Objection Evidence Of Gag Order Fraud May Have Just Implicated Burmaster In His Attempt To Evade A Fathers Lawsuit

(MENAFN- IssueWire)

Kansas City, Kansas Jan 8, 2024 (Issuewire )
-
A prolific series of civil rights events have been unfolding in multiple federal lawsuits filed by a pro se plaintiff against a Johnson County, Kansas district family court judge. Two lawsuits under 42 § USC 1983 have taken several unexpected and unprecedented turns.

The first lawsuit, Escalante v. Burmaster 2:23-CV02471, filed on October 19, 2023, was one of two federal pro se suits that was scheduled for federal trial in two weeks. However, it encountered a motion to dismiss that was granted by the US District Court on January 6, 2024 on grounds of res judicata as to defendant Judge Paul Burmaster. But there's been an Objection to Res Judicata awarded to defendant

Res judicata is the legal principle that a cause of action cannot be relitigated once a final judgment has been rendered on the merits. Defendant Burmaster's legal counsel, Greg Goheen of MVP Law Firm in Kansas City, Kansas, argued in a motion filed a month ago in 2:23-CV02471 that the doctrine applied given that one of the topics raised in the plaintiff's federal complaint had been previously ruled on by the District Court in a prior lawsuit between Escalante and Burmaster from June 2023. That earlier federal lawsuit, which Goheen referenced, was dismissed in June 2023 as Case 2:23-CV02130. That suit centered around a gag order Judge Burmaster had placed on the Kansas father on March 20, 2023. The US Magistrate overseeing the case dismissed it in June 2023, finding in Document 30 of 2:23-CV02130 that Judge Burmaster had not abused his discretion by issuing the gag order. At the time, Burmaster was presiding over a civil custody case involving the father in Johnson County Court. Burmaster has since been removed from the father's case. The June federal case was dismissed without an opportunity for the issues to be litigated.

However, in this recently dismissed federal lawsuit, the pro se plaintiff filed a formal objection on Sunday Jan 8th, 2024, this 48 hours after the case dismissed asserting that the District Court's ruling in June 2023 regarding the gag order was erroneous, and that it was effective at even deceiving the High Court.

If one examines the images provided as Exhibits A and B that the Plaintiff offered the Kansas High Court, it appears the plaintiff may be correct. Exhibit A from doc 56 is the gag order, Document 262, also is from Doc 56 and it contains no expiration date, making it effectively permanent. But the plaintiff's Exhibit B shows Kansas Supreme Court guidelines stating that gag orders must contain an end date and cannot be permanent.

The gag order issued over 9 months ago does not comply with Kansas Supreme Court rules, and Burmaster relied on it to secure dismissal of Escalante v. Burmaster by arguing res judicata applied due to the prior ruling regarding the gag order. However, the primary issue raised in 2:23-CV02471 is not the gag order but rather an allegation that Burmaster has been procedurally abusing a protection order against the father.

On Friday, the District Court agreed with Burmaster and issued Document 53 dismissing the federal case, instructing the pro se plaintiff to refile without the gag order claim. This is a fair outcome on its face, as neither the District Court nor Burmaster challenged the father's allegations regarding abuse of the protection order.

Document 56 received consent to be filed, from Federal Judge Broomes. The High Court Honorable stated that the Plaintiff had 10 days to give legal objection to the dismissal, and the Plaintiff shows potential overcoming circumstances to bring the case back to life. This would then again make two active Burmaster lawsuits. The doc 56 is still pending in the closed case asserts that Burmaster committed a form of fraud in moving for dismissal based on res judicata given the gag order, which has violated Kansas Supreme Court rules for over nine months during which time Burmaster presented it as valid. The prior magistrate overseeing the initial lawsuit failed to note the gag order's noncompliance. These new allegations and exhibits raised in the plaintiff's objection raise concerns about Burmaster's conduct in both the state and federal courts. If the District Court finds the gag order was misrepresented, Burmaster could face serious consequences.

MENAFN08012024004226004003ID1107697269