Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KASEY KING
Plaintiff,

v.
LORI BOLTON FLEMING, and
KURTIS LOY, and
BILL WACHTER, and
MY TOWN MEDIA, INC.,
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No. 16-cv-2108

SECOND AMENDED CIVIL
COMPLAINT
DESIGNATED PLACE OF TRIAL
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMES NOW Plaintiff Kasey King, by and through his attorney of record, and
amends his complaint for his cause of action against the defendant Lori Bolton Fleming,
Kurt Loy, Bill Wachter and My Town Media, Inc., states and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. The plaintiff Kasey King is an individual person, adult citizens of the United States,
and at all times material to this complaint he is a resident of this district.
2. The defendant Lori Fleming (hereinafter referred to as Fleming) is an individual
person and at all times material is believed to be a resident of this district.
3. The defendant Kurtis Loy (hereinafter referred to as Loy) is an individual person
and at all times material to this complaint is believed to be a resident of this district.
4. The defendant Bill Wachter (hereinafter referred to as Wachter), is an individual
person, and is believed to be a resident of this district.
5. The defendant My Town Media, Inc., is a corporate entity organized by virtue of the
laws of the State of Kansas is believed to be a resident of this district.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 16

6. At all times relevant to this action, a fellow by the name of Joe Mann (hereinafter
referred to as Mann) was defendant My Town Media, Incs employee and/or agent,
and was acting within the scope of, and in furtherance of his employers business
interest.
7. Further, at all times relevant to this action, the defendants Fleming and Loy were
acting under the color of state law.
8. In addition, at all times relevant to this action, the defendant Wachter was acting
under color of State law because he conspired with state actors defendants Fleming
and Loy to infringe upon plaintiffs constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
10. This cause of action arises out of denial and/or impairment of plaintiffs constitutional
and civil rights which occurred within this district.
11. Jurisdiction lies with this court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1343(1)(2)(3)(4); 42 U.S.C. 1983, the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
12. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that all the defendants
are resident of this district and all the acts or omissions which gave rise to this cause
of action occurred within this district.
13. The plaintiff invokes the pendent and/or supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to
hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 16

FACTS
14. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
15. On or about February, 2015, the plaintiff was determined and ready to advance his
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the rights to petition the government as
enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the
expression of his displeasure with perceive corruption, conflict of interests between
local attorneys and judges in handling cases in the Eleventh Judicial District of
Kansas court system.
16. In pursuit of his constitutional and civil rights, plaintiff began a signature drive
campaign to summon a grand jury to remove sitting judges in the Eleventh Judicial
District of Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
17. In pursuit of his goal and legal requirements of collection of sufficient registered
voters signatures, plaintiff approached My Town Media, Inc., who operates a local
radio station commonly known as 100.7 ESPN to purchase radio advertisement spots.
18. On February 16, 2015, plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with My Town
Media, Inc., for an advertisement spots on its F.M. 100.7 ESPN radio station.
19. The parties agreed plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spot
will air during a popular morning sport show commonly known as Mike and Mike
at 7:55 a.m. each day for 30 days.
20. In exchange plaintiff agreed and paid My Town Media, Inc., the agreed fees for airing
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spots for 30 days.
21. In addition, the parties agreed that My Town Media, Inc., will create and produce the
content of the plaintiffs signature drive advertisement spots.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 16

22. On February 16, 2015, the plaintiff tendered full payment of the advertisement
purchase to My Town Media, Inc. (See Exhibit 1 hand written receipt for the
payment of the radio advert).
23. On or about February 17, 2015, My Town Media, Inc., created and produced a
sample advertisement spot for plaintiffs review and approval.
24. The plaintiff relied entirely on My Town Media, Inc., experience and expertise in
radio advertisement creation; and based on its suggestions and recommendations,
plaintiff approved the advertisement spot My Town Media, Inc., created and
produced for publication.
25. On February 18, 2015, and February 19, 2016, My Town Media, Inc., ran plaintiffs
grand jury signature drive campaign advertisement spots in compliances with the
parties agreement.
26. Apparently, on or about February 18, 2015 and/or February 19, 2015, the defendant
Fleming and Loy became aware of the plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign
advertisement on FM 100.7 ESPN radio station.
27. On February 19, 2015, the defendant Fleming and Loy called a meeting to discuss
and agree on a plan on how to prevent and stop plaintiffs grand jury signature drive
campaign advertisement on FM 100.7 ESPN radio station.
28. The defendant Fleming and Loy further discussed and agreed on how to; and how
they will use their position as judges of the Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas to
achieve their goal to stop plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign from been
successful.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 16

29. The defendant Fleming and Loy succeeded in their plan to get the plaintiffs grand
jury signature drive campaign radio advert pulled off the radio airwaves and the
advertisement contract unilaterally cancelled by entering into conspiracy with
defendant Wachter, a local practicing attorney who was defendant Flemings former
law firm partner, and one of the owners and/or shareholders of My Town Media, Inc,
to get the job done.

COUNT ONE
DEFENDANT FLEMING, LOY AND WACHTER CONSPIRED
TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C 1983
30. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
31. Plaintiff is a citizen who was involved in a protected speech and who was engaged in
protected activities under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
when he started a grand jury petition drive on about February 2015 to oust judges of
the Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas.
32. In addition, plaintiff is an individual pro-se litigant who has been denied access to
court, mistreated and taken advantage off because of his pro-se litigant status in the
Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas.
33. The plaintiff then decided to invoke his First Amendment right to freedom of speech
and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and organize a
grand jury signature petition campaign to oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial District
of Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
34. In pursuit of plaintiffs constitutional right under the First Amendment to the
Constitution, plaintiff began a grand jury signature drive campaign to gain

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 6 of 16

community support for his cause to oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial District of
Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy.
35. Before plaintiff decided to engage in a grand jury signature drive campaign to oust
judges in Eleventh Judicial District of Kansas, including defendant Fleming and Loy,
plaintiff had supported and/or participated in numerous ethical complaints against
defendant Fleming and Loy with the Kansas Judicial Commission.
36. Among some of the defendant Fleming and Loys activities plaintiff complaint about
include the fact that defendant Fleming and Loy after they became judges, these
defendants continue to advert for legal business in local news media as practicing
attorneys for several years.
37. Another plaintiffs complaint includes the fact that when a potential client calls the
telephone number listed in defendant Flemings telephone book advert, the telephone
is automatically redirected to ring in Spigarelli Law Firm, which was defendants
Flemings former partners law office; and at Kyle Fleming Law Firm, which is
defendant Flemings husband law firm; and that lawyers from these law firms
represent clients gained through defendant Flemings phone book advert in defendant
Flemings court while defendant Fleming sits as the presiding judge.
38. In addition, plaintiff has similar complaints about defendant Loy in that when a
potential client calls the telephone number listed in defendant Loys advert, the
telephone is automatically redirected to ring at Loy, Sagehorn & Harding Law Firm
in which defendant Loy is a majority shareholder; and lawyers from defendant Loys
law firm represent clients gained through defendant Loys phone book advert in
defendant Loys court while defendant Loy sits as the presiding judge.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 7 of 16

39. Shortly after plaintiff started the grand jury signature drive campaign, plaintiff
contracted with My Town Media, Inc., to create and produce a radio advertisement to
promote his cause. (See Exhibit 1 hand written receipt for the payment of the radio
advert).
40. On February 18, 2015, the plaintiffs radio adverts began to run on My Town Media,
Incs radio station airwaves.
41. The defendant Fleming and Loy heard plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign
radio advert when it ran on My Town Media, Incs radio station airwaves on February
18, 2015 and February 19, 2015.
42. On or about February 18, 2015 and/or February 19, 2015 the defendant Loy either
physically or by other means discussed the content, ramifications, and consequences
of the plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert with defendant
Fleming.
43. At the conclusion of the discussion between defendant Loy and Fleming of the
content, ramifications, and consequences of the plaintiffs grand jury signature drive
campaign radio advert both defendant Fleming and Loy agreed they must use their
position as sitting judges of Crawford County, Kansas to stop the continue running of
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive radio advert.
44. Among the agreement and decisions apparently reached during the conversation
between defendant Fleming and Loy was the need for defendant Fleming to invite
defendant Wachter to join the conspiracy and to join their efforts to prevent and stop
plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign from been successful.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 8 of 16

45. Another agreement and decision apparently reached during the conversation between
defendant Fleming and Loy was the need for defendant Fleming to use her position as
a sitting judge to compel defendant Wachter to pull plaintiffs grand jury signature
drive campaign radio advert off My Town Media, Inc.s radio airwaves.
46. This option was agreed upon by defendant Fleming and Loy because prior to coming
on the bench as a judge, defendant Fleming was a member and practicing attorney at
Wilbert & Towner Law Firm with defendant Wachter.
47. In addition, defendant Fleming and Loy know that defendant Wachter is one of the
owners and/or shareholders of My Town Media, Inc., who owns the radio station
where plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign spot was running.
48. Further, upon becoming a judge, defendant Fleming is believed to have been assigned
and/or is designated a criminal department judge in Crawford County, Kansas; and
defendant Wachter engages and continues to engage in extensive criminal law
practice before Judge Fleming less than five years after Judge Fleming became a
judge.
49. Furthermore, attorneys at Wilbert & Towner Law Firm, in particular, defendant
Wachter engages in extensive criminal and other law practice before Judge Fleming.
50. Meanwhile, in furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy between Fleming and
Loy to infringe on plaintiffs constitutional rights, defendant Fleming on or about
February 19, 2015, agreed to willfully and intentionally write and send email
correspondence to defendant Wachter; and to maximum the emails effects, the
defendants agreed that Fleming will deliberately use her official court assigned e-mail
account to send the email to Wachter.

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 9 of 16

51. The email defendant Fleming sent to defendant Wachter in furtherance of Fleming
and Loys conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights on February 19,
2015, essentially states as follows:
Bill Wachter, is this your station? Kurt is saying Eric Muathe and posse
cometaut (sic) have an ad on this station to oust all the judges. I would just like to
know since my kids were listening when I heard the ad this morning on my way
to work. If so, get it off. (See Exhibit 2 unofficial version of defendant Fleming
email to defendant Wachter).
52. Upon receipt of defendant Flemings email, defendant Wachter shortly thereafter
physically or by other means contacted defendant Fleming to discuss the content,
ramification, and consequences of plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign to
oust judges of the Eleventh Judicial District, Kansas, including defendant Fleming
and Loy.
53. During the discussion between defendant Fleming and Wachter, they both agreed on
what actions needed to be taken to effectively infringed and chilled plaintiffs
constitutional free speech rights; and actions needed to stop plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign advert from running on My Town Media, Inc., radio
airwave.
54. After the meeting with defendant Fleming, defendant Wachter took concerted actions
toward the fulfillment of the agreement and conspiracy to deny plaintiff of his
constitutional free speech rights.
55. The defendant Wachter immediately contacted My Town Media, Inc., employee
Mann at the radio station to discuss steps needed to be taken to pull plaintiffs grand
jury signature drive campaign off the radio airwave and to terminate the existing
radio advertisement contract between plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc.
9

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 10 of 16

56. In furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy between Fleming, Loy and Wachter,
defendant Wachter ordered Mann to cancel and terminate plaintiffs grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advert running on My Town Media, Inc., with
immediate effect.
57. Defendant Wachter further ordered and directed Mann to conceal the real and actual
reasons why plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert was
cancelled by My Town Media, Inc., should plaintiff inquire why the contract was
abruptly terminated.
58. Defendant Watcher directed that Mann to lie to plaintiff that the reason for
cancellation of the radio contract was that: I cancelled your (plaintiff) radio advert
because the radio stations Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Lawyer
called and ordered me to cancel and pull your (plaintiff) grand jury signature drive
campaign radio spots off the airwave immediately because the content violated the
FCC advertisement rules and regulations.
59. In furtherance of the agreement and conspiracy instigated by defendant Fleming, Loy
and Wachter; and in compliance with defendant Wachters orders and demands,
Mann called plaintiff on February 19, 2015, and informed plaintiff that his grand jury
signature drive campaign radio spots will no longer run the radio spots as previous
agreed because he just cancelled the contract and pulled the advert of the airwaves.
60. The plaintiff asked Mann why his radio advert was pulled off the airwaves and his
contract was terminated?
61. Mann told plaintiff that his grand jury signature drive campaign contract was
cancelled because the radio stations FCC Lawyer called me and ordered me to

10

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 11 of 16

cancel and pull your grand jury signature drive campaign radio spots off the airwave
because the content violated the FCCs advertisement rules and regulations.
62. The plaintiff the urged Mann to rework and change the content of plaintiffs grand
jury signature drive campaign radio spot so it conforms with, and meets the FCC
advertisement rules and regulations; which requests Mann vehemently refused to
honor.
63. The plaintiff asked Mann if the radio stations FCC Lawyer who called and ordered
Mann to cancel and terminate plaintiffs grand jury signature drive campaign radio
advert spots was defendant Wachter.
64. Mann confirmed that defendant Watcher was the radio stations FCC Lawyer who
ordered and directed him to cancel and terminate plaintiffs grand jury signature drive
campaign radio advert spots on February 19, 2015.
65. On February 19, 2015, there was in existence a valid lawful contract between plaintiff
and My Town Media, Inc., of which defendant Fleming, Loy and Wachter possessed
knowledge of the existence.
66. By the actions of the defendant Fleming and Loy described in the preceding
paragraphs, these defendants willfully and intentionally interfere, impede, and
brought about the breach and termination of the existing radio advertisement contract
between the plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc., without lawful cause or authority to
do so.
67. Further, defendant Fleming, Loy and Wachter were acting under the color of state law
when they willfully, intentionally, and deliberately conspired to interfere, impede, and

11

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 12 of 16

brought about the breach and termination of the existing grand jury signature drive
campaign radio adverts between the plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc.
68. The defendant Fleming and Loy were not presiding as a judge over the contractual
relationship between plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc., when they interfere, impede
and brought about the breach and termination of the existing lawful contract between
plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc.
69. The defendant Wachter conspired and agreed with defendant Fleming and Loy, who
were state actors, to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional free speech rights by
bringing about the wrongful termination of the lawful existing radio advert contract
between plaintiff and My Town Media, Inc.
70. The plaintiff was exercising his freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution when the defendants acting in concert conspired and
used the color of state law and their public office and position as judges to interfere
with, and to cause plaintiff grand jury signature drive campaign radio advert to be
withdrawn and pulled off the radio airwaves; and plaintiffs contract with My Town
Media, Inc., cancelled and terminated.
71. That the defendant Fleming, Loy and Wachter willfully and intentionally conspired
and acted with reckless and deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional and
civil rights.
72. The defendant Fleming, Loy, and Wachter concerted efforts to actualize their
agreement and conspiracy to deny plaintiff of his constitutional rights was intentional,
willful, deliberate and motivated by invidious retaliatory animus against plaintiff

12

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 13 of 16

because plaintiff was engaged in protected freedom of speech activities and the right
to petition the government of his grievances.
73. As a direct and proximate result of defendants conspiracy and wrongful actions,
plaintiff suffered deprivation of his civil rights under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution; and plaintiff suffered denial of his rights to equal
privileges and immunities under the law including freedom of speech, freedom to
petition the government for redress of grievances; and freedom to benefit from lawful
contractual relationship, made enforceable under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
74. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant Fleming, Loy and Wachters
wrongful conspiracy and intentional wrongful interference with plaintiffs contractual
relations with My Town Media., Inc., plaintiff suffered harm and damages for which
plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages from the defendant Fleming,
Loy and Wachter.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray the court for judgment against defendant
Fleming, Loy, and Wachter for actual and punitive damages, for plaintiffs costs,
including reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and for all other reliefs
the court find just and proper.

COUNT TWO
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT MY TOWN MEDIA, INC.

75. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

13

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 14 of 16

76. On February 16, 2015, the plaintiff entered into a radio advertisement contract with
the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
77. The defendant My Town Media, Inc., promised to create the content and produce a
radio advertisement for plaintiffs signature drive for a grand jury petition; in
exchange the plaintiff promised to pay defendant its usual and customary charges for
such radio spots for a 30 days run.
78. In addition, the parties agreement imposes the general contractual duties and
obligations, including but not limited to a duty to act in good faith.
79. The plaintiff fully performed his obligations under the parties contract by payment to
defendant My Town Media, Inc., in advance, the agreed contract amount.
80. However, the defendant breached the parties contract when it unilaterally withdraws
and refuses to continue to run plaintiffs signature drive radio campaign for 30 days
agreed to in the parties contract without any just cause or legal excuse to do so.
81. The actions taken and/or not taken by the defendant My Town Media, Inc., constitute
a breach of the parties contract under Kansas law.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant My Town Media, Inc.s breach of
the parties contract, plaintiff suffered legal harm for which he is entitled to recover
compensatory damages from the defendant My Town Media, Inc.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays the court for judgment against the defendant
My Town Media, Inc., in an amount that is just and reasonable, for his costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, if appropriate, and for all other reliefs the court find just and
proper.

14

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 15 of 16

COUNT THREE
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FLEMING AND LOY

83. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

84. On February 19, 2015, there was in existence a valid contract between plaintiffs and
defendant My Town Media, Inc.
85. The defendant Fleming and Loy possessed knowledge of the existing grand jury
signature drive campaign radio advertisement contract between plaintiff and My
Town Media, Inc.
86. By the actions described in the preceding paragraphs, the defendant Fleming and Loy,
willfully and intentionally entered into an agreement and conspiracy to interfere and
bring about the breach and termination of the existing grand jury signature drive
campaign radio advertisement contract between the plaintiff and My Town Media,
Inc.
87. The defendant Fleming and Loy have no legal excuse or legal justification to interfere
and to cause the breach or termination of the existing contract between plaintiff and
My Town Media, Inc.
88. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants wrongful and intentional
interference with plaintiffs contractual relationship with My Town Media., Inc.,
plaintiff suffered legal harm for which he is entitled to recover compensatory
damages from defendant Fleming and Loy.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays the court for judgment against the defendant
Fleming and Loy in an amount in excess of $75, 000.00, award of punitive damages, for
plaintiffs costs, and for all other reliefs the court find just and proper.
15

Case 2:16-cv-02108-JAR-GLR Document 37 Filed 11/28/16 Page 16 of 16

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial to the jury of all disputed issues in this cause.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno
Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno KS # 14808
155 S. 18th Street, Suite 250
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-5654
Tel. (913) 233-2133
aikogun@ogunmenolawfirm.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the above and foregoing was electronically filed on this
November 28, 2016, with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system, which sent electronic
notification of such filling to all those individuals currently electronically registered with the
court, including defendants attorneys of record.

/s/Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno

Prince Adebayo Ogunmeno KS # 14808

16