW 'HH
aux '00) 'JEQLO 'aaglou JadaJd 5u;A;B
Aeul leul mgelo 01 6u;KJ1 Jo;
'peaue 06 1ng plnous syn: JO;
L
:ou JO; zzss-Lz Jepun neusgund sq
'01 Buyofi we 1 uagum 'ss;ms;u o; uoglou JLSql )uEJfi
ZL
Juuwfi
mu!
vv QWLZI uwuwrm
Jamdsz'ro mar 2! uwlq.
a .
9Jeu1 ("o SZ
uo ueq; 1nq 'Looe "SUI pue '99099 '3; 3L
I pus 'p90110u ALJadOJd 73
__
etqgsuodsaJ aLdoed sq: xu;q1 " 89 se paauaJa;eJ s; 19g;
naeuo e a1;a
99 QHEL
lsaq aul 'PLHOO I DLP I 05 PUV --
£2
10H SBM I aaylod JeupJeg an: u1
Raul 'KJLO JeupJes an: u;
uo :na 52M 1 Ja;;e 1u5;J 22
'qxL aqz uaAe 1,U9J9 Aau: neuz smous
'SJaqmnu xoeqo ewes sq;
seM 1 'sBuLul
1; pr uaul pue 'uLeBe pa1seJJesJ IHSLJ SOUGDLAQ sq: u; 'OSLV
0519 1; 'eJau
alqu anew o1 amp; peq uaAe I aJogsq OZ
aseu1 ;o Kue 'uzaz an: uBnOJuz
pa1saJJe seM 1 SJSM 6L
puv 'am o; 1sumouxequn JO -~
ulsz lsnfinv uaemlaq p911quns
dmezs
quz an;
'Lgem sq; u; Keuom q6noua 9L
'pep;AOJd )ou seM soglou sq: cs --
Kan) ueqm 12"} spun; asoq; JSADD 01
e
u;;M 49:39L e Bu;oeld 10u 5L Jallew
peloLsteJ xueq E papnlou; LL
lEul Juawalels
NGVWLDFWWO

SEM 9J9": QEUI DSMOUS

~- 150d 9H1 IEUM
E lefll DLES Kaul leul 93L;}° 9L
ssgmsgp o; uogaom eui :snauvanw 'HN
5 p31;un sq; 6u;1leo -— 9L
EuLMoqs aOLAJss Le;sod $9121 asneaaq 1gq
e 1 VL
1dyJasuBJ1 14noo an; pap;AOJd osLe e dn umop MOLS Jeq1ga 01 noK peau
Slllkl needs pue
'paloLJlsaJ 1ues CL
'noA pueasJepun 1,ueo I 383180633 3Hl
I
SEM 1L 12u1 sueem losdse LEULmLJo xueq ZL
aq o: pesoddns .. sq: u; sluamelels
ssgmsgp o: uoy1ow
e u; pgp Ksu; gnu; 139; an; ans
'aneyJdOJdde
Am q1;M pepgAaJd SEM zen; Junowe EUi 'aseo SLUJ Jo;
aogzou zen: 'BULLL; 0L
uaeq eAeu plnom m;2[o Kan; ou seM aqaq: zen; 5; Ass 01 ex;L pLnOM
pnEJ; ;o adA;
1gns LgAgo e uaaq sgqz peH --
aJaM Kan: leql I BULHI Kluo euz zsnr isflGHVdRT 'NH
'LLEW
¢snpJedn1
4M 19H; ou SAEH
ssela 1s4;d Kq zuas eq Lleqs eagzou u9114 9520 sq; 01 uoglosiqo
JH "passymsyp Sugeq
8L uoyuM 'en191s
sanens A1190L4Laeds 1L 'oLsz-og noK amnsse 1 'u6noua JLEd :lHnOO EHL
LLALa an; 19 xool noK ;; 'palo
gJlseJ aq 01 pasoddns -ssgws;p
LJqseJ saseo
s; 1; AuM 01 'eLdmexa 405 'Jeuzew pazo o: BugAom s; 31215 sq: 'suog1en1;s LL? u;
s s;
se uenyfi aq 01 syqz 1eu1 alnzeus sq) u; pa1e1 em mou pue Koglod an; UGALG 'JeAemoH
--
essu; eLpueq
os puv
11 -eo;;ou uenpfi :ou sen 1 pue SEM myuogA sq: pue
'1uam142daa angled JGUpJBS
uaAa 1,uop Kaul L
'5ugngo aJe Aau; geqM moux Kq ps1;;mwoo 9J9M
L
'snpJedn1 eLuuo1 '1uepus;eq an:
an; 962d 1x9u an;
'aooe pue Loos Jsqwnu xoauo Jaulo
 30 Midge r0 9: Z! Z! 30 wdsE-'m mat/z:
-1. U1 -7. UV r.
'pelOElUOO SBM 1U6w90J0;U9 Mel 12q1 918p eu1 92 '9w;1 sq; 12 soaLd u; JSpJO uo;1oelon eLqeeoJo;ua
S; lBHi 'a1ep zen; ":noqe JO uo" salens JuLBLdmoo 72 pue pLLEA 2 52M 9J9u1 lBUJ ewnsse 19nw 1 'Aepo;
Gui 'szupod M9; 2 15n[ 'SSSUJLM 184g; 3,31213 EZ uoylom syul ;o sesodJnd Jed 'JapJo eALloalon eq1
eu; fiuylLeo eJo;eq 'efipnr 5NOSWO 'SH 33 auefiylgL 01 Eugofi lou we I iiHnoO 3H1
--
'anss; o;;;oeds 91;u;; KJeA v 'KEpO) ALpuooes
enss; eaguy; KJSA e s; sgui 118003 3H1 OZ 'KLSALISLPULA auop SEM 11 L94Ll
'eSpnr 'noA xueql 1NOSWO 'SN 6L JnoA Jo; Jae; u; aJaM non uaqM asnoq s,Apoqawos
'p39304d eseald 'uoslo .3" '1H5!J LlV 8L 13 dn moqs noA pLnOM AuM as 'Aeu u; '6u;u19mos J0
SM
NNVIOCONQOIO

'Aep01 aJeu Bugop 9J2 zeqM lou LL 'uuvz an: pue ulzz an: 32M 1! zen: aseo vaa LBULSLJO
5; leul 'ewgz JaleL ewos 12 p;p eus leqM JO '1ou 9L sq; 1e pafislle aus pue 'Aeu ;o pua sq; SpJEMOl
JO noK 1su;262 JepJo Jen; eAeq o: noK Jo; Jedon 9L sem )1 'SIUQAB pefieLLe asau; ;0 [Le J91;E sAep
SEM 1; JaqleuM 9195;1gl 01 Buyofi 10u we 1 VL anu1 pasunouueun asnou Am 19 dn pamous aus IEHI
'5132; sq; 3J9 esoui €L '00} 'uogluem 01 SHLL pLnOM 1 0912 puv
'am;1 sq) 12 as 04d eJeM noA leg: pue 'UOLIEBLILL ZL 'SJLl
Bu;05uo u; aJeM 0M1 noA 19u1 'JSpJO leqz 1no LL Jaq ;o 4994 u; sem eus esneoeq syql op 1.up;p eus
x003 qu UOSJed sq; u1;M paleoyunmwoo ALLeuoyluanu; 0L 'esle Sugqlflue JO esneoeq ION uos Jeq JSULBBE
'xslv
poA 19g; 'JapJo 9A;1oe10Jd slq29040;ua pue paguap $2M euo LBULBLJO Am J91;e SJau pallgmqns aus
pLLBA 9 SEM 9Jeqi 'aseo sgql u; slog; pelnds;pun Jelse p911;qus pen I leul Vdd 2 52M IEUL 'EUELLI
..
ugelJeo 942 9J9q1 9J9 9M 'Kep03 leul :noqe usugefie sem auo 1eql 'pass;ms;p aseo pale1s uOLUM
SULHLBI zou 9J2 eM 'lL9M ilHnOD 3H1 m;1o;A au) 01 l;em-e an; gues 1uepua;aq :u19 Klnr
__
e sem aJeq: asneoaq UO $91235 eqs SUO lsJL; Sul 'aldmexa J05
dn 18H: 9x91 DIP I 'LlQM :snaavan1 'HH 'JsAo KBUJolle ;o JGMOd Suywlelo SEM aus uayuM 'uos
s,m;1o;A eu; qlLM SJSM Aaul Emll°LA 9H1 HILM 1°"
SJSM Raul 'SULLL; 1Jnoo a 01 paleLaJ s; asuodsaJ
-«
L Jau u; sazgo eqs SULUIKJSAS 1nq os puv L
30 wdss'm 5:, 5M! 30 «"186 to 52mm
a -71 v 1 ..
-slgem-a an; eAeq ueAe 1,up;p eus ueqM slgew-e 93 a; peJ;nbeJ sem eue;11 aou;s IDLES seq "OSLO vav -93
sq) u; SBM leuM maux aqs 19H: 6u;121s 'uosLo 'SN 173 'a1n131s sq; uzym suo;1daaxe aJe eJeq1 12u1 paLnJ '73
qzgm qSJBH Km --
KaUJoqlv JewJo; q1;M suo;1eogunmwoo EZ ApzeJLe seq 14nog an; 'nsle pua uyefiv 92
MOJ; moux I puv 'slgew-a 9H1 DEN USA? JSABU 32 'exgds u; [[9 59M II 'pelELOLA ueeq seq 22
--
Aau: qOLqM 'MGJEOLSLN EUE;[I eue;L1 WOJ; sL;ew-a sgq; leqz saJnoa aq; o1uL SULulou fiu;1ezs 'zugeldwoa LZ
sseu; Bu;1sanbaJ ueAa 1J23s 'UIQZ Jaqwa;des [Llun OZ SLUI PQLLJ DUE luaM Raul 'Jeuz 1614B ALIDSJLG 'weul OZ
-— --
__
'1,up;p IUSMJJEdSQ KJJOS QOLLOd aqlelo sq; 6L lsugefie 1uaw6pn[ e uom I pue 'Z UOLSLALG KJJOS 6L
leul 5UL189491UL 1L DUL; I 'JaulJnJ PUV 8L '1Jn03 syn: 10H 1Jn°° SEMI U! P?" 9M 13") 8L
'u19 Ktnr 'u16 Alnr MOJ; 5906 11 6
NWVIDLDBWOO

'u1L ALnr LL 9823 SMLELO [laws Jo; dn psmoqs xeLV pue euepLI LL
'1eqM '893213 11 '1uyeLdmoa an; uo aq o; pesoddns 9L ueqM 'palg; sem aseo syu; zen; Rep sq; 'UlLL KLnr 9L
949M 12H; sazep an: ueAe zou lsnL aJe Raul '1Bq1 9L L;1un dn ABM an; [LE uo saoB syql 9L
uaAa zou 'ueem 1 --
MOJ; GugfiusJ salep 5.11 "KLnr 17L 'squamnoop Jeu pues 01 DSJLnbaJ seM 1 qOLqM 17L
;o HILL sq; NOJ; Bu;q1Aue uog1uaw ueAa 1,usaop uosLo SL 'm;u 4o Aau40112 ;o Jamod peu eus 6U;1Jesse 1dax 9L
VOV 'SSUOdSSJ Jaq uI "429A syu1 4o KLnr 4o Ultl ZL 'Bugop umo Jau Aq 'aqs wqu 'uos Jaq 'SESJEIEM xa[V ZL
eu) uo peueddeu neu: anss; ue aq 01 pasoddns seM asuLefie eJaM seseo Kw 'enJ1 10u s; HOLHM 'xeJeale;u LL
sgql '1ugeldmoo sq; mOJ; LLBOSJ noK 41 0L BUBHI 90 PLHOM UOHM 'aseo s;u1 u; leflLA 0L
'9529 aA;;oe sq; eq; 15u;efie saseo snOJemnu psl;; nuepu9;aa eq; JEUI
fiu;pJefisJ sua;;eo;unmwaa pue sfiu;[;; pa;eleJ-;Jnoa sAes 'ew esnaxa 'uoslo Aeu401;V lOLJlsLfl 1uelsyssv
-- --
a; K113;J;s u;e;Jad o; peJ;nbaJ aJeM J0 uoslo KOUJOIIV JOLJISLQ 'eLdmexa J03 'ss;ms;q
'1eu; anoqe AJJos 'HBSA snaavanw '8" 01 uognou s,s;e1s an) uo SBLGUSISLSUOOUL LBJSASS aJe
'132; as peaJ o: 10u 9J9q1 'JouoH JnOA 'Kexo 3SHGHVdfl1 'HH
AJ1 'GugpeaJ 94.noA uauM HBLHOdEH 3H1 'peeqe lqfiyJ 09 118003 3H1
--
AJJos SfldHVdn1 "NH 'Plnoa I 4! 'SSLWSLG
uo pLOH HEiHOdSH 3Hl o; uog1ou sq: o; asuodsau au; 01
sasuodsaJ ;o
--
u;e;qo L eldnoo e zsn[ 'afipnr 'saA 5SHGHVd01 '8" L
 Fv
FNFm

ya wdgs.rv s: 21/2! ajwfisnlgznw

\.1 1 . .
Fw F

'saA -peeue 09 'me,em 'AJJos

'adoos --
OSLE 1L SI
an: JO ep;szno 5; SLLIIL 'aBpnr iNOSTO 'SN --
osle puv '1ugeldwoo sq;
¢1oaJJoo :se;;e;ex exam 01 luaM 1 ueuM euoud Aw ;o 1no man; mes Raul
xaLv JSAO KSUJOIJB ;o Jemod SJBM noA Buquesse éJeeA
--
:dex noA 'uogxsanb l2u;; auo 01 1sn£ puv Syn: ;o JHqweldas UL Maeq 12H: $2M Jo 'KLnr ;o ulLL
'pr 1 0s sq: uo zugeldmoo Lau;5;Jo lsJg; sq; 49142 leuu sen
'Kexo 'Mou
lufigJ 89M 1aq1
--
e
Nmvmohmmo

nJodaJ exam 5312p neuM aJns lou we I '1; Jo; pause Raul uauM
0; papasu I plo1 SEM I '1uamsseJeu JnoA 4o asneaeg ¢SJeay;;o 1uew99Jo;ua MEL sq; 01 AllosJLp sl;ew-e
éeSflOHlJnOO sq: pepLAOJd noK uauM 9w [L91 noA uea 'xeJeole;u 'su
syu1 u; Apoqemos ;o uoglsefifins sq; 12 zou JSHGHVdn1 'HN A8 NOIlVNINVXS'SSOHO
zen: SEM '1uam93Jo;ue MEL pszoeluoa noK ueuM 'KEMO 'paxse lsnf sem leqM Algaexa
'slyew-e Jeu xse 01 5U;05 1snL we I isnaaVdn1 'au
Am [[2 01 399032 ulLM euoud Am men; pemoqs I 'JepJo uoglaelon sq: 1noqe suo;3sanb
élOSJJOO islyem-a op o; Suyofi 10u we I ¢suoy1senb Rue eAeq noA 0I
sq; maul Moqs KLLenloe 1,up;p noK 1nq 'l;aw-e OP 'snpJedn1 'Ju '1u5LJ LLV =isnoo 3H1
m
N

JnoA ;o SBULL loafqns sq; pemoqs lsnf 12H: puv

'suogusanb JaulJn;
v

'auoqd Am maul aAafi I 0U 9A9" I '95Dnr 'HOK XUEHL INOSWO "SH

n N N

LSL;Ew-9 ;o 'PLP I
N
N

sau;l noaiqns zsn[ lou pue 'sLgem-a waq; mous '139J a:uaweaJo;ua MEL 01 slyew-a sssu: ep;AOJd noA pga
F N

u; 'pr noA
:eu1 sn Supllel 3J9 noK '1ueAe 12u1 'PLP I '59A
o N

;o meoApoq e s; eJeqz esneoaq 'JESlO eq 01 1sn[ MON ¢1uemeoJo;ue MEL noequoo noK pga
Fm

'1u;eLdmoo an; ;o 919p sq: uo mau} ass pr Aeq; 1nq 'PLP I 'SQA
Fm

'J919[ mau:
;o sagdoo an; Jo; use 01 am peLLeo Aeul L LSZOZ ;° HlLL Kl"? PUB SZOZ ;° PUZ QUHP U99M19q l
F
n
Fo

OZ
Fm

6L
Fv
Fm
FN

mwdse'm E 2M1 '

JJW¢§M)aflnm
FF

snpJedn1 a;uu01 wOJ; sl;ew-a an;eoaJ noA p;p puv

F

'12u1 ass ueo noA ;; moux 1.uop 1 'Apu;3

'sam 1 'saA " I 'we.9m 'MON ilHnOO 3H1
csnpJednj eguu01 e u1;M aseo Bu;xle1s :smoLLo; se uleo
wOJ; uo;qoalon e ql;M peALOAu; noK aJaM Jeq uodn pa;;;1591 'UJcms ALnp 1SJL; uaeq 6u;Aeu
'suo;1sanb 0;;Loeds 'XEHV31EIH VNVITI
KJeA M9; e :snL noK xse on Bu;06 we I "eueLLI 'Aexo 'noK ass ueo I eJeqM pueu 1u6;J JnoK
'ueo 1 'seA esyeJ aseaLd noA plnom 'we'eu :lunog 3";
éluELJ Lle aw Jeeu noA uea 'euegll 'ueo
-J;s I IM38V0131N 'SN
iNOS1O 'SN A8 NOIiVNIHVXa 133810 cam Jeaq pue em ees noK ueo 'me,2u
'noA xueul :Noswo 'su
._

'auoquJOIM JnoA pue BJameo JnoA e1EAgzae

'SaA ianOD EHL eseald noA uaa 'euegLI :iunog 3H1
Lafipnr 'panOJd I flew :Nos1o 'su 'puels eul 01 BUBLLI
'noK MUEHL :ssaNLIM 3H1 LL90 DLnOM 3W!) SEMI 19 91915 GUI '35pnr
'noA 6u;uo;1sanb eq
'qSJeH Aeu4011v
lLLM 12q1 s; 1; JaAaouM ass ueo noA os 'mB,ew 's;q1 pue aw ueemleq panels seM leuM s; 1eqi 'seuII
snow o; AJ1 01 Guyofi we 1 :1un03 3H1 Jaafqns sq; Jsn[ 4o pea3su; slIew-s sq; go ;ua;uoa
--
ueo LenJDE sq; 9m ;sfi ueo lea; J; aas oz SJaaggga
--
1 ;; moux noA op aJSu; s; 'aBpnr sq; o: Jna qoeeJ a; EUIOB we I :saleqs 'A9u40112
'Sfipnr 'nOK HUBHL INOSWO 'SH snOLAeJd SIM 'uSJeH 'su ulLM peu I 12M: LLEW-a an:
'uoslo 'su 'efipnr 'JaqlJnd 'papsolumop uaql eJam Raql *maq;
'luSLJ Llv Ilunoo 3H1 MQIA uea noA ueqM 'sLIBw-a aq; ;o 1u91uoa sq; ;o [Le
°U0H JnOA 'SSA iSSSNlIM 3H1 Io I40 pasaq paLI; saM aseo aq; 'efipnr
L-L-I 3L ewe" JSJLd ilunoo 3H1 'Jeqmazdes [Izun pepeolumop
'JouoH JnoA 'saA ZSSBNLIM 3H1 lou 949M Aaq: 12q1 noeJJoo Ala1nLosqe s; snpJedn1
éx-a-J-e-o-l-a-L-u pelted: s; sweu JnoA 'JH '06 sLIem-e sq; se J2; s2 'efipnr L
8L LL
 21 22

HR. LUPARDUS: Thank you. 1 name for the record, spe11ing your iast name.
~
THE COURT: That's fine. It doesn't make! THE WITNESS: Angeia Winterscheidt.
any difference.
c
w-i-n-t-e-r s c h e 1-d-t.
A11 right. Thank you, ma'am. You can THE COURT: Thank you. ma'am.
sign off now. Ms. Oison.
MS. OLSON: ITiana. you can stay on if MS. OLSON: Thank you, Judge, /
you wouTd Tike, just mute your camera and your DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. OLSON:
audio. Officer, how are you currentiy emp1oyed?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Oiathe Poiice Department.
10 MS. OLSON Thank you, Judge. 10 How 1on9 have you worked with iaw enforcement?
THE COURT A11 right. Do you have any Since January 2nd of 2002.
12 further witnesses? 12 Here you on duty on July 17th of 2023?
13 HS. OLSON One more, Judge. 13 Yes.
14 THE COURT Sure. 14 And were you dispatched to the Oiathe Poiice
15 MS. OLSON Judge. the State wouTd caTT 15 Department on that day?
16 Officer Winterscheidt. 16 Yes.
17 THE COURT: A11 right. Officer, come on 17 What was that in reference to?
18 up, pTease. 18 In reference to a vioiation of a protection order,

19 Ma'am, if you wi11 piease come up and 19 is what I was originaiiy dispatched to,
20 face the court reporter first. and then take the 20 Did you make contact with I1iana?
21 stand. 21 Yes. I did.
22 OFFICER ANGELA WINTERSCHEIDT. 22 And did you speak with I1iana about what had been
23 having been first duTy sworn, testified upon her 23 going on?
24 oath as fo11ows: 24 Yes.
25 THE COURT: Ma'am, pTBase state your fuTT 25 During your conversation with Iiiana, did she show
.. L n rL . . . L

12/12/23 04'38pm DC

23 24

e-maiTs on her phone? (State's Exhibit

1234567890

admitted into
1234567890

you No. 1 was

Yes. evidence.)
Did you Took through those? MS. OLSON: Thank you. Judge.
Yes. (By Ms. Dison) Officer, there are about four bTue
Later did you downioad a11 of the e»mai]s? tabs. Couid you p1ease fiip to the first one.
Yes. Yes.
.>s>.>°?

MS. OLSON: Judge, may I approach? And what is the date on that one?
THE COURT: Yes. September 28th, 2023.
(By Ms. OTson) Officer, I am handing you what has Who was the e-maiT from?
10 been marked as State's Exhibit 1. Do you recognize 10 I'm sorry. I am Tooking at where Iliana had sent it
that? to me.
12 Yes. 12 Okay.
13 And what is that? 13 Is that what you are referring to?
14 Those are the e-mai15 that Iliana had showed me and 14 Do you see the date of the original e-maiT?
15 that I later downioaded. 15 The date of the e-mai] sent from Mr. Lupardus to
16 Are they a fair
accurate representation of the
and 16 Iliana?
17 e-mails that you were provided by ITiana? 17 O Yes.
18 Yes. 18 Okay. The date on that one is Thursday. Ju1y 6th,
19 HS. OLSON: Judge, at this time, the 19 2023.
20 State wou1d move to admit State's Exhibit in its 1 20 And what time was that sent?
21 entirety. 21 10:13 a.m.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Lupardus. any objection? 22 And you might have aTready answered this but who was
23 MR. LUPARDUS: No. 23 that from?
24 THE COURT: Exhibit is admitted. 24 Mr. Lupardus.
25 25 And who was that to?
1.. Lh'
'

12/12/22 04:38pmDC
 26

Iliana. at your place of employment as well. Cheers, Lonnie

And what does the e-mai] say? Lupardus.

Case dismissed. Attached for your reference. I am Q. Would you go to the next tab, please.
tired of fighting you. We were once friends and A. Yes, ma'am.

things got out of control and I'm sorry for that. Q. And what is the date on that one?
Lonnie Lupardus, 829 Creekside Drive, Gardner, A. Friday. July 7th, 2023, at 9:01 a.m,
0. who is that e-mail from?
Kansas, 66030, 913-912-2255,
A. Mr. Lupardus.
LonnieLuparduseicloud.com
Thank you. Officer, wouTd you f1ip to the next one? Q. And who is the e-mail to?
1o Yes. 10 A. Iliana.
11 The next tab? Q. And can you please read that e-mail.
12 Yes. 12 A. Iliana, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-226. general
13 Okay. Go ahead. 13 provisions governing discovery before submitting a

14 And what is the date on that one? 14 motion to compel --

This one is dated Sunday, Ju1y 9th. at 2023 -—

2023. 15 0. Officer. I am just going to slow you down for our
15

16 What is the time? 16 court reporter.

17 1:48 p.m. 17 Sorry.
18 And who is this e-mai] is it to?
from and who 18 0. No problem. I know it is hard when we are reading.

19 It was from Mr. Lupardus sent to Iliana. 19 Go ahead.

20 And what is the context? What does this e»mai1 say? 20 A. -—

before submitting a --

Do you need me to start over?

21 Alex, please see the attached documents. Hearing is 21

22 scheduled for July 20th at 10:30 a.m. Terran will 22 THE REPORTER: (Shakes head.)
23 be delivering a copy of the forms to your secondary 23 A. --
before submitting a motion to compel the
24 address at 1835 West Frederickson Circle in Olathe 24 production of records I am required to confer with
25 this afternoon, and I have e-mailed a copy to arrive 25 you first concerning my request for you to produce
I
_.
'ubrmfimm
.

12/12/21 04:38pm DC

28

the alleged power of attorney you claim to be 1n 1 not inform of this as if there is in fact a power
me

of attorney that you were aware of any withheld

234567890

--

possession of Seeing as you have not presented any

fashion --
in any fashion, I starting to believe
am and withheld excuse me--
that information from --

does not exist or at least not me while actively knowing that Alex was signing a
that such a document

to the extent you claim. Therefore. this is my one new contract without you. That would appear to be
an attempt to defraud While I hope that was not
me.
and only attempt to allow you to provide the
document as I have requested several times. Given your intention, giving the power of attorney to me
the speedy nature of this case, I will only be able will help answer several questions.

to wait 72 hours for you to respond with the I look forward to your response with the
10 document, If the document is not presented by document. If I do not hear back by 9:00 a.m. on
9:00 a.m. Monday morning, July 10th, 2023, I will Monday. I will proceed with a motion to compel

12 submit to the Court a motion to compel production of seeking court order for you to proceed
a produce --

13 the document which will require to to prove the the document. Signed, Lonnie Lupardus.
0. Thank you. And would you flip to the last two.
14 document, or face potential sanctions as the Court
15 deems necessary. A. Yes. ma'am.
16 I would very much like to get the case 0, what is the date on the two of those?

17 over and done with as I far too busy to be am A. July Saturday. July 15th. 2023, at 8:58 p.m.. and
--

with this. So I would appreciate you the last one is Saturday. July 15th. 2023. at
18 dealing
halfway on this and simply send the 9:00 p.m.
19 meeting me

20 document saving us bath time, money, resources, and Q. And who are those from?
motion to compel. A. Both are from Mr. Lupardus.
21 having to submit a

22 Also, I had a quick question. If you. in 0. And who are they to?

23 fact, have power of attorney over Alex, then why did A. Both are to Iliana.
lease without your signature u. And what are those e—mails?
24 you allow him to sign a

25 or approval? It seems rather strange that you would A. The first one says: When. Monday July 17th. It
I L n
1X
.

12/12/23 0438pm DC 12 i2 22 04 38pm

 30
29

invitations to date a court About the civii case.

appears they are a --

About what civii case?

date.
I'm sorry?
Thank you.
HS. OLSON: Judge, objection at this
Uh-huh,

:as
time. It is outside of the scope.

you can. Mr.

fi'fiE COURT: Ask the question as di rect'ly
Lupardus. Don't try to be sneaky
'
HS. OLSON: Thank you. Judge I have
it. Just ask her directly what it is you want}!
nothing further for this witness. rebout
'
A11 right. Mr. Lupardus. L,her to
tell you or me.
THE COURT:
10 MR. LUPARDUS: Okay.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUPARDUS:
(By Mr. Lupardus) Was the point
of that
Good afternoon, Officer.
12 more concerned about A1ex's property
12 Hi
17th was Iiiana with 13 type of e-maiis?
13 Can you te11 me. on Juiy
14 Hy speaking with the speaking with Iiiana was
--
my
14 anybody eise?
Yes.
15 directiy about the e—maiTs, primarily. A1ex did
15
16 pipe in and taik a Tot about the property.
16 Can you teii me who that was?
17 I would say that he is autistic,
like to
Her son.
as his mother is.
17
of those conversations 18 so he is not mentaiiy as advanced
18 Okay. What was the premise
19 So I be1ieve he was caught up onhis property, yes.
that you had?
day. the civii
19
20 Okay. And there was a hearing that
20 Can you eiaborate what you mean?
case?
21 Yes. what was the -- what did you guys speak about 21

22 I couid not tei] you that. She to1d me there was.

22 mostiy in your conversations during
that time?
23 but I couidn't tell you if there was or not.
23 About the no cont the vioiation of the protection
--

Who was the piaintiff in that case. do you remember?

24
24 order.
25 I don't.
25 Was there anything else?
'
1L 12/12/21 0438me)('7
12/12/23 04:38pm DC

32
31

off of what Okay. Thank you.

So I am just going to go kind of
Okay.
On the second one. can you te11 me who it
she was doing.
first was sent to?
If you want to fiip to the page,
not sure of what The second tab?
the e—maii from that stack. I am
some notes.
Yes.
they are exactiy, but I just took
That one appears to only be sent to Iiiana.
P?P?'P>

0n the first one, can you te11 me who

on that e-mai]?
that e-mail? Okay. Is there a case number iisted
exactiy was a11 inciuded on
Not on that particuiar e-maii. no.
Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
do you remember
else Okay. Just to refresh my memory.
Yes. On the first one. was there anybody
what the e-mai1 said? Was it that Tong one, the
10 listed that that e-mai1 was sent to besides just 1O

11 power of attorney one?

11 ITiana?
12 No.
12 It says DCC-Protections. reai quick?
Okay. Can you just read that for me
Are you aware of what that is? 13
.>P?'F'.>

13 Okay. it in front of me.

14 Sorry. I just don't have
14 No. I
Case dismissed. Attached for your reference.
am
15
15 Do you know if that is the court's e-mai1 address?
16 tired of fighting you --

16 Okay. I remember that one now.

Okay. Thank you. ma'am.
17 THE COURT: She said she didn't know. 17

18 That wouid just be to her.

18 MR. LUPARDUS: Sorry.
Okay. 0n the next one, on the next tab.
there? 19
19 (By Mr. Lupardus) Was there anybody e1se on
2O Yes. sir.
20 On the first one?
21 THE COURT: What is the question?
21 Yes. Who was
thing. Sorry.
D>D>D

22 (By Mr. Lupardus) Oh. same

22 Not that I see.
23 that addressed to?
23 So the first e-maii was sent to Iiiana and to the
24 It was addressed to ITiana.
24 Court; correct?
25 Just Iiiana?
25 Yes.
12. 12 a? wispm DC
12/12/23 04 38pm DC
 34
33

sir. Okay. And what is that in regards to?

Yes,
1
1

Appears to be an invitation to a date.

2 Okay. And that is the power of attorney one; 2

For?

34567890
correct? The long one?
This one is in regards to attached don't know that it says what it is for.
No, it is not. I

documents and a hearing scheduled on July 20th.

Does it appear to be a scheduling notice?
like to read it? Yes.
Would you me

for Court reference? Okay. Cool. Thank you.

No. But it is a scheduling one
And the last one, I believe, who is it
Appears to be, yes.
addressed to?
Okay. Cool. Thank you.
The next one was --
who was it addressed 1O That is also addressed to Iliana, Alex Katafias --

10

to? 11 Katafias.
else. 12 and Terran Masters.
It is addressed to Iliana
--

12 and nobody

tell what the e-mail is about? 13 Okay. And the contents of that e-mail?
13 Okay. Can you me

14 That one is also a request for a scheduling.

14 This was pursuant to K.S.A. 60-226 and the general
15 A request or a notice? Was it a cale '

15 provisions.
That would be assumption. I don
16 Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, I remember that one 16 my

17 invites. I am not familiar with them.

17 now.
there? 18 Okay. Cool.
18 Is there a case number on
19 HR. LUPARDUS: That is all I have.
19 Not that I see.
20 THE COURT: Any followup. Ms. Olson?
20 Okay. Thank you.
Next tab, can you tell me who that is 21 MS. OLSON: No, Judge.
21
22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am.
22 addressed to?
Alex Katafias 23 NS. OLSON: Would you like that. Judge?
23 This one is addressed to Iliana and --

THE COURT: Yes. I would like to have

24 I am not sure saying hisif I am name right -- 24

Terran Masters, and that is it. 25 those, please.

25

12/12/13 04:38pm DC

36
35

you want to ask her again, I think that

—- maybe --

Ha'am, you can step down.

1234567890

one side more than the other, but I think you are
MS. OLSON: Judge, may I approach?
both missing how narrow an issue this is.
But, sure, go ahead.
Iliana, can you sign back on for a

moment?
HS. MIELCAREK: Yes, sir. I am on.
HS. OLSON: May I approach. Judge?
Yes. THE COURT: Ha'am. you are still under
THE COURT:
Next witness. oath. Go ahead and ask her a couple of questions,
All right.
Mr. Lupardus.
10 Judge, the State has no
MS. OLSON: 10
MR. LUPARDUS: Thank you,
further witnesses at this time. Just argument. 11

do you have any 12 ILIANA HIELCAREK,

12 THE COURT: Mr. Lupardus,
13 having been previously duly sworn, testified upon
13 witnesses at this time?
I did not know we were 14 her oath as follows:
14 HR. LUPARDUS:
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUPARDUS:
15 providing witnesses today, so, no, I do not.
And I guess, actually, since she's
16 Ms. Mielcarek, can you tell me what happened at our
16
17 hearing between you and I in front of Judge John
17 already on the line, but I have not requested her,
18 McEntee?
18 could I ask Iliana questions?
19 already did.
THE COURT: You 19

20 MR. my side.
LUPARDUS: Because that
For 20

21 was in relation to what she stated. It wouldn't be 21

22
22 my question.
23 HR. LUPARDUS: I am good. Thank you,
23 HS. OLSON: She was released from
24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am.
24 subpoena.
THE COURT: She is still on there. If 25 You can go ahead and mute yourseTf again.
25
.- n ,.
.L
:2 i2 2? 04,.zspm DC
1112/23 04.38pm DC
 38
37

in the criminal
send her documents. Ms. Anna Lane
All right. Lupardus, since this is
Mr. how I can be I
don't understand
--

department. So I
your motion, you get to go
first on argument. and then be punished for
can follow the law
Okay. Your Honor, as
I
HR. LUPARDUS:
that were sent following said law.
stated before, all the communications And so that is really all I have.
I

to Iliana -—

to Dismiss is pretty clear.

think my Motion
THE COURT: Slow down.
Thank you.
HR. LUPARDUS: Sorry. Ms. Olson.
THE COURT:
-- were related to something involving Thank you. Judge.
HS. OLSON:
other cases. Had Iliana not kept asserting that she I am not sure what Ms. Lane did or
10 Judge.
had power of attorney over
her son, Alex Katafias, I
10
did not say, but I would agree with Mr. Lupardus
never would have spoken to her at
all. I was not 11

12 that as a pro se litigant he is entitled under the

cases dismi ssed because I
12 going to risk getting my statute. Subsection and that is K.s.A.
3 --

13
the corre ct partyi And.
13 was not properly noticing
14 60-31a06. under Subse ction (g)(3). that if he is
in fact. she did have it, which she did and showed
and he is allowe d to send copies of
acting pro se
the Court. to people related to
15
16 legal pleadings filed in court
Now, all of the e-mails were sent, they Mr. Lupardus is
16
issued by 17 either a civil or crimin al case.
17 were polite' Even the affidavit that was
18 correct that.on
the Gardner
Police Department
or to the Olathe to send
Judge, just because you are able
—~
18
19
stated that everything is profe ssion al in manneri that have
legal pleadings. copies of legal plead ings
the bodycam 20
And even the officer on her body —- on
not the
20
21 been filed with the court. does open
of the Gardner Police Department and
stated that
to put a caption of a
floodgates. You do not get
21
are both pro 22
was professional and that we
everything line and continue to harass
22
23 case number in a subject
I was under
se and acting as the attorneys, which
my
23 and send hundreds of e-mai ls over the span of a few
24
her.
24 rights to communicate with 25 weeks.
I was even instructed by the
Court to
25
. . L

muz3<uawmoc

40
39

Dismiss should be denied.

that I charged. and the Motion to
Judge. further, the e-mails THE COURT: All right. Mr, Lupardus. I
is apology.
pointed out to in this case,
one an
will give you last word.
one two of them
That is not a court pleading.
~-

HR. LUPARDUS: Yes. I think the

invite s. I get that
are court invites. calendar is being exaggerated beyond
statement of 100 e—mails
case. That is not a
they were probably about 20, and it was less than two
a
-- it was no more than
court pleading. There were over five cases involving
per case.
Judge. the one about a power of attorney. which Iliana kept
that is not what the myself and Alex Katafias.
even if that is about the case.
asserting power of attorney over.
statute allow s. We are not here today because of those e-mails had specific and
--

10 Now.
their civil case back and forth. It is all
about
10
reasons to be sent. The Motion to
Dismiss was me
11
order that was in place
the protection from stalking against Iliana for
dismissing the case against
11 -~ me
12
during this time. notice is.
12
13 the PFA, That is a court filing. the
this hard situation to be
13 I know was a
14 The two e-mails with the calendar invites. notices
Which I
in. especially acting as a pro se. am
aren't
14 put
15 of court hearings. I don't know how those
supposed to do? But the statute clearly states you
15
of legal 16 relevant to the case.
file legal you may forward copies the first
And. yes. I did apologize on
—-
16 may
17
17 pleadings. because I was trying to smooth the water s. but
18 one
Judge. the five e-mails that
I drew your
18 it was still relevant. And it was not harassive. it
19
attention to. for purposes of this motion only, none that is
apology. If you apologize
19 and
20 was an
Judge . you
of those are copies of legal pleadings. who wants to
20
ne or violat e 21 harassing, good luck for anybody
don't get to be polite and haras s someo of thing
21
polite 22 apologize then. or get, you know. any type
22 a court order. That is not, Oh. you were
23 done.
23 then it's fine. This case is completely ridiculous. It
that is 24
24 And. Judge. for those reasons. of spite by Iliana. as she didn't even
25 was done out
25 why he has committed
a crime and it was properly
r
A! L!\ ,

n' t [2'12 .17 0J38pmDC

A"!
12/12/23 04:38pm DC
 42
41

mention anything in the Court when it was occurring,

And even the So I must now reconcile two laws. One is
all these things have been happening.
the valid protecti ve order that was in place. which
Olathe Police Department said that everything was
I must presume prohibite d Mr. Lupardus from
professional and they the reason they arrested
~- me

communicating in any way with the Plaintiff in that

was there was a no-contact. contact means no
No

ruled that there were case, but certainly not in a way that would be
contact. But you have already
that statute. which they failed to intentionally or unintentionally meant to harass,
exceptions to
nding of that. antagonize. or annoy.
see. So that would be my understa
I have to reconcile that with a very
Thank you.
10 specific statute that provides an exception for very
10 THE COURT: All right. As I mentioned

I believe that the issue that I limited communications.

11 numerous times now.
There are certain 12 Itmight come as no surprise to anyone in
12 must address is fairly specific.
room that I have looked at this case quite
a
already referred 13 this
13 undisputed facts to which I have
14 little bit. I found no Kansas reported case that
14 that serve as basis for my ruling.
a

well. 15 construes K.S.A. 60-31a06(g), and more specifically

Number one. that there appears
—-

15
not only appears there was a valid and 16 (9)(3)- So I then turn to cardinal rules of
16
-—

enforceable protective rder in Case No. 230V3088. 1T interpretation of statutes. Some of those are that
17
18 the legislature has to be presumed that they said
18 During the time it appears there was --
a temporary
19 what they meant and meant what they said. That in
19 order was in place. Mr. Lupardus intentionally
20 construing the statute, I must give the words used
20 communicated with Ms. --
I have already forgotten
21

22
how to pronounce your name. ma'am.
MR. LUPARDUS: Mielcarek.
21

22

23
their common and ordinary usage. That
statute provides for an exception t.
that exception should be narrowly const
othe
I'v
",
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 that. obviously. common sense must be applied.
24 That the Defendant. Mr. Lupardus. and
25 So in 30 --
31306. the legislature
25 lfiit individual were in ongoing litigation. and
that'
t
' 12,1222 OJ}8pmDC
12/12/23 0438pmDC

44
43

saying Enclosed, please find. or maybe even

an
clearly intended to provide an exception to a
e-mail that says FYI. see attached. But any
protective order when there is litigation between
additional commentary is not something that is set
the parties and the defendant against whom the
forth in the statute as an exception.
protective order is obtained is pro se.
litigation. If Mr. Lupardus was told by someone in
Obviously. in that sort of
the clerk's office. Hey. you have got to send those
the parties must provide the other side with
file. just as obviously,
But pleadings. yeah. but not pleadings with paragraphs
pleadings that they
of commentary. And particularly this one. I am
and maybe even more so. the legislature could not
tired of fighting you. We were once friends and
have intended that exception to the rule be used to
10 things got out of control and I'm sorry for
that.
10 circumvent or work around a valid protective order.
I don't care whether that was an apology
So then we look at the statute. And.
or not. I don't care if it was polite or not -—
I
12 again. I don't make the law; I interpret it. 12

13 think it was but that is not something that is

statute clearly says: A no contact
--

13 The
or restraining provision in a protective order
14 specifically set forth in the statute as an
14
15 exception.
15 issued pursuant to this section shall not be
and if we look to Subsection 16 50 frankly. I am glad that Mr.
--
and.
16 construed to prevent --

17 Lupardus has brought this issue to my attention.

17 3 a defendant or defendant's attorney from
-~

s 18 because as I thought about this. I thought to

18 sending the plaintiff copies of any legal pleading
myself. How in the world are we going to instruct
filed in court relating to civil or criminal matters
19
19
20 the jury when it comes to this to reconcile that
20 presently relevant to the plaintiff
21 statute with protective order? And then it struck
a
21 So I read that as. obviously. Mr.
22 me. It is not a fact issue; it is a legal issue.
22 Lupardus copies of the pleadings to the
may send
excuse me that has a 23 It is an issue that is solely within my purview.
person against whom
-—
--
23
24 So not
only am I denying the Motion to
24 protective order against him. also ruling as a matter
letter 25 Dismiss at this time. I am
25 Who knows. Maybe a note or a

,.rn t n
'
1.: I 12.1212 04:38pm DC
12/12/23 04-3'8pm DC
 46
45

in this case must be provided

presenting to the jury
made by Mr. Lupardus.
1

of law that any communication nce. I assume. Ms.

to Mr. Lupardus well in adva
pleadings, that this
2
outside of simply copie s of the
Olson, that any and all
e-mails that you will be
3
defense to the
statute may not be used as a legal 4 using at trial must be provided
to Mr. Lupardus.
not
not be raised to the jury, may woul d suggest that you
prosecution, may
5 Given his conduct so far, I

be commented on. or even

referred to. can acknowledge
6 either do that in court so he

Now, again, I don't want to let common

Send it certified mail . I don't want any
trial 7 receipt.
so perhaps before the stuff to him.
sense get away from me, 8 claims later that you didn't send
we will have to have
a motion in limine hearing.
I
But with that, you don' t need a Bill of
9
reminder that does
don't know. Maybe a calendar 10 Particulars.
infor m the othe r party of the date also filed request for
nothing more than
a
10 11 Now, you have
I don't know. The statute doesn't
11 of the hearing -~

transcript.
. I will have to think
12
act with
12 specifically provide for that 13
Has Hr. Lupardus been in cont
13 about it. 14 you, Cindy, about that
?
14
this long-running paragraph, this
But THE REPORTER: (Shakes head.)
15
I am tired of fighting
with you, I
for the
15 commentary about 16
Mr. Lupardus, you have to pay
is clearly not
already told you
16 believe, in my humble opinion, 17 transcript. I think someone has
the
contemplated as an exception pursuant to I assume that they will request
17 18 how to order those.
statute. I assume that they will
wait until that
18 19 a check.
to Dismiss and
19
denying the Motion
So I am
check has cleared
--

20
law that much of anything We don't take checks.
It
20 ruling as a matter of 21
THE REPORTER:
s being sent does
21 other than copies of the pleading 22 will have to be a money order.
22 not fall within that exception. THE COURT: It will have to be a money
23
All right, Now I want to take up the And then you will receive
23 24 order. There you go.
of Particulars, which I believe
is
24 Motion for a Bill 25 those transcripts.
because anything that the
State is going to be
25 moot L
'

121L722

33/12/23 04.38pmDC

48
47

affirmed the
wherein Judge Sutherland not only
Mr. Lupardus, and we talkfid 1

looked by your
"End lastly, existence of the acceptance over
every confidence that
I have
if 2
the legitimacy of
about this before, 3 department, but also acknowledged
and take thing s that ybu which did
someone were to leave today which today I rejected
-—

my actions
--

4
to use them agai nst yet, order.
said out of context and try 5 not contravene your temporary
'or convince people that you said things you didn't' 6
in this e-mail you say: That
And
upset you. wouldn'? a hearing on
say. that that would probably 7 Honorable Judge Sutherland during
with
it?' 8 September 29th explicitly expressed agreement
«
I think that goes without aying.
Okay. 9 my position.
Your silence speaks volumes. MR. LUPARDUS: I don't -—

10
LUPARDUS: Sorry. I didn't know Q'at Quote, unquota,
10
MR.
11
THE COURT:
Well, that wasn't
——
that
was --
MR. LUPARDUS:
12
hTHE COURT: I reviewed this e-mail Hit
12 13 is not correct.
rtment where you
13 you sent to the police depa 14
THE COURT: Quote, unquote.

essentially tell them that expr

I essly agreedJWith MR. LUPARDUS: But the transcript would
14 15
woul you say that?
d ously that would not
15 your position. Why 16 be attached to that, so obvi
HR. LUPARDUS: I don't believe -- was
jfl said. You did not say that.
16 17 have been what you
17 actually stated like that
? THE COURT: Quote, unquote, Mr, Lupardus.
18
1B
THE COURT: All right. Let me Quote
' 19
MR. LUPARDUS: Hell, I apologize. That

was in error.
19
then.' 20
20
HR. LUPARDUS: Thank you. THE COURT: You are damn right it was.
21

21
For your
THE COURT: clarity, please It was a lie. It was a lie to the police
22
from that day which there
refer to the transcript
--

22 23 department,
s. e is no
Well, it error, not
23 isn't one, by the way, folk Ther
24 MR. LUPARDUS: was an

transcript. There is no
official transcript. So because the transcript was
attached to that
24 25 a lie,
not an official transcript -—

25 anything you got was 12/ 12 0438p!" DC

'

12/12/11/ 04.28pm DC
 30 wdss-ro mam: ,uwl'll
1:
JJWWwnamznn r—:
A 1. .,u1;
'Kep 12q1 pelels noK
01 uoseeJ
e ueu; Jafiuol axe; pLnoM 1L zeun aAa;Leq 'HH
§§u;u1 asJu; SJSM BJeql :snauvan1
Kue aAeu noK op 'snpJedn1 'Jw iiunoo 3H1
Lneqm 0M1 Jaulo 518003 3H1
'eBpnr 'SUL; 5L laul 3N0810 'SH
JQLIIO 91" PUV iSflGHthW '8"
Luoslo -su ';leu e pus Aeq (JV:-
'UOLldGOXS eul "LulLM lle}
bugob 942
'0025 19 53 AJenuer uo 1; 19s oz Aluo au1 SJSM
New 12H; Haul 'suo;;ea;unmwoa [Lew-e
-asea Joueamapsyw 2 s; 1; aougs AJnE uos¢ed-x;s
9M pue 'IOGJJOO 1u9319d
paqoe112 noK leul Eugu1KJeAa 4L
~-
e aq L1;M 1LLBLJI Jo; uaun aseo SLul mas JnoA u; pLBS noA 12u1
00L KLalnLosqe SBM uo;1om
o: Gusofi 619 9M '1u5LJ LLv rianoa 3H;
§ULM3KJ9AS '94; ;0 uounq SIOUM e peu I 'JBSLO
;I
(-pJoaeJ sq: ;;o uoyssnosga) $2M 5l¥fl03 3H1
Sugqlflue Res 10u pgp I
'BuyLnpeqas ( flue sq
é1u9J9;;Lp
9M e Jo; pJooJ
1noqe fiugxlez zsnf aJe eLLuM puooes sem 1L 12u1
39H: PLHOD Mou as '52M 1; leux JESLO as
--
sq: ;;o 06 s'laL pLnoo I QXLL sxooL 11 :snauvan1 'HN
pa;e;s noK JSPJO JnoK uI
-aes
-sAes JdLJOSUEJ) Le;o;;;o sq: lEuM 99s 03
e s; 1; os aseo Joueameps;m
5,191 'AJn; UOSJed-x;s 9M 'Moux 1.u0p I 118003 3H1
EeAeu lLLM
--
e SL syn; SLul op ueo I :Lanoo 3H1 éanoo u;
'afipnr 'nofl xueul 'Aexo :Noswo 'su
zen: seM iSflGNVdflW 'HH
@LBS sum 1eqm 1ou
'SL Gus iiunoa EHL '1dLJOSUBJ1
émcoz
ue 52M aJau1
B UGAS JO '1d}JOSUBJ1 Le;a;;;o
uo LLLIS noK 9J2 'eueLLI :Noswo 'su
auoamos 01 fiuylsefifins ilEnOO 3H1
'e1ep LeLJz sn awn;
Luseuous;p sem 1eqM 'zdLJosueJl
'1H5LJ LLV 'deA ZiHnOG 3Hi 11 LfiuLul
PUL4 8.191 u9 S; 1! leUJ 9121s 1,usaop
Le;0;;40
Luau: pelnpeqos 9J2 'SgdLJOSUBJl
sues loexa aq; aq 01 fiuyofi luu Keq;
LELJI 9 195 I U93 iSnflHVdn1 'EH
em 51; anoqe lSSuouSLp 52M 4;
0M1 asou: peJedwoa
'ABP eul
'xse 1 ;; pu;m noA oa iSDOHVd01 'HH
L
$12qm
Jo; auop eJe 9M 'snpJedn1 '4" :lanoo 3Hl
30 wdgsw szm/zr u—vvyvvrvrv
. 1
<
Jqfifiz' r0 z: [Ira]
01 fiu;AJ1 me I leum qou s; Jeql
SJSM 9M 'ssnas;p
v.

1nq
01 KlzuaJadde pus
'Jo1241sgugmpe AJaugldyasyp sq; seM 1eq; uo;1ae A49ugldgosgp
--
'1uepue;aa an; Kq paLg;
o; :lgnog 3H1 seq ouM
'1usm142dep zen; on 'em e 52M
eJaq1 'sasea asaq; ;o qzoq paBJeuo
'JouoH
ZNOSWO 'SH
'uouueus eunuewes 'SH '95P"?
SBM 1 ISnGHVdflW 'HH
JnoA '1seuousgp 10u '995 9W 191 5i¥noa 3H1
--
Alseuoqsgp ~auo
"syn; o1 :ueneLaJ 1ou s; neql
aw 01 esolo A11aJd
JnoK Jo; suognsues emos fiu;sodm; 'UN IsnGHVdn1 'uu
zen; u1;M aSJSESLp I
'Ju :lanog 3H1
BUL1136 eJe noK 'snpJedn1 'SQA ilflnOO 3Hi
-os euop zou seM 11 'JelJodeJ Aem
guGBOJdde 1 'efipnr
NmemNwmO

lJnoa e Aq peu6;s sq 01 seq 1L 'Leyo;;;o aq -spuoaes

32M 1; pue JezJodaJ
oi '1dgJosu2J1 Leyog;;o ue xuu 0M1 9x21 LLsM SLM: 'afipnr :N0510 'sw
;;o
lJnoa e Aq peufiys 1ou $2M 31 '1dg435u241 Legog cusqM pue 1x9u eLnpaqos
U9 DLBS JGASU 1 'ON isnOHVdflW 'HH
9M llEUS JEUM '1H5LJ LLV liHnOQ 3H1
'1dLJosueJ1 Le;o;;;o
'Kexo 'uo :snaavan1 'uw
on SuLuxamos
ue 52M 1; laql BuLSQLLe luewxJedep 12g: 'suoglsenb
"OK ins iiunoa 3H1
PSJJ9;SUBJ1 [LL15 em xse 01 196 1.uop nOA 'ON iiunoo 3Hl
'aJaq; uo fiungOM ewes zoexa
éJouoH JnoA 'uoylsenb
--
40 LauLSLJo
an; eAeu [lpm uoyqm *euo Le;o;;;o au; PULN "0' 00 1$nGHVdn1 'HH
9 "DA X59 I ;L
196 01 6u;1gem aJe 9M puv
sq; 'p;L2A Jafiuol 'SS
cu sem 1; pges noA 49;;2 pesn Bu;9q Jou sem ;;
xeaJq e fiuyulefi aJe noA 'ugese
04d 949 noA asneaeq
puv '1; peyuep Aeu: puv isnuuVaflw 'uu
eouo 'os 10u aJe noK 1ng 'fiugpeaLs;m as Bugsq
32M leul '1eu1
'uouueqs 'su 1su;e§e pasn EULaq Jd plnom
nsn; I pue 'sesuax
Jo; uo;1oe AJeu;[d;os;p 01 1oa§qns aq ALqeqO
4o aJeme sq o; gJnog sq; p91ueM noA AQUJ0312 ue eJeM noA ;1 :lunoo 3H1
u; pJeoq KJeuLLdLOSLp sq; on papLAOJd
osle seM
'KJJDS w'I 'em esnoxa '1dgJesu2J1
noA sv
1dgJasueJx 1eq1 'aBpnr 'eas ueo 'pyes noK zeum lou s; leql pue
GuyssnOSLp l le;o;;;oun sq; Jo
's;d;JosueJ1
6V
09
 vF
F
n N
F

QQWWEMImznn M1 r
1T
FF

x
u'lJ'I"!
e 195 01 zueM op 1 'MoN
F

auymLL u; suopzom
I 'aq plnom eJeu: pSJHSLJ I iiHnOD 3H1 n413u1
'anp aq [LLM sasuodsaJ pue suo;1o
'zeqz qggm AouedaJos;p 9M
szuamzsnipe exam [[LM em;1 19u1
KJnC sq; ueqM uo
ye KLluSJJna 3! 9J9U1 'LleM :snuavan1 'HH uo
19 lnq 'uugz AJenuer soueJe;uoo Lesz [EUL; JnO
me
uo lEUJ op plnous 1 MOu BJnS xou zsnfi
'puzz au; SM 'HISZ sq: uo noA 01 196 01
eAeu pue peeue 05 LLLM
'Kdoo [sunglgppe Jaqloue mgq GDLAOJd pue EULJEQH Aq 1no
I JOU 1sn[ we 1 Jan; puzz an;
aLqe sq a; Bu;06
an; ;0 Rep an; no gen; ;0 DJOOGJ
uoguom Lenmoe -1u5;J LLv 118003 3H1
SJHBLJ I ;; 'MoN
2 exam uea x as 'sl;ew-e sq: LLB seq aH 'AJaAoos;p
'afipnr 'eu;; 3; maul 1NOS'IO 'SH
aq pJoaeJ aq: 40; £25 Llgm I épuzz an: uo e 9J2 QM
[{e seq 2 J0 06 Jsulaum
wamwhmmo

-—
éofi-ou
--
--
op 01 em lueM noA op moq noK up as lsnf 'AJJos mi]
leqz any: ufinoua s; puzz sq; Kq
Moux 01
we 'sfipnr 'aeJBe I ION 3NOSTO 'SN
I leul XULUI noK op 'UOSLo 'su
1
quet an: Kq
--
2nq qo; JnoA up on Mou noA 113; 1,uea 'dn apem lsnE
-- 1 118003 3H1
'ueJS;L "LLeM Muyul :sn{ am '1; ex;l z,uop
noK Gugqgemos puss 1.ueo noK pue
--
--
uosJad u; AJeras;p Buypueq Bugneu JeglJee
loetqo 1,ueo noA 'JeqmemaJ 1sn£
noK ssneoaq zsnL
iNOSWO 'SH ngsu;
pauo;1u9m noA 'afipnr 'puv 'uns an) Japun GuyugAJaAa 1sowle Jo; uoyla
OS
'UOSJSd u; eq [LEM leul 'saA 718fl03 3H1 Leuo;1;ppe ou
cafipnr
XId 2's; 9Jeq1 esneaeq 'suagzongsu;
pue suoyloa[qo 0N s; 1uepua;ep
an: wOJ; asuodseJ au)
'UOSJed U; sq new: [LLM 3N0$10 '8" 2 am spues 91235 sq: saseo
pue suo;19n41suy ;o 193
uo SULJEQH e 9Aeq 5.391 pue
'00:9 12 "16L KJenuer
--
au: ;0 %uaOJad 66 U; 'nofi LL91 LlLM I
Jeqmaoaq ueq1 49131 on
'puzz Jaqmaoea Res s,1aL 'sm uangfi KDBSJLB
slyem-e [Le pue em lueM noA 12u1
snpJBdnj 'JH 01 SOUSDLAS Jau1o pue zou seq uosLo 'su zen: angfi 01
Kue appAon o; noA paau 1 'uosLo Is" .09 dn exem
--
uo pug; J0
xzd wed; 1nq 'JSUJ91UI an;
-—
'uo;1deoxs 12u1 on noefqns sq lou XId mOJ; suognangsu;
noK 1e"; ;;nqs lsni
me 1
Rem BASLLBQ 1 esoq1 ;o euo HOLHM ass 01 Buyofi
KJnL aq ltgm 0M1 uo;1oss ueqz puv
L;2m-a AJaAs L
usu; pue 'zgmpe 01 szuem uosto '5" leg: 'SUOLlOflJlSUL
L
12 xool Bugofi we 1 amgl 1Bu1 19 esneoeq 'BuLJeaq
99
aawwsniaznn
Jamsim Eff/«3'!
m 31 r.
2 exam am 191
F

2 am engfi
;LasAw OJ sanou ;o aldnoo
KJnfi Jeq 01 Joa[qo o) uoseaJ Lefiel 'uzoz AJenana
noAI asneoeq zoaiqo '1; SXLL 1,uop
0) 105 aAeq dnxoeq e ulgm '0015 1a uzez KJenuer
uo xagd
Jo; 6u;1zas
nofi 1nq 'Mou noK
I 'LLaM 'Aes Jsnf ;|uea 'IHBLJ LLV
JO; 1! 195 llLM 9M 05
01 GULKJl lou we
'snpJedn1 IJN 'DUV I
'ssuas 39X?" leui :iHflOO 3H1
'suoygonJlsu;
'LeLJzeJd xe pap;oap s;u1 zuem l'uop
sue uoLloas
pesodOJd Jaq on suo;Jaa[qo aq [LLM QMLL SSULHI PUB SISMOLJ 9Wild 195 01
;sn; I '19u1
--
-> 9J8 Kau) SE suogxonJ1suL
JO GUO HJLM LLLM em
fiugneq eJe 3M os pue 'euegLI u; AL; 03 eneq
we 1 noK mOJ; [yam-e
Jaq adope 01 Bugofi zen; uo moux 9M [LLM usuM ';o 1q6noq1
NMVWCON'DQQ

ou ssnaaea éulsz an;

-- uo
us 195 1.UOP 1 ;l pJgz sq; 00:9 ueu: Jazel
lsnE 1 Bu;u1 euo 'efipnr :N0810 "SN
F

s; noK ch; 1UEM [[LM I 1eum 'fiugqxxJeAe 'JLEM

Lyem~a ue
neuxa os
--
)SOmle Jo; uog1onJqsu; ue s; eJau1 'aA;1s 'alnuyw e 1;BM Jo; SuL1qas dnxoeq
'Jgem '1L9M
;
6J2 suognon41su; Nld JnO esneaaq 'MoN 'suognanJnsu 6M puv 'Aexo iiunoo 3H1
B dn 193 lLLM
KJnf pasodon Jeq ;o UOLSJGA pJOM e ulLM ~uo;1neo ;o ep;s
[gem-a ue 9w pue noA 01 puas on BugoB s; uoslo 'su
uo SULJJS lsnl we I :snuuvan1 'HH
s;
s; ueddeu 0) BuLoB s; leuM 'snpJednj 'JH zlunoa 3H1
'Kexo
'sz AJenuer '
JOUOH JnO)'
ou 9m 01 enp sq [LLM
uo sseu;an ;o asolo ueu; 49:21 'SGA =3nuavan1 'HH
'1eu1 puelsJepun I
uo sseuLan ;o
SSSUOdSSJ s,1uepue;ea 58L AJenuer L e exgl
LlufiyJ t12q1 puelsJepun noA 'JBAME
suogn angsu; Buyofi
esolo ueq; 49121 ou em 01 amp aq LLLM 199
o; Eu;05 9J9 noA 'Aemsel Aue 196 01
lsni
AJnt S'SIBJS 'uOSJSd u; ooZLL 12 uzgz KJenuer '1u5LJ lLV 11¥n03 3H1
zou 9J9 noK "LLeM
aouaJa;uoo LagJl Leug; sq; 'uau1
uo aq LLLM '9423 eq 01
e eAeu 3M 05
195 o: sBu;q1 ;o Jaqmnu 05 1sn£ pLnOM I 'snlels
lsni sfiep 0M; Aes pue peaue
LJEDUSLBO
es OJd Km ;0 asneoeq lsnr :snauvdn1 '3"
aux aAeu I ueo E L
vzoz 9H1 'aJsq Jepualao L4LBH PUB REP
'SJSU
89
 oawwwvfleazn1'zl' U'WJ r-
JUWfiwflIEzI
LLSL 'oN 1Jn03 eweJdns sesuex
(-pepnlouoo s6uyp99004d eul)
Ja1Jodsy anog pa;;;;433
'efipnr 'noA MUEHL ZN0510 'SH
8d! 'HSD 'NESOVVSI '1 AGNIO 'Aep p009
M933fl6$lfipqu «3/ '1
'LLe noK xueul 1
'pgiqeq Bu;uunJ we
'su
IG aHl d0 'sy§q;uxa aql aAegJleJ aseeLd 'uoslo
'SVSNVX 'ALNflOO NOSNHOF d0 Lunoa iOIHiS a eAaq 9M asneoaq 'salou
'pJODSJ
X8310 3Hi HlIM GHWIA GNV '031V35 A11VIDIddO 'GENSIS ilMflOO 3H1
;0 10L 9 exam 1.u09 I "daA
Am ;0 usaq eq: 0; ages
'A1;L;qe pue afipaLMoux tsnauvan1 'uu
e 'Aexo aeJe Ken: 'uo
Km ;0 JdLJOSUEJl 1334109 pue enJ; 'lulLleqJaA
pges u; salou
pue padK; sem salou
s; 1dLJosu241 fiuLoGaJo; sq) 12H; liomle PQQLJOSUBJI 9J9 KGHL iiflnOO 3H1
e 1eu1 A;L}JSD Jequn ; I
pueuJJous Am ;0 1dgJasu241 '5qu1KJ9A9
'sfiungSQOJd Bu;o§eJo; pue erqe 'Sseooe
sAes gnu; Jaeus Lin; sq: '9»;1 '1ou s; 11
12 1ueseJd
eql pueulJoqs auguoem u; p9140daJ pue 'llaM ISflGHVdflT 'HN 1
swrr SUI SA?"
$9M I 'JSIJDdGJ Le;o;;;o qans se Jen; £;;1Jeo
'1eu1 01 sseooe aAeq plnous
nr
AqaJaq OP 'SESUPX ;0 93315 SH} JO JOLJlsLO 12L0;9 iNOS1O 'SH
,QH geqflew 61°U HOUSQ V
aJ ;o
qlual an) ;o e '0" uogsgAgu ;o J81JOd Le;a;; élEHM 51Hn03 SHL
5uy1oe pue 'pe;;;lenb 'pazugodde ALJeLn
eeJ sq;
Lafipnr 'gqfiem 'aaou qauea INOSWO 'SH
pue 'J8140d98 JJHOQ99;;L)J93 'uasoeesI '1 Apugg '1 'Aep01 peueddeu leUM $31213
Am 01
12q1 WJo; e Alleogseq zsni s; 1; anq 'esnou
( AlNflOD NOSNHOF
:SS ( fibeq 195 1 uauM salduexa ewes SPLAOJd ueo 1 'mJo;
( SVSNVX do BLVLS
L€fl9U95 9H) SXLL 15"? :snauvan1 'HH
¢1noq2 BULXLEJ
3 i V O I d I l H 3 3
69
09
30 wdsng sZ/ZI/ZI
. .
JQW@;mzzqu
uo as 518n00 3H1
SZ 5; aJeu1 4! qzeL an:
"OK 9J9 PLJOM 9H1 UL IEHM 718n03 EHi -:aqwnu aauap;Aa
72
'syuu J91;e U; pelt; 9J9 leul stOJ 7SflGHVd01 'HH
2 SL GJSHI 'LLSM
9»11 SZ vs
QLlJLl GXLL xsnf 3! 11 'peq HSJEN ASUJ01JV an: 'dm215 59129 s; eJeu1 aJeuM
LsfiupJeeu 32
eAeu 1 ..
SSOH} ;o seydoa fiu;1196 uaeq lou -- IBHM
6520 e 1.us; syn: awos 3X!L lou s; axeq;
sq; J61;E SJE seq: segdoo sq; Bupzlafi 14915
spam ou s;
1euM moux o; KBM
OZ 01 paJedmoo 12 5u;xool s; an
UGO e eJeuz SI :snaavan1 'HH
I 19H: KEM tNOS'IO 'SH
6L GJeu; "AlezeunzJo;un 'efipnr
iLHHOO 3H1 ._
'SJnS S;
8L
VBULuu 1 puv
maul pauueos nsnt
NWVIOLONWQO

LL 32q1 pue uL Al1aeJ;p [Le

:Leuy; auo zsnr 'AJJos m.1 :snaavan1 "an seBed og 1noq2 s; eJeq;
9L '6u;ss;m Alpasalle e42 12g;
'ApoqAJeAe 'noA xueul '1q5LJ LLV 'safied ewes—03L aq 01 wgela Aeq) Jnq 'L2101
9L OS
-aouaJa;uoo LELJI leu;;
u; sefied 06 SEM SJSHL ION :snauvan1 'HN
dseJ JnoK 7L
Jno Jo; 00 LL :2 q2gz :pJgz an) uo sasuo asefied
CL
tulgL aul uo
suoyzoansu; KJnf $.91913
Jno; qnq [la eAeq noK as fiHHOO 3H1
ssuo ZL
-uog1daoxa qeul Japun palzgwpa sq nou LLLM 'KJSAOOSLD LLB seq sq esneoeq
qogqm pue pa;31wpe aq [[LM slLaw-a JEUM SULmJalep Km pue
'3; 12 BuLxooL [Lyls s; luexsgsse Le;J1
uo GULJESU Jno 0L
01 am 40; au;m;[ u; uoplom sq;
'1EH1 [Law'9 9!? 9" 'efipnr ZNOSTO 'SN
aq 0} BULOE s; qlet aui 'ON 118000 3H1
(U03 [0 vs" '1noqe
éPUZZ 9U1 U0 Haul PUB UIBL
EULXlel 5! 9U lEqM BGPL AUV ilflnOO EHl
an; pLES noA 'KJJOS ".1 :snauvan1 '8"
'3aK 12q1 WOJ; xaeq esuodsaJ
'afipnr 'noA XUBHL 1N0810 'SH )USwlJEdSp
e pJeau xou aAeq 1 1nq uosLo 'SH 01 pue
'alq;ss;wpe
3M
eL;4 an: 01 fiLloeJLp zen: lues I
sq LLLM 1; lou J0 JeqlaqM SSSJppB [LLM o ssni
'eJe sefied Leuo;;;ppe esou; aJeuM snGLJn
e 156 LLLM eu ueq1 'eJo;e q pue
pue Aep zeuz 1; ;o Adoo 'sefied SZL SBM 1; pges mJo; qu sq)
we I OS
n1 L
uses JSAaU s,eu 19u1 m;ela LL;M KLpslqnopun snpJed s; eJeqi :snauvan1 'HN
'sefied 06 KLuo
--
'4" pue dn mous noK Jeql zen; L;em-e ewes
L9
99
 x s at
N TY, KAN SAS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSO COUN

CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT

STATE OF KANSAS,

Plaintiff,
Case # 23CR2394
V.

Division 3

LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS,

Defendant.

WA RRANTLESS ARREST
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AN UNLAWFUL
and through his attorney, Mark V.
COMES NOW the defendant, Lonnie Dail Lupardus, by
States Constitution, Section 15 of
twic k, and purs uan t to Fourtli Amendment to the United
Bos
motion filed in
the Kansas Bill of Rights, and K.S
.A. 22—2401, moves this Court to grant this

the above—captioned case . Insupport thereof the defendant submits the following:

FACTUAL BASIS

idt of the Olathe Police Department was dispatched

1. On July 17, 2023, Officer Wintersche
order.
a Violation of an active no contact
to the lobby in regard to a person reporting

the alleged victim.

2. The reporting party was Illiana Mielcarek,

e se litigants in a civil matter.

3. Ms. Mielcarek and Mr. LuPardus wer pro
email regarding an
4. Ms. Mielcarek reported that Mr.
LuPardus was contacting her through

court date in the aforementioned civi

l matter.
upcoming
notice of
tersche idt note d in her repo rt that the emails regarded subpoenas,
5. Officer Win
nt
hearing, and docume requests.
in
Offi cer Win ters che idt note d in her report that all the emails appeared professional
6.
 manner.

email headings Ms. Mielcarek provided.

7 Officer Winterscheidt took photos of the subject

dner Police Department and requested they

Officer Winterscheidt contacted the Gar
contact Mr. LuPardus.

Gardner Police Department contacted

Mr.
9 Officers Badge and Anderson from the
r.
LuPardus at his residence in Gardne

ediately placed Mr. LuP

ardus under
10. Once the offic ers identified Mr. Lup ardu s, they imm

arrest.

ch incident to arrest prior to putting

Mr. Lupardus in the
Offi cer performed a sear
11. Badge
back of his patrol car.

ence of the emails sent to the alleged Victim.

12. The Gardner officers had no evid

were acting at the behest of their supervisor.

13. The Gardner officers explained they

make the arrest on behalf of Olathe

Police Department.
14. Their supervisor told them to

Anderson had
late r told Offi cer Winterscheidt that Gardner Officers Badge and
15. Dispatch
ce.
Mr. LuPardus detained at his residen
was handcuffed in
16. Upon Officer Winterscheidt's arri
val she contacted Mr. LuPardus who

in the back of Officer Badge's patrol car.

car.
ardus in the back of Officer Badge's patrol
17. Officer Winterscheidt contacted Mr. LuP
his right to
anda rights and Mr. Lupardus invoked
18. Officer Winterscheidt read him his Mir
remain silent.

19. Mr. LuPardus changed his min

d and agreed to speak.

the encounter.
had done nothing wrong and ended
20. Mr. LuPardus then claimed he

from Officer Badge's patrol car and

21. Officer Winterscheidt removed Mr. Lupardus

handcuffs.
 him to
22. She then handcuffed and placed
Mr. Lupardus in her patrol car and transported

central booking.

LEGAL BASIS

ent officer. This statute states as follo

ws: A law
K.S.A. 22-2401. Arrest by a law enforcem
under any of the following circumst
ances:
enforcement officer may arrest a person

be arrested.
rant commanding that the person
(a) The officer has a war
st has been issued
offic er has able cause to beli eve that a warrant for the person's arre
(b) The prob
for a felony committed therein.
in this state or in another jurisdiction
or has committed:
The offic er has able caus e to believe that the person is committing
(c) prob

(l) A felony; or
cause to believe that:
a misdemeanor, and the law enforcement officer has probable
(2)
lost unless
evidence of the crime will be irretrievably
(A) The person will not be apprehended, or
the person is immediately arrested;

ss
or others or damage to property unle immediately
(B) the person may cause injury to self
arrested; or

inflicted bodily harm to another person.

(C) the person has intentionally
a traffic infraction or a cigarette
or tobacco infraction, has been or is being
(d) Any crim e, exce pt
committed by the person in the offic
er's View.

in order that the person

K.S.A. 22-2202(e) "Arrest" means the taking of a person into custody

is
to answer for the commission of a crime. The giving of a notice to appear
may be forthcoming

not an arrest.

cause as
277 Kan . 161, 83 P.3d 794 (2004) the Court defined probable
In Stat e v. Abbott,
that the defendant
e has been or is being committed and
reasonable belief that a specific crim
tances within in the
e to arrest exist when facts and circums
committed the crime. Probable caus
reasonable caution that an
offi cer' s kno wle dge are sufficient to assure a person of
arresting
 and the person being arrested is or was
involved in a
offense has been or is being committed
rmation. Probable
e. The offi cer' s kno wledge mus t be based on reasonably trustworthy info
crim
of circumstances from the standpoint of a
cause is determined by evaluating the totality
officer.
reasonably objective police
Court stated
265 Kan. 124, 960 P.2d 746 (1998), the
In Key v. Hem, Ebert, and Weir, Chtd,
arrest for a
e than a felony arrest to affect a lawful
that it requires more than probable caus

misdemeanor.

and provides that a law

warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor
22—2401(c) governs a
to believe that the
where the officer has probable cause
enforcement officer may arrest a person
the law enforcement officer has
is com mitt ing or has committed a misdemeanor, and
pers on
or evidence of the crime will
caus e to beli eve that the person will not be apprehended
probable
cause injury to
is immediately arrested; the person may
be irretrievably lost unless the person
arrested; or the person has intentionally
self or others or damage to property unless immediately
inflicted bodily harm to another person.

r officers had no probable cause to arrest

In the above-captioned matter the Gardne police
tion from their supervisor was that Mr.
LuPardus allegedly
Mr. LuPardus. They only had informa
and only reviewed PFA documents provided by
violated a protection from abuse order (PFA)
rmine if they
no copies of the emails to be able to dete
Mr. LuPardus's partner Terren. They had
were made prior or within the scope
of the PFA.

did not meet the additional requirements

of a lawful misdemeanor
Additionally, the officers
and identifying Mr. LuPardus Officer Badge
arrest as enumerated in 22-2401(c). Upon arriving
, handcuffed, and placed
Mr. LuPardus in the back of Officer
immediately arrested, searched
Badge's patrol car.

e to believe that Mr. LuPardus would

not be
The Gardner officers had n0 probable caus
he was immediately arrested.
nde d or that the evid ence would be irretrievably lost unless
apprehe
of email headings that were taken by Officer
The evidence at the time was a couple of photos
their
Winterscheidt and were not in possession
of the Gardner officers. Further, the emails and
the alleged victim had
tent s wer e not vide d unti l afte r Mr. LuPardus was arrested. Since
con pro
 had no
in her acco unt Mr. LuP ardu s was in no position to destroy evidence. They
the emails
eve Mr. LuPardus was a flight risk.
probable cause to beli

cause injury to
cause that to believe Mr. LuPardus may
The Gardner officers had no probable
arrested and confined in Officer Badge's patrol
himself or others because he was immediately
violent tendencies.
other evidence that Mr. LuPardus had
car, nor did they have any
inflicted bodily harm to
ally , they had no evidence that Mr. LuPardus had intentionally
Addition
or had committed a crime in the offi
cer's View. Thus, the warrantless
another person

misdemeanor arrest was unlawful.

with Mr. LuPardus,

n arri val, Offi cer Winterscheidt engaged in the Miranda protocol
Upo
and
car and handcuffs. She then handcuffed
removed Mr. Lupardus from Officer Badge's patrol
central booking.
in her patrol car and transported him to
placed Mr. Lupardus

to arrest Mr.
Winterscheidt had no probable cause
In the above-captioned matter Officer
no probable cause to believe that Mr.
LuPardus would not
LuPardus. Officer Winterscheidt had
was immediately
be apprehended or that the evidenc
e would be irretrievably lost unless he
s was already handcuffed and secured
in Officer Badge's
arrested. Upon arrival Mr. LuPardu
results. Since the alleged victim
ol car and had bee n searched incident to arrest with negative
patr
evidence or not
ardus was not in a position to destroy any
had the emails in her account Mr. LuP

be apprehended.

to
e to believe Mr. LuPardus may cause injury
Officer Winterscheidt had no probable caus
arrested and confined in Officer Badge's patrol
himself 0r others because he was immediately
tendencies. Additionally,
ence that Mr. LuPardus had violent
r evid
car, nor did she have any othe
harm to another person
she had no evidence that Mr. LuP
ardus had intentionally inflicted bodily
arrest was
com mitted a crime in the offi cer' s view. Thus, the warrantless misdemeanor
or had

unlawful.

that this Court will grant this Mot

ion in the above-captioned
Whe refo re, the defe nda nt pray s
herein.
case premised on the arguments presented
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Mark V. Bostwick
Mark V. Bostwick, KS. Bar #20137
The Bostwick Law Firm, LLC
9393 W. 110th St., Bldg. 51, Ste.500
Overland Park, KS. 66210
Tel. (913) 340-4187
bostwicklawfi[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/DELIVERY
of the foregoing Motion was delivered to Abby Olson,
1 hereby certify that a copy
hment on the file stamp date below.
Assistant District Attorney, by e-mail attac
/s/Mark V Bostwick
Mark V. Bostwick
 "442 vwmvm-uu:w..,. . .
,

',

{23Cfi2394
Lonnie LuPardus
829 Creekside Drive
Gardner, KS 66030
913-912-2255
[email protected]

IN THE 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

)
STATE OF KANSAS CASE 23LA05427
)
Plaintifi'
) JUDGE THOMAS SUTHERLAND
V.
LONNIE LUPARDUS )
)
Defendant

T TO Kan. Stat. § 22-3208

MOTION TO DISMISS CASE PURSUAN
se Defe ndant in case 23 -LA—05427
NOW COMES Lonnie LuPardus ("LuPardus"), pro
iss case 23-La—05427
e of sas, the Plai ntif f, resp ectf ully requ esting the Court dism
vs the Stat Kan

for the following:

BACKGROUND
Iliana Meilcar ek
s entered into a lease agreement with
1. On July 7th, 2022, Lonnie LuPardu
with
and Alex Katafias, where Katafias
would sublease a room from LuPardus,

ld
lease. LuPardus and Mielcarek wou regularly
Mielcarek being the guarantor of the
a friendly and courteous manner.
This lease would
mun icat e out the leas e in
com through
lease with LuPardus,
tinu e until ruar y 202 3, whe n Kataflas would enter into a new
con Feb

and would not include Mielcarek

as guarantor.

held with Arvest

In April, 2023, LuPardus was a
Victim of bank fraud where his accounts
2.

caused serious issues as Arvest

would take over (4)
Bank were completely drained. This
 nt to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursua
16
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page of
2

return the money stolen from LuPardus

'
months to complete the investigation and

account.

was held in Johnson County Court

3. Due to the length of time, an eviction case

rdus tried to explain the situation, but it was pointless

a
(23 LA02678), where LuPa
which would place
endeavor. An eviction was processed on the 19th of May 2023,
when a
rdus , Katafias, and the other tenant out of the home until May 23rd, 2023,
LuPa
nts.
deal was made with the property owner
who returned the property back to the tena

as
of this error, communications betw
een Mielcarek and LuPardus broke down,
4. Because

, 2023 May 22nd 2023, which was

Mielcarek began to make inquiries between May 19th
—

d to assist in getting
Skinner) LuPardus had hire
causing issues for the attorney (Nancy

the eviction case resolved.

to the property even though possession

was received back
5. Katafias, who had not returned
ments to LuPardus that he would not be
on May 23rd, 2023, would make no state

returning to the property.

a of (5) unknown parties to LuPardus'
6. On May 29th, 2023, Mielcarek would send party
which was
e enter the home to retrieve Katafias' property,
home, who attempted to forc
to LuPardus for the
d by LuPa rdus as Katafias had given no notice or permission
prev ente
and a case was created
to do so. LuPa rdus called the Gardner KS Police Department
part y

GPD Forced Entry Report 2301631 .pdf).

—

(05.29.2023
—

be
unknown parties, LuPardus would apply and
7. Because of the forced entry attempt by

Katafias. (LMD-003)
denied a protection from abuse order against
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Purs
uant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State ofKansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page of]
3 6

order
in n, would file a protection from stalking
8. Angered by this, Mielcarek, retaliatio

against LuPardus on June 2,

2023. (W4) This request was temporarily approved

be later dismissed by Judge John. B. McE

ntee on August 14th,
(23 CV3088), but would
a e of the evidence because
2023 for "Lack ofproof of the allegations by preponderanc

as defined by the statute", and "The cour

t
the actions complained of are not stalking
ex parte
denies this request for a Final Protection from Stalking Order and vacates any
"
or other orders issued in this case. (M9391
LuPardus would be forced to file several
9 Between June 2, 2023 and August 14th, 2023,

cases in Johnson County against Katafias (23 SC204,

23LA05427, 23 SC266, 23 SC267,

would assert that she held power of attorney

and 23 SC268). During this time, Mielcarek,

8 on July 7th, 2023) , which resulted in

of Katafias (see bench note for case 23LA0267
the case to Mielcarek, who was
LuPardus being required to submit legal filings regarding

court documents for Katafias.

also listed as the submitter of several
for the
d Anna Lane, clerk for the criminal division
10. LuPardus had also been instructe by

ts filed to Mielcarek directly, despite the

Johnson County Court, to submit documen

current temporary protection order being

in place. (LMD-010)

§ 60—3 la06(g), which allowed such communication

11. After LuPardus reviewed Kan. Stat.
Mielcarek was not represented by an
since LuPardus was acting pro se in all cases,
until July
and Katafias was not represented by an attorney
attorney for case 23 CV3 088,
documents and legal request to Mielcare
k as
27th, 2023, LuPardus began submitting

states:
instructed, as the statute clearly
 t to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuan
16
State ofKansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page of
4

in a protective orde r issued pursuant to

(g) A no contact or restraining provision
Contact between the attorneys
this section shall not be construed to prevent: (1)

a from appearing at a scheduled court or

representing the parties; (2) party
ndant's attorney from sending
administrative hearing; or (3) a defendant or defe
inal
the plaintiff copies of any legal pleadings filed in court relating to civil or crim

matters presently relevant to the plaintiff.

in Johnson County Court concerning case 23 SC204

12. On July 17th, 2023, a trial was held
who
both parties were present, which included Mielcarek,
(LuPardus v Katafias), were
fas during
presented a valid power
of attorney to the Judge, and was allowed to assist Kata

the Judge ruled in favor of LuPardus,

the proceedings. After all evidence was considered,
ment during
Katafias. 1LMD-018) Mielcarek made no com
entering a judgment against

the hearing concerning any violations of a temporary stalking order during the trial.

ered the door to find (2) Gardner

13. Later that evening on July 17th, 2023, LuPardus answ
r arrest for Violation of a protection order.
Kansas Police Officers, who stated he was unde
to the Olathe Police Department
Mielcarek and Katafias had apparently gone directly

after the trial to make a report claiming that

LuPardus had violated the temporary order

t related documents.
by sending Mielcarek cour
communication was professional and
Police concerning the report, which states that all

was related to court filings only. (LMD-019)

14. LuPardus explained that he had not

violated the temporary order and that all

and pertained strictly to court related

communication sent to Mielcarek was required
ers
the active cases. LuPardus also provided the offic
filings/communications regarding
 to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 5 of]
6

from submitting court filings or

with the statute where it stated he was not prevented

in relation to the civil cases. The officers would

communicating with a protected paIty
from the Olathe Kansas Police, so the officers
state that this request to arrest was coming
where
and in handcufi's into the back of their patrol car,
paraded LuPardus, barefoot,
er would arrive. (Body cam footage of
LuPardus would wait until the Olathe Police offic
of this
the Gardner KS Police Officers would show that they start to question the validity

arrest, where they discuss that

this issue is Olathe's concern and that they were simply

httns://v0utu.be/1CBW 9cGzIA )
following orders from a supervisor. (
Houston Winterschiedt, arrived on the scene and spoke
15. (45) minutes later, officer Angela

to LuPardus concerning the alleged violation.

LuPardus informed Officer Wintershchiedt

and Katafias, and that Mielcarek had

that a trial was held today between LuPardus
her filings
asserted power of attorney over Katafias, which required him to send

cam footage of the conversation between offic

ers which was
concerning the case. (Body
eidt acknowledging that she was aware of
received later on would show Officer Wintersch
and all related to court documents,
the trial, and that the communication was professional

but would state that "the order says no contact") (httpszllyoutu

.be/hg9nLSOhch)
was
16. LuPardus tried to get the officer to
review the statute and claimed this entire situation

LuPardus to the Olathe

a mistake, but Officer Winterschiedt would not listen and took

two days.
Detention Center, where he would be held for

Samantha Shannon would issue a

17. On July 18th, 2023, Assistant District Attorney
ofJuly 2023, in the Count)» ofJohnson,
complaint stating that "0n
0r about the 1 7th day

did then and there unlawfully willfully and

State of Kansas, LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS
 to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPara'us. Page 6 of]
6

order issued pursuant to K.S.A 60-31a05,

knowingly violation a protection from stalking
in of K.S.A. 21-5924 and K.S.A.
60-31a06, a class A person misdemeanor, vio;atoon

21-6602(a)(1). (LMD-0201

Kansas Police Department as they

18. LuPardus was not lawfully arrested by the Gardner
or any authority
issued for LuPardus' arrest, held no probable cause
possessed no warrant
04 as justification for
under Kan. Stat. § 22-2401, and further cited Kan. Stat. § 22-24
law enforcement of another State
the arrest, which concerns matters of arres by
t

(LMD-oso):

Kan. Stat. § 22-2404

-
Arrest by law enforcement officer from another
section: é
jurisdiction(l) As used in this
United States and the District of Columbia.
(a) "State" means any state of
the
means any member of any duly organized state,
(b) "Law enforcement officer"
cement organization of another state.
county or municipal law enfor
without unnecessary delay of a person who
(c) "Fresh pursuit" means the pursuit of having committed a
has committed a crime, or who is reasonably suspected
crime.
r of another state who enters this state in fresh
(2) Any law enforcement ofiice of a person in order to
pursuitand continues within this state in fresh pursuit
a crime in the other state has the
arrest him on the ground that he has committed
same authority to arrest and hold such person
in custody as law enforcement
in
officers of this state have to arrest and hold a person custody.
a law enforcement officer of another state
(3) If an arrest is made in this state by
n he shall without unnecessary
in accordance with the provisions of this sectio
before a magistrate of the county in which the arres
t
delay take the person arrested
for the purpose of determining
is made. Such magistrate shall conduct a hearing
mines that the arrest was
the lawfulness of the arrest. If the magistrate
deter
arrested to await for a reasonable time the
lawful, he shall commit the person
of this state, or the waiver
issuance of an extradition warrant by the governor
to go at large upon giving an appearance
thereof, or shall permit such person
 to Kan. Stat. § 22—3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page of]
7 6

bond, with or without surety.

If the magistrate determines that the arrest was
of the person arrested.'
unlawful, he shall order the discharge
would even question the arrest, and then
19. Furthermore, the Gardner Police Department

from the Olathe Police, and they were

make statements concerning this being a request

a
simply following orders given by supervisor.
(https://youtu.be/1CBWp9cGzIA)

JUSTIFICATION FOR DISMISSAL #2

20. Under:
Kan. Stat. § 60-31a06(g): A no
contact or restraining provision in a protective
be construed t0 prevent:
order issued pursuant to this section shall not
the parties;
(l) Contact between the attorneys representing or admi nistrative hearing; or
scheduled court
(2) a party from appearing at a
the plaintiff copies of any
(3) a defendant or defendant's attorney from sending
legal pleadings filed in
court relating to civil or criminal matters presently
relevant to the plaintiff.

2023 states "Iliana showed me several

21. Officer Winterschiedt in her report on July 17th,

All are regarding court and are regarding topics such subpoenas for
as
emails from Lonnie.

documents for the upcoming hearing. The emg'ls

court, notice of hearings and requesting
states that Lonnie
in manner; however the protection order clearly
appear to be professional
"
is to have no contact with Iliana through emai
l. (LDM-068)

ted LuPardus and has failed to follow the law,

22. Ofiicer Winterschiedt has wrongfully arres

that a no contact order shall not prevent

which is clearly written in Kan. Stat. § 60-3la06(g)
filed in court related to
a defendant from sending the plaintiff copies of any legal pleadings

civil or criminal matters. Officer Winterscheidt both

in her Narrative Report (W) and

state that the communication was

on the body cam footage

l
024 0000 article/022 024 000
2020/b2019 20/statute/022 000 0000 chapter/022
ht_tp:/[www.kslegislatureorgzli
7')
 Pursuant t0 Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394
I6
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardu Page of
s. 8

to make an unlawful arrest

notice of hearings, etc., and yet chose
regarding subpoenas,

nonetheless, in violation
of LuPardus civil rights.
erson of the Olathe Police
to LuPardus by Captain Carl And
23. Furthermore, it has been relayed

st was proper as "the order

did not specifically state flzat
that the arre
Department
"
the order issued by the Judge.
communication was not barred on
on why the exemption
cont acte d the Kansas Judicial Council to inquire
s,
24. LuPardu hav ing

order used by the Courts, and

was informed by Laura
was not listed on the template
"the exemption under
Atto rney of the Kansas Judicial Council) that
Nordgren, esq. (Staffing
be listed on the template as that
section was a
KSA. 60-31a06(g) would more than likely not
because it just is." (see Conversatio
n
and was not needed to be ordered
—

stan ding exem ptio n

the template order:
een LuP ardu s and Nor gren concerning
betw

httpsd/youtube/xRXQSlieéle )

TigfllSTIFICATION TO
DISMISS CASE NO. 3g

arrested by the Olathe Kansas

Police Department as they
25. LuPardus was not lawfully
did not meet both requirements for
sess ed no war rant issued for LuPardus' arrest, and
pos
blish the standing
a misdemeanor arrest under
Kan. Stat. § 22-2401, and failed to esta

exemption under
Kan. Stat. § 60-31a06(g).

26. Under

misdemeanors and terms of confinement;

Kan. Stat. § 21-6602t Classification of classes of
ion. (a) For the purpose of sentencing, the following
possible disposit orized for
and the terms of confinement auth
misdemeanors and the punishment definite
the sentence for which shall be a
each class are established: (1) Clas A,
s
 Stat. § 22-3208
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan.
State 0f Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 9 0f16

jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall

term of confinement in the county
not exceed one year?
in order for an officer to lawfully
27. Giving Kan. Stat. § 21—5924 is a class A misdemeanor,
must occur:
make an arrest under Kan. Stat. § 22-2401, the following

Kan. Stat. § 22-2401. Arrest by law enforcement officer.

A law enforcemggt
circumstances:
officer may arrest a person under any of the following
be arrested.
(a) The officer has a warrant commanding that the person
to belie ve that a warra nt for the person's
(b) The officer has probable cause
arrest has been issued in this state or in
another jurisdiction for a felony
committed therein.
to believe that the person is committing or
(c) The officer lgSjrobable cause
hasmmtted;
(l) A felony; or
law enforcement officer has probable cause to
(2) a misdemeanor and the
believe that:
hended or evidence of the crime will be
(A) The person will not be appre
' '
rr
i i l r i
or pthers pr damage to property pnless
1B) the person may capse injury to self
immediately arrested; or
(C2 the person has intentionally
inflicted bodily harm to another person.
or tobacco infractionLhas
(d) Any crime, excep't a traffic infraction or a cigarette '
' '
h r ni 1
'
W3
r
1n

cause to arrest LuPardus for an alleged

28. Officer Angela Winterscheit held no probably

the (2) elements required to make an

violation of a temporary stalking order as only (1) of

arrest were present, as Winderscheit l) made no mention that LuPardus could not be

had no probably cause to believe that LuPardus

apprehended under 22-2404(2)(a), 2)
ted under 22-2404(2)(b), 3) had no
would cause injury to himself or property unless arres
er
rdus had intentionally inflicted bodily harm to anoth
justification to believe that LuPa
N
u

-0 0'). l
' O77
Ca. H. "H -|')'7.A HI"H
I ll! AAA\
itted%20the
officer°/¢;20has%20a,f0r%20a"/62ofelon1%20comm
section/022 024 0001 k/#:~:text=£a)%2OThe%20
1

t.' In")/n') .I- 0

0|h. '0
u DII
Motion t0 Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant t0 Kan. Stat. § 22—3208
State ofKansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 10 of 1 6

person under 22—2404(2)(c), and 4)

Oflicer Wintersheidt had not personally Viewed a

crime that has been or is being committed by LuPardus under 22—2404(2)(d).

JUSTIFICATION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 4

order by Samanatha
29. LuPardus was unlawfully charged with Violating a protection

Johnson County Kansas. Shannon was in

Shannon, Assistant District Attorney for

possession of the police narrative and

affidavit submitted by the Olathe PD, which clearly

ADA to the nature of the

state the nature in which LuPardus communicated, alerting the

held on the statute(s) before

complaint, and failed to notate the standing exemptions

asserting the facts were true.

30. It is unclear why this action has progressed this far as ADA Shannon should have been
the laws of Kansas,
the stopping point, given her clear responsibility to follow and uphold

arrest and
but failed to notate the standing exemption and further validated wrongful
a

order. Shannon was in possession of the Police

wrongful report of a violation of stalking

Narrative written by Officer Winterscheidt (L MD-068) stating that all communication

of the
was professional and related to court filings, and was again also in possession
d the
Affidavit written by Olathe Police Sergeant D. Smith (LMD-019), who asserte

the court showing LuPardus and Mielcarek

same, and had full access to all filings of

asserted power of
acted pro se in case 23 CV3 088, and that Mielcarek had continuously

which would require LuPardus to submit

attorney of Katafias in case 23LA02678,

failed to appropriately object to this act

filing(s) to her. The office of the District Attorney
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State 0f Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 11 of I 6

and gave further validity to the wrongful filing by asserting a Violation had occurred

when they had not reviewed the statute which clearly has standing exemptions allowirfg

this type of communication, and further added to the injury LuPardus has suffered

because of this failure.

JUSTIFICATION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 5

_______—__——————

31. The United States' criminal legal system claims to extend a "presumption of innocence"

to those charged with a crime. This presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" has

to our criminal legal system. Pretrial

widespread cultural recognition and is foundational

detention can place coercive pressure on defendants to plead guilty, especially as it can

or cause them to lose their jobs

hamper their ability to participate in preparing a defense3

and homes.

32. Under Kan. Const. B. of R. § 9. Bail; fines; cruel and unusual punishment.
All persons

shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except for capital offenses, where proof is
evident

or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines

inflicted.4
imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment

John B. McEntee
33. On July 18th, 2023, LuPardus appeared in custody before Magistrate

who issued an Initiation of Actions for case 23 CR023 94 (MM) for the offense(s)
alleged under Kan. Stat. § 21-5924: Violation of Protection order. The action stated that

"The court finds from the complaint lLMD-020l and affidavit |LMD~019] that there is

httns://kslib.info/826/Kansas—Bill—of—Ri2hts#:~:text=%C2%A7%209..cruel%200r%20unusual%200unishment%20in
fluted.
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 12 of I 6

has been committed in Johnson County,

probably cause to believe both that a crime
"
Kansas, and that the defendant committed the crime.

34. It should be noted for the court that Magistrate John B. McEntee was also
the presiding

Mielcarek in case 23 CV3088, which

Judge Who oversaw the original complaint made by

he would dismiss on August 14th, 2023 citing that "Lack ofproof of the allegations by a

of the evidence because the actions complained of are not stalking as

preponderance

this request for a Final Protection from

defined by the statute", and "The court denies
"
issued in this case. (LMD-030)
Stalking Order and vacates any ex parte or other orders

35. Magistrate McEntee would originally set a bond total in the amount
of $3,500.00 (see

bench note of 23CR02394 on July 18th, 2023), which is $1,000 more than the amount

listed under:

Kan. Stat. § 21-6611: Fines; crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993. (b) A
in addition to or instead of the
person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor,
sentenced to pay a fine which shall be
imprisonment authorized by law, may be
fixed by the court as follows: (1) For a class A misdemeanor, a sum not exceeding
5
$2,500.

36. At LuPardus' request being at the complete mercy of the Magistrate, the bond amount
and a
was lowered to $2,500, but included restrictions that were excessive, unwarranted,

nor
clear violation of Kan. Const. B. of R. § 9: Excessive bail shall not be required,

was ordered that

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflictedé as it

LuPardus:

066 0011.html
5https://www.ksrevisor.orgzstatutes/chapters/chZ1/02]
6

hms://kslib.info/826/Kansas—Bill-of-Rights#:~:text=%C2%A7%209..cruel%200r%20unusual%200unishment%20in
Hm
Motion t0 Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page I3 0f16

a. Be placed under house arrest (which LuPardus was restricted to his home from

July 18th 2023 to July 27th 2023)

b Be placed under GPS Monitoring (which LuPardus has been under since July

18th, 2023, incurring daily fees),

No use of illegal drugs or controlled substances,

d Submit to testing when directed by the court,"
e No alcohol, .
No firearms,
No contact with Victim(s)/witnesses, their residence/employment for 72 hours,
h No contact with Victim(s)/witnesses, their residence/employment whether or
not

they post bond,

1 Mental Health Evaluation prior to bonding;
Follow mental health recommendations including taking medication as
prescribed,
k. Restricted to surrounding 10 counties. F

37. LuPardus, having not been convicted of any crime and asserts he did not violate
the

to an excessive bail amount, excessive

temporary order of protection, has been subjected
and
and unnecessary fines imposed, cruel and unusual punishment per the alleged crime,

has been subjected to punishment equal that of a convicted party.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

criminal
THEREFOR, I, Lonnie LuPardus respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss
reasons:
case 23 CR023 94 [State of Kansas vs. LuPardus] for the following compelling

—
Unlawful Arrest and Restrictions to LuPardus' Civil Liberties: LuPardus was not
as no warrant
lawfully arrested by the Gardner Kansas Police Department they possessed

issued for LuPardus' arrest, held no probable cause or any authority under
Kan. Stat. §
Motion t0 Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 14 of 1 6

which
22-2401, and further cited Kan. Stat. § 22-2404 as justification for the arrest,

concerns matters of arrest by law enforcement of another State

-
Unlawful Arrest and Restrictions t0 LuPardus' Civil Liberties: LuPardus was not

no warrant
lawfully arrested by the Olathe Kansas Police Department as they possessed

issued for LuPardus' arrest, and did not meet both requirements for a misdemeanor arrest

under Kan. Stat. § 22-2401, and failed to establish the standing exemption under Kan.

Stat. § 60-31a06(g).

-Unlawful Initiation of a Criminal Action: Assistant District Attorney Shannon failed

to recognize the standing exemption held within the statute(s) which clearly state A no

contact or restraining provision in a protective order issued pursuant to this section shall not

be construed to prevent: (1) Contact between the attorneys representing the parties; (2) ar

party from appearing at a scheduled court or

administrative hearing; or (3) a defendant or

defendant's attorney from sending the plaintiff copies of any legal pleadings filed in court

relating to civil or criminal matters presently relevant to the plaintiff.

-Unlawful and Excessive bail, fines imposed, cruel and unusual punishment

inflicted: LuPardus bond conditions were excessive given the nature of the complaint and

alleged crime. LuPardus has been treated as if he were a convicted criminal, having been

arrested and held for (2) days, subjected to a cash bond payment that was $1000 more than

the maximum fee that could be assessed,, was forced to house arrest for (ll) days, has

remained on GPS monitoring since July 18th, 2023, had incurred fees, subjected to limitation

on where he can and cannot go, and has not been held to the presumption of innocence

under the law until proven guilty as he has had to endure punishment deemed
zgranted
Motion to Dismiss Case 23CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPara'us. Page I5 of] 6

towards those who commit and are found guilty of Violent crimes and has had his civil rights

violated since July 18th, 2023.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

ask this
Therefore, I, Lonnie LuPardus, pro se Defendant in case 23LA05427, respectfully

court to dismiss the action against me with prejudice as no Violation of a temporary protection order

had occurred, and request all payments made for pretrial services be refunded as this action was an

unlawful/unwarranted restriction to my civil liberties and a clear injustice.

Signed,

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

Executed on 09/27/2023
Motion t0 Dismiss Case 23 CR02394 Pursuant to Kan. Stat. § 22-3208
State of Kansas vs Lonnie LuPardus. Page 16 of I 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lonnie LuPardus, certify that this document is true under the penalty of perjury,
and have issued a true copy to the Johnson County Court Clerks Via email on the 27th
day of September 2023 at [email protected]
.

Signed,

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

Executed on 09/27/2023
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
Protection from Abuse (K.S.A. 60—310] et seq.)

"\ Temporary Order of Protection from Abuse

Judge or Division: Case Number:23CV2982
JUDGE SCOTT
THIS TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL
Court 0R1 Number: M2
SERVICE OF THE FINAL ORDER OR UNTIL TERMINATED BY ORDER
Plaintifl': Plaintiff Identifiers: OF THE COURT.
Lonnie LuPardus
ONLY THE COURT CAN CHANGE THIS ORDER.

Relationship to Defendant: Year of Birth I990 The Court Finds:

Clare or [I have been in a dating relationship
E] reside together Plaintiff filed a written verified petition on May 30, 2023 requesting a Temporary Order of
formerly resided together Sex: MALE Protection from Abuse.
El have a child in common
i'laintil'l~ has shown the statutorily required relationship between Plaintiff and minor child(ren).
Cl Plaintiff is filing on behalf of a minor child

VS. This court hasjurisdiction over Plaintiff, Defendant and subject matter.
I: ' ' 'Identifiers:
Defendant:
SEX RACE YOB HT WT This court has child custody jurisdiction because D it is home state, [I there is no home state and Kansas
Alex Katafias
MALE W I992 SIS-6FT I40 has significant connections with the child(ren). El temporary emergency jurisdiction,
Address HAIR EYES LAST 4 DIGITS or SSN (IFKNOWN) D other:
1835 w Fredridrson Cir BROWN
KS Plaintiff has established good cause for the court to issue a temporary order of protection from abuse.
61
film: DRIVERS LICENSE ll DL STATE DL EXP. DATE
8 am. El p.m., YO R RIN BE H
A hearing has been set for JUNE 16 2023 at 9:00
-
IN PEEQN AT THE QQURTHOUSE 2" Floor, Courtroom 28. A summons has been issued..

Plaintiff's Cl address and CI telephone number shall remain confidential for the protection of the
Protected Person(s): Protected Person(s).

Plaintiff, (name of plainlim

Order
The Court Orders:
The following child(ren):
- Defendant shall not abuse, molest, or interfere with the privacy or rights of the Protected Person(s) wherever
Child's Name S Child's Year ofBirth they may be. I NCIC 018; 02]

0
to
Defendant shall not use, attempt to use. or threaten to use physical force, that would reasonably be expected
cause bodily injury. against the Protected Person(s). [ NCIC 0| & 02 |

- Defendant shall not contact the Protected Person(s). either directly or indirectly. including in person, by
or in any other way or manner, except as authorized by the
phone. text or email message, any social media,
|
coun in Paragraph 3(b) of this order. NCIC 04 & 05 I
This order and its terms are directed at and apply to Defendant only.
0 Defendant shall not direct or request another to contact the Protected Person(s), either directly or indirectly.
To the Sheriff of JOHNSON Service on Chief Law Enforcement Officer: or in any other way or manner. except
GARDNER PD including in person. by phone, text or email message, any social media.
COUNTY, KS Serve
|
as authorized by the court in Paragraph 3(b) of this order. NCIC 04 & 05 I
Defendant at: 1835 W Fredrldrson Cir
Olathe KS
66061
Rev, 07/2022 KSJC/JOCO 7/22/22 Page 2 of 6
| of 6
Rev, 07/2022 KSJC/JOCO 7/22/22 Page
 E] Joint legal custody betvveen thc plaintiff and defendant until this order
0
residence or workplace where the Protected [ NCIC 06 ]
Defendant shall not enter or come on or around the premises, the expires;
or works. [ NCIC 04 | OR
Person(s) resides, stays
| |
(38016 legal custody granted to C! Plaintit't" [ NCIC 09 ClDefendant NCIC
1
06 until this order expires.
the Protected Personts) D'I'he parent who does not have sole legal custody shall not have access
- Law enforcement officers are directed to grant any assistance necessary to protect
these orders. including the to information regarding the child(ren) because:
from abuse byDefendant. and to provide any other assistance necessary to enforce
wherever it may be.
order excluding Defendant from the Protected Person(s) place of residence.
I NCIC 08 I
{KSA 23-3206)
(VAWA): This
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
This Court has 2265.
Order meets all the requirements of the Violence Against Women Act. 18 [15.0 § ii. Rights of temporary parenting time shall be as follows:
Defendant has been afforded notice and a timely opportunity to
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter;
all 50 states' the District of Columbia.
|
be heard as provided by the laws of Kansas. 'Ihis Order is enforceable in DDefendant shall have no parenting time; [NCIC 09
all Indian tribal courts and all United States territories and shall be enforced as
if it were an order of
CIDefcndant shall have supervised parenting time as follows:
thatjurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2265.

the judge apply.) ___9

Additional terms of this order are set forth below. (Only the provision(s) initialed by
increase; 08]
Housing and Property:
DPlaintiff and Defendant shall have parenting time as follows:
1. Plaintiff is granted exclusive possession of the residence located at:
.
I NCIC 03]
If the plaintiff is granted exclusive possession of the residence. Defendant shall immediately move
order of the court. I NCIC 06 & osi
from the residence and may take only personal clothing and effects until further
to ensure that
Law enforcement officials are directed to remove Defendant from the residence, and iii. DPlaintiff and Defendant shall exchange the minor child(ren) for parenting time
Defendant does not enter or re—enter the premises or any other residence the plaintiff may occupy.
at:

2. Defendant shall not cancel utilities to the residence. The terms of this paragraph expire 60 days from
this order's date ofentry, NCIC 08 l |

I NCIC 08 I
Parentage and Custody:
___
4. Law Enforcement shall assist Plaintiff in obtaining physical custody of the minor child(ren).
3. For this paragraph, the court shall initial subparagraph (a) 0R subparagraph (b). but not both.
a oi" the
a. Defendant's parentage of the child(ren) has not been established through marriage Other Provisions:
parties or pursuant to the Kansas Parentagc Act,
K.S.A. 23-2201 et seq.. and Defendant has 1, Other orders necessary to promote the safety of the protected person(s):
no right to custody or parenting time with the following named child(ren): Cl
E!
El

1
1
NCIC 09
on SO ORDERED:
b. Defendant's parentage of the child(ren) has been established through the marriage
of the
parties or pursuant to the Kansas Parentage Act,
K.S.A. 23-220l e1 .s'eq.. and the following
Date Judge of the District Court
custody and parenting time orders are entered:

i. Temporary legal custody and residency

of the following named minor child(ren):
shall be:
Rev. 07/2022 KSJC/JOCO 7/22/22 Page 4 of6
Rcv. 07/2022 KSJC/JOCO 7/22/22 Page 3 of 6
 WARNINGS T0 DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WSON COUNTY, KANSAS
o This order is effective when signed by the judge. Law enforcement officiais shall immediately enforce
this order.
-
in K.S.A. 2l~5924. Plaintiff: Lonnie LuPardus
Violation of this order may constitute: violation of a protective order as provided (File Snap)
.- Case No. 23CV2982
and thereto;
" as provided in K.S.A. 21—5412(a). and amendments thereto; battery
as provided in K.S.A. 21-5413(a), and amendments thereto; and domestic battery
as provided in VS.

K.S.A. 21-5414, and amendments thereto. and may result in prosecution and conviction under Kansas
Defendant: A|ex Katafias
criminal statutes.
violation of this order by Defendant constitutes Address: 1835 W Fredrickson Or
D 11'
possession of the residence is granted to the plaintiff, Olathe KS
result in
criminal trespass pursuant to K.S.A. 21—5808(a)(1)(C), and amendments thereto, and may 66061
prosecution and conviction under Kansas criminal statutes.
- Violation of this order may also be punishable as contempt of this court.
" PERSONAL SERVIQE ONL
o If Defendant has a
' , that is subject to revocation pursuant to K.S.A. 75-
'carry" '' .- sumo!" AND NOTICE OF HEARING FOR PROTECTIQE ORDER
"5 "carryl has been revoked,
7c07, and amendments thereto. After a
a of K.S.A. 21-6302, and amendments To the above-named defendant:
continuing to carry a concealed weapon may constitute violation the
thereto. You are notified that the attached petition for protection was filed against you in this court and that
L
0 Violation of this order may o
.pa .1 no... for such federal crimes, including but not court [I hos entered the attached temporary orders,on:or '24 has not entered temporary orders against you.
limited to: Interstate travel to commit domestic violence; Interstate stalking; and Interstate violation A hearing on this matter has been scheduled
of a protection order. Date: JUNE 16, 2023
Time: 9:00 am. [I pm.
Notice of Extension of this Temporary Order Place: Divlslon M2
(Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3106) C
If a hearing on the petition for protection is continued, the court may extend this Temporary Order of Protection 1 W ta Fe la
-
fi'om Abuse for additional periods of time as it deems necessary. 2" Elmr Room 2;!

Notice of Default If you do not attend the hearing, final orders may be issued against you. You may appear and cross—
examine the plaintiff's witnesses and present evidence as to why the orders sought should not be granted.
You
(Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-255) to with or
If you fail to appear at the hearing, a default order may be entered against you and this Temporary Order of my file an answer or counter-petition hilt are not required to do so. You have the right appear
without an attorney.
Protection from Abuse may turn into a Final Protection from Abuse without further notice to you.
Date: May 30, 2023 SARAH TOYNBEE
DEPUTY CLERK/DISTRICT JUDGE

To the Shet'ifi' of JOHNSON Service on Chief Law Enforcement Officer

' " ' GARDNER PD
OUNTY,KS serve at:
1835 w Fredrldrson ctr
Ohthe KS
66061
The defendant must immediately contact the court by sending an email to and
leave a confidential mange clearly stating your:

NAME WORKING PHONE NUMBER

CASE NUMBER WORKING EMAIL ADDRESS

If you do not provide the requested information in advance of the hearing date,
the Court might enter a permanent order that could last for up to one year.

03/3 [/2020
Classified as Internal (Jerk aim: Dim Conn, Johnson

Rev. 07/2022 KSJC/JOCO 7/22/22 Page 5 of 6

 ' IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
From: we. Doc r I
FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
Subject: 236V02982-LUPARDUS vs. KATMIAS PROTECTION ORDER
at 9:39 AM
Doll: May SD, 2023
1'0: LONNIELUPAFIDUSOIGLOUDCOM
Cc: DOG. Doc , ,

9331mm
CASE #: 230V2982
DIVISION: M2
JUDGE: Judge Scott
—
HEARING DATE: JUNE 16TH , 2023 AT 9:00AM (in person 2"cl
floor, courtroom 23)
-

ii ; I P T TH
>
E , IIF YQ
IL
—
JUDGE'S ASSISTANT: Anna Lane
(email for information regarding the hearing)
The Judge has reviewed your petition for protection and DENIED your
lemmw QLders gt Protection as well as provided a wringgfle.
Please review the attached documents. Your hearing will be held in
ma.
FOR DENIED ORDERS: Additional information may be asked of you
at your hearing. Keep track of additional events that occur between
this time and your hearing and do not hesitate to call 911 in case of an
emergency. "
'0. .'2' if

HE FILING PROCEW
ALL
If you need an interpreter, please click the link below for the form:
Interpreter Request Form

PETITION
23CV2982.pdf
lul'nuh x Mnxm I'munncm II)

L NI I) —004 23cvo3oxx
DEVMZ

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS '

Protccfion from Stalking. Sexual Assault. or Human Trafficking (K.S.A. 60-31310! 2! seq.)
or Human 'I'rafficking'
'cmporarv Order nfifitdteétfon'fmm~ Stalking, Sexual Assault,
.Iudgc 0: Division: (Tm Numberz2M'V3088
moan smTr Caufl()Rl Numbe: M2
Plainlifl': Pmlccted I'tmn Idcmil'lcls:
Iiana monarch
Year of Birth I956
vs.
Sex: FEMALE

kaendanl: Defendant Identifiers:

Lam-lit Lupudis HT I
M"
SEX RACE YOB |

MALE wnma |
S'HFT I

Addrcss "AIR EYES LAST 4 DKHTS OF SEN (IF A \(M'A'I

329 Creakside Drive BLACK BROWN
ardner KS
DRIVERS LICENSE t m. STATE DL EXP. m FE
6030
,__~_——4

Frau-cm! Person: Iiana Mlelcarek (name)

This order and its terms are directed at and apply' to Defendanl only.
THIS TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL
SERVICE OF THE FINAL ORDER 0R UNTIL TERMINATED BY ORDER
OF THE COURT.

To the Sherifl'oflohnsnn Service on Chief Lam' Enforcemem Officer:

Confidential
Counly. KS serve Defendnnl at:
829 Creekslde Drive
Gardner KS

[66030

Clerk ul'r/w District ('mm' Johnson (bun/y

(will?) 03:4
1 u! d
"a: T-"EIIZE KSICIRK'D 0'}: I9 22 Page
The Conn Finds: (Only the provision(s) initialed by the judge applyt.) Additional terms ot' this order are set forth below. if any.

June 2l 2023 requesting a Temporary Order of Other Provisions:

§DT Plaintiff filed a written verified petition on of the Protected Person
l. Other orders necessary to promote the safely
Protection from Stalking. Sexual Assault. and Human Trafficking.

CDT This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff. Defendant and subject matter. I
EDI Plaintitfhas established a primafaclc case ofstalkitrg. sexual assault. or human trafficking suflieiertt for El
a

the court to issue a r ,0 CFO I. from stalking. sexual assault. or human trafficking.
Cl
A has set for Io'h . 2023. at 9100 M a.m. D p.m. and summons has been
' El
Q93;- heuriutlgi I N S Em US Z"Ioor'
['1
Order SO ORDERED:
The Court Orders: Isl CATHERINE DECENA TRIPLETT
['1 . ' ' Persott Dated: 06/02/23
o Plaintiff's address and telephone number shall remain 'forthe, ofthef'
Date Judge ofthc District Court
- Defendant shall not follow. harass. abuse. molest. assault. threaten. stalk. or interfere with the privacy rights
of the Protected Person. and the Protected Person's family or household. NCIC 01 a: 02 | |

WARNINGS TO DEFENDANT
0 the r
Dcl'cndtmt shall not enter or come on or around the r the r r ',. school. or place of
NCIC 04 I
- This order is effective when signed by the judge. Law enforcement officials shall immediately enforce
employment of the Protected Person or other family or household member. I
this order.
or L
I Defendant shall not communicate either directly or indirectly. including in person. by phone. text or entail . Violation of this order may fill under 2| of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.
the Protected Person's ' " I.-
message. any social media. or in atty other way or manner. with the Protected Person. - butnot" 'toz. ofa protective order as provided in K.S.A. 2l-592J. and
employer. employees. fellow workers. or others with whom the communication
would be likely to cause
.-
amendments thereto; a sex offense under article 55 ofchapter 2| of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.u
' thereto; as
|
annoyance or alarm the Protected Person. NCIC 05] and amendments thereto: stalking as provided in KSA. 2l-5427, and
and
provided in K.S.A. 2|-§4l1(a).2'and amendments thereto: hattew as provided in K.S.A. 2t-5413oi).
o Defendant shall not direct or request another to contact the Protected Person. either directly or indirectly. amendments thereto: and criminal trespass as provided in KS.A. Zl-S808(a)(l)(C). and amendments
manner. I
including in person. by phone. text or email message. any social media. or in any other way or thereto. and may' result in prosecution and conviction under Kansas criminal statutes.
NCICM a 05] 0 Vlolatitin of this order may' also be punishable as contempt of this court.

a If Defendant has a concealed carry' license. that license is subject to revocation pursuant to K.S.A. 75-
n ' - " or .
oI" shall not r to commit a nonconscnsuul sexual act agaittst the Protected Pcrsott.
7:07, and amendments thereto. After a defendant's concealed enrr3' license has been revoked.
of continuing to carry a concealed weapon may' constitute a violation of K.S.A. 21-6302. and amendments
0 Defendant shall not commit or attempt to commit a sexual act against the Protected Person by force. threat thereto.
force. duress. or when the Protected Person is incapable of giving consent. . Violation of this order may subject Defendant to prosecution for suclt federal crimes. including but not
limited to: Interstate travel to conlmit domestic violence: Interstate stalking: and Interstate violation
0 Defendant shnll not follow. harass. telephone. contact. recruit. harbor. -1
I. or or - [0
ofa protection order.
commit human trafficking upon the Protecttrd Person.

CERTIFICA'I'E OF COMPLIANCE WI'fII THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA): Notice of Extension of this Temporary Order
' ' (Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3 l 1105)
This Order meets all the ofthe V' Against Women Act. l8 U.S.C. § 2265. This Court has
and 2t timely opportunity to lfa hearing on the petition for prolcction is continued. the court may extend this Temporary Order
of Prolectio ll
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject mutter; Defendant has been nfl'ordcd notice
... from Stalking. Sexual Assault. or Human Trafficking for additional periods oftime as it deetns necessary.
be heard as provided by the hints of Kansas. 'l'ht's Outer is enforceable in all 50 states. the District of Columbia.
all Indian tribal courts and all United States ten'itories and shall be enforced as if it were an order of that flex-Ir arm: I)i.cm'cl (nun. Joli/mm County Karts-as
Clerk aft/re District Court. Jab/ISO" County 2/3 01-Jllpm ST
jurisdiction pursuant to [8 U.S.C. § 2265. . Kansas

Ret'. 7'2022 KSJC/JOC'O 07/19/22 Page 3 of-t

Rm". 70.022 KSICIJOCO 07ll')"22 Page 2 ON
 -
Personally ldcntifinhle Information Supreme ('ourt Rule 140!)

( ) the name of a minor who is not a named party in a case and. if applicable. the name oh: perstin
Notice of Default whose identity could reveal tlte name ofa minor who is not a named party in a case:
(2) the name ufan alleged victim ol'a sex crime:
(Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-255)
If you fail to appcnl' at the hearing. a default order may be cnlcrcd agamsl you and [his Temporary Order of (3 the name of a petitioner in a protectititt frotn abuse case;

Protection from Stalking. Sexual Assault. or Human Trafficking may lum iulo a Final Pmlcclion from Slalking, (4) the name of n petitioner in a protection from stalking. sexual assault. or human trafficking case;

Sexual Assault. or Human Traf licking without funhcr nolicc to you. (5) the name of ajuror or venire member;
(6) a person's date of birth except for the year;

(7) any portion of the following:

(A) all email address except when required by statute or rule;
(B) a computer usernamc, password. or PIN: and
(C) a DNA profile or other biometric infomtation:
(8) the following numbers except for the last four digits:
(A) a Social Security number:
'' ' ' " '
(B) a f a a bank. credit card. and debit card account;
(C) a
taxpayer identification number (TIN);
(1)) art employee identification number.
(E) a driver's license or nondriver's identification number:
(F) a passport numhen
(G) a brokerage account numbcl'.
(11) an insurance policy account number:
(I) n loan account number;
(J) a customer account number;
(K) a patient or health care number:
(L) a student identificatiott number: and
(M) a vehicle identification number (VIN);
(9 any information identified as personally identifiable information by com order; and
IO) the physical address of an individual's residence.

-
Exceptions Supreme Court Rule 24(c)

( nit account number that identifies the property alleged to be the subject ot'a proceeding:
(2) the name of m) emancipated minor:
" '
information used by the court for case maintenance ,. F that is not by the public:
' '
(4) inl'onnation a party's attorney or a seli' , litigant 'y believes is necessary or
material to an issue before the court:
(5 the first name. initials. or pseudonym of any person identified in Rule 240)(2)(A) to (iXZKE);
(6) any information required to be included by statute or rule: and
(7 any information in a transcript,

NOTE: and exceptions.

Supreme Court Rule 24 includes multiple comments that explain the rule's requirements
The summary above is provided for reference. but you should read the rule with comments to fttlly' understand the
rule. You will find the full rule here:

hm Mammary 1H! I8. M mlLW

C'Icifi ul'llle Manic! ("011", Juliumn L'ounly Kansas
.. '3: ST
Clerk arm: Dim-I (bun. Mum (bumv km
R€\'. 7/2022 szuom O7il9'22 Pzlgcd 0H tb.' '21in [4.0213 5 T
 -
OJA 218 Rev. 05/23

Self-Represented Litigant Certification Form

I
By signing this form. certify that the attached filing complies with the certification requirements in the
Temporary Rule for Filing in a District Court by a Self-Represented Litigant.

I CERTIFY: (You must complete this section.)

I
IZI signed the attached filing and provided my name, address, telephone number, email address (if
available), and fax number (If available).

I ALSO CERTIFY: (Only complete one of the next two sections.)

[2] My document doc: not contain prohibited personally identifiable information ("PH"). I checked my
document for I'll and made sure that my I' meets the .I of the Temporary Rule. It meets those
requirements because:

D my document does not include any of the items listed in fiupmmg your] Bit 5: 2:1 (LU. (This list is printed
on the back ot'lhis forth for reference.)

lZl my document is a Kansas Judicial Council fomi and l have only provided int'onnation that is required
on the form.

121 the information in my document meets an exception in SHEEN; g'otm 31. lg 255g). (This list is printed
out the back of this I'omi l'or rcl'crcncc.).

0R:

D My documcnt may contain prohibited I'll. but I am asking the court to file it confidentially under seal for the
following reason: (C hoosc one.)

D the court entered a prior order on that seals this document.

C] the document I nor filing now risks the court to issue an order to seal a dilTcrcnt document that is not yet
filcd (describe the document without using Pll):

D the document I am filing now asks the court to seal I1 document that is already filed in this case
(describe the documcrtt without using I'll):

A Date: 06/02/2023

Signature:
Name orl'arty: liana Miclcarck
( 'Iurt .vI'Ilu- District l'um Jnhnum ( 'mmly ham t 'It-nl' .n'rht- "IF/VIL'I t 'otlrt. (1)"an Nam."
6 I'JIIJ.' I-UI.' 2.157 MINE?"
3.202,! I41): .'5 .,\T
 (:59:

EKHiEFT

From: """ DOG.

Subject: RE: Objection to Continuance and Rat'urst tor Riding on Motion to Dismiss_23CV03088_6-t(9-23.de
Date: June 16. 2023 at11185 AM
To: LuPardus vs Homeaite mm DCC" DOC l u 3'9
Ce: Lane, Anna. DOA Anne.Lane@locogov,org

Rev I 1/7022 KSJC Good afternoon,

We have received your documents for your case. The certificate of service does not
include the other party on the case. You will need to also include them and include how
you are going to get the documents to them.

From: LuPardus vs Homesite (via Google Docs) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 11 :13 AM
To: DOC—Protections <[email protected]>
Cc: Lane, Anna. DCA <[email protected]>
Sublect: Objection to Continuance and Request for Ruling on Motion to
Dismiss_230VO3088_6-1 6-23.docx

"'
This emit! oflglneud from outside the orglnlutlon. Use caution M1." opening attachments, cllculng llnko. or pertaining
"'
any actions mined-d In this message.

LuPardus vs Homesite attached a document

LuPardus vs Homesite (Lipardllsvshumesi{C(d'gll'laii .com) has

attached the following document:

DCC—Protections: Please file this under case 23CV03088.

—
Anna Objection to Continuance and request for Rolling on Motion
attached for Adam Peer. Judge pro tem; requested a ruling on the
motion to dismiss that was timely filed and not addressed at the
hearing today on the l6th of June. 2023'

Lonnie Lui'adus

Whjection to Continuance docx

Hurt m'lm- Dam?! (nun, Jolwou {hunt} A'unuA

liq/Ml] "fill! ST
.
 Frotn: LuPamus v: nnm From : Lane. Anna. DOA Mna.Lane@|ocogov.org
on Motion to Dismiss_23CV03088_6—16-23.docx : HE: Objection to Continuance and Request tor Rulirig on Motion to Dismiss_zaCV03088_&16-23.docx
simian: He: Objeaion tn Continuance and Request tor Ruling
t June 16. 2023 at 1157 AM
nm
DIM: June 16, 202-38! 1138 AM
To: D .
To : LuFardus vs Homesite mm DCCr DOC
Cc: Lane, Anna, DCA Anna,[email protected]
.
win. my mm..." We only communicated regarding her request to appear on Zoom. The Court does not
Inn-u
have the responsibility to bring attention to your motion. it would be best to seek advice
b/Lumnlu
UAFWHS a Howls mun-mo from a lawyer. It you have an objection to the continuance. it should have been
Erma-MI Gum. KS m
(913) m2 ~ 2255 addressed while you were in Court.
«woman—summin-

mm'fim,nll'3¢mbc
5W.
24m 1m
Good afternoon.,
We have received your documents lot your case. Th6 certificate at service does not include the other party on the caset Administrative Assistant M-2
You will need to also include them and include how you are going to gel the documents in them. 150 W Santa Fe
From: LuPardus vs Homesile (via Google Docs) <mummmes~§®gmaflpm>
Oiathe, KS 66061
Sent: Friday, June 16. 2023 11 :13 AM
' (913)715-3339
To: DCC . <DC"'- woven Ann a.iane @iocoqov.orq
Cc: Lane, Anna. DCA <Ama_l,a£&@icmgflgs<—>
' and
Objection to C Request for Ruling on Marian to Dismiss_230V03088_6~16-23 docx

"'
This Omlli m mu- WW dlcklng links, in InY Idiom
mutant! In mkmgzu 0."

From: LuPardus vs Homesite <|[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 11 :46 AM
To: DOC-Protections <[email protected]>; Lane, Anna. DCA
LuPardus vs Homesite attached a document <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Objection to Continuance and Request tor Ruling on Motion to
<imageOOl pug) LuPardus vs
" (innardim shtimt'qlcfll "mill 1.: )has attached the Dismiss_23CV03088w6~16-23.docx
following document:
"' 011. Use caution when openirtg attachments, clickir'lg links, or performing
Title email originated m outside the "'
DCC-Protections: Pleas: file this under case 23CV03088. any actions requested in this message.

Anna Objection to Continuance and request for Rolling on Motion

Also Anna confirmed with liiana in court today that she had her email address and has
attached for Adam Peer. Judge prn Lem; raquested a ruling on the motion
been in communications; so she is receiving items filed with the court. Please file the
to dismiss that was timcly fiIcd and not addressed at the healing today on
documents and kindly return the time stamped document.
[he 16m of June. 2023. 'i
Thank you,
Lonnie LuPadus

~WRDOOOO bjecxion to Conlinulncedocx On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 11 :38AM LuPardus vs Homesite
r
> wrote:
Iam not issuing a document to a party whom obtained a protection from stalking order
Gnogle LLC. two Ampuiihwm Parkway. Mwuntain mm. CA 94043. USA
against me. She is registered on JiMS so she will receive the document once it is
Yuu hlve received lhix
until been": shared .1 dccflmant uploaded.
wlll youmm 6mm: Docs,

ls/ Lonnie LuPardus

LuPardus vs. Homesite Insurance
i
829 Creekside Drive Gardner. KS 66030
-
(913i 919 9955

__ '
 From Lane. Anni, DOA Anna.Lane@}ooogav.org
Subject: Re: Objection to Continuance and Request for Ruling on Motion to RE: Objection to Contlnuunce and Request tor Ruling on Mutton to Dismiss_230V03038_6-16-23.aocx
Dismiss_23CV03088_6-1 6-23.docx "at: Jun916.2023 at12:37 PM
ta: LuPardus vs Homsslte
Cc D00. D lupardtisvshornesltelygmlil.wm
'" This email originated from outside the organization. Un caution when opening attachments, clicking links. or pedormlng
"'
any action! requested In this message.

1) What are you talking about request to appear by zoom? Ms

Anna. Mielcarek request to appear by Zoom. since she lives out of town.
1) What are you talkirtg about request to appear by zoom? Please see below judge's ruling on your motion to dismiss.
2) i'm not asking you to notiiy anyone. Once the tile Is uploaded it will be emailed out to lliana from the courts
automatically. You ensured verified In court that you had her contact lnlormatlon as you had been
communicatin .
here [gr mgsdurgl ggegtims. All 06/16/2023 <****¥** Eench Notes *********>
3) Please do not provide me advice. also per your own words... "My
mr matters m] I 1mm [9 mg until the hearing data. '50 please retrain from providing advice and do your job PLTF AND DFNT APPEAR PRO SE. CONT'D FOR TRIAL ON 8/14
and provide notice to the Judge about my objection and request tor ruling. (which by the way was brought to the AT 10:30 AM. REQUEST TO RULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS IS
attention of the court. and was not addressed by whomever was on the bend: in place of Judge Scott.) DENIED. MOTION IS RIPE AS IT WAS NOT PROPERLY
NOTICED—UP. NO CERIFICATE OF SERVICE WAS FILEDS AND
Please advise that you have provided the objection md motion for ruling.
DFNTS OWN CERT OF SERVICE, IN HIS MOTION, DID NOT
CERTIFY SERVICE(RPTR: RECORDING)(TAPE: 900)(JUDGE: PRO
Thanks. TEM)
ls/ Lonnie LuPardus
LuPardus vs. Homesite Insurance
I
829 Creekside Drive Gardner. KS 66030
-

(913) 912 2255

homesite@thgjupargusggrpgom

SW.
24m 1m
Administrative Assistant M-2
-
On Jun 16, 2023, at 11 :57 AM, Lane, Anna, DCA< 150 W Santa Fe RM 28
wrote: Olathe, KS 66061
(913)715-3339
We only communicated regarding her request to appear on Zoom. The Court
does not have the responsibility to bring attention to your motion. it would be
W1In lmgLQV-r9
best to seek advice from a lawyer. It you have an objection to the
continuance, it should have been addressed while you were in Court.
1
fife Itlth ludicial District
.t'

5W. was} Johnson ('ountp

Mlm
Administrative Assistant M-2
150 W Santa Fe
Olathe, KS 66061

97.3.3715??? From: LuPardus vs Homesite <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday. June 16, 2023 12:28 PM
To: Lane. Anna, DCA <[email protected]>
Cc: DOC-Protections <DCC-Protections @jocogov,org>

eta-S
 '
nnm
From: Dec DOG Flam: L.
Sublsct: Re: Objemon Io Continuance and Request tor Ruling on Motion to Dismiss_ 23cvoaoaa_
6 16-23 docx
Subject: RE: Objection to Continuance and Request tor Ruling on Motion to Dismiss_230V03085_ 6—16- 23 docx
DI": June 16 2023 814214 PM Date: June is 2023 ale: 08 PM
DOC Lane Anna DOA Annnl 0'9. 1w- CD!"
To: Lane. Anna, DCA Anna. Lane®iooogov. om LuPardus vs Hmnesite lupardusvshomesitstflgmall com To' DOC . .

Cc: DOC- DOG.

DOGPrmacllons Pleaseflle this tst AmsnM Motion to Dismiss to case zacvaoae
After reviewing the petition that was served to you it appears plaintiff provided an I
Illunu- As insiructsd hytlia ooun. i am submitting my motion to you alms email you provide on your petlllon. have kept the parties
email to you and the court. This email Is the email address that you would use to i've been discussing with Ibolfl fills in the email chain as a secunty measure
communicate with the other party and provide on your certIficate of service.
@Wflmmnlm. 236V 8.5.1—
I
Anna ottoman Is my lat Amended Coonhalcimm MIIdI now Includes BBMGE to lllanu Once she opens the emaII will file the
oarllflcale ol same with the court
Plaintiffs Signature Lmnla LuPardus

- <DCC 7 wrote
On F". Jun 16 20238t414PM DCC my
like... W'Jw/N After reviewing me petition that was served to you it appeals plaintlll provided an email to you and the court. This email'Is the email
address that you would use to communicate with me otneI party and pwvlde on your oenilicaia at service.

-laint| 5 Name nana Mioicarek _

.

our EmaIl Address

Plaintn't 5 Signature
|ycai@yahoo. com
"
ARNING: r his email address may be used by the court -.

can; wnh you about this case.

z."
claw WM
laintiff's Namet Iiana Mielcarek

our Emall Address

From. Lane Anna, DCA <Anna Lane@Iocogov org>
Sent Friday. June 16 2023 2 08 PM lycal@yahoo com
To LuPardus vs Homesne <Iupardusvshomesue@gmall oom> ARNING: This email address may be used by the court
Cc DCC ProtectIons <DCC ProtectIons@|ocogov org> With you this cos
Subject RE OblectIon to ConlInuance and Request tor Ruling on MotIon to about
DIsmIss 23CV03068 6—16 23 docx

KIndly av0Id sendIng any further Inappropnate emaIis as they WIii

not be responded to Thank you

From Lane Anna DCA<Anna Lane® 019

Sea! Fnday June 16 2028sz
To: LuPardus vs Homes' <uw @gmdil
Cc: DCC Protections< ___r_oiectI 0v_0_10>
SW Subiact: FIE: Objection to Continuance and Request lor lining on Motion to DismissfiCVOSO88_ 6- 1623 ducx

Mlle"
AdmInIstratIve ASSIstant M 2 KIndiy av0Id sendIng any further InapproprIate emaIls as they WIii not
150 W Santa Fe RM 28 be responded to Thank you
Olathe KS 66061
(913)715 3339

.
,
a?
 J

null Ilyl "In". "unruly nu uiivunullvll VII IIUI uuUIuoa, \4 u , \IIU uo II. Io ,

I I
no where listed on the petition received so until get my fairy wand
back from the shop I m kind oi at a loss on how to accommodate any
certificate of servrce havrng been given NO information on the address or
SW. email in which to do so

Mlm
Administrative Assistant M-2
-
150 W Santa Fe RM 23
Olathe, KS 66061
On Fri. Jun 16. 2023 at 12. 46PM Lane. Anna. DCA<Anna Laneia @34ng > wrote.

(913)715-3339 3) Piease do not provide me advice. also per your own words
All other mgtters will haze La wait until the nagging date. so please refrain from providing advice and do
Annalane @jocggov org your Job and provide notice to the Judge about my objection and request Ior ruling (which by the way was
brought to the attention of the court. and was not addressed by whomever was on the bench In place of
Judge Scott ) June a Judge Scott retired The pro tem Adam Peer was made aware at your obiects
":3"
f... with .Butiicfianl {Dirsfiviwt
.

, aflfihltiiih'om (
\ \

From: LuPamus vs Homesite dygardusvshgmgglle "g gmgil cons

5W
Sent: FridayK June 16, 2023 1:25 PM 2W1":
To: Lana. Anna, DOA < aane®jocc[21233)
on: DCGProlections < LJC-Frotectloiz' >
Subject: Flo: Obiecflon Ia Continuance and Request for Ruling on Motion to Disrnlssficvaaoe8_e-16~23.docx Administrative Assrstant M 2
150 W Santa Fe RM 23
"' This small
uriglnmd lrom amid: the organization. Un cauu or
In oponlufifnachmems. clicking links, Olathe KS 66061
any actions

(913)715 3339
Retired?? Well that is perfect timing. Also (just so l'm clear on this) you Anna IaneQpcogov ore
are actively telling me to communicate with a party whom has brought an
I
-
action against me claiming have harmed her by way of
communication...? Because that seems correct. Also, it is kind of hard to /;
I can": . With filiauik'flahfl IDIIMIMS'I
provide a petitioner documents when there is literally NO iDENTlFYING
I
INFORMATION listed on the petition... so please pray tell how exactly m) out!"
am to provide her notice while I'm also restricted from communicating
unith hnr ulhiln hmfinn an inlnrmgiinn nn hnr grid-race email atr' no if ic-
 We only communicated regarding her request to appear on Znorn, The Cairn does not have the responsibility
to bring attention to yOIJf motion. it would be best to seek advise "DI" a |awyet ll you have an (Mention to the
continuance, it should have been addressed while you were in Court,

Sincerely.
From: LuFerdus vs: e (:09
50M: Friday. June 16. 2023 12: 28 PM
To: Lem Anna. DCA<Anna Lane 12-ng '9>
Mlm
Cc: DOC-Protections <U_C'"- "ml
subject: Re: Objection to Continuance and Request ior Ruling on Motion to Dismiss_ZSCV03088_6-16-23Aocx Administrative Assistant M-2
150 W Santa Fe
"' Olathe, KS 66061
This email originated from outside the organization. Use caution when opening Ittnchments, clicking links. or
any: on;
(913)715-3339

Anna,
Anna .lgne@ |'0_CQg.ov.org

1) What are you telkIng about request to appear by zoom?

I m not
) asking you to notify anyone Once the me Is uploaded It vvili be emaIled out to Illana from the
courts automatically You ensured verified In court that you had her contact Intormahon as you had been
communicating

3) Please do not provide me advice. also per your own words... "_o_II ...
Meier-mmgunstrs From: LuPardue vs Homeelte < _
arshorrresne©gmarl cor:;>
Il.' . u: -' 1.5.. "g: "so please refrain from providing advice and do Sent: Friday, June 16. 2.023 11:46 AM
To: DCC . < >; Lane. Anne. DOA <
your job and provide notice to the Judge about my objection and request for ruling (which by the way was
Fla: Objection to cenlinuance and Request lor Ruling on Motion to bIEmlss' zacvoeoes_e>16-
brought to the attention of the coun, and was not addressed by whomever was on the bench in place oi Subloct:
Judge Scott)

"' ' .J . . .
This emall w' Jfrom the Use when
Please adVIse that you have prowded the objection and rnotIon for ruIIng . ' In this "a
attachments. clicking links, or performing any

Also Anna conllrrned wlllt Illene in court today the! she had her email address and has been In
so she Is items tiled with the court Please tie the documents and kindly relum the
time stamped document,
Thanks,

Thank you'
Isl Lonnie LuPerdus

LuFaIdus vs Homesnla Insurmoe

I
829 CreekSIde Drive Gardner. KS 66030 I

9'2 2255 On Fri, Jun I6. 2023 5:11:38AM LuPardus vs Homesite < > wrote:
(913)
lam not issuing a document to a party whom obtained a proteclian lrorn stalking order against me. She Is
nomggne®thelgnarg¥ carp
registered on JIMS so she will reoelve the document once It is uploaded.

Isl Lonnie LuPardus

LuPardus vs. Homesite Insurance

I
829 Creeksida Drive Gardner. KS 68030

On Jun 16 2023 g
(913) 912 -2255
el1157AM Lane Anna,DOA< nna ' lg overg>wrote
hmasfigk'tnalunardusccrp cg)
 pro tem; requested a ruling on the
motion to dismiss that was timely
filed and not addressed at the
hearing today on the 16th of June\
.
2023 .
On Jun 16. 2023, at 11 :34 AM, DOG 73C~P 'Euiacoaov om>
W705:

Lonnie LuPadus
Good allamoom

We have received your documents for your case. The oenilicale oi sen/lea does not
Include the other party on the case. You will need Io also include Ihem and include how
you are going to get the dowmsnts to them

From: LuPardus vs Homsshs (via Google Docs) {guardgg'vgggflsue@'gmem' uta> _.bjection Io Continuancedocx
Sent: Fridux June 16, 2028 1H3 AM
To: DOC . lucouo >
Cc Lane.Anna DCA<
Subject: Obisetlon to can at: est lor Rullng on Motion to
DIsmissJSCVOSOBB_6-IG-23,docx

.._.
"" This email u.'
u 'from the Use
n ..
when ,. u I ,, Ilnks. or performing any actions
""
requested in this message. Google LLC. I600 Amphilhealrc Parkway,
Mounrain View CA 94043, USA
You have received this email m
because shared 1

a document with you from Google Docs4

LuPardus vs Homesite attached

a document

<image00| .png> LuPardus vs Homesite

Lonnie LuPardus
(' ttparduwx'hnmemreflglnzg Mom)
~WRD0000.' '4 LuPardus v Homesite (230V02374)
has attached the following
Homsdie v LuPardus (220V8473)
document:
Lupardus v Homesire V0463

DCC-Protections: Please file this com

Emaitigszard_u.svs._home§£g@gm___ail
under case 23CV03088. mQneL813'991-2516 ! 913-912-2255

Address 62' we agree OH Gardner. KS 66030

Facebook 1 Twule: I LuPavousv Home51I5 BLOG IMariTIaCK
-
Anna Objection to Continuance
and request for Rolling on Motion
attached for Adarn Judge VOTEJIICKI SCHMIDT 0;! If OF_QE_EI§§
Peer: .
 'sassmd [{de Due uoueumse 'fiuIaI/ues SWIEIJ 'sIuaIuauJas um
salnsiaw (mum Kpnls (Joana/sues 51mm luadwd EJBMOJ 'a r III wanna am )8 pqaqu 0519 J! uaInEIsIIHs Iawozsm uauaepnas
11mm 511 10;
sawedwoo 22 IO mo sand :59] III susamou '79wa [Mad 0 r "was s» [O]
pal?! [good uaua SI aaumnsm aussuIoH gnmuyfl
filIJO—i'fi BTOHEYWHEETfifilK—m
)pd SZ "0'10W
papuawv 13L
"3?!) WW I "P K" \\ puny-w] .
um I 1P "1
08099 SM 1309139 W0 SPISXWO 629
esaIppV
9523 BIB El6 9152 lSG'SlB GWMd
oouk'lnSll]
wo'o'W DB©19TSSIuTo'lTQ—ASTn mam "er
(smozz) ensewm-I A snmedn'l
91 1saur9H
W (ms/ma) 9'19de A alluwan
(HEW/OE?) SIISGWOH A SHMdn'l
W W GIOAV) 'SMOd o r A0 15'?! n'auuaa'fiu'e'n—nsu'y'rsexuTH Maren Emmett mm pus won-vim" mod
9mm: 1 101 we ansawoH [0 WW BILL am 51110 lmsur W I 89 91mm snpmdn-l aluuo1
[new $2 99ml; 994m toluene] snsaLuaH 'xapul (DIVN) J [0 [mourn m] c» 6:!me
session/611m PU! Uoflflflln" Bums: 51-"va manual)!" WW Wwfllifi
mm uamm Innis «0,122,911.: sump Kuadcud SW 0 r w 4110qu sq; m pnpuq 051.? u uaualpuu IOWDISIIO "mono a:
10; smulmooo ea [0 Ina mid J53] ul 516W 00mm 1mg 0 r "was 5:1 to; palm [wood Maya 5! caulmsw mm m
Emma" oowgmayfiuloHAfifiIEdn
| yuame;| W |
09099 S» Jaumes emu emsxwo 6:9 ssaxpw
9'52? 316 SlGl 9198-165 2&8 Bum
ma: newfi©ausaumuslxsnpxedrv "lung
(ssvsAozz) auseLUOH A snwedm
(um/ma) snMdn'I n ONSBWOH
(VLSBOAOCZ)WWW A snflledY'W
snmadn1 aluuo1
..
l
u SOD 17v 1v (no/w) 75d
—I"CN: 188'] aouEInE'uT'e'E.e'finH WWW
'flil'
m Jam
pawIEH J." 10]J mum/mm
€11 WWWW/Tmsl WWW YEW
TQWWWW'WU J mammarfiumv
mmarpmbnmsr'WWW
samsaaw WQWXWWWWWE WWW?! d
J] 'ZTO'IJOEK'IJEs'J—IDDW [Wm
L l 0918 511mg [5 99?] 1W "7W mass
3'03 w mom/u )SMOd O ('Aq'l's'ZW (firms fi'e 'I'firrfia wBH clasp 60.1mm weppuasuoaanaaum kwod 'SIUBIUBINDS Wmmmfim u
1;; plmolaw at" on: 3;; p mnsw Ina/m I 5! summon luau
SIM sew!) 9m] mime: ausowau 'xopu; Iumdmog (OWN) J [o IWUIJI'N at." w Burwmv
x
<..4
 '

IN THE DISTRICT COURT or JO Y, KANSAS 2 _;

scoozo4
LONNIE LUPARDUS (SMALL CIA DIvM2
f"\ 829 CREEKSIDE DRIVE
GARDNER. KS 66030
VS' C ASE NUMBER: 235500204) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS
ALEX KATAFIAS TIME: 2:00PM
1835 W. FREDERICKSON CIR
JOURNAL ENTRY LONNIE LUPARDUS
OLATIIE, KS 66061 Pé'fifioner Case No. 238000204
17 vs CourI N0, M2
NOW ON THIS DAY OF "LY ,2o_2_3__, THIS MATTER COMES ON FOR TRIAL;
LOW LUPARDUS
w "mm
APPEARS As PLAINTIFF(S). Resl'mdem
ALEX "mus APPEARS As DEFENDANT(S).
THE COURT, BEING DULY ADVISED IN THE PREMISES. FINDS As FOLLOWS: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MNLING
THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS AND SUBJECT MATTER SET OUT HEREIN
AND VENUE IS PROPERLY PLACED. THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DULY SERVED WITH on the above signed date a true copy of: JOURNAL ENTRY OF 1! [DGMENT
SU MM 0N5 AND NOTIFIED To APP EAR ON THIS D A TE . was 59m to the below above captioned parties by US prepaid postal mail and in
. . .
. .

addmon an automatlc small sent usmg the JIMS automated sysIem to

I THE CASE PROCEEDS T0 TRIAL. addresses on file.

[5/ EVA MORENO

COPY SMALL CLAIMS CLERK

JUDONflENT FOR PLAINTIFHS) ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM. BFILE

IN THE SUM OF 527"" PLUS INTEREST AT 0 % PER ANNUM To DATE

OFJU'DGMENT. PRINCIPAL BALANCE To BEAR INTEREST AT 12 % PER ANNUM
FROM THECLERK'S FILE STAMP DATE UNTIL PAID IN FULL

FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AS SET OUT IN THE PETITION

OR 3 PLUS INTEREST FROM THE FILE STAMPED DATE OF JUDGMENT.

COSTS ARE ASSESSED AGAIIIST TI-fl3 DEFENDANT.

THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN THIS CASE IS THE PARTY TO WHOM MONEY IS OWED AND
THE JUDGNIENT DEBTOR is THE PART\' OR PARTIES WHO OWE MONEY. IF THISJUDGMENT
HAS NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN I j RA YS OF THE CLERK'S FILE STAMI'ED DATE OF THIS
JUDGMENT. THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SHALL MAIL A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT FORM TO
THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS. WITHIN 30 DAYS
OF RECEIVING THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS FORM, UNLESS THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN PAID.
THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS FORM AND
REWRN IT TO THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT.
X PARTIES ARE ADVISED OF RIGII'I'S To APPEAL (14 DAYS)

COSTS ARE ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF 569.00 FILING FEE.

ls/ JOHN MCENTEE

~
Dated.. 07l17/23 Johnson County Self-Help Center
4
.
C Ielk ofIIIe DIsIrm Com,
IT I 5 SO ORDERED. Rev. 09/2021 Clak aflhe DIsIncI Coun,
SMALL CLAIMS JUDGE Jzwmfyfsfifxgfi gxzulntl}; 5:111}???
 —-.
i'J/
23CR02394
Div3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS court date and LUPARDUS is representing himself in those court proceedings.
CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
3. lliana showed Officer Winterscheidt several e-maiis from LUPARDUSMIW
tullllill: \i.i~tci [)Uttilllk'i'l il)'
STATE OF KANSAS.
Plaintiff. regarding court and are regarding topics such as subpoenas for court, notice of hearing
LMD—O i 9
VS. No and requesting documents for the upcoming hearings' The e-maiis appear to all be

professional in manner; however. the protection order clearly states LUPARDUS is not to
LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS,
Defendant. have contact with Illana through e-mail. lliana currently resides in Florida but has been in

Oiathe since 07/11/2023 staying with her other son and in a hotel in Olathe. lliane has
AFFIDAVIT
been back and forth between Florida and Olathe since May 19. 2023.
Comes now the affiant, of lawful age, in support of a probable cause finding for the
4. Officer Winterscheidt contacted Gardner Police Department and requested they
detention of the defendant or the issuance of an arrest warrant. states as follows:
attempt contact with LUPARDUS. Officer Winterscheidt was contacted by dispatch who
1 On 07/17/2023. Olathe Officer Winterscheidt was dispatched to the Olathe
advised Gardner Police were at LUPARDUS' residence and had him detained. Officer
Police Department in reference to a subject in the lobby reporting a violation of a no
Winterscheidt responded to the residence where she made contact with Officer Mast
contact orderr Upon arrival Officer Winterscheidt met with the reporting party, lliana
Badge who had LUPARDUS detained in the rear passenger side of his patrol vehicle with
Mielcarek who advised the following. She currentiy has an active protection from stalking
his hands miffed behind his back. LUPARDUS stated he understood his Miranda Rights
order against LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS. Officer Winterscheidt note there is an active
and stated he didn't want to talk with Officer Winterscheidt. Ha then changed his mind
criminal deprivation of property case involving LUPARDUS as the suspect and iliana's
and stated he did want to talk to HER. When ask ng him if he sent Iliana e-mails.
autistic son, Alex Katafias. lliana is Alex's legal guardian.
LUPARDUS advised he sent e—mails pertaining o their civil court case. Officer
2. Due to LUPARDUS harassing lliana she filed and was granted a protection from
Vlfinterscheidt advised him the protection order cleary states he is not to have contact
stalking order 06/02/2023 in Johnson County Case 230V3088, They appeared in court
with her through e-mail. LUPARDUS argued that Offcer Winterscheidt was wrong and
regarding the protection from stalking order on 06/16/2023 at which time the protection
was unwllling to listen to her further.
order was extended until their next court date of 08/14/2023. The protection order strictly
5. The above information was obtained from the reports of the Olathe Police
states LUPARDUS is not to have contact with lliana in person, by phone. text or e-mail
Department.
message. any other social media. or any other way or manner. lliana advised Officer

Winterscheidt LUPARDUS is contacting her through e-mail regarding their upcoming

Clerk of the District Court. Johnson County Kansas Clerk of the Districr Court. Johnson Counly Kansas
07/]8/2'? 08:038m DC 07/ l8/2.3 08:03am DC
 23CRU2394
Div3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS

ECLARATION STATE OF KANSAS.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Plaintiff.

VS. COMPLAINT No
Executed by and on this date:

LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS.

Defendant

IS/ Sergeant D. Smith STATE OF KANSAS. JOHNSON COUNTY. 33:

Affiant Name
I. Samantha K. Shannon, Assistant District Attorney of said County upon

930 information and belief. state under oath to the court that
7/18/2023
Badge # and Date
LONNlE DAIL LUPARDUS
did the following:

Count I: That on or about the 17'" day of July 2023. in the County of Johnson, State of
Kansas LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS did then and there unlawfully. willfully and knowrngly
violate a protection from stalking order issued pursuant to 0%Eéfl31305, 60312063
class A person misdemeanor, in violation of m and KAS.A. 216602(a)(1 )
(violation of a protective order)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed by and on this date
Isl SAMANTHA SHANNON
Dated: 07l18/23

Samantha K. Shannomdmh #23850

Assistant District Attorney
150 W. Santa Fe St, 3"1 Floor
Olathe. Kansas 66061
(913)715-3000
WITNESSES:
Officer Angela Vlflnterscheidt
lliana Mielcarek'
Alex Katafias

Clerk of the District Coun. Johnson County Kansas Clerk of [he District Court. Johmn Cuun Karim
07/ I 8/23 08:0.'1am Df' 07/I823 (3.03am DC
 il'.\-tln~ \l .-.1:| Hutamzivl ll)

LMD-024
PRINT JOHNSON COUNTY CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT CLEAR
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
-
Criminal Department STATE OF KANSAS TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECORDS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
150W Sanla Fe, Oliihe, KS 66061
-
911715—3430 doc-recordsajooogw,or|
State of Kansas
REQUE§T FDR RECORD COPV
Vs. azatLO'l Saki Pursuant to Open Records Act K.S.A. 45-215 through 45-230
LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS, Defendant
To be completed by requester. Please print clearly:

NAME:
LONNIE LUPAFIDUS
BUSIN HIS/ORGANIZATION:
INITIATION OF ACTION
STREET: APT/STE" CITY: ST ZIP:
Offense(s) Alleged:
21-5924 VIOL OF PROTECTION ORDER PHONE: EMAIL: [email protected]
I
hereby acknowledge that K.S.A. 45-230 provides: "No person shall knowingly sell, give or receive, for the purpose of selling or
offering for sale,
any property or service to persons listed (herein, any list of names and addresses contained therein, or derived irorn public records..."
(Exceptions
_X' The Court finds from the complaint and affidavit that there is probable cause to believe noted (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).) I understand and acknowledge that a violation of this law can subject the violator to of
payment a civil penalty set
both that a crime has been committed in Johnson County, Kansas and that the defendant by the murt
no}QIfl'flQfiIfi't'lfiflAflbfiS
SIG NATU RE D 87/24/2023
committed the same.
7

Nomi/n {2730; 16A LthCalUs) PLEA ILL OUT ONE PER CASE.

Defendant's bond is set t #:230R02394 CASE CAPTION:

STATE OF KS VS LUPARDUS
$3,500 ash or surety with the following conditions:
Name of document Document Check to Check to #of
ELECTRONIC MONITORING ll Certify Authenticate
lawn d:] copies
NO USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES/SUBMIT TO TESTING FILE STAMP WNW. FEE-TRIAL HISKESESSMEN'T

WHEN DIRECTED BY COURT FILE STAMP 07/18/23. AFFIDAVIT

NO ALCOHOL FILE STAMP 0mm. COMPLAINT. INITIATION OFMTION

NO FIREARMS
NO CONTACT WITH VlCTIM(S)/WITNESSES, THEIR RESIDENCE/ EMPLOYMENT FOR
72 HOURS, THEN NO VIOLENT CONTACT AFTER 72 HOURS HAS EXPIRED
NO CONTACT VICTIM(S)/WITNESSES, THEIR RESIDENCE/ EMPLOYMENT
WHETHER OR NOT THEY POST BOND
MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PRIOR TO BONDING
FOLLOW MENTAL HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING TAKING OF
MEDICATION AS PRESCRIBED
FEES TO BE CDMPIETED BY CLERK. PLEASE EMAIL FDR PRICE QUOTE: u.

Page count 9 $0.50 EACH 5

Paymeng msengaged
Certifications @ $1.00 EACH 5 e Mail In requests: cashiers check.
Authenticatinns
in
@ $2.00 EACli S (\I
/5/ JOHN MCENTEE money order or personal check. Please
Regular email 9 50.54-151' 4 $0.27-EACH AFTER write driver license number and date of
07/18/23 COUNT 5
PER CASE NUMBER birth on personal check. Please do not
Judge of the District Court Special email 9 $0.81-15T ¢ 50.54-EACll AFTER 5 mail cash. N
count PER CASE NUMBER
Research lee 9 $12.00 PER HOUR 5
in person: cash, cashier's check, money N
order. personal check, debit card, or
Other fees 5 credit card. Personal check, debit and
Totals 5 1.16 credit cards will require photo i.d. of
person listed on face of check or card.
N.
0 1 «
Completed byzaw Date: 7/25 Receipt ll: 2330860 Via email: contact Records
, ailflN/clj
Received by: CounterE], MaiID, FaxD, Emailm, PhoneD Department for further instructions.
"" There Is a $4.95
Delivery Method: CounterD, MailEI, Faxfl, EmailEI processing lee to use
debit or cred'rt. .

Rev.2/2023
Clerk of [he Dism'ct (bun. Johnson County Kansas
07/ I 8/23 08:032m DC
 ~
23CV03088
, CO PY IN THE DISTRICT COL. RT ( COUNTY, KANSAS DIVM4

IIANA MIELCAREK, Plaintiff"

vs. (1154' Not 23§V3088

LONNIE LUPARDUS, Defendant

JUDGAIENT'OF DISN'IALUI PRO 11.91"th I ROM STALKIAG ORI)ER

On this date, AUGQST l4. 20E, after hearing, the court finds:

.lEM Plaintiff appears: in person; with Counsel,

__
JBM Defendant appears: in person; with Counsel.

The com hears evidence and denies the request for a Final Protectioyi from Stalking Order for the
following reasons:
Lack ofpersonnl jurisdiction because:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction because:

'
JB m ' ,1
L
Lack ofproofofthe " a by a r r ofthe evt nice the actions - - i ofare not
,'
stalking as defined by the statute.

The court denies this request for a Final Protection from Stalking Quiet and vacates any ex
pane or other orders issued
in this case.

" '5 5° ORDERED' Isl JOHN MCENTEE

Dated 08/14/23

JUDGE OI' THE DISTRICT COURT

PRAECIPE/REQ UEST FOR SERVICE

To the Sheriff of Service on ('h'ef Law Enforcement Officer:
County, serve Defendant at:
CONFIDENTIAL PD
"SERVED BY EMAIL"

Wléfl'él'ihé'bisfiici Coon, Johnson County Kansas

03/14/23 (711/me ST
 LM'D-oso
INITIAL fl DELETE
MODIFV
KANSAS STANDARD OFFENSE REPORT PAGE
D DADD FRONT PAGE OPEN PUBLIC RECORD 10"
ON VIEW NAME OF AGENCY K5 AGENCY ORI NUMBER CASE NUMBER
I D DISPATCHED
D CITIZEN Gardner Police De artment KS0461200 2302131
;
DATE OFFENSE STARTED (MMDDCCYV) TIME (HHMM) DATE OFFENSE ENDED (WDDCCYY) TIME (HHMM) DATE OF REPORT (MMDDCC'VY)
N
__L__ 07/17/2023 17 50 07/17/2023 17 55 07/17/2023
EXCEPTle CLEARANCE DATE (MMDDCCYV) EXCEPTIONAL A B c
CLEARANCE D
D DEATH OF OFFENDER D PROSECUTION DENIED U EXTRADmON DENIED
E) VICTIM REFUSES T0 TEs'TlFY E ND cusronv NOT APPLICAELE
DJUVENILE
LOCATION OF OFFENSE REPORTAREA TME REPOR ED TIME ARRIVED IME CLEARED
829 S CREEKsmE DR, GARDNER, KS 66030 17 55 17 55 19 56
CHAP ER SECTION SUB 1 SUB 2 AID [ABET CHAPTER SECflON SUB 1 SUB 2 AID I ABET
I] ATTEMPTED ONSPIRACY [I Am ONSPIRACY
E] COMPLETED E SOLICITATION D COMPLETED SOLICITATION
DESCR P TON DESCRIPTION

INVEST- Outside Agencl 4».

Ivor FREM CMPUS CODE Arrest HA E/BIAS
FORCE
[HATE/BIAS N NO FORCE '33?
:MISE—'l fi° I E35322"
TYPE OF THEFT TYPEOF FORCE/WEAPON VPE OF THEFT
CON MACHINE TYPE OF FORCE] WEAPON
E EMBEZZLEAAENT COIN MACHINE EMBEZZLEMEN'T
FROM BUILDING POSS STOLEN PROP '1 AUTO FIREARM
T E] FIREARM FROM BUILDING P085. STO II AUTO
M V PARTS A ACC V MOTOR VEHQE HANDGUN AUTO MVPARTSéAcc 12 HANDGUN
V». MOTOR VEHICLE AUTO
SNOPUFHNG RIFLE
F THEFT FROM M V
B AUTO
I3 D SHOPLIFI'ING THEFT FROM M V 13 RIFLE
POCKET PICKING ALL OTHER TO
0 4 SHOTGUN AUTO POWET-PIC E? SHOTOUN
PLIRSE SNATCHING NOT APPLICABLE
AlLQ I'ER AUTO
S. N OTHER AUTO PURSE SNATBIING NOT APPLICAHE O
15 B E 15. "ER
OFFENDER SUSPECTED OF USING (SELECT UP TO 3) AUTO
KNIFE I OUT INSTR. "FENDER SUSPECTED OF USING [SHECT LIP TO 3)
ALCOI-IO DRUG / NARGOTICS ALCOHOL DRUG l NARCOTICS 241E] KNIFE/CUT INSTR.
COMPU ER EQUIP NOT APPLICABLE
NB EI BLUNT OBJECT COMP ITER EQUI' NOT APPLICABLE 30D BLUNT OBJECT
35
TYPE W CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (SELECT UP TO 3)
D MOTOR VEHICLE :3 35 D MOTOR VEI-ocLE
An TYPEOF IMINAL ACTIVITV (SELECT UP TO 3)
I
DPERSONALWEAPON 0 PERSOML WEAPW
BUYING I RECEMNG T
D TRANS/TRANSMT D POISON INGI RECEIVING TRANSITRANSMIT
BU 50 POISON
C CULT I MANU I PUBL U USING/CONSUMNG EXPLOSNE C .CUL IPUBL USING/DONSUMING EXPLOSNE
D DIST I SELLING JUVENILE GANG w
J FIRE/INCID/DEVICE DI DIST / SELlflG J. JUVENILE GANG FIRE / INCID/ DEVICE
E. EXPLOIT CHILDREN 6 OTHER GANG EI OTHER GANG
E DRUGS I NARC. EXPL'qrF'EI-IILDREN DRUGS I NARC
O OPER'PROMOTE NO GANG OMOTE D
IMVEVENT as 55
p D KEEEESICONDEAL D AWATM 5 / CONCEM INVOLVEMEN'T D ASPHmATION
an E OTHER so OTHER
LOCAL CODE
95
'1 LCODE
E] uNxNmIIN UNKNOWN
99 UNONE 4"L' 99 DNDNE
OF
I. INDIVIDUAL S VICTIM DF OFFENSE NUMBER
SOCIETY I MIC R. RELIGIOUS ORGAN OTHER
E BUSINESS EI FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 6. GOVERNMENT UNKNOWN 'EIZEHEI D5U°EI [I'D D'0EI
NAME (as; MIDDLE

ADDRESS STREET CITY § ATE EIP

) RACE
TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME EWITV RES. IN- RES. ABE HEIGIT
,v
DATE OF BIRTH (MMDDCCVY) WEG'IT

DRNERS LICENSE NUIBER DI. STATE WER/ SCHOOL

TELEPHONE NUWEI? (WORK/SCHOOL) ADDR .» STREET CITY STATE ZP

. \I

CIRCUM. A56 ASLT/BA'ITERY'MAX 2)- VICTIMS RELATIONSHIP TO CORRESPONDING SUSPECT NWBER [INDICATE ALL
SUSPECTS) TYPE OF INJURY ( MAX 5)
3 E T 8 9 IO 2 3
WLAST DDL

..
UR? "5—?
Doc TELEPHONE NUMBFJ? mmE)' JNRES AGE DATE or BIRTH (MMDDOCVY) warn HAIR EYES
I

lRACE [SEX IETHNICITVI IWEIGHT

EMPLOYERISCI'IOOL STREET CITY STATE ZIP
Do TELEPHONE NUMBER (WORKISCHOOL)
IADWESS
P TVPELOSS PROPERTV/ DESCRIPTION I SUSPECT'ED DRUG TYPE ESTIMATED FRACTION TYPE DRUG VALUE DATE RECOVEIED
URE
R
O
p

D
E
S
C
REPC RTING OFFICER I DATE COPIES To
[BADGE PROPERTY TOTAL
MAST CASEY I20130 07/17/2023 I 0
 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION RECORD I MODIFY
KS AGENCV ORI NUMBER CASE NUMBER
IEINITIAL
DATE OF REPORT [MMDDCCYW ADD DELE E
a KANSAS STANDARD ARREST REPORT PAGE 1of2
KS0461200 2302131 07/17/2023 PAGE 2 of2 IEI ADULT JUVENILE
INSTRUMENT USED FOR ENTRv: POINT OF EN'rRv |'_'|
POINT OF EXIT PREMISE NEIGHBORHOOD D DOM VIOLENCE fl RUNAWAY
M 1. KEY 5L BOLT CUTTER s. NAME OF AGENCY KS AGENCY ORI NUMBER
D E] THROWN OBJECT 9' NOT APPLICABLE R RURAL IFARM IACRIOLILTURE CASE NUMEER DATE OF ARREST TIME (HN MM)
2, FRV TOOL 6. CHOPPING TOOL
1 NOT APPLICABLE
E D 10 OTHER
1 FRONT 2 1
SI SUBURBANI RESIDENCE
A Gardner Pohce Department KSO461200 2302131
3. SAW I DRILL 7L VICE GRIPS m FRONT 2 REAR 07/17/2023 18 04
11. NOT APPLICABLE R ARREST TRANSACTION NUMBER
T 3. SIDE 4' ROOF 3- SIDE B. URBAN I BUSINESS I CUWERCIAL KBI NUMBER OTHER DENTIFVING NUMBERS
4V HAMMER BL PHYSICAL chE D B " ROOF CAMPUS CODE
H U. UNINHAEITED 3046E2300737
sAFE ENTERED INCIDENT Acnvrrv
O TYPE OF ARREST TAKEN INTO CUSTDDV
1. a. ATTEMPTED 5. 9-
DON VIEW DISFDS1TDN OF JUVENILE ARREST OR RUNAWAY
D vs E] PEELED T. COMBINATION KNOWN I: RELATED
""5 5- SUMMONEDICITED WT TMEN INTO CUSTODV
D D D ""5 9" 5"°°T'NG RUNAWAY HAmLED IN DEPAR MENT
2, 4» REMOVED 5' EXPLODED 5' C. D D REFERRED TO OTHER AUTHORITIES
D "o U El my DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHILDREN PRESENT .I. ARREST/CONTACT LOCATION.
DCARJACKING
D. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE N. WARRANT A DATE
NAME' LAST FIRST D NOT APPLICAELE 829 S
MIDDLE CREEKSIDE D R, GARDNER, KS 66030
LUPARDUS ARRES EEG/RUNAWAY NAME FIRST
LONNIE DAIL MDDLE
ADDRESS: STREET CIW LUPARDUS
STATE ZIP LONNIE DAIL
ALIASES MONIKERS
829 S CREEKSIDE DR, GARDNER, KS 66030
TEIEPHoNE NUMBER ("WE ) RAKE ETHNICITY RES. IN- RES. AGE [10.3. [MMIJDCCW) ADLRESS S REET CITY STATE ZIP .
ONE NUMBER (HOME)
(LnndIine) (913) 912-2255 W M N R 32 09/1 0/1 990 5 829 S
I BRO BLU I R
EMPLOYER/50m 5W-.200 CREEKSIDE DR, GARDNER, KS 66030
crrv R HEIGHT RACE SEX
(Landhne) (913) 912-2255
ETHNICITY RES I N RES AGE DO E (MMDDCCYY) CEOF BIRTH (STATE I COUNTRY)
E
s'lol' 200 OBLU W M N 32
MmlKERSINJ-AS HAIR LENGTH
09/10/1990 IISDS USA
T NAIR STYLE FADIAI. HAIR GLASSES TEETH EYEAPPEARAmE CO MPLENON BUILD R L HANDED

ADDITKJNAL SUSPECT DESCRIPTORS I .v

SCARS MARKS TATrOOS ARRESTEE WME
\n I'
DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER D L STATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER EMPLOYER [SCHOQ
SUSPECT VEHICLE: K02209605 KS 512044950 I
TELEPHONE NUMBER (WORK/SCHOOL) ADMSS S REET CITY STATE ZIP
1
ARRES EE INJURIES MIRANDA DATE TIIIE (mum) ' a ARREST APPROVED BY
A»
MIDDLE ARRESTEE ARMED WITH ( MAXIMUM OF 2) I #20079 WAGGONER, C
13] UNARMEO E
HANDGUN AUTO SHOTGUN AUTO BEHAVm {ALL APPLICABLE).
RESISTED BIZARRE BEHAVIOR
ADDRESS: STREET RIFLE AUO LETHAL CUTTING INSTRUMENT INKIN I
El OTHER
crrv STATE PROFANE SUICIDAL REMARKS
2»: OTHER CLUB/BLACKJACK/ KNUCKS IN
fl fi AUTO ED LOUD E COOPERATIVE
.
CASE NUMEER DATE OF INCIDENT ATE STATUTE VIOLATTON
TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) OFFENSE WAS
E [1.03. (macaw; 302131 07/17/2023 "wet. I» 22-2404 ATTEMP ED INDICATOR
s . D DESCRIPTION
l IA oomzLETEI:
EMPLOVERIscHOOL ' D
U ADDRESS; S'I'REEr . crTv STATE ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER MORKISDIOOL) Outside Agency Arrest/Warran Fizz-2404)
"I AID I ABET
.couNT
S T TYPE OF THEFT :SHOPLIFTTNG v-Itp'TOR ICLE LOCAL CODE CONSPIRACY
D MULTIPLE
MONIKERSIALIAS l
CON MACHINE 'POCKEI— PICKNG FR V OUTSIDE AGENCY
p BET [j
"a 018 FROM BUILDING PURSE SNATCHING 0 ALL OTHER D SOLICITATION
E NA MVPARTSMOC EMBEZZLEMENT NE NOT APPLmaLE ADDITIONAL CHARGES
C ADDITIONAL SUSPECT DESERIPTORS
m POSS STOLEN PROP
L CASE WMHER 3' STATE STATUTE VIOLATTON
T OFFENSE WAS CLEARANCE
I INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION Emma»
# SUSPECT VEHICLE: '4'" U COMPLETED
MODEL OOLOR VEHICLE STYLE
DDOUNT
I AID/ABET
' PEOFT'HEFI: MOTOR VEHICLE LmAL 00W E] MULTIPLE
DM SMOPLIFTIIQ CONSPIRACY
;- ] COIN MACHINE POCKET—PINE
fiv THEFT FROM M V
_ LICENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OTHER E FROM BUILDING PURSE SNATCHTNG SOLICITATION
D OUTSIDE AGENCY
O ALL OTHER
N MVPARTSMCC ADDITIONAL CHARGES
EMBEZZLEME'IT N NOT APPLICABLE
I I
EVIDENCE INFORMATDN ' P6§s smLm PROP.
~_ 3
NONE
CASE NUMER DATE OF INOIDEPIT
D SUBMITTED AINED Bv VICTIM I STATE STATUTE VIOLATION OFFENSE WM
D " " E] RETAINED Bv OFFICER E] RETAINED av INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY D TRANSFER TO OTHER AGENCV 'w'
I] OTHER H DESCRPTION D ATTEMPTED INDICATOR:
EVIDENCE OETAINED
D COMPLETED E] (:0qu-
LATENT PRINTS WEAPONS] TOOLS AID ABET I
SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT G TYPE OF THEFT L SHOPLIFTING MOTOR VEHICLE LOCAL CODE D MULTIPLE
E| STAINS D SEMEN V
OTHER PRINTS PHOTOS HAIR
E] DRues EM COIN MACHINE P THEFT FRET/I M \I CONSPIRACY
D BLOOD D DOCUIENTS E] ALCOHOL FROM BUILDING
L- POCKET PICKING E SOLICITATION D OUTSIDE ABENCV
E] OTHER SS S PURSE SNATCHMG O ALL OTHER
M V PARTS ACC AwITIONAL CHARGES
E EMBEZZLEMENT N NOT APPLICABLE
EVIDENCE COLLECTOR T PQSS STOLEN PROP
LDCM'ION STORED
VEHICLE YEAR MAKE MODEL STYLE COLOR VIN NUMBER LICENSE A STATE YEAR
DESCRIBE BRIEFLY HOW OFFENSE WAS comm-r50 V I
E TOWED Ev DRIVER LOCATION OF KEYS LOCATION OF VEHICLE CONDITION
'
See full Narrative on Incident Narrative Report.
I I
(2 MINER La: Fl!!! MIddla ADDRESS STREET CI STATE ZIP
L
E
RELEASED TO ADDRESS STREET CITY STATE ZIP DATE TIME

OF ICER DATE COPIES T0 SUPERVISING OFFKIR

#20130 MAST C I 07/17/2023 #20079 WAGGONER, C
 KANSAS STANDARD ARREST REPORT CITY OF GARDNER, KANSAS
LAST NAME PAGE 20" ***
FIRST NAME MIDME ADDRESS' STREET CUSTOMER RECEIPT ***
cm STATE ZIP
EMPLOVER I SW Batch ID: GAKSIAS
mm CITY STAEIF
8/24/23 01 Receipt no: 70978
WW!)— fiEPHONE N ERMORK) Type Svccd Description
TELEPHONE NUMBER (OTI'ER I Amount
RPT REPORTS
1
LAST NAIIE FIRST NAME MIDDLE ADDRESS: 3 I REET Qty 1.00
CITY STATE ZIP $10.00
INCIDENT # 2301822
EMFL I SCHOOL Trans number:
ADDRESS: STREET
CITY STATE zIIiv
2002093
PRO SE: LONNIE LUPARDUS
TELEPI-IONE WJMBER (MAE ) TELEPHONE NUMBER (WORK)
2301822
TELEPHONE NUMBER (OTIER I EMAIL CHECK # 66065
l
-1 ALSO PROVIDED 2302131 AT NO
Slate of Kansas
CHARGE
Johnson County. 85: u

I. #20130 MAST, C. Tender detail

of lawful age, ellar first being
duly sworn on oath, on inforrn n'and belief states: CK Ref#: 66065 $10.00
On 07/17/2023 It 1755 hours, I was comncted Total tendered:
hid violated a Protection from Abusea'F hy Corpnnl Wugnneer to uslst Ohme In locum Lonnie
A), LafiETIIIIE(r to Okthe PD, Lonnie $10.00
gtcorfig Total payment: $10.00
Lonnie was arrestcd per Olathe's
request at Ipproximtely 1804 hours. ifi'
Trans date: 8/24/23 Time: 11 45:23
Officer Wimerschcidt with Olathe PD arrived on scene.
Clmody of Lonnie In: transferred to (men;"£0 It approflmlwly 1836
bug's. *** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYME
NT ***
3:1-
Nothing further to report.

Gardner Police Department

C.MnsI 765

T.

"k
I VERIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERKIURfTfifl' THE FOREGO
ING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
ExemlIed 17th Day OI. 2023
raj-Ely
X Ws'ié
#201@
in. ;1IIA'
EVIDENIJE:
I
LATENT PRINTS STAINS";' bwmgNs-TOOLS Domes SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT 1:] NONE
OTNER PRINTS muNENTs
HAIR
fi §Eméfig PHOTOS
BALM w
DoTHEn (usr)
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1';
MEWCAL RaEASE CUSTODY SLIP
COMMITMENTDRUER wows NuTEs SIXvHOUR HOLD
D INCIDENT REPORT E] NoNE
COPY OF BOND EVIDENCE STORED
, E] aonv RECEIPT NTAS E] OTHER (LIST)
§ PRINTSPHOYO TAKEN
TYPE OF RELEASE:

C] PAROLE D BOND E] DOURT ORDER El NOTlCE T0 APPEAR OTHER Other law enforcement Igency
RELEASING OFFICIAL I AUTHORITY
D No CHARGE FILED
#20130 MAST, C.
BAIL BOND AGENT
BOND AMOUNT fi'I'ED
DATEOF RELEASE TIME (I-IHIW) AUTHORIW
07/17/2023 18:36 #20130 MAST, C.
COMMENTS:
Relense to Winlenche'ldt with Ohthe PD.
 WHBIT
IN THE 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF JOHNSON COUNTY,
KANSQS 5
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

STATE OF KANSAS )
Plaintifl" )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-CR—02394
) Div. 6
LONNIE LUPARDUS, )
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CURRENT COUNSEL DUE TO LACK OF

COMMUNICATION AND PREPARATION

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Lonnie LuPardus, pro se, and respectfully moves this Court to

grant the withdrawal of Attorney Thomas Penland as appointed counsel, and respectfully request the court

appoint new counsel for the Defendant. In support thereof, Defendant states the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant acknowledges the Court's prior concerns regarding multiple changes in legal

representation and the expectation that appointed counsel will be afforded the opportunity to

perform their duties without unwarranted interference.

2. However, the issues leading to this request for withdrawal are fundamentally different from those

previously raised when Attorney Mark Bostwick sought to withdraw.

3. The breakdown in representation with Bostwick was due to a difference in legal strategy, while

the current breakdown with Attorney Penland arises from a persistent lack of communication,

failure to prepare for trial, and refusal to engage in necessary case discussions, effectively leaving

Defendant without meaningful legal representation.

Page l of 12
 4. These failures have resulted in significant concerns regarding Defendant's ability to receive

effective assistance of counsel at trial, which is a fundamental right under the Sixth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution.

II. KEY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN BOSTWICK & PENLAND

1. The Court has previously expressed concerns regarding multiple attorney withdrawals; however,

the present situation does not mirror prior issues. Courts recognize that while an attorney has

broad discretion in strategizing a case, they are bound by ethical and professional duties to

provide diligent and competent representation to their client. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (establishing that effective assistance of counsel requires "reasonably

effective assistance" under prevailing professional norms).

2 Attorney Bostwick actively communicated and worked with Defendant, even if they had strategic

disagreements. This level of engagement aligns with the attomey's duty to consult with and keep

the client informed, as required under Kansas Rule 0f Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.4, which

mandates reasonable communication with the client.

In stark contrast, Attorney Penland has exhibited a complete lack of communication and

preparation, leaving Defendant effectively unrepresented. The failure to communicate and prepare

contravenes both professional and constitutional standards, as an attorney's inattention and lack of

advocacy can amount to ineffective assistance. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 (1932)

(holding that an attomey's mere appointment without adequate time or effort to prepare is

tantamount to a denial of counsel).

4
A
This request is not based on personal dissatisfaction but on the fimdamental necessity of ensuring

a fair trial with effective legal representation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Kansas

law. See State v. Cheat/mm, 296 Kan. 417, 429 (2013) (recognizing the right to effective counsel

as a cornerstone of a fair trial).

Page 2 of 12
III. TIMELINE OF COMMUNICATION FAILURES WITH ATTORNEY
PENLAND

Date Action Taken by Defendant Response from Attorney Penland

Oct. 1, Defendant requested Penland's contact info from the Response received.
2024 Court.

Oct. 2, Sent introduction email to Penland. No response

2024

Oct. 7, Followed up with letter raising concerns about the case No response
2024

Oct. 15, Requested discussion on case strategy. No response

2024

Oct. 18, Followed up to request a meeting. No response

2024

Nov. 4, Emailed Penland, asking if he was going to address prior No response

2024 questions.

Nov Followed up on the Nov. 4 email. N0 response

10
202,4

Nov. Followed up again on unanswered questions. No response

17
202,4

Nov. Sent urgent letter requesting a response before involving Response received.
20 the Court.
202,4

Nov. Followed up to set the date for the scheduled meeting Response received; meeting
25 requested on Nov. 20, 2024. delayed.
202,4

Page 3 of 12
 Nov. In-person meeting after hearing, briefly discussed No further communication until
27, communication issues; Penland stated Defendant would Jan. 22, 2025.
2024 likely not hear from him again until mid-January.

Dec. 9, Meeting scheduled. Response received (on Nov. 26)

2024

Jan. 9, Sent important case information to Penland. No response.

2025

Jan. 16, Followed up on pre-trial motion deadlines. No response.

2025

Jan. l8, Sent additional case information and requested legal Response received but vague and
2025 opinion. dismissive.

Jan. 20, Requested confirmation on motion filing. Response received—Fenland

2025 stated he would not be filing any
motions.

Jan. 22, Followed up on prior email. No response.

2025

Jan. 27, Requested court documents and inquired about missing No response.
2025 filings.

Feb. 3, Requested a meeting to discuss trial preparation. Response received (Feb. 4).
2025

Feb. 6, Penland suggested a meeting for Feb. 24. Response received.

2025

Feb. 9, Defendant raised concerns about the meeting being too No response.
2025 close to trial.

Feb. l6, Provided legal research and case information, seeking No response.
2025 input.

Feb. 18, Sent critical case information that could significantly No response.
2025 benefit the Defense's case.

Page 4 of 12
Feb. 23, Followed up about scheduled meeting and provided No response.
2025 discussion topics.

Feb. 24, Defendant waited for the meeting; Penland stated it was Response received.
2025 mistakenly scheduled for the next day, despite
confirming receipt of prior email.

Feb. 25, Requested Penland's withdrawal due to lack of Response received.

2025 communication.

IV. ARGUMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

1. Failure to Communicate: Unlike Attorney Bostwick, who engaged in frequent discussions

(albeit with strategic disagreements), Attorney Penland has failed to maintain even minimal

communication for months at a time, leaving Defendant without meaningful guidance. This

failure violates the attorney's duty under Kansas Rule ofProfessional Conduct (KRPC) 1 .4 (a),
which requires that "a lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance

requiring informed consent, reasonably consult about case objectives, and keep the client

informed about case status." An attorney's persistent failure to communicate can constitute

ineffective assistance. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 (1932) (holding that the mere

appointment of an attorney without sufficient time or effort to communicate with the defendant

amounts to a denial of counsel).

2 Failure to Address Case Issues in a Timely Manner: Repeated emails, letters, and inquiries

regarding legal strategy, pre-trial motions, and evidence review went unanswered for weeks or

months at a time, with only sporadic and vague responses. This disregard violates KRPC 1.3,
which mandates that an attorney "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a

client." Courts have found that delays or failures to respond can prejudice a client's case and

Page 5 of 12
 amount to ineffective assistance. See State v. Cheatham, 296 Kan. 417, 429 (2013) (noting that

effective assistance requires timely action and preparation).

3 Failure to File Motions and Subpoenas Without Proper Consultation:

While attorneys have the final say in determining which motions to file, ethical obligations

require them to communicate with their clients and explain their strategic decisions. Attorney

Penland refused to file critical pre-trial motions, such as a motion in limine, and failed to submit

subpoenas for key witnesses, including Anna Lane. However, Defendant was never counseled on

the reasoning behind these decisions, leaving them uninformed about their defense strategy. This

failure violates Kansas Rule 0f Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.4(b), which mandates that an

attorney "explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make

informed decisions regarding the representation." Courts have recognized that an attomey's

failure to adequately inform and consult with a client about key strategic decisions may contribute

to inefi'ective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984)

(holding that an attorney has a duty to investigate and inform the client of critical case decisions).

Without such consultation, Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to participate meaningfully

in their own defense, undermining the fairness of the proceedings.

4 Failure to Prepare for Trial: The first meaningful case discussion was scheduled for February

24—just before trial—making preparation inadequate. This lack of preparation violates an

attomey's duty under KRPC 1.1, which requires competent representation through necessary legal

knowledge and preparation. Courts have held that a failure to prepare for trial constitutes

ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (stating that

counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation or make a strategic decision to forego

one).

5 Failure to Provide Effective Representation: This extreme lack of engagement has rendered

Attorney Penland's representation ineffective, violating Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to

counsel. The cumulative impact of these failures deprives Defendant of a fair trial and meaningful

Page 6 of 12
 legal representation. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984) (stating that a

complete failure to provide meaningful advocacy amounts to a denial of counsel).

6. The pattern of neglect and non-responsiveness warrants serious concern, as it has directly

impaired Defendant's ability to prepare and present a defense. Given the constitutional and ethical

implications, immediate remedial action is necessary to safeguard Defendant's rights.

FAITH EFFORTS BY DEFENDANT TO RESOLVE ISSUES

V. GOOD
WITHOUT COURT INTERVENTION
l. Defendant has made extensive good-faith efl'orts to work with Attorney Penland to resolve these

representation issues without seeking the Court's intervention. Defendant has exercised patience,

flexibility, and diligence in ensuring that Attorney Penland had every opportunity to fulfill his

role as defense counsel.

2. Defendant's actions to facilitate productive communication and trial preparation included:

a. Waiting patiently for responses despite weeks and months of non-communication.

b. Following up repeatedly on case inquiries and providing case-related materials to assist in

preparation.

c. Attempting to schedule trial preparation meetings proactively, as Penland failed to initiate

any trial preparation himself.

d. Reminding Penland of critical deadlines to ensure compliance with procedural

requirements.

e. Continuing to attempt to work with Penland even after Penland represented to the Court

that Defendant wanted him to withdraw.

3. Notably, after Penland informed the Court that Defendant wished for him to withdraw, Defendant,

recognizing that the Court may not grant the request, still attempted to continue working with

Penland to ensure trial preparation would not suffer in the interim. However, Penland refused to

Page 7 of 12
 meet with Defendant, further confirming that Defendant's concerns about inadequate

representation were well-founded.

4 Defendant has exhausted all reasonable avenues to salvage the attomey-client relationship before

bringing this issue before the Court. It is only after repeated failures, refusals to meet, and an

absence of substantive case preparation that Defendant now insists on withdrawal.

III. DEFENDANT'S ACTIVE ATTEMPT TO RETAIN COUNSEL

1. Defendant has taken proactive steps to retain private counsel and has spoken to six attorneys

between February 24, 2025, and February 27, 2025, in an effort to secure representation.

However, Defendant has been met with either:

a. Representation that is financially beyond Defendant's ability to compensate, or

b. Attorneys who declined to take the case for other reasons.

2 This demonstrates that Defendant has made good-faith efforts to obtain legal representation but

has been unable to do so, necessitating this request for new appointed counsel.

IV. ADDRESSING THE COURT'S PRIOR CONCERNS REGARDING

ATTORNEY CHANGES
l. The Court has previously expressed serious concerns regarding the pattern of attorney

withdrawals; however, the present situation is distinguishable from those past issues. The focus

here is not merely on the frequency of attorney changes, but on the quality and effectiveness of

counsel provided to Defendant.

2 Attorney Bostwick's Representation: Although strategic disagreements existed, Attorney

Bostwick maintained consistent and meaningful communication with Defendant. His proactive

engagement, including regular discussions and updates, satisfied his duty to inform and involve

the Defendant in key decisions—a requirement under both ethical obligations and case law.
See,

Page 8 of 12
 for example, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which underscores that effective

assistance of counsel necessitates reasonable communication and diligence.

3 Attorney Penland's Deficiencies: In stark contrast, Attorney Penland has exhibited a complete

lack of communication and preparation, leaving Defendant effectively unrepresented.

Specifically:

a. Failure to Communicate: Attorney Penland has not maintained even minimal

communication for months, depriving Defendant of essential guidance. This lack of

communication violates the duty imposed by Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct

(KRPC) 1.4, which mandates that counsel keep the client reasonably informed about case

status and significant developments.

bo Failure to Counsel on Strategic Decisions: While an attorney retains ultimate discretion

over which motions to file, ethical and professional standards require that the client be

fully apprised of the rationale behind such decisions. Defendant was never counseled on

why key motions—such as a motion in limine—or subpoenas for critical witnesses, such

as Anna Lane, were not pursued. This omission contravenes KRPC 1.4(b) and
undermines the Defendant's ability to participate meaningfully in their own defense. The

failure to consult on these critical decisions echoes concerns recognized in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and further compounded in United States v. Cronic,

466 U.S. 648 (1984), where a complete failure to provide meaningful

advocacy was

deemed a denial of effective counsel.

Failure to Prepare for Trial: Attorney Penland's inadequate preparation—evidenced by

scheduling the first substantive case discussion only on February 24, just before

trial—falls short of the competence and diligence required under KRPC 1.1 and 1.3. This

lack of preparation risks compromising Defendant's procedural protections and defense

strategy, a situation inconsistent with the standards set forth in Powell v. Alabama, 287

U.S. 45 (1932).

Page 9 of 12
 4. Underlying Purpose: This request for relief is not grounded in personal dissatisfaction with

Attorney Penland; rather, it is a fundamental plea to ensure that Defendant receives the robust and

effective legal representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The cumulative failures in

communication, case preparation, and client consultation not only diminish the quality of

representation but also jeopardize Defendant's right to a fair trial, as emphasized in State v.

Cheatham, 296 Kan. 417 (2013).

5. In summary, while Attorney Bostwick's actions—despite strategic differences—upheld his

professional obligations, Attorney Penland's conduct represents a clear departure from established

ethical and constitutional standards. Addressing these disparities is essential to safeguard

Defendant's rights and ensure the integrity of the trial process.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Defendant does not seek to delay trial unnecessarily but cannot proceed with an attorney who has failed to

provide even basic case preparation and communication. Defendantinsists that Attorney Penland

withdraw and requests that the Court appoint new counsel who will actively
participate in defense

strategy and preparation. In the interest of fairness and ensuring due process, Defendant requests that:

1. The Court grant Attorney Penland's withdrawal;

2. The Court appoint new counsel immediately; and

3. The Court schedule a reasonable timeline for trial preparation to ensure

adequate representation.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court to grant this motion and appoint new counsel
in the interest of justice.

Page 10 of 12
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

Lonnie LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

'
1 v a) 'l
Defendant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
of February, 2025, I emailed a true and correct copy of the
I hereby certify that on this 28th day
Defendant's proposed Motion to Withdraw Current Counsel Due to Lack of Communication and
Preparation upon the following parties by the methods indicated below:

1. Abby Olson
Assistant District Attorney
Johnson County District Attorney's Office
[email protected]
[Method of Service: Email]
2. Thomas Penland
Penland Law Firm
913-602-6202
[email protected]
[Method of Service: Email]
3. Alysha Heiner
Administrative Assistant, Division 3

Judge Thomas M. Sutherland

Johnson County District Court
[email protected]
(913) 715-3770
[Method of Service: Email]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Kansas that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Dated this 28th day of February, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,

Page 11 of12
 /s/ Lonnie LuPardus
Lonnie LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

[email protected]
Defendant, pro se

Page 12 of 12
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
CRIMINAL COURT DEPARTMENT
STATE OF KANSAS, )
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. )
) Case N0. 23CR2394
) Court No. 3
LONNIE DAIL LUPARDUS, )
Defendant. )
)

JOURNAL ENTRY
NOW on this 28th day of February, 2025, comes on for consideration the above referenced

case. The State appeared by and through Assistant District

Attorney Brandon Apperson. The

Defendant appeared in person Via zoom, along with his

attorney of record, Thomas Fenland, also

Via zoom. As a result of the hearing on the record, the Court enters the
following findings of fact
and orders.

A. Background

The State filed the Complaint on July 18, 2023. The sole
charge was "Violation of a

protective order" a class A person misdemeanor. At first appearances, the Defendant apparently

represented that he was indigent, and as a result, the magistrate judge appointed Kathryn Marsh to

defend him. Even though he was represented by counsel, the Defendant

began filing pro se

motions in the case. Shortly after the case was filed, Defendant violated his bond by testing

positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. To his credit, Defendant admitted to his House

Arrest Officer that he had a substance abuse problem.1

1
Affidavit Requesting Warrant, filed 8/24/23.

Page 1 of 9
 Approximately two months after the case was filed, Defendant filed a motion to terminate

his court appointed counsel. In that motion, Defendant alleged,

among other things, "substantial

communication breakdowns and differences in the legal strategy pursued." Per Defendant's

request, Ms. Marsh was allowed to withdraw from the case and Defendant proceeded for a time

pro se.

On 9/27/23, Defendant filed a lengthy pro se motion to dismiss the case. On

September

28, 2023, Defendant appeared in court. Based upon reports of noncompliance on bond, the Court

ordered a UA. The result was positive again for Amphetamines and Methamphetamine and the

Court ordered a day jail sanction.

On December 6, 2023, this Court ruled upon Defendant's motion to dismiss

by denying it.

The Court then set the matter for jury trial to begin January 29, 2024. On December
7, 2023,

Defendant filed a "Motion for the Appointment of Counsel Due to Trial". On

January 2, 2024, the

Court appointed a second court appointed attorney, Mark Bostwick. The trial date had to be

continued due to the appointment of Mr. Bostwick and his understandable

inability to be ready for
trial on January 29, 2024.

Mr. Bostwick later filed a "Motion to Suppress an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest".

Upon

hearing the motion, this Court did agree with the legal argument made by Mr. Bostwick on behalf

of the Defendant that the arrest was not legal. However, this Court disagreed the with proposed

remedy of dismissal, finding instead that the appropriate remedy would be to suppress any

statements made or evidence seized as a result of the arrest. This ruling had little effect on the

case, in that there were no statements made, nor evidence seized, upon arrest to suppress.

2
See Defendant's Motion to Terminate Katharyn Marsh as Representation filed 9/16/23.

Page 2 of 9
 Thereafter, the case was set for jury trial on September 23, 2024.
Unfortunately,

disagreements arose between Mr. Bostwick and Defendant, and Mr. Bostwick, with the consent of

Defendant, was allowed to withdraw. Consequently, the trial date was continued. With the

consent of Defendant, the matter was set over to November 25, 2024, to give this Court the time

to find yet a third court appointed attorney. Thereafter, Thomas Penland was appointed to

represent Defendant. On November 27, 2024, the matter was set for trial to begin March 17, 2025.

During a break between hearings on unrelated cases in late February, Mr. Penland

suggested, without any specifics, that there may be issues in his continued representation
of.
Defendant. Given the close proximity of the upcoming trial date, this Court determined that a

hearing was necessary to address any real or perceived issues. As a result, this Court Sua Sponte

set a zoom status conference for February 28, 2025. The of the hearing was conducted
majority

outside the presence of the State as this Court discussed with Defendant and Mr. Penland the issues

that had arisen.

Prior to the hearing, Defendant emailed information to the Court related to the issue of Mr.

Penland's continued representation. In this document "DEF EENDANT'S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW CURRENT COUNSEL DUE TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND

PREPARATION" 3, Defendant, well aware of this Court's concerns regarding multiple

appointed

counsel, among other things, tries to draw a distinction between the concerns he had with Mr.

Bostwick, vs. the concerns he has with Mr. Penland. This attempt continued during Defendant's

comments during the hearing. Interestingly, Defendant

conveniently omited reference to his first

appointed counsel, Ms. Marsh, in Defendant's Motion. Perhaps this omission was intentional.

3
Hereinafter simply referred to as "Defendant's Motion".

Page 3 of 9
 For instance, Defendant attempts to assert that his concern with Mr. Bostwick was based

on "difference in legal strategy" and that his concern with Mr. Penland was a
"persistent lack of
communication". As noted above, Defendant's complaint regarding Ms. Marsh was based in
part
on differences in the legal strategy pursued,
essentially the same as his concern with Mr. Bostwick.

Also, as noted above, Defendant's concern with Ms. Marsh was based in part on substantial

communication breakdowns, essentially the same as his concern with Mr. Penland.
Thus, even

assuming as true that his concerns are different as between Mr. Bostwick and Mr. Penland, there

appears to be no distinction between his concerns with Ms. Marsh and Mr. Bostwick, and/or, Ms.

Marsh and Mr. Penland.

It must be noted that near the end of the hearing, Mr. Fenland
represented that he was fully

prepared to proceed to trial as scheduled on March l7, 2025. However, due to a statement from

Defendant about the potential of filing a bar complaint against him, Mr. Penland
requested that

Defendant's request be granted and that he be permitted to withdraw.4

Unfortunately, this Court felt it had no choice but to allow Mr. Penland to withdraw. This

Court was then forced to address the issue of yet a fourth appointed counsel and the
pending jury

trial, only ten business days in the future. Interestingly, during the hearing, the Defendant

acknowledged that this Court had previously sternly warned him that Mr. Penland would be the

last attorney it would appoint. This Court determined that

given Defendant's actions and the

history of the case, appointing yet a fourth appointed attorney would be fruitless; and that no matter

who was appointed, these same or similar issues would arise. It is

easy to surmise, given the two

excuses of differences in legal strategy the Defendant has had with two separate counsel, that

4
It must be noted that Defendant stated on the record that he did not intend to threaten Mr. Penland with
a bar
complaint. However, Defendant admitted that he did state to Mr. Penland the potential for, or possibility of, a bar
complaint if his concerns were not addressed.

Page 4 of 9
 Defendant insists that the attorneys take steps that these
attorneys either believed were frivolous

or unnecessary.5 As a result, this Court determined that it would not appoint a fourth counsel.6

This Court, then recognizing that the Defendant likely could not find retained counsel or

be prepared to represent himself within two

weeks, offered to continue the trial date to allow

sufficient time for one or the other. Here, it is worth noting that according to "Defendant's

Motion", his concerns began on or about October 2, 2024, and appears to have been continuous

through November l7. These concerns appear to have continued from early January
through late

February. Yet, these concerns were not brought to the attention of this Court by Defendant until

February 28, 2025 , and only then, because this Court set a hearing to discuss potential issues.

Another issue this Court cannot ignore is the fact it

appears the alleged Victim in this case

lives out of state in Florida, and the State is required to incur the costs of travel and
lodging for
this witness. Consequently, this Court deemed it somewhat
urgent to address the issue of the

upcoming trial date. Both parties are entitled to fair treatment, and requiring the state to incur

these costs, just to have the trial suddenly continued on the eve of trial, would not be fair.
Even though this Court would have been fully justified in
insisting the trial go forward,
with or without counsel for Defendant, this Court offered to continue the trial date. At
first,
Defendant agreed that it would not be appropriate for the case to
proceed to trial on March 17,

2025, and that the trial date needed to be moved. All this Court requested was that Defendant

acknowledge that the continuance was at his request, and that the continuance would suspend any

relevant speedy trial time. The Defendant refused. During this discussion on the record, it

5
This Court has on more than one occasion explained to Defendant that
although certain decisions about the case
are solely his (e. g.whether or not to take a
plea, whether or not to testify at trial) legal strategy decisions are
ultimately up to the attorney.
6
Oddly enough, towards the end of the hearing, Defendant stated that he would be more than
Bostwick back if Mr. Bostwick would agree.
willing to take Mr.

Page 5 of 9
appeared that Defendant was feigning confusion about the issue. However, this issue has been

discussed with Defendant on multiple occasions. As a result, this Court ordered the trial to
proceed
as scheduled.

However, attention should be made to the below conclusions of law #4-7.

B. Findings of Fact.

1. The Defendant has had three appointed counsel, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Bostwick and Mr.

Penland.

2 All three of the above-named counsel are licensed Kansas attorneys, who, based upon

both reputation and personal experience with this Court,

possess skill and experience

far beyond what would be required to represent Defendant in the

present case.

3 The Defendant has requested that Ms. Marsh and Mr. Bostwick be removed for the

same reason (difference in legal strategy), and Defendant has

requested that Mr.

Penland and Ms. Marsh be removed for the same reason

(complaints about

communications).

4
A
This Court finds that because Defendant has requested that Mr. Penland be
removed,
and because Mr. Penland does not wish to remain counsel for Defendant due to threat

of a bar complaint, expressed or implied, this Court has no option but to remove Mr.

Penland.

This Court is convinced that no licensed Kansas attorney,

adhering to the rules of law

and the rules of professional responsibility, will pass muster with Defendant.

6 That if the Court were to appoint yet a fourth attorney,

eventually the same issues will

be alleged by Defendant as with the prior three.

Page 6 of 9
 7. That Defendant's motive behind the requests for removal of all
prior counsel is either

A) a desire to have the case defended

exactly the way he believes it should be,

regardless of whether such strategy is in compliance with Kansas substantive or

procedural law and an attorney's code of ethics, or B) to hinder or delay the

proceedings, or C) a combination of A and B.

C. Conclusions of Law

1. Thomas Fenland will be allowed to withdraw from the case.

2. Defendant stated that he would be more than willing to take Mr. Bostwick
back, stating
that the differences between him and Mr. Bostwick could be overlooked.
This Court
stated on the record then, and states now in this Journal if Defendant contacts
Enty, that
Mr. Bostwick and Mr. Bostwick agrees to resume his
representation, this Court will re

appoint him at no cost to Defendant.

3 Other than Mr. Bostwick, this Court will not

appoint any other attorneys to represent

Defendant. This Court recognizes that an indigent criminal defendant has a

constitutional right to have an attorney appointed to defend him.7 "But the

right to an

attorney is not an unqualified right. The Sixth Amendment does not extend to the

appointment of counsel of choice or to a meaningful relationship with

appointed
counsel." "There is no constitutional right to be represented by a
lawyer who agrees
with the defendant's trial strategy." Even though the
right to counsel exists, a criminal

defendant may relinquish that right." One way is by waiver, which does not
apply to

7
State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525, 537 (2024).
8
1d. at 537.
9
United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir.
1°
1998).
Trass, 319 Kan. at 538.

Page 7 of 9
 this case. The other is forfeiture of the 11
"Courts have recognized that a defendant
right.

may in some cases forfeit the right to counsel where a defendant's actions 'frustrate the

purpose of the right to counsel itself and prevent the trial court from
moving the case
forward."' 12
"Courts have held that a defendant's aggres
sive, abusive or threatening

behavior, as well as conduct that was meant to obstruct

legal proceedings, rises to the
lével of egregious misconduct warranting forfeiture of the 13
right to counsel."
This Court cannot find that Defendant's conduct has been
aggressive or abusive.

However, it appears Defendant may have intended t0 intimidate Mr. Penland

through
the threat of a bar complaint. But more
clearly, Defendant's actions have interfered with

this Court's attempt to move the case forward. As a result, this Court finds that

Defendant's right to appointed counsel has been forfeited.

4l Defendant will proceed to trial with either Mr. Bostwick as

appointed counsel, counsel

retained by Defendant, or pro se.

5 This Court will grant a continuance of the pending March trial date if Defendant so

requests. The request must be clearly stated and unequivocal.

6 If a request is made to continue the trial, this Court grant the motion without the need

for a hearing, and the Court will convert the

pending Final Trial Conference setting on

March 13, at 11:00 a.m., to a status conference for

scheduling.

11Id.
12
Id. at 541 (quoting State v. Simpkins, 373 N.C. 530,
13
536, 838 S.E.2D 439 (2020)).
Trass, 319 Kan. at 542.

Page 8 of 9
 7. Any request for continuance must be made no later than close of business Thursday,
March 6, or it will not be considered. 14

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated this 4th day of March, 2025.

/s/Th0mas Sutherland
District Court Judge
Division 3

'4 The
request may be through a pleading or simply an email to the court.
However, as noted in Conclusion #5, the
request must be clear and unequivocal.

Page 9 of 9
 T
L U R D

E -*~
=
i
IN THE 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KAN SA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION) g
V
X
STATE OF KANSAS )
Plaintiff )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-CR—02394
) Div. 6
LONNIE LUPARDUS, )
Defendant. )

DEF ENDANT'S RESPONSE TO JOURNAL ENTRY AND RENEWED REQUEST FOR

APPOINTED COUNSEL
COMES NOW, Defendant, Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus, and submits this response to the
Court's Journal Entry. Defendant respectfully states the following:

1. Assertion of Sixth Amendment Right t0 Counsel: Defendant is not an attorney, cannot

afford to retain legal representation, and has never waived, nor does he intend to
waive,
his right to counsel. Further, Defendant has not forfeited this right. The Sixth Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees Defendant the right to legal representation,
and he continues to assert that right.
2 Objection to Mischaracterization 0f Facts: Defendant submits this response in direct
opposition to the Court's Journal Entry, which contains multiple misrepresentations of
fact, misconstrued statements, and assumptions that lack evidentiary support. The Court s
statements rely on its subjective interpretations rather than objective evidence,
resulting
in an inaccurate portrayal of Defendant s filings and legal position.
3 Disproportionate and Prejudicial Focus on Bond Violations: The Court's Journfil
Entry dedicates multiple pages to Defendant's alleged bond Violations while reducing
Defendant's substantive 64-page Motion to Dismiss to a mere l2—word reference. This
stark imbalance suggests an effort to discredit Defendant rather than
meaningfillly engage
with the legal arguments presented. Such selective emphasis creates an appearance that
the Court ls more concerned with framing Defendant as a "problem" rather than
addressing the legitimate factual and legal lssues raised 1n this case.
4 Request for Court-Appointed Counsel. Given the Court s continued misrepresentation
of Defendant's filings and arguments, Defendant is unable to fully articulate his
objections without further risk of his statements being misinterpreted or unfairly used
against him. Therefore, Defendant does not intend to detail every disagreement with the
Journal Entry in this response. Instead, Defendant formally renews his request for
court-appointed counsel to ensure that a full and fair response can be submitted in
a;
 manner that protects his rights and ensures that his position is accurately represented
before the Court.
5. Concerns Regarding Fairness and Judicial Bias: The proceedings in this matter raise
significant concerns regarding fairness, judicial bias, and access to effective legal
representation. While some aspects of the Court's reasoning may be understandable, the
overall handling of this case places Defendant in an unfair and precarious legal position.
The Court's unwillingness to meaningfully accommodate Defendant's legitimate
concerns about his defense further exacerbates these issues.

Defendant submits the following statement in support of his request for appointed counsel and
will proceed to outline the key issues necessitating intervention.

6. The Court's Refusal to Appoint New Counsel is Unfair and Unjustified: Defendant
has been assigned three court-appointed attorneys, each of whom he has raised valid and
substantiated concerns about. The Court, rather than considering the merit of these
concerns, has assumed that Defendant himself is the issue. However, a review of the facts
reveals otherwise:
a. Attorney Katheryn Marsh: The primary issue with Attorney Marsh arose from a
disagreement over the excessive bond conditions imposed on Defendant. While
Attorney Marsh agreed that the conditions were excessive and unwarranted, she
refilsed to challenge them in court, citing a belief that such arguments rarely
succeed. This caused a breakdown in communication, as Defendant was subjected
to the following bond conditions:
i. $3,500 cash bond (later reduced to $2,500 upon Defendant's
request),
ii. House arrest,
iii. Electronic monitoring,
iv. No use of illegal drugs or controlled substances, with mandatory testing
when directed by the court,
v. No alcohol,
vi. No firearms,
vii. No contact with victim(s)/witnesses, their residence, or their place of
employment,
viii. Mandatory mental health evaluation prior to bonding,
ix. Compliance with all mental health recommendations, including
medication as prescribed. (See LMD-022).

Due to this fundamental disagreement and the impact of these conditions on Defendant, both he
and Attorney Marsh sought a change of counsel, which the Court approved.

b. Attorney Mark Bostwick: With Attorney Bostwick, the primary issue arose after a
hearing in March 2023. Without violating attomey-client privilege, Defendant
 asserts that Bostwick expressed concern over the Court's ruling that all emails
submitted by Defendant to the alleged Victim, Meilcarek, were admissible—even
those that had no bearing on the case. Bostwick suggested that this
ruling
appeared to be a judicial attempt to prejudice the jury by exposing them to the
entirety of Defendant's emails, rather than limiting their View to those that were
actually relevant to the charges.

Bostwick further advised Defendant that a jury trial was preferable, as he believed
that, had this been a bench trial, Judge Sutherland would have found Defendant
guilty regardless of the evidence. This statement raised immediate concerns for
Defendant, as his own attorney was acknowledging potential judicial bias. As a
result, Defendant inquired about filing a motion to request Judge Sutherland's
recusal. However, Bostwick discouraged this course of action, stating that such a
motion would not be well received given the judge's prior rulings.

Contrary to the Court's characterization, Defendant did not allege that Bostwick
failed to communicate with him. Rather, his frustration stemmed from Bostwick
recognizing judicial bias yet refusing to take action to protect Defendant's right to
a fair trial.

Attorney Thomas Penland: The issue with Attorney Penland was fundamentally
different. While Defendant briefly inquired about requesting Judge Sutherland's
recusal, Penland dismissed the idea outright, calling it frivolous. However, this
was not the basis for Defendant's concerns regarding Penland.

Despite the Court's assertion that Defendant has a pattern of requesting motions
that attorneys refuse to file, Defendant has made no such claim in this instance. If
Defendant wished for a motion to be filed, he could do so himself. The real issue
with Attorney Penland was a complete lack of communication and preparation.

Defendant has documented multiple unanswered emails and missed meetings,

demonstrating Penland's failure to engage with Defendant or adequately prepare
for trial. Contrary to the Court's claim that Defendant refuses to work with
appointed counsel, the record shows that it was Fenland who continuously failed
to meet or communicate with Defendant, even after Defendant requested a
meeting in anticipation of a ruling from the Court.

Trial strategy had not even been discussed as of three weeks before trial, as
Penland repeatedly delayed a scheduled meeting on February 21, 2025, which
never took place due to Penland's absence. When Defendant raised concerns
about this lack of preparation, Penland refused to meet and later claimed in court
 that Defendant's mention of a potential bar complaint made it "too late" to repai
their working relationship,-

In most cases, when a defendant raises serious concerns about their

attorney's
communication and preparedness—especially so close to trial—the Court would
take those concerns seriously. Instead, Judge Sutherland dismissed them
outright,
making the broad assumption that no other attorney would be any different. This
is a conclusion without legal or factual support.

To refute the Court's claim that Defendant refuses to work with his
appointed attorneys,
Defendant submits emails exchanged with Fenland as evidence of his attempts to
engage in
meaningful attorney-client communication. These emails directly contradict the Court's
assumptions and demonstrate that the failure of representation lies with appointed counsel, not
with Defendant.

7. The Court's Logic is Flawed: The Court's refusal to appoint new counsel is based on three
key justifications:

l. The judge believes that no attorney will satisfy LuPardus.

2. The judge trusts Attorneys Bostwick and Penland and assumes their accounts are correct.
3. The judge does not want to expend additional taxpayer money on another
court-appointed
attorney.

Each of these justifications is flawed.

l. If three attorneys have different complaints lodged against them, this indicates unique
issues with each—not a pattern of behavior by Defendant. The fact that the concerns
raised regarding Attorneys Marsh, Bostwick and Penland are entirely distinct
suggests
that the issue lies with the quality of representation, not with Defendant's
ability to work
with counsel.
The judge's trust in these attorneys does not automatically invalidate LuPardus' concerns.
That the Court has not received prior complaints about these attorneys does not mean that
LuPardus' complaints are meritless. Judicial impartiality requires considering the
substance of a defendant's claims rather than dismissing them based on a presumption
that the attorneys must be correct.
3 Concerns about taxpayer money should never outweigh a defendant's Sixth Amendment
right to effective legal representation. The financial cost of appointing one more
court-appointed attorney is far less than the cost—both financial and moral—of a
wrongful conviction or a subsequent appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
 The Court's duty is to ensure a fair trial, not to prioritize cost-saving measures at the
expense of due process.

8. The Judge's Offer t0 Let Bostwick Return Shows Inconsistency: The Court, after
refusing
to appoint a new attorney, suddenly suggested that if Attorney Bostwick were
willing, he could
return to represent LuPardus. This contradicts the judge's earlier assertion that no
attorney would
be able to work with Defendant.

If the judge is Willing to reconsider Bostwick, then it logically follows that the judge should be
willing to appoint another attorney instead of forcing Defendant into the impossible situation of
securing private counsel on short notice. This inconsistency suggests that the Court recognizes
that completely denying an attorney is problematic but is unwilling to fully
acknowledge its
error.

9. The Judge's Decision to Keep the March 17 Trial Date is Unreasonable: The Judge
Originally Offered to Postpone the Trial, Then Revoked the Offer. At one point, Judge
Sutherland stated he was willing to move the trial date to allow Defendant time to secure an
attorney. However, when LuPardus did not explicitly waive his speedy trial rights, the Court
reversed course and insisted that the trial would proceed as scheduled.

This is an unfair bait-and-switch tactic for several reasons:

l. Defendant never asked to waive his rights—he simply wanted a new attorney. There is no
legal requirement that a defendant must waive their constitutional rights in order to
receive competent legal representation.
2. The Court is effectively punishing Defendant for not agreeing to something he was never
obligated to agree to. A defendant should not have to trade one constitutional right
(effective counsel) for another (speedy trial). The Court's logic creates a coercive and
7

unjust dilemma.

The consequence of this decision is severe—if LuPardus is unable to secure an attorney by

March 17, he will be forced to proceed to trial pro se, despite his repeated assertions that he is
not competent to do so. This is a direct violation of his Sixth Amendment rights and creates a
significant risk of an unfair trial.
 10. The Judge's Threat of Arrest is Excessive: The judge further stated that if Defendant fails
t0 appear for trial on March 17, a warrant will be issued for his arrest. This is an excessive and
punitive measure that disregards the fact that LuPardus has been actively trying to secure legal
representation and has not sought to delay proceedings in bad faith, nor has he ever missed a
court hearing and has never failed to .

Rather than working with Defendant to ensure a fair trial, the Court is prioritizing efficiency over
justice. The judge's apparent frustration with the case does not justify denying Defendant the
right to effective legal representation and due process.

11.Judicial Bias and Hostility Toward LuPardus: The Judge is Assuming the Worst About
LuPardus. Throughout the proceedings, Judge Sutherland has demonstrated a pattern of hostility
toward LuPardus, treating him as an obstacle rather than a defendant with legitimate concerns.
Any reasonable person would View the actions in this case as clearly biased and unfair. This is
evident in several ways:

1. The judge has compared Defendant to a child blaming teachers for his failures. This
condescending analogy undermines the seriousness of the legal concerns being raised and
suggests a bias against Defendant.
2. The judge frequently interrupts Defendant and dismisses his concerns outright. Instead of
addressing the issues raised in good faith, the Court has repeatedly shut down
Defendant's arguments without meaningful consideration.
3. The judge assumes that every issue raised by Defendant is a delaying tactic, despite clear
evidence of real communication problems with Attorney Penland. The Court has failed to
acknowledge that Defendant's concerns about his legal representation are substantiated
by records of missed meetings and unanswered communications.

A neutral judge should approach these proceedings with impartiality and consider both sides
fairly. However, in this case, Judge Sutherland appears determined to discredit Defendant while
defending the attorneys, regardless of the evidence presented. No reasonable person could View
these actions and not come to the conclusion that judicial bias and unfair treatment does not
exist.

12. The Judge is Prioritizing Court Efficiency Over Fairness: Throughout these proceedings,
the Court has repeatedly referenced concerns about taxpayer money and more serious criminal
cases (e. g., murder, rape) to justify its refusal to appoint new counsel. This suggests that the
judge Views Defendant's case as a nuisance rather than a matter deserving of the full protections
of due process.
While it is true that this is not a felony case, the severity of the charge should not dictate the level
of constitutional protection a defendant receives. Every individual facing trial—regardless of the
charge——is entitled to competent legal representation. The judge's frustration is understandable,
but personal frustration should never interfere with a defendant's fundamental rights.

13. Final Opinion: This is a Due Process Violation Waiting to Happen: LuPardus is Being
Denied a Fair Trial.

If this case proceeds to trial as scheduled under the current circumstances:

1. LuPardus may be forced to represent himself despite having no legal training or ability to
effectively navigate the complexities of trial proceedings.
2 If convicted, he will have a strong appellate argument based on ineffective assistance of
counsel—either due to Attorney Penland's lack of communication and preparation or due
to the Court's refusal to appoint new counsel.
3 This entire situation could have been easily avoided had the Court simply appointed a
attorney who could competently represent LuPardus. Instead, the Court's refusal to do so
is creating an unnecessary constitutional crisis.

14. The Court is Setting Itself Up for an Appeal: If LuPardus is convicted, he will likely raise
the following arguments on appeal:

l. That his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by being forced to go to trial without
adequate representation.
2 That his attorney-client relationship had broken down beyond repair, warranting new
counsel. The record is clear that Attorney Penland refused to communicate with
Defendant in the critical weeks leading up to trial, effectively denying him meaningful
assistance of counsel.
3 That the judge's refusal to postpone the trial prevented him from preparing an adequate
defense. The Court's refusal to allow even a reasonable delay has created a situation
where Defendant cannot effectively defend himself.

Each of these issues could result in a costly and time-consuming appeal, which could have been
avoided had the Court ensured a fair trial from the outset. Ironically, the very judicial efficiency
the Court claims to prioritize is at risk due to its failure to properly handle this situation.
15. The Best Solution is t0 Appoint a New Attorney and Delay the Trial

Instead of forcing LuPardus into an impossible and constitutionally unsound situation, the Court
should:

1. Appoint a new attorney to represent LuPardus in this matter.

2. Grant a reasonable trial continuance so that newly appointed counsel has
adequate time to
prepare.

These simple steps would resolve the issue fairly and prevent an unnecessary and prolonged
appeal process. The judge's argument about taxpayer money is weak—delaying the trial a few
months is far less expensive than a lengthy and avoidable appellate process that could lead to a
retrial.

16. Conclusion: The Court is Mishandling This Case

LuPardus is being placed in an impossible and unconstitutional position due to judicial

stubbornness and misplaced assumptions about his intentions. Any reasonable person would!
View the actions in this case as clearly biased and unfair. The fair and reasonable solution would
be:

I. Judge Sutherland should amend the Journal Entry entered on March 3, 2025, to reflect aj-ll
facts of the case, rather than selectively portraying LuPardus as the problem.
2. Approve the request for recusal so that an impartial judge can determine this case fromfa
neutral and fair position.
3. If recusal is denied, and the Chief Judge refuses to intervene, then Judge Sutherland must
appoint new counsel and allow sufficient time for them to prepare for trial rather than
forcing an unfair and rushed proceeding.
4. Ensure that LuPardus receives a fair trial rather than setting him up for failur'e.

LuPardus also reiterates #1-5 listed in this motion concerning his: Assertion of Sixth
Amendment Right to Counsel, Objection to Mischaracterization of Facts, Disproportionate
and Prejudicial Focus on Bond Violations, Request for Court-Appointed Counsel, and
Concerns Regarding Fairness and Judicial Bias. Should any of Defendant's statements be
unclear to the court, Defendant will clarify to avoid any assumptions needing to be made by the
court on the record.

Signed,

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

10212 Belmont Ave
 Kansas City, Mo 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

lupardusvshomesitefiz)gmailLoom

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lonnie LuPardus, certify that a true copy of this motion was submitted via email to:

Abby Olson: @WW on March 6, 2025.

/s/ Lonnie LuPardus

10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
-

lupardusvshomesitegQgmail1.00m
 TIMELIN E OF COMMUNICATION FAILURES WITH ATTORNEY
H-I:
PEN LAND

Date Action Taken by Defendant Response from Attorney Penland

5:! 1' Befendarfiwqmsted—PenlmFs-emfiaet-m-fo-fi-om-flm Response-remed-

Gem-t-

.sc-nt curaii to Peiilaiid. No response.

vw
up lettex' raising concerns about the ease Nearespense.

Requested discussion on case strategy. No response.

Followed up to request a meeting. No response

Emailed Fenland, aSking if he was going to address prior No response

questions.

Followed up on the Nov. 4 email. N 0 response

Followed up again on unanswered questions. No response

Nov. Sent urgent letter requesting a response before involving Response received.
20 the Court.
2024

Nov. Followed up to set the date for the scheduled meeting Response received; meeting
25 requested on Nov. 20, 2024. delayed.
202,4
 m
mmunication issues: Penland
., - m communication -
. '
statetl Defendant wet. Jan. 22, 2025.
2024 w... _ m... :L
f. . .

Dec. 9, Meeting scheduled. Response received (on Nov. 26).

2024

Sent important case information to Penland. No response.

Followed up on pre-trial metion deadlines. No response.

2025

Jan. 18, Sent additional case information and requested legal

Response received but vague and
2025 opinion. dismissive.

Jan. 20, Requested confirmation on motion filing. Response received—Penland

2025 stated he would not be filing any
motions.

Jan. 22, Followed up on prior email. No response.

2025

No response.
W~
Feb. 3, Requested a meeting to discuss trial preparation. Response received (Feb. 4).
2025

Feb. 6, Penland suggested a meeting for Feb. 24.

Response received.
2025

u.
W close to trial.
No response.

No response.

N 0 response.
benefit the Defense' 3 case.
 .1. why N 0 response.
dlscussion topics.

Feb. 24,
Response-received:
2025 enky scheduied for the next day",
EMAILED BUT FAILED TO MEET

Feb. 25,
Response received.
2025 _ PENLAND RESPONDED BUT ONLY
PENLAND REFUSED TO MEET AFTER (3) ATTEMFTS BY TO ACKNOWLEDGE "'3 WOULD
DEFENDANT, AND THEN DEFENDANT STATING HE NOT MEET
WOULD CONTACT THE BAR ASSOCIATION
 -
Gmail Attorney Contact Into 2/25/25, 2: -
2/25125, 2:22 PM ll PM Gmil Introduction

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v :'
g1 Gmail @gmall.com>
$51 Gmail
Introduction
2 messages
Attorney Contact Info
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
To: tcpenland@penlandlawkccom
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]> Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:22 PM
To: "Vifinkler, Brenda, DCA" <Brenda.Vifi[email protected]> Mr. Fenland,

Ms. Winkler, Please see attached.

Inoticed that Judge had appointed an attorney for case 230R02394 and was
wondering if you could provide his
I
contact information so could reach out? Thanks,

Thank you,
Lonnie LuPardus
|
10212 Belmont Ave KCMO 64134
-
(913) 912 2255

NOTICE: Please note that this email is being tracked to ensure delivery.
iMnkler, Brenda, DCA <[email protected]> Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:31 PM Additionally it is sent using BBC (Blind Common
- Copy) to ensure individual emails are delivered and tracked appropriately However, be assured that while this email is
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
sent to all parties required, receiving parties will not see all contacts.

Thomas Penland 913-602 6202 '

Letter to Thomas Penland_236R02394_10.02.2024.pdt
.3 71 K
[email protected]

Mailtrack Notification <notifi[email protected]>

5113' 09! 8. 2024 at 2:49 PM
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: |[email protected]
-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshornesite©gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:22 PM
To: Vifinkler, Brenda, DCA <Brenda.V\fi[email protected]>
Subject: Attorney Contact Info

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

ll .' -7wr177eos ,, :r694723213597176150&simpl=msg—t:1811743795490483033 1 1

Page ol

htipsillmail.goog|c.comlmaillull/?ik=2b2377e079&
:rI956823977413056373&simpl=msg-f:18] l7809]34—15922840&simpl=, .. l/l
 From the Desk of Email Delivery Certificate generated by Maiisuita

LONNIE LUPARDUS
Lonnie Lupardus <[email protected]>
October 2nd, 2024

Thomas Penland, esq. Message ID <CALwOpAhRAscthRTAFoilcpi+RxgNPENgnMqVUf—[email protected]>

831 Armstrong Ave, '1 0? AM

DOMIM 013 2 Oct. 202' at
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-602 6202 to
tcgienland peniandlawkccom
Tracking history

Subject: Introduction / Case No. 23CR02394 ndlawkccom

Opened on 6 Oct. 2024 at 2:39 PM by cpsnland@penl

Opened on 2 Oct. 2024 at 4:22 PM by cpenland@penl rid awkc.eom

Dear Mr. Fenland, Opened on 2 Oct, 2024 at 4:17 PM by cpeniand@penl nd swkceom

2 Oct 2024 81 4:00 PM by cpenland@penl nd awkc.com

and I am the defendant in Opened on
Ihope this letter finds you well. My name is Lonnie LuPardus,
case number 23CR02394 (State of Kansas vs. Lonnie LuPardus), to which you have recently awkc.com
Opened on 2 Oct, 2024 at 9:51 AM by cpenland@penl nd
and
been assigned by Judge Thomas Sutherland. I want to take a moment to introduce myself
case. I truly appreciate your time and attention Opened on 2 Oct, 2024 819:41 AM by cpenland@penl nd awkcoom
express my gratitude for your involvement in my
in representing me. Opened on 2 Oct. 2024 at 9:36 AM by cpenland@penland awkceom

Opened on 2 Oct, 2024 at 9:27 AM by cpenland@penlandlamn(c.eom

1 7 7
=1 believe it is important for us
Opened on 2 Oct. 2024 at 9:16 AM by [email protected]
to review everything thoroughly, and I am eager to work with you to ensure we are fully
prepared. Opened on 2 Oct, 2024 319112 AM by [email protected]
©©©©©©©©®©®
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience via phone at (913) 912-2255 or by email at Opened on 2 Oct. 2024 at 9:04 AM by [email protected]

[email protected] to coordinate a time that works for you.

Thank you again for coming on board, and I look forward to meeting with you soon

Sig

Lonnie LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134
—
(913) 912 2255 a mailsuite
[email protected] 2025 O Mailsuite, S.L.
Cl Cércega 301. At. 2.
<
1/1
08008 Barcelona Espafia
Page
 ' '
2/25/25. 2:14 PM -
Gmail Letter to Attorney Fenland ll" Request Judge Case BCROBMficwM 7111,2024

' FROM THE DESK OF

- "
M Gmail Lonnie LuParduI LuPIrdus v :' pard @9mall.com>
LONNIE LUPARDUS
Letter to Attorney Penland Case
23CR02394_October 7th, 2024
1 message
_-—-- October 7th, 2024
Lonnie LuPardus - LuPardus v Homeelte <Iupardusvshomesite©gmailtoom> Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 10:09 PM
To: [email protected] Thomas Fenland, esq.
83] Armstrong Ave
Please see the attached document. Kansas City, KS 66101
913-602-6202
tcgenland/tbmnlandlawkc.@m
1! Letter to Attorney Fenland (Discussion Reqm

Subject: Discussion
Thanks, 23CR02394.
onI-l--_----
-
Mr. Fenland
Lonnie LuPardus
|
10212 Belmont Ave KCMO 64134
(913) 912 -2255

NOTICE: Please note that this email is being tracked to ensure delivery Additional/x it is sent using BBC (Blind Common
Copy) to ensure individual emails are delivered and tracked appropriately However, be assured that while this email is
sent to all parties required, receiving parties will not see all contacts.

' -4 '
Letter to Attorney T (P' 3" ' concerning Case 23CR02394_October
12 7th, 2024.pdf
-_
229K

'
https:llmail .googlesom/mail/u/ l/'lik=2b2377e079&
 n
Letter to Attorney Fenland
—
Case 230R02394 Page 3 of 6

Thank you,

LON'NIE LUPARDUS

DATE: October 7th, 2024

lwmzuom 9'0 n muwl vaNQQOMN ammo
:p\mm:om.\Q\ bcmEml AmEou< 2
$.34
'33ch ego v Oman. . vmmmemomm mme
223388.: btfitmm 3E2; 010:3
 2/25/25, 2:34 PM
39L0cmber 7th, 2024»
ing Judge Sutherland) Case 230R01
-
has just read «Letter to Adam concern
Gmail lcpenland®penlandlawkc.com

Letter to Attorney Pen/and (Discussion Request —

—
Case 23CR02394 Page 6 of 6
'1 Email
has just read «Letter to Attorney
Penland
[email protected] Case 23CR02394__October
(Discussion Request -
7th, 2024»
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mailtrack Notification <notifl[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Iupardusvshomesite©gmail.com

K2
Letter to Attorney Penland (Discussion Request
Case
2024 open email
23CR02394_October 7th,
read your email 44 minutes after
it was
[email protected]
sent
'7 Sent on Oct 7, 2024 at 10:09 PM
peniandlawkc.com
Read on Oct 7. 2024 at 10:53 PM by tcpenland@
See tuii email tracking history

Reclplents

J/ (invite to Mailsuite)
lopenland@penlandlawkctcom
Turn off read alerts

1 a! 1
Page
pl=msgvl:1812316437555002 759
thread-l:1812316A37555002759Easim
b2377eo79&view=ptasearcn=al...tnid=
https:ljmailgoogIe.com/maillu/l/?|k=2
 Gmait Follow up and Request for Meeting to
Ema" Delivery Certificate generated by Mailsuite Discuss Case Strategy / Questions Left Unnddressed
lrom 1st Meeting
2/25/25 2 37 PM

From Lonnie Luparuus M Gmail

<Iupamwshmfle®gnail.mrn>

Letter to Attorney Fenland (Discussio

Subject n Request
230R0239470ct0ber 7th, 2024
Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case
Strategy I Questions Left
Iowa. ID <CALW09Aj——EBd-9M1U23NTBmewcmvng@mail
Unaddressed from 1st Meeting
.gmail.aom>
DeI'werad an 7 001.2024 at 10:09 PM
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v HomeSIte
<lupardusvshome5ite@gmail com>
.
to
To tcpenland@penlandlawkc com
6611 rnm> 23cr02394@gmail com Lonnie LuPardus <lonnie
lupardus@icloud com>
October 18th 2024
Traeklng history
Thomas Penland esq
831 Armstrong Ave
0 Owned on B 0011 2024 912237 PM by lepenlamopenlmd
iawkuwn Kansas City KS 66101
91 3-602-6202
0 Opennd on 5 0a. 2024 at 11 :00 AM by tcpenhndQpenhndlawkaoom
tcpenland@penlandlawkc com
@ Oponud on B Oct. 2024 at 10:54 MA by 'cpenhnd
flpenhnd tawkc.wm
® Opomd on 3 Oct. 2024 317258 AM by tcpenlan Subject Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case A: .J
dapennandlawkcmm Stratey IQ Le" L' ' from lst " '
@ 0pm on 1 0d. 2024 at 10:53 PM by (openiarvlfipenlandlawkcxm Dear Mr Fenland
n

1
hope this message finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for tak ll the time to meet with
g me recently and for
your efforts in me in this matter
representing
x t

There are a few areas l'd like to

clarify and discuss further, on hopiiig we can .t up another
Zoom meeting would be most convenient for both of meeting soon i believe that a
us if that works in you Durl'lt' this
points to ensure we are on the same page regardin the case
meeting, 'd like to go over some key
g stmtegy am' next step< Here are a few speCifc
address topics I would like to

1 Listen to My story i d like to ensure that we have a

clear understanding of the facts and
history of my case I
feel its important that you have the full
picture and id appreoate the chance to explain
detail my Situation in more
2 Ask Clarifying Questions if there are any gaps or aspevts of the case that
welcome your questions it 5 Importa to me that we you feel need more clarification l
nt don t overlook any key issues
I
ReView Documents: ll be happy to
prowde any relevant documents such as court
records or anything else you filings, communication
may need to review for a stronger understanding of case.
my
iiii Iii'l \ ill

'JL'
i *ll ii" iii U

ll
proceeds
mwmeotamymmmhmmm1slam
Lastiy it mum be Oatmeal to
Expectation:

mailsuite
Additionally, do you think it would be benefmai for us to request
2025 © Mailsulte, S.L. transcripts of all prior hearings? I believe havmg these records
CI (36112993 301. AL 2'
Page 1/1
-
" admin
08008 Barcelona Espafia I" 7h517730'A" '
,. 18'l535707B3915780748i5impl—msg a r773130333735913
4523 Page 1 of 7
 2/25/25 2 37PM
Questions Lett Unaadressed from tst Meeting
Gll'lall Follow up and Request tor Meeting to Discuss Case Slrnegy I

that has occurred thus far It may also help as

we continue to
would provtde clarity and help us better understand everything
l fl. our firstmeeting:
strategrze movmg forward 9:7pfi,;fin_, paw?" fm— Pla
to discuss at our first meeting that were
thrs email that Includes quesuonslconcems I wanted
Lastly I have attached a PDF to these xssues
gurdanc e on at your earliest convemence (There are
either not discussed or lefi unanswered I would appremate your
the blue text they should open nght up )
document lmks embedded m the PDF If you select

l d also apprectate havrng a deeper

and advtce, and I respect that, but fl
understand that you have your professronal optmons
J comes
l mdr oftlte behind certain declsrons partlcularly when it to.-
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Please let me know when you are avarlahle to set up a zoom eall
/
Thanks

Penland 10 15 2024 pdf

[I Discusson w

Lonnie LuPardus
|
10212 Belmont Ave KCMO 64134
(913) 912 2255
to ensure delivery Addltionallx it is sent usmg
BBC (Blind
NOTICE Please note that this email is being tracked and tracked nately However be assured that while
indiwdu al emails ai'e deliver ed approp
Common Copy) to ensure
will not see all contacts
this email is sent to all parties required receivmg parties
.,

Dlscussion w Fenland -10 15 2024 pdf

:3 262K

Fn Oct 18 2024 an 19 PM
oom>
Mail Dellvery Subsystem <ma1ler~daemon©googlemail
To Iupardusvshomestte@gmail com

Address not found

com
Your message wasn't delivered to 23cr02394@gmall
to receive
because the address couldn't be found or is unable
mail

LEARN MORE

Page 2 of 7
ar7732303337359134523
um I: ' nmnl-
i -9h'l'l77go, 18153570733915780748:slmpl msg
 Email Delivery Certificate generated by Mailsuite

From Lonnie Lupardus <[email protected]>

Subject Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case strategy I Questions Left Unaddressed from 1st
Meeting

Message ID <9b7af3c3<7fb6—c778—6e44—[email protected]>

Delivered on 18 Cd, 2024 at 1:19 PM

Delivered to <tcpenIand@penlandlawkclcam>. <[email protected]>. Lonnie LuPardus

<[email protected]>

Tracking history

Q) Opened on 16 Feb. 2025 at 2:45 PM by wpenland@penlandlaM<c.oom

i;
6) Opened on 20 Nov, 2024 at 2:56 PM by [email protected]

© Opened on 19 Oct. 2024 at 3:00 PM by [email protected]

® Opened on 19 Oct 2024 at 2:57 PM by [email protected]

@ Opened on 19 Oct, 2024 312204 PM by [email protected]

(6) Opened on 19 Oct, 2024 at 2:04 PM by [email protected]

® Opened on 19 Oct, 2024 at 10:33 AM by [email protected]

13

© Opened on 19 om, 2024 at 10:31 AM by [email protected]

© Opened on 19 Oci. 2024 at 10:29 AM by lopenland@penlandhwkc,oorn

© Opened on 19 Oct. 2024 at 10:19 AM by tcpenland@penlandlawkcvoorn

© Opened on 18 Oct, 2024 a! 5:53 PM by Lonnie LuPamlus

© Opened on 18 Oct. 2024 at 4:03 PM by Lonnie LuPardus

PDF viewed on 18 Oct, 2024 ai 1230 PM by [email protected]

© Opened on 18 01:1. 2024 at 1:29 PM by [email protected]

© Opened on 18 Oct. 2024 at 1:19 PM by Lonnie LuPardus

a mailsuite
2025 © Mnilsuite, S.L.
Cl Cercega 301,A1, 2.
Page 1/1 -
08008 Barcelona Espafia
 N2. inn !
02 2.92 53...: .3 W LB K
$< 53 has :5
_
$5

So rifiiufinaa.. D
3 33!... in
E8 v.32».'gdumueau5a
In v: :2... 3:30
£353
335161.280
Lou "incuinnwhhécuu. S
3.23 5E0 3:80
«in .1
[3 9.56%.: :8"nt
Sn 3NI:-
5
vllao e
«fa 3i
Sang,
n

1
£2
.
fin 3.. won

Sin:
S
uni-.5

-
waun3c=§ B
Ea 8 ~ =5..- 3550
; 69.9 I Ugo—St .3

g2
a:

§g
gé
32.2; o 23 B
a. n3 cl..- 51.30 £2.55.
 Gmail »
Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case Strategy I Questions Left Unaddressed from 1st
Meeting 2/25/25, 2:37 PM
Gmall Follow-up and Request for Meslmg to Discuss Cass Strategy / Oueshons Lefl Unaddressed from Isl Meetmg 2/25/25 2 37PM

The response was: Questlons for Fenland

550 5.1.1 The email account
that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try
double—checking the recipient's email. address for typos or unnecessary spaces. For
more information, go to https:"support.google.cornlm
aill?p=NoSuchUser 23db3069b0e04—
53a1617eaelsor830784e87 . 30 —

gsmtp

tcpenland@penlandlawkc. com <tcpenland@penlandlawkc. com>

To: Lonnie
LuPardus LuPardus v Homesile <Iupardusvshomesite@gmail com>
Final-Recipient: rfc822; 2301'[email protected]
Action: failed
Unfortunately, I Iusl don't do busmess that way More than happy to consult wnh you but Its
Status: 5.1.1 gomg to have to be the IradItIonaI way In person
Diagnostic—Code: smtp; 550-51 .1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try
550-51 .1 double—checking the recipient's email address for typos or From: Lonnie LuPardus- LuPardus v Homesne <|upardusvshom
esfle©gman com>
550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces, For more information, o to Sent: Tuesday, October 22. 2024 8. 49 PM
—
550 5.1.1 https:/IsupportgoogIe.com/maill?p=NoS
uchUser 2adb3069b0e04—53a1617eae1sor830784e87.30
To: tcpenland@penIandlawkc. com <tcpenland@penlandlawkc com>
gsmtp .
Last—Attempt-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Follow-up and Request Ior Meeting to Discuss Case Slralegy / Quesllons Lefl
Unaddressed from 1st Meeting
-—--—-- ___.__...__
Forwarded message
-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <Iupardusvshomesit
[email protected]>
To topeniand®peniandiawkc com 23cr02394@grriaii com Lonnie LuPardus
<ionrneiupardus@icloud com>
Cc: LonnIe LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte <Iupardusvshomesn
e@gmaIl com> Wed 0&23 2824815 13PM
Bcc: To "tcpenland@penlandlawkc oom" <Icpenlan
d©penlandlawkc com>
Date' Fri. 18 Oct 2024 18:19:43 +0000
Subject. Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case Strategy / Questions Left Unaddressed from ist
——-—— Meeting
Message truncated —- I
garney, but baucaay same our first meeung Je been concerned about thls grven our first meenng as not
very
"nasal! and we seem to have disagreememr on basically evorythlng Just wondering If"we should
you get too Invested .n the case and w»; oonmue to have a #reak andthisrfl
[email protected] <[email protected]> Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 10:31 AM
were .

To: Lonnie LuPardus -

LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshomesite@gmail.
com>
But also just to oonf rm ——
you are sayIng that you would not address my questIons that Ive sent me emaII and would
I
I
1
am fine with scheduling an in-person meeting in my office. Can only relay InformatIon If made the drIve to your office each tIme7 (Just wanted to oonfrm that 5 what
you do Nov. at 1:30 p.m.? you were
meanIng)
-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshome
site@gmailcom> I
I
ll be more than happy to IIsterI to
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 1:19 PM anythIng you have lo offer but Iusl am not sure lhat IhIs Is Ihe nghl ft for me or for
To: [email protected] <tcpeniand@penlandlawk you respectfully
c.com>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; Lonnie LuPardus <[email protected]>

Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardu

svshomeste©gmad com> Mon OCtZB 2024aH10PM
To "tcpenland@penlandlawkc oom" <tcpenlan
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshomesi d@penlandlawkc com>
[email protected]> Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:49 PM
To: "[email protected]" <tcpenland@penlan
dlawkc.com> Mr Penland

I
I
will not be available on November 1st. and
given the distance to your office, would prefer to use Zoom, Google Wanted to follow up to my emaII sent on October 23rd 2024
Workspace. Microsoft Teams, or FaoeTime for our meetings. if none of these options are
acceptable. i request that we
keep communication via email to ensure l have record our d iscussions, Thank you
iii parttflarl ya you'e asked tht l refrain
',
from recording our meetings for my note
. tha imel'en n Mdncesserolw-ups beoe n
I
concludes. I'm reattaching my previous letter, which contains
questions had intended to address during our initial
meeting and which remain unanswered. Thanks,

https://mail .googIe,com/maiI/u/1/'!ii(:2b2377e0'I
3 cl 7
':1815357075391578074&simpl=msg<a«77323033373591345 23 Page hnps l/mall google com/maIl/u/I/°Ik 2b2377e0 D
v 13153570783915780748I5Impl msg a r7732303337359134523 Page 4 of 7
 2/26125, 2:37 PM
-
Quesnons Left unaddressed lrom 15x Meefing
2/25/25, 2:37 PM Gmail Follow-up and Request ior Meeting to Discuss Case Strategy /
Questions Left Unaddressed irom ts! Meeting
-
Gmail Fallow-up and Request tor Mening to Discuss Case Sxralegy l

Lonnie LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave KCMO 64134 |

v Homesite Insurance)_
Lgpardusvshomesite@gmailtcom (LuPardus
[email protected] (Masters/LgPardus v SunWest Promn'iesl
[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: LuPardus vs Homesite <[email protected]>

-
Lonnle LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <|[email protected]> What do you have available next Week?
To: tcpenland@pen|andlawkc.com, Lonnie LuPardus <[email protected]>

Mr. Fenland.
l have reached
|
and to have my questions addressed. From: LuPardus vs Homesite
am reaching out one more time to discuss with you the case
at your earliest convenience.
out multiple times and have not heard back from you. Please respond Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 12:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Lonnie LuPardus

-
Mon. Nov 4, 2024 at 12:38 PM
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

6:00PM. I can however make m y self available for a p hone

Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:53 AM Iam "naval'l able "an wee k u" l e55 you wish to meet after
[email protected] <[email protected]>
.
-
conversation at your convenience anytime.
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
|
sent to you?
in my office to discuss. What Also are you planning on addressing my questions have
l
As mentioned earlier, l think it's best we schedule a time to meet
would be a good day for you?

-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]> -
Sun. Nov 10. 2024 at 11:23 AM
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte <|[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:18 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: tcpenland@penlandlawkccom <[email protected]>; Lonnie LuPardus
[email protected]> Mr. Penland,
/ Questions Left
Subject: Re: Follow-up and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case Strategy
Unaddressed from 1st Meeting I
October 18th, October 8th, and October 2nd. Since you will
l
am following up to my email sent on November 2, 2024,
not accommodate a meeting by phone, please send
a date in which to meet in person at your earliest convenience.
will rearrange my schedule to whatever day you select without offering any
options that work for me, given you will not
|
is no point in going back and forth.
accommodate even the slightest request make. so there really
LuPardus vs Homesite <[email protected]> l look forward to your prompt response.
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Mr. Fenland,

Today is good.

Lonnie LuPardus -
Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM
Lonnle LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
LuPardus vs. Homesite Insurance To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
-
(913) 912 2255
???

" Page 6 ot 7
'.18153S7078391578074§simpl=msg~a:r7732303337369134523
' 5 of 7 https:llmail.google.comlmail/u[1/7ik=2b2377e0
'11315357078391578074&simpl=msg-a:r7732303337359134523 Page
httpstl/mail.google.comlmarllullflik=2b2377e01
 Gmail ~
-
Followup and Request for Meeting to Discuss Case strategy I Questions Left Unaddressed from 1st Mletlng 2[25/25- 2:37 PM Email Final Letter to Penland —
Urgent Request for Meeting and Ciarilication on Representation 2/25/25, 4:09PM

% Gmail
-
Final Letter to Penland Urgent Request for Meeting and Clarification on
Representation

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 20. 2024 at 12:25 PM
To: tcpenIand@penlandlawkc:com

See attached:

[5 Final Letter to Penland Urgent Request f...

lease note that this email is being tracked to ensure delivery. Additionally it is sent
using BBC (Blind
Common Copy) to ensure individual emails are delivered and tracked
appropriate/y However, be assured that while
this email is sent to all parties required, receiving parties will not see all contacts.

[email protected] <lcpenland@penland|awkc.oom>
To: Lonnie LuPardus -
LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>

I
I
am busy and cannot meet before your deadline you have
given. On Monday, will request we
set the case for jury trial and we can meet in the meantime.

-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 12:25 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
-
Subject: Final Letter to Penland Urgent Request for Meeting and Clarification on Representation

LuPardus vs Homesite <[email protected]>

Mon. Nov 25. 2024 at 3:30 PM
To: [email protected]

Mr. Penland,

Can we get an appointment scheduled for this week to meet? We never landed on a date last
week.
Thank you.

" '
https://mail.googietcom/mlil/u/1/?|k=2b2377e0" '
':1815357075391578074815impl=msg-a:r7732303337355134523 Page 7 017 httos:/lmailgooglecom/maillu/1/?ik:2b2377eo7M 'r1816812527236976502asimpl:lnsg'l:1824249345603746305 1 ol 3
Page
 -
2125/25, 4109 PM
- Final Letter to Panland
2125425. 4109 PM Gmail Urgent Request for Meeting and clarification on Representatlon
-
-
on Representation
Gmail Flnal Letter to Penland Urgent Request for Meeting and clarification

Lonnie LuPardus
Mailtrack Notification <notifi[email protected]>
Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Reply—To: tcpenland@penlandlawkclcom
To: lupardusvshomesite@gmailicom
wrote:
On Nov 20, 2024. at 3:52 PM, tcpenland@penlandlawkc,com
m it was sent.
Old conversation revival: [email protected] opened it 3 months after

Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 5:59 PM

[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: vs Homesite LuPardus <[email protected]>

I am pretty open next Monday if that works for you.

Sent from my iPhone

wrote:
On Nov 25, 2024, at 3:31 PM, LuPardus vs Homesite <[email protected]>

Mr. Penland,

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

I will be on a cruise from 12/2-12I7

[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>

I'm free the entire day of Dec. 9

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2024, at 6:00 PM, Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite

<[email protected]> wrote:

Mailtrack Notificatlon <notifi[email protected]> Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:57 PM

Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

it 6 days alter it was sent.

"3 Old conversation revival: [email protected] opened

' '
" '21B16812527235976502&simpl=ms94:1524249345603746305 Page 3 0' 3
' 2 of 3 htlpszllma|Lgoogle,comluuil/ull/E'ikzlb237"
" ':1B16812527235976502§simp|=msg-fz'l824249345603746305 Page
httpszllmaimoogle.comlme' ur' -20237790
 -
Final Letter to Fenland
-
Urgent Request for Meeting
-
~ FROM THE DESK OF
and Clarification on Representation
-
via Email 11.202024
LONNIE LUPARDUS
for a No reply received
« response.
mgfimo
26;?6fi1m7th1 ' Fm
Thomas C. Fenland
Fenland Law Firm While you proposed a meeting on October 8, 2024, which we held on October
' 15, 2024, the
6405 Metcalf Ave, Ste 323 L
lacked Eve focus on case preparation and
strategy, leaving critical matters unaddressed.
Overland Park, KS 662(l2
As evidenced by the attached screenshots of our communication
history,
Re: Case 23CR02394 -
Final Letter to Fenland Urgent Request for Meeting and Clarification on However, the lack of engagement has lefi me concemed about
Representation our ability to proceed effectively.

I have tried to make this work and am

giving it one last try before going back to Judge
Sutherland. Please confirm your availability to meet before
Dear Mr. Fenland, Sunday, November 24,2024.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

'

.m wss¢_ 1

Sincerely,
ii magnum .~.' .~:

mm
ls/ Lonnie LuPardus
1
request that \i c meet no later than Sunday, November 24, 2024, before 9:00 AM. This meeting
913-912-2255
will allow us to resolve any outstanding issues, develop a plan for efiective collaboration, and ensure we
are prepared for the hearing

Should you dec line to meet prior to this date, I u ill respectfully
request that you submit a motion
seeking leave to withdraw as counsel From the case during the hearing on Monday. If you prefer that I file
the motion myself, I Will hax e n prepared and simply ask that
you request the court's permission for me to
1
address them directly, as am currenll) represented by counsel and would otherwise need the court's
approval to speak.

As evidence of my eti'urts to communicate bekm is a record of my attempts to contact you,

including texts, emails and letters:

1.

responserecetved (Letter to 'lhoms Fenlari . )

2. éflober'f, 3924. Sent 3 renew upiener
.— mgafiingm
Nozesmlse receijed (Leggrto Attorney Peru. ;
3 fictober 15,2024: Sent meter loge: requesugg a more in
Mmm
Texts Sent to You:
 Email Delivery Certificate generated by Mailsuite

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
From Lonnie Lupardus <[email protected]>

Case No.: 23CR02394 -

Subject Final Letter to Fenland Urgent Request for Meeting and Clarification on Representation
Court: Johnson County
Message In <CALw0pAiptiaAzajakgDSSNJthSMrpdcU-7WP_XODDb7VKDKUw@mail.gmail.com>
I served a true and correct copy of the
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of November, 2024,
attached letter n31
' toT' C. 1' ' ' Esq., regarding urgent communication and preparation Delivnred on 20 NOV. 2024 at 12:25 PM
matters for Case No. 23CR02394, via email.
Delivered to <[email protected]>
The letter was sent to the following email address:
' ' ' " ' .com
r "if. Tracking history
been opened.
The email was sent using MailSuite and will be tracked to confirtn when it has
@ Opened on 16 Feb, 2025 at 2:53 PM by [email protected]
Signed,
® Opened on 16 Feb, 2025 at 2:52 PM by [email protected]

© Opened on 26 Nov. 2024 at 12:47 PM by topsniand@penland|awkc.oern

/s/
Lonnie LuPardus ® Opened on 25 Nov, 2024 at 5:59 PM by [email protected]
10212 Belmont Ave
Kansas City, MO 64134 (0 Opened on 25 Nov, 2024 at 3:29 PM by [email protected]

[email protected] B PDF viewed on 20 Not/4 2024 at 3:03 PM by topeniandQpenlendlawkcoom

Phone: (913) 912—2255
13 PDF viewed on 20 Nov, 2024 at 3:00 PM by [email protected]
Date: November 20, 2024
® Opened on 20 Nov. 2024 at 3:00 PM by topenlend@penlandlawkcloom

6) Opened on 20 Nov, 2024 at 2:32 PM by [email protected]

Q) Opened on 20 Nov. 2024 at 1:16 PM by [email protected]

G) Opened on 20 Nov. 2024 at 12:27 PM by tcpeniandQpenlandlawko.oom

mailsuite
2025 © Mailsuite, S.L.
CI Obroega 301, AL 2,
-

1/1
08008 Barcelona Espaha
Page
 - -
Gmlil 23CR02394 Email Research and Documentation
2/25/25, 11:13PM

%1 Gmail
-
23CR02394 Email Research and Documentation

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homecite <lupardusvshomesit
[email protected]> Thu, Jan 9,2025 at 5:43 AM
To: [email protected]

Attorney Penland,

I
I
am sending over a link to a Google Drive folder, where have
compiled all emails sent to Ms. Melcarek, which
include the history of said email by my email tracking software MailSuite. in the first folder:
1) List of Emails Sent to
lliana (Google Sheets), you will find a Google Sheet where it will have a email certificate
(document from MailSuite
showing the tracking history of the email, such as setn date, date first opened etc). a link that will take
the email in uestion and all information related to date sent, date first you directly to
opened, t he last date it was opened, etc,

OIGEFS are Irec copieso l

e emai as ICE es pl'OVl Y
MailTrack and include complete copies 0 t 9 emails themselves. Here is the direct link to the
Iliana Emails MaiISuite.-
google drive folder:

:2
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns; and i look forward
to hearing back concerning
the topies I mentioned above.

Hope your holidays were great!

lease note that this email is being tracked to ensure delivery.

Common Copy) to ensure individual emails are delivered and tracked
Additionally it is sent using BBC (Blind
appropriately However, be assured that while
[£11 this email is sent to all parties required,
receiving parties will not see all contacts.

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardus
[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
300: 48929591 @bcc.hubspot.oom

Attorney Penland,
.. ..
.— .= ..
@1 © © © ©

Thanks Sir,

5 i? K':'
Lonnie LuPardus

hues/[mail.google.com/mail/ulll?ik=2b2377eO79&view=pt&search=,
..mpl=msg-t:1 621985426451596054&simpl=msg-a:r-2813860829843330102 Page 'I of 5
 2/25/25. 4:13 PM
— -
Gmail 230R02394 Email Research and Documentation

23CR02394

-
Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homosite <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Bcc: 48929591 @bcc.hubspot.com

Lines in 23CR02394
Subject: Evidence Regarding Email Subject
Dear Attorney Penland.
Best regards

I am writin to brin to your attention the attached document,

LonnIe LuPardus
10212 Belmont Ave Kansas Clty MO 64134
(913) 912 2255
iupardusvshomeSIie@gmaIi cm

com> wrote
On Thu Jan 16 2025 at 5 51 PM Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v HomesIte <iupardusvshomesne@gmail
Attorney Peniand
I
i km the deadline to file any motions Is fast approaching and
Wanted to follow up on my emaIi sent on 1/9/2025
wanted to follow up before the weekend

Thanks Sir

LonnIe LuPardus
23CR02394

Maiitrack Reminder <remInders@maIItrack Io>

Reply-Ta topeniand@peniandiawkc com
To Iupardusvshomesnie@gmall com

A Your email to tcpenland@penlandiawkc com and one other women! has not been opened yet
.___..._..__...

com>
tcpeniand@penlandlawkc com <icpeniand@penlandlawkc
To Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v HomeSIte <lupardusvshomesne@gmaii com>

I
deadline and, further have
Received. As for your previous email, am aware of the filing
decided to not file anything,

com>
From LonnIe LuPardus LuPardus v HomesIte dupardusvshomeSIte@gmaII
Sent Saturday, January 18 2025 7 23 AM
18219854 2513860829843330102 Page 3 ol 5
,. a
hltps llmaII googla comlmaII/ul1nik 2b2377ao
 - -
Gmuil 23CR02394 Email Research and Documentaiion
2125(25, 4:13PM —
Gmail 23CR02394 -
Email Resoarch and Documentation
2/25/25] 4:13 PM
To: [email protected] <lcpenland@peniandlaw
-
kc,com>
Sublec't: Re: 230R02394 Email Research and Documentation
134K

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homosite <|upardu
[email protected]> Wed, Jan 22, 2025 al 3:12 PM
19663K—
To: [email protected]
201K
Boo: 48929591 @bcc.hubspol.oo
m

Noted. i am not sure if you received a copy or not but would 2059K
you like me to forward to you the copies i received from
I
Marsh and Bostwick? wasn't sure if you would have received a
copy of those since they would not have been
uploaded into JlMS or whatever system they are using now.

[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Lonnie LuPardus -
LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshomesiie®gma
il.com>
I
I
have emails in the discovery so I am assuming that have
everything
My preference would be for you to have it on a flash drive and we can meet
- again

-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshom
[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:12 PM

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardu
[email protected]> Sun, Feb 16, 2025 al3102 PM
To: "[email protected]" <lcpenlan
[email protected]>

Thoughts?

4 attachments

hltpszllmailgoogle.corn]meillul'll?ik= 2b2377eo:
.. , [132198542645 .-
a 28 411111102 Page 4 ol 5 hnps:l/mail.goog|e.cam/mai Vlu/1/?ik=2b237790
., ':182198542645159605481Simnl:msg-a:r-281385082954
3330102 Page 5 of 5
 2I25l25, 4136 PM
-
Gmail 230202394 Email Delivery Certificate generated by Mallsulte

M Gmaii Frotn Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesile <[email protected]>

Subject 23CR02394 Email Research and Documentation

23CR02394
Message ID <1007b645—61 16-6236—[email protected]>

- 22 Jan. 2025 at 3:12 PM

Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <|upardusvshomesite©gmail.com> Delivered on
To: tcpeniand@penlandlawkcoom
com>
Dolivored In <tcpenland@penlandlawkcloom>, <48929591@bcc:hubspotl

-
Peniand
issued 11/17/2023 (index 27)? Also. wanted to Tracking hlstory
of the order
Was wondering if you could send me via email a copy
inquire why there does not
seem to be an order issued for the foliowing motions: com
© Opened on 25 Feb, 2025 3:13:36 PM by lcpenlandQpenlandlawkc.

mm
® Opened on 25 Feb. 2025 314:12 PM by mpenland@penlandlawkc.

oom
@153 Opened on 18 Feb. 2025 at10:41 AM by tcpenland@penlandlawkc.

com
Opunud on 16 Feb, 2025 a! 3:26 PM by topanland@penlandlawkc.
W35
Opened on 16 Feb, 2025 at 2:58 PM by [email protected]
mussemse
'2 Opened on 16 Feb. 2025 at 2:55 PM by [email protected]
ESN
Opanod on 27 Jan, 2025 319209 AM by topsnland®penlandlawkc.com

Opened on 25 Jan. 2025 at 2:55 PM by lcpenland©penlandlawknoorn

Thanks.
Opanod on 22 Jan, 2025 at 3:28 PM by 1cpanland@penlandlawkcloovn

Opanod on 22 Jan, 2025 at 3:17 PM by [email protected]

Lonnie LuPardus
[
10212 Belmont Ave KCMO 64134
-
(913) 912 2255
it is sent using BBC (Blind
NOTICE: Please note that this email is being tracked to ensure delivery Additionally,However, be assured that while
to ensure individual emails are delivered and
tracked appropriately
Common Copy)
will not see all contacts.
this email is sent to all parties required receiving parties

Emailsuite
2025 © Mailsuita, 5.L.
CI Cércega 301, At. 2.
—

1 ol 1 08008 Barcelona Espefia

' '—a:r-454u lab/4131103 'r1821418847548378746 Page 1/1
Page
httns:l/mailinoogie.comlmaiI/u/1/7ik:2b2377e07"
 Gmail -
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
2/25/25, 4:54 PM
Email Delivery Certificate generated by Mailsuiie

From Lonnie LuPandus ~ LuPardus v Homesile <lupardusv

[email protected]>
M Gmail
Subject 230R02394
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
Message ID <CALw0pAiSuvzom1=paBGvOoUjP=N9gBJ7yxn2NzHhX
-
4sM7CVp8w@mail,gmail.com> Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite
<[email protected]> Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Delivered on 27 Jan. 2025 at 10:07 AM
To: lcpenland@pen|and|awkc.c
om

i Attorney Penland,
'lo '@: r'nm)

Was wondering if we could set up a call here soon to discuss

the status of the case, your trial strategy, and
Tracking history issues that need to be addressed? Also if at all any other
I
possible can we do this by phone or video conference? was in a
I
wreck a few months back and have not received it back
to your office and bacl< at all
yet, and would really like to avoid
having to Uber all the way
® Opened on 27 Jan, 2025 at 11:29 AM by [email protected] possible.

@ Opened on 27 Jan. 2025 at 11:11 AM by tcpenland@penlandlawkc_com

© Opened own 27 Jan. 2025 31 10:51 AM by icpeniand®peniandiawkc.oom

lease note that this email is being tracked to ensure

Common Copy) to ensure individual emails are delivered delivery. Additionally, it is sent using BBC (Blind
and tracked appropriately However, be assured that
this email is sent to all parties required, while
receiving parties will not see all contacts.

a maiisuite
2025 © Maiisuite, S.L.
Cl Céroega 301, A10 2.
Page 1/1 hlipszllma'll.google.comlmail/u/'ll?ik=2b2377eo
08008 Barceiona » Espafia ':18230991755527792468:simpl:msg-f:182309917855277
9246 Page 1 ol 1
 2(25/25, 4:55 PM
-
Gmzil Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
2/25/25, 4155PM
-
Gmail Meeting Request I Prep fur Trial

'4 Email '1 Gmaii

Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial -
Tue. Feb 4. 2025 a! 12:52 PM
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
awkc.com> Tue, Feb 4. 2025 at 12:51 PM
[email protected] <tcpenland@penlandl To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
-
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <|upardusvshomesite©gmaiLcom>
Thank you. When are you amenable?
Yes, we can schedule a phone can.

- >
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:21 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Trial
Subject: Meeting Request I Prep for

1 of 1
527060916588 Page
.
nnnnlA 1I?i|<=2b237" ". 7320741517060916585&s|mpl=msg-a:r7320741
1 at 1
° 4 "1823153939937898355 Page
nnnnln 11'- 77207 :7 a 33231 10mm
 -
Gmail Meeting Reques! I Prep for Trial
Gmail -
2/25/25, 4256 PM Meeiing Request / Prep for Trial
2/25/25. 4:55 PM

gel Gmail
:4 Gmaii
Meeting Request] Prep for Trial
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
[email protected] <tcpenland@penlandlaw
To: Lonnie LuPardus -
kcrcom> Thu, Feb 6, 2025 819:39 AM -
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte
LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvshom <lupard
[email protected]> To: "topenland@penlandlaw [email protected]> Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:16 AM
kc.com" <tcpenland@pen|andlawkc.com>
Couid you do Monday (Feb. 24) afternoon?
'
Wfle W umm' " W o
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite -

<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:52 PM
To: [email protected] dcpenl
and@penlandlawkocom>
Subjec': Re: Meeting Requesi I Prep for Trial

_ n
hnps://mail.gougle.cam/mail/ul1/?ik=2b2377eo.
"JR 1': Mama-manna: '11823323034429286453 Page 1 ("1 x
hupszjlmail.google.comlmailiul1pvk=2b2377eo
, '.1823329139678239585&simpl=msg-1:1823329139
678239585 Page 1 of 1
 2125/15, 4:57 PM
-

ZIZEIZS. 41 6 7 PM Gmaii Meeting Request [Prep for Trial

-
Gmail Meering Request I Prep for Yria|

Gmail 3" Gmail

Trial
Meeting Request I Prep for
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial - m> Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at11216 AM Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]
m>
Mailtrack Reminder <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
I
Reply-To: [email protected] ion points would
w? Also, I've included some of the discuss
To: Iupardusvshomesite@gmaiLcom What time did you want to have our phone call tomorro
like to go over with you during our call.

he You've not received a reply yet.

Case Strategy & Legal Approach
1. What is your strategy for defending my case?
and how do we plan to present them?
2. What are the strongest arguments in my favor, r them?
the prosecution might exploit? How do we counte
3. Are there any weaknesses in the case that
the case dismis sed before trial?
4. What are the chances. ofn getting .- n.- !_I
u or testimony against me?
5. How do you plan to any :-

Pre-Trial Motions & Evidence

been
to dismiss, suppress evidence, or exclude testimony)
6. Have all necessary motions (e.g., motions
filed? is there anything missing?
7. Have you received full discovery from the prosecution? s ents. and any recordings?
8. Have you all eevldnc , incluidng oicrprtseo, Witnes statem
"Wt"?

Witnesses & Testimonies

11 . Who are the key witnesses for both sides?
if who?
12 . Are we calling any witnesses on my behalf? so,
.
list? Any surprises?
13 Has the prosecution disclosed their witness
have one lined up if necessary?
14 . Will expert testimony be needed' , and do we
I; Of, .itlon with
15 . How will we handle cross-cxar

Trial Process 8. Expectations

16. What will the trial process look like step-by-step? the trial?
17. What should I expect from the judge and prosecution during
18. Will i be expected to testify? if so, how should i prepare?
best impression?
19. How should i conduct myself In court to make the

Possible Outcomes
the sentencing look like for each?
21. What are the possible verdicts, and what would
motions?
22. if convicted, what are my options for appeal or post-trial
of trial?
23. Are there any alternative resolutions to this case outside
ios based on the facts of my case?
24. What would be the best-case and worst-case scenar
& Final Preparations
Attomey-Ciient Communication
26' How will we communicate leading up to the
trial? (e.g., email, phone, in-person meetings)
'.1824907107409198888 Page i of 2
.—
'118249071074uu
1 of I nttps:I/mail.gnogle.cornlmail/u/1I?ik=2b237790
nayAqlnnA ,. '.18236009840374'|4994 Page
hnpszllmail.goagls.c0mlmail/ul1l?lk=2b2377e0
 Gmail -
Meeting Request I Prep lur Trial
2/25/25, 4:67 PM Gmail -
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
27. What will be our meeting schedule 2/25/25, 4:57 PM
leading up to trial (trial is less than 3 weeks away)?
28. What should I do in the days leading
up to the trial to prepare?
29. Are there any last-minute documents or actions needed
from me?
30. Do you feel confident in our case, or is there
anything else we should address now? $1 Gmai§
Additional Concerns:
-
Why did we not file a motion in limine lo et some of the emails out of evidence?
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite
To: "tcpenland@penlandlaw
<|upard usvshomesite@gmaiLcom> Mon, Feb 24' 2025 at 1:02 PM
kccom" «[email protected]>
9

hltps://mai|.gaogle.cam/mail/u/l/t'ik=2b2377eo
':182490710 Mus '11824907'07409198888 Page 2 ol 2 nnnnlh ..
,u. ix:2b237790 ,. "
Q138871 n
"4138873238 Page 1 of 7
 2125125, 4:59 PM
-
Gmait Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
2/25/25, 4:59 PM
-
Email Meenng Request ) Prep for Trial

(Small
'1 (Email Trial
Meeting Request I Prep for
Trial I Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Meeting Request Prep for - gmail.com>
$1133 PM Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <Iupardusvshomesite@
Mon, Feb 24, 2025 lawkc.com>
enlandlawkc.com> To: "[email protected]" <tcpenland@penland
[[email protected] <tcpenland@p
- [email protected]>
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardusvsho to a vast amount of my
be okay with that. However. you have not responded we've had
Under normal circumstances yes, l would
oon tomorrow? waited until the altemo on we were supposed to meet to request a scheduling change, discussed
Could we schedule it for later in the aftern emailsfinquires, you feel like we have
this meeting on the books for weeks , and we are literally (g) weeks away frgm trial and i
I
follow through with our scheduled meeting
nothing related to the case.
So given those facts believe it is vital that we
has been; respectfully
today. and not postpone it any further than it already
- [email protected]>
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesita <iupardusvshomesi
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:02 PM

1 of 1
78953 Page
185944489 simpl=msg~a:r 15594446945983
l
1 or 1 https:llmail.google.comlmaiIlultnik=2b2377eo
° 8542721266067 Page
nnrml u =2b2377" = , ':1824968542721256067&simp|=msg-f:182496
 -
Gmall Meetlng Request / Prep for Trial
-
2/25/25. 4:59 PM Grnail Meeting Request I Prep for Triai
2I25I25. 4'59 PM

M Gmail 34 Gmaii
Meeting Request] Prep for Trial
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte
<[email protected]> Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 3:53 PM
To: "lcpenland@penlandlaw [email protected] <tcpenIand@penlandla
kc.com" <[email protected]> wkc.com>
—
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesi Mon, Feb 24, 2025 a( 4:00 PM
te <Iupardusvshom [email protected]>
Attorney Fenland.
Lonnie,
Itis now almost4100 PM and I have not heard from
you as of yet for our pre scheduled meeting; are you
planning on
I
calling me today as scheduled (if so can you please
I
provide a time?) have been wailing paliently all afiemoon for My apologies. had it down for tomorrow. Obvio
your call since you did not provide me a time. only a date. usly my mistake. How about we set a hard time
I
for 4:00 pm. tomorrow and
promise it'll happen.
Lonnie LuPardus
-TC

From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite -

Sent: Monday, February 24. 2025 3:53 PM <[email protected]>

hNpszilmail.google'cnmlmalllu{1/?ik=2h2377e07°°
'11826977333492729012&5]mpl=msg—l:18249773
334 9 2729012 Page 1 of 1 h"psi/[mail.google.com/maii/u/1/?ik=2b2377e0
':1B24977 55.345: asimp ':1824977786329122885 Page 1 0'1
 2/25/25, 5:00 PM
Gmail 1 Prep tor Trial
2/26/25, 5: 00 PM Meeting Request
—
Gmail Meeting Request ) Prep for Trial

Meeting Request I Prep tor T'rlal

mam :wna grandam"!

serum:
new @d'f'i's
\1 Emait .9. maul-wean-
Zuni Activity
Trial I
Meeting Request Prep for
432 PM " mum on)!
- m> Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]
To: '[email protected]" <[email protected]> 0 emu-m

° 09":qu
Attorney Penland,
I
as spent the entire afternoon waiting for your call after having
I will not make myself available tomorrow at 4:00 PM, that you selected
waited weeks for this meeting . This was not a last-minute scheduling—it was a meeting owe-nu
already
24th (aflerno on)"). not me.
("February

to my many
[email protected] Thu, Feb 6, 9:39 AM a"! ed communication issues, the lack of responses
Given all the issues that have transpired, the continu me to be appointed an
tome ' is for you to withdraw from this case. allowing
emails. i believe the best course of action r at the very least. one who will show up to
for me during this extremely challenging time—o
attorney who will advocate
Could you do Monday (Feb. 24) afternoon? our scheduled meetings.
were sent several emails
were not aware that our meeting today, as you
.
Further, l find it hard to believe that you ever; so If you
_._ and no feedback, request to reschedule. or anything whatso
(which you opened and read) provide d emails reminding you of
even after receivi ng and openin g multipl e
could not establish that our meeting was today. time management and
those that you opened several times. you still failed to follow through. I
to effectively represent me in this case. When
Despite my multiple reminders, including it, am extremely concerned about your ability I
for trial?
seem to be an issue, how can trust that you will be adequately prepared
simple calendar organization manne r whatso ever.
not In any
acceptable
(1 .
Respectfully, this is
Lonnie LuPardus - Suit. Feb 23. 9:17PM (t8 hours ago) *4/69 lack of attention to detail (i.e.
v the lack of responses to my multiple emails. your
Clearly your mind is elsewhere given I
to tcpenlandapanlandlswkcmm have , fully ask that you withdraw
the numerous other issues that occured respect
case
3 What time dld you want to have our phone call tomorrow
? Also. We included some 0! the
our call.
your own calendar). and due to
from the case so i may be represented by someon e whom is going to advocate on my behalf. and not treat my
discussion points I would like to go over with you during that is just hanging out until dinnerti me; respectfully.
like some backbumer side dish

Signed.
our meeting sdteduled today not 24hrs prior; as it clearly
shows you
Further, you were alerted to my emails and w? Lonnie LuPardus
reviewe d them on occasio ns through out the day, and then try to claim that you had it scheduled for tomorro
multiple
do I
not buy that for a second .
Respectfully.

Page 2 at 2
.
':132497B7556/alolz simpl=msg-t:1824979765673151219
1 of 2 https:[Imail.googls.comlmaillu/il?ik=2b2377e0
5673151219 Page
'5824979765873151219815impl=msg-l:182497976
https:[lmall.googie.com(maillu/1I?ik=2b2377ec
 Email »
Meeling Request ] Prep for Trial
Gmail -
2/25/2 5. 5:00 PM Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
2/25/25, 5:00 PM

\1 (Small Gmai?
Meeting Request / Prep for Trial
Meeting Request l Prep for Trial
-
[email protected] <[email protected]>
-
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at12232 PM Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite
<[email protected] <lupardusvshomesi'[email protected]> Tue, Feb 25, 2025 ai 12:49 PM
m> To: "tcpenland@penlandlawkc4com"
<[email protected]>
You are always welcome to hire any attorney of
your own choosing. However, your frustrations
I
do not amount to legal reason for me to withdraw. As have told I
Mr. Fenland,
y0u, don't file frivolous
motions.

I
respectfully disagree wi'lh your assertion that my concerns do not amount to
-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <lupardu legal grounds for your withdrawal. Your
[email protected]> lack of responsiveness. failure to engage in adequate case
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 4:32 PM preparation, and repeated delays in communication are
nol just frustrating but materially impact
my ability to receive effective legal representation.

autua understandtrrg tint m age '

wean mower However. proarenrs have persistea. muse
,
and lastvminute scheduling changes that undermine
that this is not the first time l have raised these concems, it is clear my ability to properly prepare for trial. Given
that this is an ongoing pattern rather than an
isolated issuer

Here are several reasons why your withdrawal would not be frivolous:

1. Failure to Communicate —

I
Adequately Despite multiple attempts to engage with you regarding
received little to no meaningful response. Communication is a fundament my case, have
al duty of an attorney, and your continued
lack of responsiveness hinders my ability to make informed decisions
about defense.
my
2. Failure to Prepare for Trial We are now —

only three weeks away from trial. yet we have not had substantive
discussions regarding strategy. evidentiary issues. or witness
preparation. Your unwillingness or inability to adequately
prepare oould constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

3. Failure to Address Client's Concerns l have raised —

legitimate legal concerns, including issues that could affect the

outcome of my case. Rather than discussing the merits of
potential motions, you have unilaterally deemed them
"frivolous" without proper legal analysis or
explanation. An attorney has a duty to consider all reasonable
arguments, not dismiss them outright. legal

4. Last-Minute Scheduling Changes —

Rescheduling a long-planned meeting at the last moment, without
or an explanation, demonstrates a prior notice
disregard for the importance of this case and my ability to prepare
is especially problematic so close to trial. effectively. This

5. Potential Ethical Concerns If —

you are unable or unwilling to represent me effectively, continuing to do so
place you in a position of providing inadequate representation. Kansas Rules of Profession may
states that a lawyer must withdraw if continued al Conduct, Rule 1.16(a),
representation will result in a violation of professional rules or law. If
you are not adequately preparing, failing to communicate, and
for mandatory withdrawal. dismissing valid legal concerns, this could be grounds

—
6. Client's Right to Effective Representation l have a constitution
l
al and statutory right to competent
legal counsel. If
|
believe that your representation is failing to meet that
standard, have the right to raise those concerns. Your
withdrawal would not be frivolous but rather
necessary to ensure that l have an attorney who will effectively advocate
on my behalf.

Signed,

htlps:llmail'google.com/mail/u/'ll?ik=2b2377e0 t a n
736m'zanus. ':1825055273618398960 1 1
Page of mtps:l/mail.google.com/mai|/u/'Il?ik= 2b2377e0'
, 6493699 24 7720396601&simpl= msg—azr6493
69924772 0396601 Page 1 of 2
 2/25/25, 5:01PM
-

2/2525, 5:00 PM Gmail Meeiing Request I Prep for Ttial

-
Gmail Meexing Reques' I Plep fol Trial

Lonnie LuPardus

M Gmais
Meeting Request] Prep for Trial
Tue, Feb 25,2025 at12:51 PM
[email protected] <[email protected]>
-
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>

I will let the court know that you insist on me withdrawing.

-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25,2025 12:49 PM

1 ol 1
"was: (:182505650l699931585 Page
2
hum-"mail nnnnla 9 a77eo,
7720396601 Page of 2
h:mid=msg'a:r6493699247720396601&simol=msg-a :r649369924
hm:s://mail'google'comlmaiIlu(1/?ik:2b2377e07saview=nmsearc
 2/25/25. 8:44 PM Gmail Meeting Request / Prep for Trial
-
2/25/25 8 44PM Grnali Meeting Reqnml / Prep fur Tm]
M Gmall Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v :'
- u
':uy-I
J L "
@gmail.com>
M Gmaii Lonnle LuPardus LuPardus v .
n (I n. '
@gmall com>
,
NIeetipg BeqJesf {Pref fbTTrigl
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
Lgnnie LuPardus LuPaIdus v Homesite <Iupardusvsfiomesit
-
__
-
_
e@gmai|.oom> in eAéFeb 25, 2025 atlialiPMrv-f ._. . u
mm <icpenland@penian
To: "[email protected]" <tcpenlan dlawkc com> Tue Feb 25 2025 3'
[email protected]> 1 16 PM
To: Lonnie LuPardus— LuPardus v Homesite <iupardus
vshomesite©gmaii com>
Let's meet at 4 before you do so
Too late
Lonnie LuPardus
[Quoted text hidden]
From Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesute dupardusvshome
sxte@gmaii com>
Sent Tuesday, February 25 2025 1 15 PM
[Quoted mt human]
[Quoted lax: hidden}
Impszllmailgueglc.comlmaillu/ ll'?ik=7.b7377e0"" °' n. L n.
r , 33245248724587274042281simpl=msg-azr-245248'724587274042
2 1/] Tulips llmall goagle corn/maillu/ ll":k—2b237'7¢0 rm u "
r 181505803975249407 1&SImpi—ms
g-f 1825058039752494071 l/l
 Gmn'l] Meeting Request/Prep for Trial
Gmail Medina Raqucstl PrtvforTrial 2/25/25,8:45PM
"
-
2125121245 FM
u ' u
Gmalt Lonnle LuPardus _ LuPardus v :. h @gmail.com>
Lonnie LuPardus - LuPardus v :' 'Iupal @gmail.com>
Gmall
Meeting Request I Prep for Trial
Meeting Request] Prep for Trial
Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Tue. Feb 25, 2025 at 1:17 PM Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homoslte <[email protected]>
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte <lupardusvshomesite©gmait.com>
-
To: "[email protected]" <tcpenland@penlandlawkctcom>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sound good' I'll fi|e my motion with documentation justifying my request.
Lonnie LuPardus
Lonnie LuPardus [Quoted text hidden]
[Quobd text hidden]
343964 "
,
'
:r439647864952683489' r'
' ' "
,
" ., :r4923380909
'
. 1401 "4 hltpszllmail,googl:1:0m/mail/u/l/C'ik=2b1377c0. r
hllpszllmai).gnogle.comlmaillu/l/?ik=2b2377e0. r
 2/25/25. 8:45 PM
Gmnil -
Meeting Requut / Prep far Trial
2/25/25. 8:45 PM Gmnil »
Meeting Requexx / Prep for Trial
M Gmai! Lonnle LuPnrdus LuPardus v
-
r'-
u (I L "
@gmail.com> Gmail Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v
-
:' L '
@gmail.com>
Meétifig Refiyest l
"Iggep
_,__ forIria! Meeting Reqnost [Pie-o for
Trialfl
_
_ , _ _..... _.____
. 4 .
mm <'cpenland
@penlandlawk§.oom> Tue. Feb 25, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Tor: Lonnie LuPardus ~ LuPa rdus v Homesite Mnilouite Notification <notification@mail§uite.com>
<[email protected]> >Tue, Feb £5, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Reply-To: tcpenland@pen|andlawkccom
To: [email protected]
% Hot conversation: tcpenland@penlandlaw
kc,com opened it many times in a short period or forwarded it.
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite dupardus
-
J} I jurn 23 not conversgfi
ons
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:19 PM vshomesite@gmail:com>
(Ouoied m1 hidden]
[Quoted tax! hidden]
hnpszllmail ,google .oom/mail/u/ l/7ik=2b2377:07" " o. 4
,':lsz§05854 7'" 1' l '1]825058549325562339 hnp52/lmail.google.comlmai|/U/ l/7ik=2b2377c0"" "
a
r B l/l L 4
, ':182505855434]7Z4373&sirnpl=msgrf:182505855434l724373 1/1
 Gmall ~
Matting Request I Prep for Trial
2/25/2183" PM
Gmail Meeting Request! Prep for Trial
-
2/25/25. 8:46 PM
M Gmail
A.
Lonnle LuPardus LuPardus v r- <iuyu. @gmail.com>
" J L "
@gmail.com>
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v <:.......
1%" Gmail
- l4
Meeling Request] Prep for Trial
Meeting Request I Piep for Trial wkc.oom> Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1 :55 PM
Tile. Feb 25. 2025 at 1:51 i [email protected] <tcpenland@penlandla
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite <[email protected]>
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homosite <[email protected]>
-
would put you at an unacceptable disadvantage
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> I
respectfully disagree that not meeting today
__
_
_.
Attorney Fenland,
Sutherland has not yet
Feoul: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite dupardusvshomesite@gmail,com>
-
I understand that you have informed
the court that "insist you withdraw", but given that Judge
I
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:51 PM
for trial in the event that the withdrawal request is denied. \Mth
ruled on it. it is imperative that we continue preparing [Quoted lexl hidden]
we cannot afiord to lose any more time.
only 19 days remaining before trial,
[Qualed lexl hlddsn]
remain my counsel until the court grants relief. As such, strongly request
I
Regardless of the withdrawal request. you trial strategy, review outstanding evidence, and ensure
that we proceed with our scheduled meeting today to discuss
denies your request, failing to meet today will onlyvput
that am fully prepared for court proceedings. If the court ultimately
I
me at a disadvantage—one that am not willing to accepti
I
with necessary preparatidhs.
Please confirm your availability so that we can move forward
[Quoted ten hidden]
Ill
r381506051440] 157769&simpl=rmg—f:18m6051440l 157769
L no .l
no;
httpstllmail 'google.comlmaillul ll'?ik=lb7377e0
B
l/l
337735567l3573999015&simpl=msgrazr3773556713573999015
n
79ot B
https:llmail .googlelcom/mail/u/ l?ik=2h7377e0
I r
2/25/25. 8:46 PM
-
Gmsil Meeting Request / Prep for Trial
2/25/25 , 8:47 PM
—
Gma'xl Meeting Raquest/ Prep for Trial

Gmaii -
Lonnle LuPardus LuPardus v . l "
M i' @gmail.com>
M (Ema?! Lonnie LuPardus - LuPaMus v :' L
@gmail.com>
__
Meeting Reqiiest I for
Prep: 'l'rialf /
,__ ._ .. _
Meeting Request! Prep for Trial
-
____' _. ,
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homeslte
~
<[email protected]> 'l'ue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:03 PM
To: "lopenland@penlandlaw
kc.com" <[email protected]> fi[email protected] <tcpenland@penlandlé
-
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite wkcVEarn; Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:24 PM
<lupardusvshomesite©gmail.com>
Attorney Penland,

"'

m mmms:
...,

-
From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite
é[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:03 PM
W mm mm «arm W [Qumed 08x! hidden]

'
[Qumfl text hidden]
A.

Please confirm wheiher you will meet

{oday so we can proceed accordingly. lf again refused i will not
consideration on this mailer anymor
e.
request further

Lonnie LuPardus

[Quoied inn hidden)

.
" unnolr
l/Yik:2b2377c0 . L n
, :r—39779l9406272534166&simpl=msg-a:r-3977919
406272534166 l/l httpsjlmnil'google.com/mnil/u/1/?ik22bl'477e07n " nu
B ': [8250623063 166681815
¢simpl=msg~fz |825062306316668181 l/I
 Gmai) ~ Tn'al
Meeting Requesx/ Prep for
2/25/25, 8:47 PM
- Trial
Gmail Meeting Request I Prep for
2/25/25. 8:47 PM
' L "
<2ur... @gmail.com>
" Lonnie LuPardus - LuPardus v .'
-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v I' my". @gmail.com> Gmaii
Gmaii
._., _,

Meeting RefluesgiiFrep for TsiEII

Trial ._
Tue, Feb 25, 2.025 at 3:16 PM
Meeting Requestli'repior dlawkc.com>
Tue, Feb 25. 2025 at 3:09 tcpcnIandQpenlandlawkc.com <tcpenland@pen'l;n
- [email protected]>
To: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesile <Iupardusvshomes
- [email protected]>
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homoslto <lupardusvshomesi
at 2:30 pm. by way of zoom.
m> A hearing has been set to address this for this Friday (Feb. 28)
To: "[email protected]" <tcpenland@penlandlawkcico

- si&[email protected]>
Attorney Fenland, From: Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v Homesite dupardusvshome
about the lack of preparation and communi
cation
whether you have trial experience. but rather I
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:09 PM
My concerns are not about . As your client, have a fundamental right to be
5' only 19 to [Quoted 18x1 hiddevl]
in my specific case. which
failure to engage has left me without the necessary guidance
informed and involved in my defense, yet your persistent
[Quoted ten hidden]
adequately prepare.
what motions or arguments are legally
I
fully acknowledge that,
as my attorney, you have the final say in determining I
entitled to discuss my
. However. as a client. am
sound and appropriate to file._l_am_n9_tgl§p_uting mat ggthgrigy n for your decisions—not simply to be
and I am owed a profession al explanatio
thoughts on issues related to my case. Your repeated refusals to engage in substantive discussio
ns. coupled
dismissed without consideration or legal reasoning. or strategy.
have left me without a clear understanding of your approach
with your outright dismissals of my concerns.
remain unresolved:
with you in good faith. the following issues
Despite my repeated efforts to work
countless inquiries regarding critical aspects of my
case and have not
Failure to Communlcato: You have ignored
substantiv e response s to my legal concerns.
provided you have
Lack of Legal Argumentation: Rather than addressing no my concerns with reasoned legal analysis.
substantive justification for your refusals.
dismissed them outright with personal opinions. offering or witness preparation,
trial strategy. evidentiary challenges.
Failure to Prepare for Trlal: We have yet to d scuss
all of which are crucial at this stage:
in mine have been filed, and no efforts have
been made to challenge
Neglect of Pre«Tn'al Motions: No motions
deficiencies in the opposing party's case.
key evidentiary issues or procedural have repeatedly delayed and rescheduled
Last-Minute Scheduling Issues: Despite having ample notice. you
undermin ing my ability to prepare.
meetings without justification, or incomplete
not provided any meaningful insight into missing
Failure to Address Discovery Issues: You have
action to remedy these deficiencies.
discovery, nor have you taken appropriate to competent
Improper Handling of Withdraw
al: You initially refused to withdraw despite your failure provide made no effort
have
Now that you have reversed course and submitted a request to withdraw, you
representation.
to ensure a proper transition or to protein my
interests should the court deny your request.

I
as approach trial without the benefit of competent legal
Your conduct has placed me in an untenable position Kansas Rules of
Your failures constitute a breach of professional responsibility under the
representation. ongoing
cation, diligence. and competent representation.
Professional Conduct, particularly in regard to communi

5 deniesy
5}
T °.'
I
ensure that am provided a copy.
If you intend to file a motion to withdraw, please

[Quoted text hlddan]

. . 1/!
1 no , ': 18230030"
' I, '2 18250656182
hnpszllmail 'google.conllmaillu|/
l/7ik=2bBTIoO""
n 4782479415 l/l
i/[flik=2bfl77:07" r
'r64937508l4782479415&5impl:msg-a:r64937508l
https:llmail.googlc .conilntaiI/I
 2/25/25. 8:48 PM
-
Gmil Meeting Request / Prep for Trial
2/25/25. 8:48 PM
Gmail ~ Mming Requesl I Prep for Trial

-
Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v u. ._ "
M Gmarl :' <h'r' @gmail.com>
- u. .-
g»! (Email Lonnie LuPardus LuPardus v H t. I. "
_
__.
I. @qmail.com>
Meeting
Requeetrl Prep for Trial. , Meet1ޤ Requiem/Prep f_or Trial
LuPardus vs Homeeite <lupardusvsho
mesite@email_com> ~l'ue.
To: tcpenland@penlandla
wkc.com
Feb25 2025 at 3:20 PM
[email protected] <tcpénland@penland
To: LuPardus vs Homesite lawkc.com> Tue. Feb 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Can this be scheduled for next week? I have an <Iupardusvshomesite@ grnail.com>
appointment on the 281h and (2) days does not
prepare my argument fully to the court. provide adequate time to
It's set for this Friday at 2:30
pm, via Zoom.
Lonnie LuPardus
.. _

From: LuPardus vs Homesite dupar

dusvsh
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:20 PM [email protected]>
On Feb 25, 2025. at 3:16 PM. tcpenla
[email protected] wrote: [Quoted Gen hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]
[Guam text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

[Qinted text hidden]

[Quoted ten hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
(Quated hxt hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted tut hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted text hidden]

[Quoted text moon]
[Quobd text hidden]
[Quoted text mane")
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text mum]
<Screenshot 2025-02-24 at 4.12.16
PM.png>

Despite my multiple reminders, including those that

you opened several times, you still failed to follow
through,

<Screenshot 2025-02-24 at 4.13.27

PMpng>
Further, you were alerted to my emails and our
scheduled today not 24hrs prior; as it
shows you reviewed them on multiple occasionsmeeting clearly
throughout the day, and then try to claim that
scheduled for tomorrow/t Respec
tfully.Ido not that you had it
buy for a second.
<Screenshot 2025—02-24 at 4.14.05
PM,png>

https://marl.google,corn/mail/u/l/'Pikzlb2377a0 r >&
" .
, "[8250658[9917243154&simp[=mg~f1[8250658|99l7143 [I2
254
:nnglr l/7i k=2b2377:07:&
r , r:1825066007746113916&simpl=1115g4':1825066007746113916 l/l
 ROUS
i: :«h HiiB'lv-T
6 03:08:2024 Call with Mark Bostwick
q
_

[Mark Bostwick] (0:00 3:22)

—

And because you didn't have the criminal intent,

they can't find you guilty. You see what I'm
saying? You have to have a mens rea.

That means an intent. Especially when it

says willfully. Okay?
So we're going to do some, I'm
going to do a little bit of that's why I asked for that schedu
conference just to make sure I cover myself and look at the cases
ling
and that way we can use it
because if we can't use it then it's going to be real difficult to win.
Because judge is letting in

fiau do that?" I mean, if you're you know, why would you let her you know enter other
emailg
fito eviden ce that have nothing to do they re irrelevant and what we call more
more preludicifl
figgfiggyfleflgflitflnmggprsVlgsmnomtmlfiethey're proving anytlgl
nq they're. more,,instead of lust provicfl
fie crimeig {gstirs more t9 elicitjury grejudicejgalnst yOflSo that's the argument that we'll
use in a motion in limine She'll give me the emails I haven't
seen them. So that's kind of down
the road. That's more of a that's more of a content issue and
Ijust really wouldn't worry about
that
was there and because it wasn't
our first time we appeared in court the last week was our this week was our second
together
time and when he was talking about it know, didn't
you I really I didn't really know a lot about it
or I didn't really know anythi
ng about it so Ijust kept my freaking mouth shut and a lot of times
when judges are talking like that on their own motion
you don't want to interrupt them so
that's just part of you knowI have to
jump up and down about something you know, I can get
irreverent in court sometimes you know, ifI have to I'm
respectful, Ijust say respectfullyjudge
Ijust don't agree with that there's no reason why, it's nothing personal just a record
you know, just kind of like you know, he had already é'i makin
~' g
CHIS «it?!
fiher day I wasexpecting for hie andAbby just to get up and make our
legal arguments fa
Cim to make a decision and and that isn't what happe
ned, what happened was he came 0:3
fixd he.eir'eaoymaaehmw;'Wa&.=§wiawnand thenrw
enjusttookcatexot aoraehouseecieaniel
and then we had that, what we had that little issue on that that
letter so, I mean it didn't
turn out the way I thought it would turn out, so

[Lonnie LuPardus] (3:23 3:34)

-

since he's got this

fihoie idea now, I mean how he just switched from the transc
ript thing apparently
thatygwmmm
[Mark Bostwick] (3:35 5:52)
-

PAGE 1
 no, here's the deal you knowjudgejudgejudge Sutherland isjust look, you know, I've seen him
give probation to people he absolutely didn't like to people he absolutely didn't like over and
over again because see, in that court, I'm the one that sits on the docket and
gets those gets
those appointments, I mean he asked me to do it so when
things weren't working out with
Catherine Marsh for whatever reason that was then he asked me to take
your case because
sometimes you know, it's just a different style of attorney, you know what I'm
saying I know
Catherine, she's a nice lady, but maybe you and herjust didn't gel, you know so it's
just one of
those things I wouldn't worry about it, but if you were to be prosecuted for it,
you would just
probably get probation you know, that's what it's gonna be and I don't think he's gonna you
know, do anything I think what you're trying to think about is like, wow should he recuse
himself well no, not really, because you have to understand, I mean it would be, now here's a
[god point itwo'uio' be really stupid to have a'bench trial ygru know because then wem'mgmgsggjym
Km that toy to play with, you know what I'm saving and yeah, he probably would find yo;
' " '
mm mmmm n; but since the jury is the fact
"

finder, it's not gonna be him, okay, he's just gonna make decisions the legal decisions which is
exactly what he did see, so a jury trial is always gonna be much better in this case, especially
with that defense, you know not so good without it but you know

[Lonnie LuPardus] (5:53 6:09) -

well guess I'm just kinda concerned because like you know, I don't know if you're aware of
I

this, but like when this all started, like I was put on house arrest after getting out
ofjail for like
11 days and I mean for a misdemeanor and then was on GPS
type thing, I a monitor for like 3
months

[Mark Bostwick] (6:11 -

7:21)

yeah here's my advice to you, when this is all over, you know, you live in Douglas County, just
stay there you know don't come to Johnson County because you know, it's not worth it it's a
redneck county okay, you know, it's a microcosm of the state of Kansas which is
really a country
of it's own called dumbfuckistan you know, and they're rednecks so
you know, screw them, you
can have fun somewhere else, you know whatI mean and live their life but for
right now, if you
decide you wanna go with diversion diversion is saying I get it, but it's not
guilty plea, okay it's
just you you I mean, if you mess it up they will find you guilty so that's a plea, and diversion is
something, I wouldn't wait too long on diversion, but I told her basically, no, this is gonna go,
you know and when I mean it's gonna go, meaning you know, we're not taking a plea and that's
just what it is

[Lonnie LuPardus] (7:21 -

7:45)

yeah, well I know I didn't wanna do it, because I do plan on you know, going through with a civil
case I saw that article and I was like, well wait a minute, because it said
something about it
wouldn't like, you know, prevent any type of civil cases from
moving forward, so I was like well
ifI can get this done, just now and not have to WOF about it anymore, then we can
just start

PAGE 2
the civil suit so I'd ratherjust do that, than like keep pushing this out, and then just
having it go
further, and then start the civil suit

[Mark Bostwick] (7:47 8:15)

-

well, I mean it's an idea, and if you just saw because a lot of these things a lot of these things
are draining and that you get sick of it, and sometimes you're gung-ho at the
beginning,
because you're still all lit up from the emotions of it, then after a while it starts turning into,
you
know kind of a pain in the ass, so if you decide to do that she would do it in
probably two
seconds

[Lonnie LuPardus] (8:15 8:23) -

well yeah, I mean, because like, I don't know if you're aware of this, but like, well I haven't told
you, butI mean I have been like getting turned down forjobs because of this, I'm on like

[Mark Bostwick] (8:23 8:25)

-

it's because it's candy

[Lonnie LuPardus] (8:25 8:37) -

yeah, and I mean like I couldn't even there's a lot on my background check, I've been turned
down for like six jobs, I haven't been able to I'm on like this like four depression and
anxiety
medications now that I've never been on in my entire life, it'sjust

[Mark Bostwick] (8:38 9:32)

-

well man that's you know, that's the downside, I mean if you want to plead no contest
you're
gonna be found guilty and yeah, you'll be on probation for a while, unless Abby would be
willing to change the charge, that might you know, I mean, if we could change it to a disorderly
conduct then you know, that completely obviates the need for you to plead guilty to you know,
violation of a protective order, you see what I'm saying? and well because I get along with Abby
fine there's nothing, you know you can see when me and her talk, we do a lot of cases and
you
know this is just ourjob, you know we don't go out in the hall and you know, exchange
badges
so

[Lonnie LuPardus] (9:33 10:04) -

she's not a bad girl either so Your point to me Senator is ifI was to do this, I would want it to be
done with, I mean like considering the fact that I was on pre-trial services I was on house arrest,
I think that would be equivalent to having done
anything after the fact, like not having to be
sentenced to a year on probation when I've been having to do that Well And I know he said that
was excessive too in one hearing cause he said I never should have even been on that

[Mark Bostwick] (10:05 11:20) -

PAGE 3
 well you could do, you know I could ask her to do an SIS which is
where you would be on, you
know, there'd be a backup sentence.

It would be suspended in position of sentence. It's

only there because the court would, of
course, want you to obey the conditions of probation, or else nobody would do it. And then you
would be unsupervised.

Imean, you would have a supervisor, but you wouldn't have to

report. It's like a non-reporting
probation. You'd have to pay your court costs, but other than that,
you know, it's not a drug
case, you know.

I mean, I'm not saying you might not have to take any way, but it would be a
very non-
restrictive type of probation if Abby would be
willing to do that, you know. So there's a lot of
ways, you know, we can be creative, you know. We could even, just like I said, I mean, ifI could
brainstorm on another charge, then, you know,
you know, we could, you know, that's possible
too.

Disorderly, maybe a little phone harassment or something.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (11:21 -

11:27)

Well, I guess I have another question for you. How confident are
you about the wrongful arrest
for the Olathe and Gardner police motion?

[Mark Bostwick] (11:27 12:53)

-

Well, I mean, I'm starting to, just like I said, I'm starting to do research on it because I
told
them, that's why I said that the wayI did, because I told them, look, Ithink
hey, you know, this
is common, but I want to make sure. That's what it is. So I'm
still, when I read the statute, it
sounds like it's a good issue, but, you know, there's
always, I've seen some other texts.
I've seen some cases where it seems like courts are
getting around it, and I think this is what,
that's a strategy they might use. Like, well, I arrested him, so he would not
commit the crime
anymore. Ijust read it in a header, butI haven't got to the research yet.

I want to make sure that I'm right, and then go into it. I don't like to file frivolous
motions, but I
just want to file a motion where I have a chance of purveying it. It doesn't have to be,
you know
what I'm saying, a slam dunk, you know, it's not below but has
hanging fruit, it to be at least an
argument that reasonable people can just differ about, so, yeah.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (12:53 13:09) -

Okay, cool. Awesome. So I guess just, my final question, sorry, Mark, I don't want to get more of
your time.

Just, I mean, just knowing what I'm kind of brought up, I mean, what would
you suggest, or

PAGE 4
 what do you think would be the best option, just to do, do you think we should continue it?
Because you know how I feel about all this, and stuff.

[Mark Bostwick] (13:09 13:54) -

I think, I think, I think that, you know, it's that particular matter about taking a plea is
know, I

always your decision, but, and that's why we've had it with all these motions, is because
nobody's forcing you, I mean, the furthest from the truth, not being forced into it, it's just
something that you came up with an idea, and maybe we have some ideas where we can sort
of dodge the bully, you know, and prosecutors, you know, Abby might be malleable to
just, she
has other cases, you know, she messes with. The only, the only condition that have is that
you'll
you'll have to stay away from this woman.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (13:55 13:58) -

I mean, she lives in Florida, so it's not even like she's in the state.

[Mark Bostwick] (13:58 14:12) -

Well, well, but if you're planning on suing her more, or whatever you're going to do, then, then,
then, you know, when you do, and if it is, you know, a pro se, just.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (14:12 14:16) -

No, no, no, no, my, no, I have a law firm who wants to take this on.

[Mark Bostwick] (14:16 14:18) -

After, what's that?

[Lonnie LuPardus] (14:18 14:22) -

I have a law firm who wants to take this on. It's Evans and Dixon who want to take this on.

[Mark Bostwick] (14:22 14:25) -

Good, on like a contingent?

[Lonnie LuPardus] (14:26 14:27) -

We haven't discussed that.

[Mark Bostwick] (14:28 15:16) -

Oh, good, good, and you can ask them your question about the, the technical, you know, about
a no contest, and they'd probably be confident to answer that
question, but, you know, man,
but if you're, if they're not, if it doesn't work out in your pro se, you know, now, that,
you know,
when you send her, you know, the pleading, just said, Itold my client that because
my, I have a

PAGE 5
PFA client that's going through a pro se divorce with her husband, and I told her,
just, just send
a copy of it in an envelope, and and send to him, you know what I'm saying? And
nothing else, it
she wasjust, and from your case, you know, my experience from
your case.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (15:16 15:16) -

Yeah.

[Mark Bostwick] (15:16 15:52)-

So, you know, you kind of know what's happening. So, you kind of know not to do that
again,
and because we don't know what that, I mean, the law's kind of and it's kind of vague,
stupid,
but anyway, if you think that's the way, then, you know, if I'm at the courthouse, and I see
Abby,
then sometimes it's better for a face to face, and Ijust suggest it in the hall. I like doing things
like that.

Sometimes when you're doing that, they're more, you know, malleable than just a cold
doing
email, you know what I'm saying?

[Lonnie LuPardus] (15:52 15:56) -

Okay. Yeah. Well, wait, we'll hold off on that.

No, like, I'll get with them.

[Mark Bostwick] (15:56 16:00)

-

I'm not going to do, I'm not going to do shit. I'm just going to wait for
you.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (16:00 16:01) -

Okay. Awesome. Thank you.

[Mark Bostwick] (16:02 16:03)

-

Okay, man.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (16:03 16:04) -

Cool. Thank you, Mark. I appreciate it.

[Mark Bostwick] (16:05 16:05)

-

Bye-bye.

[Lonnie LuPardus] (16:05 16:05) -

Bye.

PAGE 6