Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Detective Stuart Stu Hite, Sheriff Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriff's Department - Kansas - On 06/28/2017

Case 2:17-cv-02373-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ERIC MUATHE, )
JULIE STOVER, )
KASEY KING, )
PLAINTIFFS, ) CASE NO. _
VS. )
OFFICER STUART "STU" HITE, ) DESIGNATED PLACE OF TRIAL:
STUART HITE IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY,) KANSAS CITY. KANSAS
SHERIFF DAN PEAK, SUPERVISOR ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DAN PEAK IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY, )
CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S )
DEPARTMENT, )
DEFENDANTS. )
COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

DEPRIVATON OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC 1983
FOR DAMAGES FROM NEGLIGENT AND WRONGFUL ACTS AND OMISSIONS
OF EMPLOYEES
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover in accordance with
Rule 7(a)(b) of FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE who alleges and states for its
causes of action against the following Defendants in this claim for relief against the
Defendants and moves to the Court for an Order granting Plaintiffs "PETITION AND
Page lof36
COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC 1983 FOR DAMAGESFROM NEGLIGENT AND WRONGFUL ACTS
AND OMISSIONS OF EMPLOYEES" since the Defendants did not comply with Plaintiffs 1st,
4th, and 14th amendment rights and did not comply with KS.A. 75-6101, KS.A. 75-6102, and
KS.A. 75-6103(a)(b)(1) and violated KS.A. 60-1202(1)(2)(3)(4), KS.A. 60-1205 by
intruding/usurping their power by intruding into a private Grand Jury petition.
Plaintiffs sue Defendants and allege based upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs
own conduct and upon basis of information and belief as to all other matters.
Plaintiffs information and belief is based on facts and information that the
Defendant's knowing participation in the conspiracy and fraudulent scheme to deprive
Plaintiffs of their federally protected rights are detailed in this claim.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) evidentiary support confirming the truth ofthe
allegations in this Complaint will be established through discovery from Defendants and
non-parties with first hand personal knowledge of the systematic conduct alleged herein.
PARTIES
1. The plaintiffs are individual persons, adult citizens of the United States, and at all
times material to this complaint are resident of this district.
2. The Defendant Stuart - Stu - Hite (hereinafter referred to as either "Stu Hite" or
simply as "Hite"] is an individual person and at all times material is believed to be a
resident of this district
Page 2 of36
3. The Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, is a corporate entity
organized by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas is believed to be a resident of this
district.
4. The Defendant Dan Peak (hereinafter referred to as "Peak") is an individual person
and at all times material is believed to be a resident of this district.
5. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants Stu Hite and Dan Peak were
acting within the scope of, and in furtherance of their employer's business interest.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
7. This cause of action arises out of denial and/or impairment of plaintiff s
constitutional, civil rights, and political rights which occurred within this district.
8. Jurisdiction lies with this Court pursuant to federal questions jurisdiction under 28
u.s.e. Section 1331, 28 US.C.Section 1343(1)(2)(3)(4); and 42 US.e. Section 1981, 1983,
1985 the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.s.C.Section 1391 in that all the
defendants are residents of this district and all the acts, or omissions, which gave rise to
this cause of action occurred within this district.
10. The plaintiffs invoke the pendent and/or supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to
hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C.Section 1367.
FACTS
12. PLAINTIFFS NEVER FORGED ANY SIGNATURES ON THE GRAND JURY
PETITION.
Page 30f36
13. On, or about, February 2015, the plaintiffs were part of a group named Summary
Judgment Group, an unregistered association, to advance their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech, the right of the people peaceably to assemble - right of association, and
the rights to petition the government as enshrined in the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, including expression of their displeasure with perceive conflict of
interests between local attorneys and Judges in handling cases in Crawford County District
Court system.
14. In pursuit of their constitutional and civil rights, plaintiffs began a petition drive to
summon a Grand Jury to remove sitting 11th Judicial Kansas District and more so the
Crawford County District Judges; Andrew J. Wachter, Lori B. Fleming and Kurtis I. Loy.
15. In furtherance of their goal and legal requirements of collection of sufficient
registered voters' signatures, plaintiffs did research on Crestwood Country Clubs website
and found pictures of Defendant Stu Hite standing with attorney Kyle Fleming (Husband of
Judge Lori B. Fleming) at a private country club party.
16. Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover had signed as carriers of the
petition to verify upon oath that each of the signers on the Grand Jury petition in case
number 2015MR2P were the genuine signatures ofthe person whose name it purported to
be.
17. Plaintiffs also did research and on the same Crestwood Country Club website found
a picture of Defendant Stu Hite's wife sitting with Judge Lori Fleming at a table at a private
country club party enjoying what seems like alcoholic beverages.
18. Plaintiffs created flyers which showed the above mentioned pictures of Defendant
Stu Hite standing with attorney Kyle Fleming and also of Defendant Stu Hite's wife sitting at
Page 4 of 36
a table at a private party with Judge Lori Fleming which showed people in Crawford County
that the criminal Judge hangs out with the arresting officers and their wives at private
parties which people believed to be a conflict of interest.
19. Deputy Stu Hite is also featured prominently in a civic action website ran by the
Summary Judgment Group known as Conflictgate.com where Deputy Stu Hite's association
with area Judges and Attorneys is exposed. This website was formed in an ongoing bid to
expose what Plaintiffs and others in the community deem as corruption among public
officials and more so as regards blatant conflicts of interests between area Judges,
attorneys, businessmen, politicians and law enforcement.
20. The court record will show that Judge Richard M.Smith Signed an order file
stamped on June 2nd, 2015 where he dismissed the Grand Jury Petition and stated that the
order was final. Further Judge Smith ordered the file to be sealed and access only
permitted upon order of the Court. No further Court ordered has ever been issued by the
Court otherwise Plaintiffs would have been notified promptly.
21. No issue of signature validity was ever raised by the June 2nd, 2015 order by Judge
Richard M. Smith, or even by the Crawford County Commissioner of Elections when the
ascertaining if the required number of valid signatures of registered voters to summon a
Kansas Grand Jury as required by K.S.A22-3001(2).
22. For the record the Grand Jury Petition had 121 valid registered voter signatures and
fell short of the required 315 signatures. No issue was ever raised by either Judge Richard
Smith, or the Crawford County Commissioner of Elections as regards the validity of the 121
registered voters (or, any other signature for that matter) who signed the Grand Jury
Page 5 of 36
petition before the Grand Jury Petition was officially dismissed and subsequently sealed by
the June 2nd, 2015 Court Order.
23. On or about October 29, 2015 Crawford County Sheriff Deputy /K.B.I. officer Stuart
Hite usurped his public office under K.S.A.60-1202(1)(2)(5) by leading an investigation
that has harassed, threatened, intimidated, and flat out "LIED" to people that signed the
"SEALED Grand Jury PETITION IN CASE NUMBER 15MR2P" without any "COURT ORDER"
or "AUTHORITY" to do so.
24. Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendant Stu Htte retaliated against the Plaintiffs
because he is good friends with Judge Lori Fleming and attorney Kyle Fleming because they
are lecturers and Eucharistic youth ministers at Lady of Lourdes Catholic church together.
25. It will be shown, and is believed, that Defendant Hite and his wife are still also
members of the private Crestwood Country Club along with Judge Lori Bolton-Fleming and
Her Husband Kyle Fleming and that is why there are pictures of Defendant Stu Hite's wife
Amy Hite and Lori Bolton-Fleming drinking what appears to be wine together while
Defendant Stu Hite stands next to her husband attorney Kyle Fleming.
26. Defendant Stu Hite and Defendant Stu Hite's wife Amy were on the "Grand Jury
Petition flyer" in case number 2015MR2P to oust the Judges and Plaintiffs believe and
Allege that Defendant Stu Hite retaliated against people that signed the petition because of
this. The Grand Jury case of 2015MR2P is a sealed case and there is not any "ORDER" in the
Crawford Court District Court case of 2015MR2P that Judge Richard Smith signed for
Defendant Stu Hite to investigate people that signed the Grand Jury petition.
27. Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendant Stu Hite was told to do this by Judge Lori
Fleming of the 11th district who is also a "DEFENDANT" in case number 15MR2P and four
Page 6 of 36
(4) of the Judges that are defendants in case number 2015MR2P are all private members of
Crestwood Country Club which are: Lori Bolton-Fleming, Kurtis Loy, Robert Fleming and
AJ. Wachter.
28. Judges Lori Bolton-Fleming, Robert Fleming, and AJ. Wachter are also members of
Lady of Lourdes Church with Defendant Stu Hite and Defendant Dan Peak
29. Apparently, on or about September fOctober of 2015, the Defendant Stu Hite became
aware of all the docketed ethic complaints with the Kansas Commission on Judicial
Qualifications that people had signed against Lori Bolton-Fleming, Kurtis Loy, and Robert
Fleming.
30. Plaintiffs believe and allege that on or about September/October of 2015 Defendant
Stu Hite was at a meeting with, attorney BillWachter, Judges Lori Bolton-Fleming, Kurt Loy,
Robert Fleming, and AJ. Wachter to discuss and agree on a plan on how to prevent and stop
Plaintiffs Grand Jury Petition signature drive in the sealed case of 2015MR2P; and how to
use their positions as Crawford County Sheriffs and Crawford County Judges to achieve
their goal to stop Plaintiffs' Grand Jury signature campaign case of 2015MR2P from being
successful.
31. Plaintiffs' Grand Jury signature drive campaign in sealed case of 2015MR2P is a
protected constitutional activity under 42 U.S.C.Section 1985 and decided case laws.
32. Plaintiffs believe and allege that on or about October 29, 2015 Defendant Dan Peak
allowed Defendant Stu Hite to go to Connie Gibbs place of employment at 4095 Parkview
Dr. in Frontenac Kansas at "Saia Smile Center" without an "ORDER"or "WARRANT"from
Judge Richard Smith in the sealed Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P to harass
Page7of36
her, scare her, question her about the Plaintiffs, and ask her if she signed a Grand Jury
petition.
33. The defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs department
succeeded in their plan and conspiracy to get the people scared and intimidated that signed
the Grand Jury petition so that the citizens of Crawford County would be too scared to ever
attempt another Grand Jury petition to oust the 11thdistrict judges, or any other public
official, and also so as to be too scared to participate in any civil lawsuit against any local
Judges like; Lori Bolton-Fleming, Kurtis Loy, Robert Fleming and AJ. Wachter as
demonstrated by federal case number 16cv2108.
34. On, or about, October 29, 2015 Defendant Dan Peak had Defendant Stu Hite and one
of his K.B.1.officers interrogated Connie Gibbs about signing a Grand Jury petition
repeatedly and directly inquiring if her name was forged by Eric Muathe, Kasey King, or
Julie Stover.
35. On or about October 29,2015 Defendant Dan Peak had Defendant Stu Hite ask
Connie Gibbs if she knew plaintiffs Eric Muathe, Kasey King, and Julie Stover on the date of
October 29, 2015 at her employment of Smile Center and to inform her that she should be
careful and refrain from associating herself with the Plaintiffs Eric Muathe, Kasey King, and
Julie Stover.
36. The Defendant Dan Peak had the Defendant Stu Hite ask Connie Gibbs if she knew
plaintiff Eric Muathe and when Connie Gibbs replied with "yes". The Defendant Stu Hite
then said to Connie Gibbs "Well we took his car and we are &oin&to take his house next
and you should be careful being around the Plaintiffs".
Page8of36
37. Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendants had no jurisdiction to intrude into a
sealed Grand Jury case number 2015MR2P and Defendant Stu Hite's supervisor Defendant
Dan Peak failed his supervisory duties, by failing to train his employee Defendant Stu Hite
and the failed training caused damages to the Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie
Stover.
38. On or about October of 2015 Defendant Dan Peak had Defendant Stuart Hite lead a
K.B.I.investigation and go to the residence of "Steve Kissane" at the address of 1507 N.
Grand in Pittsburg Kansas on a Friday night in suits and ties using scare tactics by asking
Steve Kissane "if he really signed the petition or if someone forged his name".
39. On or about October 30, 2015 Plaintiff Muathe was informed by his ex-mother in-
law (Also, Connie Gibbs ex-mother in-law) that the police were going to peoples place of
employment that signed the Grand Jury petition and were asking people if they really
signed the Grand Jury petition, or if Eric Muathe, Kasey King, and Julie Stover were forging
their names.
40. On or about October 30, 2015 Plaintiff Muathe was informed by his ex-mother in-
law that her grand children were about to be kicked out on the street and would be
homeless because they were arresting Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover
for forging names on the Grand Jury petition and that they were going to take Plaintiff
Muathe's house because the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department had already
previously taken his vehicle.
41. On or about October 31, 2015 Plaintiff Julie Stover was informed by telephone by
her son Chet Stover that Mikaihla Gibbs daughter of Connie Gibbs had heard around town
that Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover had forged names on the petition
Page 90f36
and that people should stay away from them because they were going to be arrested and
they were going to take Plaintiff Eric Muathe's house because Defendant Crawford County
Sheriff Department had already previously taken his car.
42. Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover have all lost standing in the
community because of the false and untrue statements of the Defendant Crawford County
Sheriffs Department and Defendant Stu Hite.
43. Plaintiffs believe and allege that Defendant Dan Peak failed as a supervisor because
he allowed Defendant Stu Hite to go around and intrude into a Grand Jury petition which
does not comply with K.S.A.60-1202 and he allowed his employee Defendant Stu Hite to
usurp his public servant position and failed to train Defendant Stu Hite which led to
damages of the Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover.
44. According to information and belief, the Defendant Dan Peak had the Defendant Hite
and Crawford County Sheriffs Department agree to use their positions as Crawford County
Sheriff deputies to stop plaintiffs Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P.
45. Defendant Dan Peak took it upon himself to ignore and not even bother to respond
to numerous complaints that were sent in against Defendant Stu Hite, himself and the
Crawford County Sheriffs department regarding the unauthorized interrogation of Grand
Jury petition signers. Some of the Complaints came from the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
46. Plaintiffs believe and allege Dan Peak was protecting Deputy Hite, himself and
Crawford County Sheriff from being implicated with accusations of violating federally
protected rights and for usurping their office in their ill conceived harassment scheme
designed to retaliate against anyone opposing, or exposing, their conflicted interest private
group.
Page 10 of 36
47. The Misconduct of the Crawford County Sheriff Department employees caused a
Lack of Due Process and equal protection which violates Plaintiffs 5th and 14th amendment
right. Plaintiffs are filing this case under section 1983 like the case of Monroe v. Pope, 365
u.s. 167 (1961). In Monroe, the Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting "under
color of state law" even though his actions violated state law. This was the first case in
which the Supreme Court allowed liability to attach where a government official acted
outside the scope of the authority granted to him by state law. The elements of this section
1983 claim is that only "persons" under the statute are subject to liability. A state is not a
person subject to suit under section 1983, but a state officer can be sued in his official
capacity for prospective or injunctive relief despite the fact that a suit against a government
official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government
entity itself. According to this a state may not be sued for damages, but may be sued for
declatory or injunctive relief. Municipalities and local governments are persons subject
to suit for damages and prospective relief, but the United States Government is not.
Individual employees of federal, state, and local government may be sued in their
individual capacities for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief. The traditional
definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the Defendant has exercised
power "possessed by virtue of state law" and made possible only because the wrongdoer is
clothed with the authority of state law, and such actions may result in liability even if the
Defendant abuses the position given to him by the state. A private actor may also act under
color of state law under certain circumstances.
48. A local government is said to have an unconstitutional policy when it fails to
train its employees, and the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to an
Page 11 of 36
obvious need for such training, and the failure to train will likely result in the
employee making a wrong decision. An unconstitutional policy may also exist if an
isolated action of a government employee is dictated by a "final policy maker," or if the
authorized policy maker approves a subordinate's decision and the basis for it. A
supervisor can only be liable in his individual capacity if he or she directly participates
in causing the harm. Plaintiff should be awarded Plaintiffs claims in this complaint
because Plaintiff can demonstrate that Plaintiff was deprived of rights secured by the
United States Constitution and or federal statutes. Plaintiffs claim for 14th amendment due
process clause should be granted because Plaintiffs (1) possessed a constitutionally
protected property interest, and (2) Plaintiffs were deprived of that interest 'which is
freedom of speech" without due process of law. To have a property interest protected by
the "14th amendment Due Process Clause" a person must have more than an abstract
need or desire for it which Plaintiff did have. Plaintiff does not have a unilateral
expectation of it and instead Plaintiff has a legitimate claim of entitlement to be able to
sign a private Grand Jury petition and the right to contract under Article 1 Section 10 of the
United States Constitution which Plaintiffs were deprived of. While the existence of a
protected property interest is decided by reference to state law, the determination of
whether due process was afforded is decided by reference to the Constitution. Plaintiffs
were deprived of liberty, and or property by Defendant Stu Hite and Crawford County
Sheriffs Department.
49. Plaintiffs will show that as recently as in July 2016, Defendant Stu Hite, and another
yet to be identified Detective went to Denver, Colorado to question Noah Day to specifically
investigate the civic activities of Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, by continuing to
Page 12 of 36
inquire about whether, or not, Plaintiffs really got people in the community to sign the
Grand Jury petition to investigate/oust area Judges, or whether they forged the signatures
submitted in the Grand Jury petition, among other lines of questioning as an audio tape
recording of Noah Day's July 2016 investigation/questioning will clearly show.
COUNT ONE
DEFENDANT'S VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 V.S.C. SECTION 1985
51. Plaintiffs are members of a private citizen class-based protected group, and
plaintiffs are involved in protected speech, the right of association actions and actions
under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
52. In addition, plaintiffs are individuals who have been denied access to petition the
government under the 1st amendment and have been mistreated and taken advantage of
for trying to utilize their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the right of the
people peaceably to assemble - right of association.
53. In furtherance of Plaintiffs' constitutional right under the First Amendment to the
Constitution, plaintiffs began a signature drive to gain community support for their cause.
54. It is believed that on, or about, September/October of 2015 the Defendant Hite
attended a meeting to discuss the plan to stop plaintiffs Grand Jury petition in case number
2015MR2P.
55. It is believed that on, or about, September/October of 2015 the Defendant Hite
attended a meeting with Defendant Dan Peak and Defendant Hite concluded at the end of
the meeting to apparently agree that defendants Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County
Sheriffs Department must use their positions as Crawford County Sheriffs to prevent and
Page 13 of 36
stop Plaintiffs' private sealed Grand Jury petition case of 2015MR2P, and potentially any
other civil activities they might be planning do undertake against any of their public official
colleges at the time and in the future.
56. It is believed and alleged that among the agreement and decisions apparently
reached during the conversation between Defendant Dan Peak and Defendant Stu Hite was
the need for Defendant Dan Peak to use his position as a Crawford County Sheriff to
persuade defendants Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department to join their
conspiracy to intimidate, scare, embarrass, frighten, and deprive Plaintiffs of the 1st
amendment right to freedom of speech, right to petition government and the right of the
people to peaceably assemble - right of association of Connie Gibbs, Steve Kissane and any
and all other persons that signed the Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P.
57. It is believed, alleged and will be shown that Defendants Dan Peak and Stu Hite are
still very active members of Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church with Judges Lori Bolton-
Fleming, Robert Fleming, and A.J.Wachter.
58. It is believed, alleged and will be shown that Defendant Stu Hite is still an active
member of Crestwood Country Club with Judges AJ. Wachter, Lori Bolton-Fleming, Robert
Fleming, and Kurt I Lay.
59. It is believed, alleged and will be shown that Defendant Stu Hite is a Eucharistic
minister at Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church along with Robert Fleming and his wife Peggy
Fleming, and Kyle Fleming the husband of Judge Lori Bolton-Fleming who is also a lecturer
at the church.
60. Upon becoming a Judge, Lori Fleming is believed to have been assigned and/or
designated criminal department Judge in Crawford County, Kansas; where Defendant Stu
Page 14of36
Hite engages and continues to engage in extensive criminal arrests and subsequent Court
related appearances he makes as a Crawford County Sheriffs Deputy where he continues to
appear before his close personal and family friend Judge Lori B. Fleming.
61. Defendants Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department continue
to engage in criminal arrests as employees of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department and the Court cases from those criminal arrests appear mostly before Judge
Lori Fleming despite the obvious conflicts of interests.
62. Defendants Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department continue
to engage in criminal arrests as employees of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department and the Court cases from those criminal arrests appear before the other
Crawford County Judges namely Judge Kurtis I. Loy and Judge A.J.Wachter despite the
obvious conflicts of interests.
63. Plaintiffs believe, maintain and allege that meanwhile, in furtherance ofthe
agreement and conspiracy between the above named Judges, Defendant Peak and
Defendant Hite to infringe on Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, Defendant Hite agreed to
willfully and intentionally enter into Connie Gibbs private place of employment and Steve
Kissane's private residence without a Court order, or search warrant to intimidate and
threaten them for their involvement in a now sealed Grand Jury petition in Crawford
County case number 2015MR2P.
64. In addition, Defendant Peak allegedly further suggested to Defendant Stu Hite that
Hite along with other Defendant Crawford County Sheriff's department (and unknown
persons claiming to be "KBI"from Wichita, must deceive Connie Gibbs and Steve Kissane, if
they should ask for the reasons behind the investigation of Defendant Stu Hite and
Page 15 of36
Defendant Crawford County Sheriff s Department into their signing of the private sealed
Grand Jury case of 2015MR2P.
65. On or about the date of October 29, 2015 Defendant's Stu Rite and Defendant
Crawford County Sheriffs Department entered the job employment of Connie Gibbs at Saia
Smile Center without a warrant to ask her if she signed the Grand Jury petition.
66. On or about the date of October 29, 2015 Defendant Stu Hite asked Connie Gibbs if
she knew Eric Muathe, Kasey King, and Julie Stover and if she really signed the Grand Jury
petition or if plaintiffs forged her name, address and signature on the Petition forms.
67. On or about the date of October 29,2015 Defendant Stu Hite warned Connie Gibbs
to not associate with Plaintiffs Eric Muathe, Kasey King, or Julie Stover because Defendant
Crawford County Sheriffs Department already took Plaintiff Eric Muathe's car and
Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department were going to be taking Plaintiff Eric
Muathe's house next even though there were no court orders from a judge.
68. Defendant's Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department also went by the
residence of Steve Kissane to ask him if he had signed the Grand Jury petition as well or if
his name, address and signature on the Petition were forged.
69. The actions of Defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs
department scared Connie Gibbs and Steve Kissane from participating in the federal civil
case of 16cv2108 along with 48 other plaintiffs against Lori Bolton-Fleming, Kurtis Loy, Bill
Wachter, Joe Manns, and My Town Media that had signed the Grand Jury petition in case
number 2015MR2P who are represented by attorney Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno.
70. On or about March of 2016 Travis Carlton called Steve Kissane and ask him if he
would like to be part of the federal lawsuit of 16cv21 08 since the case was being amended
Page 16of36
to add Plaintiffs that felt they were damaged by Judges Lori Fleming, Kurtis Loy, attorney
BillWachter, Joe Manns, and My Town Media during the Grand Jury petition in case
number 2015MR2P but Mr. Kissane expressed fear of being interrogated again by the
Crawford County Sheriff and the "KBI"and decided he would not join the Federal lawsuit
because he felt threatened and uncomfortable as a result of the law enforcement's prior
interrogation as regards to his signing of the Grand Jury petition.
71. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against Defendant Hite,
Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak, for actual and punitive
damages, for plaintiffs costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for all other relief the
Court find just and proper.
COUNT TWO
DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981
73. Plaintiffs are members of a private citizen class-based protected group, and
plaintiffs were engaged in protected speech and protected activities under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
74. On October 29, 2015 there was a valid Grand Jury petition already established in
case number 2015MR2P in the matter ofthe Grand Jury petition and Stu Hite intruded into
the petition/ case number of 2015MR2P to ask Steven Kissane and Connie Gibbs if they had
signed a Grand Jury petition but there was no "COURTORDER"signed by Judge Richard M.
Smith in case number 2015MR2P indicating that officer Stu Hite was ordered to confirm
signatures of the Grand Jury petition.
Page 17 of 36
75. The record will show that Judge Richard M.Smith signed an order file stamped on
June 2nd, 2015 where he dismissed the Grand Jury Petition and stated that the order was
final. Further Judge Smith ordered the file to be sealed and access only permitted upon
order of the Court. No further Court ordered has ever been issued by the Court otherwise
Plaintiffs would have been notified promptly.
76. No issue of signature validity was ever raised by the June Znd, 2015 order by Judge
Richard M. Smith, or even by the Crawford County Commissioner of Elections when they
were counting if the required number of valid signatures of registered voters to summon a
Kansas Grand Jury that is required by K.S.A22-3001(2) were reached by Plaintiffs.
77. For the record the Grand Jury Petition had 121 valid registered voter signatures and
fell short of the required 315 signatures. No issue was ever raised by either Judge Richard
Smith, or the Crawford County Commissioner of Elections as regards to the validity of the
121 registered voters (or, any other signature for that matter) who signed the Grand Jury
petition before the Grand Jury Petition was officially dismissed and subsequently sealed by
the June 2nd, 2015 Court Order.
78. By the actions and/or inactions described in the preceding paragraphs, the
Defendant Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department willfully and intentionally
interfered, impeded, and intruded into the Grand Jury petition case of 2015MR2P.
79. Further, defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department
were acting within the color of state law when they willfully, intentionally, and deliberately
conspired to interfere, impede, and intrude into a sealed Grand Jury petition to ask people
who signed the sealed Grand Jury petition if their signatures were forged.
Page 18 of 36
80. Defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department were
equally liable because they were co-conspirators in bringing about the wrongful
investigation of a sealed Grand Jury petition.
81. The Defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department
wrongful action was motivated by defendants' invidious retaliatory and discriminatory
animus against plaintiffs individually and as members of a protected class who were
engaged in protected activities.
82. The Defendant Hite's actions were motivated by the fact that Defendant Hite's wife
was on the flyer of the "grand jury petition" and Defendant Hite is private members with
Judges Lori Fleming and Kurt Loy at Crestwood Country Club and are members at Lady of
Lourdes Church where Defendant Hite, Defendant Hite's wife Amy Hite, Lori Bolton-
Fleming and Kyle Fleming are all Eucharistic Ministers or Lectures.
83. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant's wrongful and intentional
interference with plaintiffs right to contract in a sealed Grand Jury petition, plaintiffs
suffered harm and damages for which they are entitled to recover compensatory damages
from the defendants Peak, Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department made
enforceable under 42 U.S.C.Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
84. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the Court for judgment against Defendant Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak for actual and punitive
damages, for Plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for all other reliefs
the Court find just and proper.
Page 19 of 36
COUNT THREE
DEFENDANT VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.c. SECTION 1983
86. Plaintiffs are members of private citizen class-based protected group, and plaintiffs
were engaged in protected speech ad activities under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
87. The defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department were
acting under color of state law.
88. The plaintiffs were exercising their rights under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution when the defendants acting in concert conspired and used the color of
their public office and position as Crawford County Sheriffs deputies to interfere with, and
to cause Plaintiffs' sealed Grand Jury case of 2015MR2P to cause signers not to be involved
in another other civil related duties, petitions, Court actions, or campaigns by scaring and
intimidating people who signed the petition such as Connie Gibbs and Steve Kissane.
89. That the Defendant Stu Hite's actions were motivated by defendants' invidious
retaliatory and discriminatory animus against plaintiffs individually and as members of a
protected class and because plaintiffs were engaged in protected activities; and defendants
Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department reckless and deliberate
interference into the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
90. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants' wrongful and intentional
interference with Plaintiffs' sealed Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P, the
plaintiffs suffered harm and damages for which they are entitled to recover compensatory
damages from the Defendant Hite, Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department.
Page 20 of 36
91. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the Court for judgment against Defendant Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak for actual and punitive
damages, for Plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorney fees, and for all other reliefs
the Court find just and proper.
COUNT FOUR
FRAUD
93. On, or about, October 29, 2015, it is understood that the Defendant Stu Hite while
acting within the scope of his employment and/or as an agent of the Defendant Crawford
County Sheriffs Department threatened Connie Gibbs not to hang around Plaintiffs Kasey
King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover due to their illegal activities, that associating herself
with any of the Plaintiffs would cause her to also be under investigation for fraudulent
criminal activities, and that additionally she too would lose her property just as they had
already taken Eric Muathe's vehicle and that they were getting ready to take his house next.
94. The Defendant Dan Peak suggested, and conspired with defendants Stu Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs Department that Defendant Hite should make the false and
untrue statement that plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover will be arrested
for forging signatures and that Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department were
going to take Plaintiff Eric Muathe's vehicle - due to his criminal activities and including for
being involved with the Grand Jury petition.
95. On, or about, October 30,2015, Plaintiff Hite informed Steve Kissane who had a
private right to sign a Grand Jury petition that they thought the Grand Jury petition
Page 21 of 36
signatures had been forged and were there to ask him if he personally signed the Grand
Jury Petition - even though there was no Court order in the sealed Grand Jury petition of
case number 20l5MR2P for any such inquiry or investigation.
96. That the Defendant Hite willfully and intentionally made the false and untrue
statements of telling people that Plaintiff were being investigated for criminal activities
which was the reason they had taken Eric Muathe's vehicle, and why Law Enforcement was
going to be taking plaintiff Eric Muathe's house next. This was purely motivated and
designed for the purpose of scaring Connie Gibbs and to prevent her from signing any other
Grand Jury petitions against public officials, or to ever be involved in any civil related
activity or lawsuit in the future.
97. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants' wrongful actions, and plaintiffs
and others sustained damages by relying upon the Defendant Hite's false and untrue
statements.
98. Further, the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department is responsible and
liable for the wrongful actions of its employee and/or agents defendants Dan Peak and Stu
Hite's wrongful actions under the respondeat superior doctrine.
99. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against the Defendant
Stu Hite, Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak in an
amount in excess of $75,000, for their costs, for all other reliefs the Court find just and
proper.
COUNT FIVE
USURPATION OF POWER
Page 22 of36
101. Defendant's Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department intruded into case
number 2015MR2P - a Court sealed Grand Jury petition - without a Court order from the
Judge in the case which was not allowed according to K.S.A.60-1202(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and
according to K.S.A.60-1205 should now Plaintiffs believe and allege have to forfeiture of
their public office.
102. By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Stu Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs department willfully and intentionally went around to petition
signers places of employment and/or their private resistances they had given as their
address in the Grand Jury petition they had signed including visiting without legal
permission or probable cause Steve Kissane's private residence and Connie Gibb's place of
employment without a Court order in a sealed case of 2015MR2P.
103. As a direct and proximate cause ofthe defendants' wrongful and intentional
interference with the Plaintiffs' constitutional protected rights, the plaintiffs and others
suffered harm and damages for which they are entitled to recover compensatory damages
from the Defendant Hite, Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department.
Stu Hite, Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak in an
amount in excess of $75,000, for their costs, for all other reliefs the Court find just and
proper.
COUNT SIX
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Page 23 of 36
106. On, or around October 29, 2015 there was in existence a "sealed Grand Jury
petition" in case number 2015MR2P and Defendant Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs
Department intruded into the case without a Court order.
107. The Defendant Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department possessed
knowledge of a "sealed" Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P and filing fee of
$195 which concluded the civil contract in case number 2015MR2P.
108. By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs Department willfully and intentionally brought about the
interference of the Grand Jury petition by going to Connie Gibbs place of employment and
Steve Kissane's private residence in order to interfere with the private Court sealed case of
2015MR2P.
109. The defendants Dan Peak, Stu Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department have
no legal excuse or legal justification to cause the breach of the existing sealed Grand Jury
petition civil contract case of 2015MR2P between plaintiffs and the 11thdistrict Court
judges.
110. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants' wrongful and intentional
interference with Plaintiffs contractual relationship in the private case of 2015MR2P, the
plaintiffs suffered harm and damages for which they are entitled to recover compensatory
damages from the Defendant Hite, Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department.
111. Further, the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department is responsible and
liable for the wrongful actions of its employees and/or agent defendants Dan Peak, Stu
Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department wrongful actions under the respondeat
superior doctrine.
Page 24 of 36
Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department in an amount in excess of
$75,000 for their costs, for all other reliefs the Court find just and proper.
COUNT SEVEN
DEFAMATION; INCLUDING INVASION OF PRIVACY, FALSE LIGHT
114. By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs above, the Defendant Hite and
Crawford County Sheriffs Department made a false and defamatory statement that
plaintiffs individually "should not be associated with" and "to watch yourself around those
people" due to that the law enforcement falsely stated was Plaintiffs criminal activities
because they were planning to take plaintiff Eric Muathe's house and arrest the Plaintiffs
Kasey King, Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover.
115. The Defendants published and/or communicated the false and defamatory
statement to third persons, yet to be identified.
116. The Defendants Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department willfully and
intentionally made the false and defamatory statements with the intent to expose plaintiffs
to, loss of business, loss of employment, public hatred, public humiliation, contempt, loss of
standing in the community, and ridicule.
117. Further, the Defendant Hite willfully and intentionally made the false and
defamatory statements with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of the benefits of public
confidence and social acceptance.
Page 25 of 36
118. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants' wrongful and egregious false
statement, the plaintiffs suffered harm and damages to their individual reputations in the
community.
119. WHEREFORE. plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against Defendants Stu Hite,
Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department individually and/or severally in an
amount in excess of $75,000 for their costs, and for award of all other reliefs the Court finds
to be just and proper.
COUNT EIGHT
COUNTY OFFICE SUPERVISORY LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
TRAINING
121. On, or about, October 29, 2015 the Defendant Stu Hite while acting within the scope
of his employment and/or as an agent of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department, told Connie Gibbs that the plaintiffs Kasey King. Eric Muathe, and Julie Stover
would be arrested for forging signatures and that Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department were going to conspire to take Plaintiff Eric Muathe's house and had
previously taken his vehicle and that Connie Gibbs should not associate with the plaintiffs.
122. The Defendant Hite while acting as Defendant Crawford County Sheriff
Department's employee. agent knew that plaintiffs Kasey King. Eric Muathe, and Julie
Stover had not had a warrant or Court order for their arrest or investigation, and that there
was not a Court order for the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department to take
plaintiff Eric Muathe's house. and that Defendant Hite's statements were false and untrue at
the time he made the statement and representation to Connie Gibbs at her employment.
Page 26 of 36
123. The Defendant Dan Peak had suggested and conspired with Defendant Hite that
Defendant Hite should make the false and untrue statement that plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric
Muathe, and Julie Stover would be arrested for forging people's signature on the sealed
Grand Jury petition and that Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department had any
authority to take possession of plaintiff Eric Muathe's house that he is currently legally
living in.
124. Defendants Peak, Hite, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department willfully and
intentionally made the false and untrue statement to Connie Gibbs for the purpose of
inducing Connie Gibbs to act and rely upon the false and untrue statement and
representation.
125. The Defendants Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department's
aforementioned actions resulted in improper use of police procedures and caused the
Plaintiffs injuries complained of herein and federal constitutional rights violations that led
to damages of the Plaintiffs.
126. Defendant Dan Peak failed as a police supervisor since he failed to properly train,
failed to properly supervise, acknowledge or investigate complaints against Stu Hite, Dan
Peak, and the Crawford Count Sherriffs officer, and failed to discipline his subordinate
officers Defendant Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department which resulted in
supervisory liability of Defendant Dan Peak as a supervisor, for failure to properly
supervise his employees in the handling of cases in the investigative stages.
127. Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department had an unconstitutional policy
because it failed to train its employees, and the failure to train amounts to deliberate
indifference to an obvious need for such training. and the failure resulted in the employee
Page 27 of 36
Defendant Stu Hite making a wrong decision on and around October 29th & 30th, 2015 at
Saia Smile Center and approximately in October of2015 atthe private residence of Steve
Kissane - among other yet unknown places and times/dates.
128. Defendant Dan Peak acting within his scope of employment as a supervisor for
Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department and acting as the authorized policy
maker approved his subordinate's Defendant Stu Hire's decision and the basis for him to
interrogate Connie Gibbs and Steve Kissane - and other unknown Grand Jury petition
signers.
129. On, or about November, of 2015 Plaintiffs Kasey King and Eric Muathe filed a
complaint on Defendant Stu Hite and sent them to Defendant Dan Peak to investigate and
Defendant Dan Peak did not even reply to the complaints sent in by Plaintiffs Kasey King
and Eric Muathe.
130. On, or about November of 2015, Michael King and Thomas Walters sent in
complaints to Defendant Dan Peak to investigate Defendant Stu Hite for going around and
asking people if they signed the Grand Jury petition, or if their signatures were forged by
Plaintiffs Kasey King, Eric Muathe, or Julie Stover but Defendant Dan Peak did not reply to
any of the complaints sent to him to investigate.
131. As a result of indifference or negligence, or by inaction in its supervision of the
Defendants Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department, the Defendant Crawford
County Sheriffs Department through its supervising agents that control and monitor it's
county officers within the Crawford County Sheriffs Department, has tacitly authorized, as
well as initiated a pattern and practice which has permitted and/ or will permit police
officers, such as Defendants Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department to violate
Page 28 of 36
the United States Constitution. All of the above actions have in the past contributed, and
will in the future continue to contribute, to the improper treatment of citizens by the
Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and those passing through its physical
boundaries, so as to imply, by their failure to act by diligently supervising and monitoring
its officers, the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department tacitly authorizes the
patterns and practices as previously set forth and complained of herein.
132. As a direct and proximate cause ofthe defendants Peak, Defendant Crawford County
Sheriffs Department, Peak, and Deputy Hite's wrongful actions, the plaintiffs sustained
damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages from the Defendant
Peak and Hite.
133. Further, the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, is responsible and
liable for the wrongful actions of its employee and/or agent Defendant Peak and Hite's
wrongful actions under the respondeat superior doctrine.
134. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against defendant's Stu
Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department individually and/or severally in
an amount in excess of $75,000, for their costs, and for award of all other reliefs the Court
finds to be just and proper.
COUNT NINE
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS. POWER. AND AUTHORITY
ACCORDING TO K.S.A 75-6102
136. On, or around, October/November of 2015 the Defendant Peak while acting within
the scope of his employment and/or as an agent of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department told his employee Defendant Stu Hite to make a false and untrue statement to
Page 29 of 36
Connie Gibbs at her place of employment to try to stop the plaintiffs Grand Jury petition
drive in case number 201SMR2P.
137. The wrongful actions of Defendant Stu Hite while Defendant Hite was acting within
the scope of his employment resulted in Municipal Liability of Defendant Crawford County
Sheriffs Department for Failure to Properly Supervise and Discipline the Defendants Stu
Hite, Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Defendant Dan Peak, who were employed
by the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department as police officers and while all
were acting within the scope of their employment.
138. As a result of indifference or negligence, or by inaction in its supervision of the
Defendant's Stu Hite and Crawford County Sheriffs Department, the Defendant Crawford
County Sheriffs Department through its supervising agents that control and monitor its
County police officers within the Crawford County Sheriffs Department, has tacitly
authorized, as well as initiated a pattern and practice which has permitted and/or will
permit police officers, such as Defendants Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County
Sheriffs Department, to violate the United States Constitution. All ofthe above actions
have in the past contributed, and will in the future continue to contribute, to the improper
treatment of citizens of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and those
passing through its physical boundaries, so as to imply, by their failure to act by diligently
supervising and monitoring its officers, the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department tacitly authorizes the patterns and practices as previously set forth and
complained of herein.
139. The Defendant's Stu Hite, Crawford County Sheriffs Department, and Officer Dan
Peak aforementioned actions resulted in improper use of police procedures and caused the
Page 30 of 36
Plaintiffs injuries complained of herein and federal constitutional rights violations
complained of herein led to the injury of the Plaintiff being having to hire legal Counsel,
having endure Public ridicule, loss of business to false accusation among other yet to be
tallied and/or identified damages.
140. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant Peak and Hite's wrongful actions,
the plaintiffs sustained damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages
from the Defendant Peak and Hite.
liable for the wrongful actions of its employee and/or agent Defendant Peak and Hite's
wrongful actions under the respondeat superior doctrine.
142. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against defendant's Stu
Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department in an amount in excess of
$75,000, for their costs, and for award of all other reliefs the Court finds to be just and
proper.
COUNT TEN
VIOLATION OF KANSAS TORT CLAIMS ACT. A STATUTORY RIGHT K.S.A. 75-6103.
LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITITIES FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY EMPLOYEE
ACTS OR OMISSIONS
144. On, or around, October/Novemberof2015 the Defendant Peak while acting within
the scope of his employment and/or as an agent ofthe Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs
Department, told his employee Defendant Stu Hite to make false and untrue statements to
Connie Gibbs at her place of employment to embarrass her and Steve Kissane's private
house to stop plaintiffs Grand Jury sealed petition and to scare people who had signed the
Grand Jury petition in case number 2015MR2P.
Page 31 of 36
145. Defendant's Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department may not
exempt themselves from the provisions of the Kansas tort claims act by charter ordinance,
charter resolution or other action according to KS.A 75-6101. According to KS.A 75-
6103(a)(b)(1) Defendant's Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department
are liable of governmental entities for damages caused by employee acts or omissions.
146. According to the definition of KS.A 75-6102(b) "Municipality" means any county,
township, city, school district or other political or taxing subdivision of the state, or any
agency, authority, institution or other instrumentality thereof and that is why Defendant
Crawford County Sheriffs Department is not exempt from lawsuit with immunity and that
is why Plaintiffs have standing to sue Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department for
damages of their employees.
147. Statute KS.A 75-6103(a) says that "Subject to the limitations of this act each
governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment under
circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be liable under
the laws of this state.
148. Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department is a municipality and Defendant
Crawford County Sheriffs Department failed to honor Plaintiffs right to freedom of speech,
the right of the people peaceably to assemble - right of association and right to petition
government and therefore Defendant's Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs
Department have damaged Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined by the Court or Jury
for this negligent and wrongful act by the Defendants while the Defendant's Stu Hite, Dan
Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department were in the scope of their employment.
Page 32 of 36
149. Defendant's Stu Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department's
wrongful act of violating Plaintiffs right to freedom of speech, right to freely associate with
others and right to petition government is not one of the reasons under K.S.A.75-6104 that
the Defendant's Hite, Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department should be held not
liable for damages.
150. Plaintiffs bring this action for liability of claims in accordance with K.S.A.75-6105
and shall not exceed $500,000 in accordance with this statute.
151. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant Peak and Hite's wrongful actions,
the plaintiffs sustained damages for which plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages
from the Defendant Peak and Hite.
liable for the wrongful actions of its employee and/or agent Defendant Hite's wrongful
actions under the respondeat superior doctrine.
153. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray to the Court for judgment against the Defendant Stu
Hite, Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriffs Department, in an amount in excess of
$75,000 but under $500,000 for their costs, for all other reliefs the Court find just and
proper.
COUNT ELEVEN
NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
155. The defendants Crawford County Sheriffs Department and Dan Peak negligently
maintain a public nuisance by their routine, usual, and customary practice of going to
people's private residence and their place of employment that have signed a
Page 33 of 36
constitutionally protected sealed grand jury petition to intimidate, harass, and interrogate
them.
156. The Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department were aware and conscious of
the danger and risk of intruding into a constitutionally protected grand jury petition by
embarrassing Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Kissane and posed a dangerous public nuisance.
157. The Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department acted intentionally and with
reckless disregard for the plaintiffs and other people that had signed the constitutionally
protected grand jury petition by continuing to maintain the dangerous nuisance causing
members of the grand jury petition to become frightened for fear of arrest for forgery.
158. The Defendants Crawford County Sheriffs Department, Dan Peak, and Stu Hite owe
plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care in providing a safe and secure environment for the
protection of Plaintiffs welfare and safety while Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Kissane were in the
private care and custody of their employment and private residence.
159. As a direct and proximate cause ofthe Defendants Crawford County Sheriffs
Department, Dan Peak, and Stu Hite wrongful and negligence maintenance of a known
dangerous nuisance to harass, intimidate, and interrogate, plaintiffs suffered damages due
to humiliation, disgrace, embarrassment, mental agony, lack of standing in the community,
severe emotional distress, and other damages for which they are entitled to recover
compensatory damages from defendants.
160. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray to the court for judgment against the Defendant
Crawford County Sheriffs Department, Stu Hite, and Dan Peak individually in an amount in
excess of $75,000, for costs, and for award of all other reliefs the court finds to be just and
proper.
Page34 of 36
COUNT TWELVE
OATH OF OFFICE BREACH OF CONTRACT
161. The defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, Stu Hite, and Dan Peak owe
Plaintiff s a special duty of care by virtue of the plaintiffs status by being involved in a
grand jury petition.
162. In addition, the Defendants owe plaintiff a duty of ordinary care in providing and
protecting plaintiffs safety and welfare while plaintiffs were involved in a constitutionally
protected grand jury petition.
163. The Defendant's Dan Peak and Stu Hite signed an "Oath of Office"contract to uphold
the constitution of the United States according to the Oath and Affirmation on the
Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department website which says "On my honor, I will
never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have
the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the
Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."
164. The Defendants breached their "Oath of Office"and breached their duty of care to the
plaintiffs when they wrongfully and negligently allowed Defendant Hite to harass,
intimidate, and interrogate Connie Gibbs and Steve Kissane about Plaintiffs Kasey King,
Julie Stover, and Eric Muathe forging their signatures in a grand jury petition within Ms.
Gibbs place of employment and Mr. Kissane's private residence while Plaintiffs were in a
sealed grand jury petition of 2015MR2P.
Page 35 of36
165. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray to the court for judgment against the Defendants Dan
Peak and Stu Hite individually in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for costs, and for
award of all other reliefs the court finds to be just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands trial to the jury of all disputed issues in this cause.
Respectfully submitted,
Gt~Mu~
Eric Muathe
P.O.Box 224
Pittsburg, Kansas, 66762
~~ (9 ) 980-7286
Julie Stover
P.O.Box 224
(620) 674-1471
Kasey King
P.O.Box 224
(620) 875-6494
Page 36 of 36

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Detective Stuart Stu Hite, Sheriff Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriff's Department - Kansas - On 06/28/2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Detective Stuart Stu Hite, Sheriff Dan Peak, and Crawford County Sheriff's Department - Kansas - On 06/28/2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-02373-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PLAINTIFFS, ) CASE NO. _

OFFICER STUART "STU" HITE, ) DESIGNATED PLACE OF TRIAL:

STUART HITE IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY,) KANSAS CITY. KANSAS

SHERIFF DAN PEAK, SUPERVISOR ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DAN PEAK IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY, )

CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED

KS.A. 75-6103(a)(b)(1) and violated KS.A. 60-1202(1)(2)(3)(4), KS.A. 60-1205 by

intruding/usurping their power by intruding into a private Grand Jury petition.

Defendant's knowing participation in the conspiracy and fraudulent scheme to deprive

Plaintiffs of their federally protected rights are detailed in this claim.

times material to this complaint are resident of this district.

simply as "Hite"] is an individual person and at all times material is believed to be a

resident of this district

3. The Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs Department, is a corporate entity

4. The Defendant Dan Peak (hereinafter referred to as "Peak") is an individual person

and at all times material is believed to be a resident of this district.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

7. This cause of action arises out of denial and/or impairment of plaintiff s

this cause of action occurred within this district.

11. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

12. PLAINTIFFS NEVER FORGED ANY SIGNATURES ON THE GRAND JURY

Judgment Group, an unregistered association, to advance their constitutional rights to

States Constitution, including expression of their displeasure with perceive conflict of

15. In furtherance of their goal and legal requirements of collection of sufficient

Judge Lori B. Fleming) at a private country club party.

country club party enjoying what seems like alcoholic beverages.

parties which people believed to be a conflict of interest.

attorneys, businessmen, politicians and law enforcement.

Court otherwise Plaintiffs would have been notified promptly.

ascertaining if the required number of valid signatures of registered voters to summon a

Kansas Grand Jury as required by K.S.A22-3001(2).

the June 2nd, 2015 Court Order.

Hite usurped his public office under K.S.A.60-1202(1)(2)(5) by leading an investigation

Dr. in Frontenac Kansas at "Saia Smile Center" without an "ORDER"or "WARRANT"from

demonstrated by federal case number 16cv2108.

and you should be careful being around the Plaintiffs".

K.B.I.investigation and go to the residence of "Steve Kissane" at the address of 1507 N.

previously taken his vehicle.

Sheriff Department had already previously taken his car.

Sheriffs Department and Defendant Stu Hite.

Crawford County Sheriffs department regarding the unauthorized interrogation of Grand

individual capacities for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief. The traditional

color of state law under certain circumstances.

48. A local government is said to have an unconstitutional policy when it fails to

employee making a wrong decision. An unconstitutional policy may also exist if an

isolated action of a government employee is dictated by a "final policy maker," or if the

process clause should be granted because Plaintiffs (1) possessed a constitutionally

expectation of it and instead Plaintiff has a legitimate claim of entitlement to be able to

protected property interest is decided by reference to state law, the determination of

recording of Noah Day's July 2016 investigation/questioning will clearly show.

50. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

people peaceably to assemble - right of association.

colleges at the time and in the future.

Fleming, Robert Fleming, and A.J.Wachter.

Fleming, and Kurt I Lay.

related appearances he makes as a Crawford County Sheriffs Deputy where he continues to

to engage in criminal arrests as employees of the Defendant Crawford County Sheriffs