A Kansas Father is Granted a Protective Order Hearing from Stalking Against Family Judge Burmaster

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, 2024-Feb-18 — /EPR Network/ — The Kansas pro se father who has brought serious allegations of misconduct and corruption within the Johnson County family court system has been granted a hearing to seek a protection order against Judge Paul Burmaster. Protection from Stalking Case 24CV00369 is against the Family Court judge as a Defendant. Judges typically have immunity from such civil legal actions due to judicial immunity doctrines. However, the father’s petition for protection points to public evidence in Case Records of JoCo 18CV03813 and a famous court case of Stump vs. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978) that raises troubling concerns about judge conduct in the family court.

https://youtu.be/myBFCrGWsZw?si=LhaPCK6YQl77Rgv9

News agency across the midwest and great lakes region already beginning to cover the Kansas misconduct.

According to the father, the judge has made public statements confirming that he has been monitoring the father online. This would violate the judicial conduct rule prohibiting ex parte communications. The rule specifically bars judges from independently seeking case facts through electronic means. In acknowledging this online monitoring, the judge himself seems to indicate he has broken this rule.

The father’s petition aims to show a larger problem within the courts. His argument is that any online surveillance by a judge would exceed the proper judicial role and responsibilities. In essence, anytime Judge Burmaster engages in online stalking of the respondent father, Matthew Escalante, he is acting without any legal authority.

The Johnson County court system agreed to grant the father a hearing against Judge Burmaster. Earlier today, the local sheriff reportedly served Judge Burmaster legal paper of summons at the Johnson County courthouse per the paperwork. It will be interesting to see how the court proceeds to address these troubling allegations regarding the conduct of one of its own judges, the other entities who should have accountability, simply chose not to.

The Kansas Commission of Judicial Conduct, Secretary Shima, did not return our calls today. The Commission also spotlighted of recent by the Kansas Reflector regarding retaliation for misconduct reporting.