Tuesday, December 10, 2013

TKC BREAKING AND EXCLUSIVE NEWS!!! ALLEGATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR JEAN PETERS BAKER!!!



During a contentious discrimination lawsuit complaint involving the Jackson County Prosecutor's office . . . There has been an EPIC development . . .

To wit . . .

TAKE A LOOK AT A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR JEAN PETERS BAKER AMID ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS!!!



This is some pretty hefty legalese for TKC readers so we thought we would link all of the relevant documents and let the motion speak for itself.

Check it:

MOTION FOR SANCTION AGAINST JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR JEAN PETERS BAKER

"Plaintiff hereby requests the Court award sanctions to Plaintiff from Defendants for the intentional misstatements under oath by Defendant Jean Peters Baker in an affidavit signed by Baker in support of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. See Exhibit A - Baker affidavit.

"Defendant Baker’s affidavit testimony, under oath subject to the penalty of perjury directly contradicts earlier testimony she gave under oath at the arbitration hearing involving Mitchell. See Exhibit B, arbitration hearing testimony and Exhibit C, arbitration exhibit to hearing. The only reasonable explanation for the difference in testimony is to obtain summary judgment by providing a false and misleading statement to the Court.

"Pursuant to Rule 55.03(d), Plaintiff is serving this motion thirty days before filing with the Court, with service as proscribed in Rule 43.01. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants up to and including striking Defendants’ Answer in this case for the egregious misrepresentation to the Court, especially since Defendant Baker is not only a licensed attorney and thereby an Officer of the Court, but also the elected Prosecutor of Jackson County. This misrepresentation is not only a fraud upon the Court, but also a violation of the Missouri Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers in Missouri."
############


"The suggestions in support of sanction make it plain . . .

"While Plaintiff seeks a drastic remedy in this case, sanctions for Baker’s misstatement under oath up to striking Defendants’ answer, it is warranted because of the extreme nature of the misconduct of an attorney and prosecutor. The misconduct in this case is severe. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a severe punishment."

Developing . . .

32 Comments:

Anonymous said...

another major strike against the current regime @ the courthouse.

Anonymous said...

I guess you fire one nitwit and this is what happens.

Anonymous said...

When the truth about David Mitchell's unethical and illegal practices as a prosecutor are revealed through this lawsuit Mitchell will have a hard time practicing law in this town again. He is an idiot for perusing this. Staying true to form I guess.

Anonymous said...

David Mitchell was one of the most incompetent PAs I ever dealt with. I think his race may have actually kept him employed LONGER than he otherwise would have been.

Anonymous said...

Kansas City Missouri from the Mayor to the City Council has been nothing but one lie after another so often that they forgot what lie they told last. This is nothing new, the people have lost complete faith in this political regime and this will be silently dealt with in some back room somewhere and the public will of course "forget" and move on... this is absolutely shameful that we have adopted the "well if it doesn't directly impact me...so what" attitude

Anonymous said...

Poor Jean a Kansas City so called heavyweight reveals herself to be just ANOTHER Kansas City lightweight.

Anonymous said...

You know about 2% of the information necessary to make a fair and unbiased presentation of this matter, but that has NEVER been a consideration of yours.

That would someone who is not a pompous ass hole.

Anonymous said...

@9:11am 2%? I've seen convictions based on 2% of information.. I'm curious, how does that feel to be on the shit end of the stick based on rumor and innuendo? sad part is, it wont change a thing.. a little money gets a little justice.. a lot of money "buys" a lot of justice... I say dig into those pockets and buy your justice and this too will pass

Anonymous said...

Stay tuned guys, I have much more info that I'll be sharing with TKC! - Lynn Bratcher

Anonymous said...

Sanction her azz! Go for it! She's got it coming and so do many other attorneys. I wonder who the judge is. Should have posted the case number.

Anonymous said...

Poor Jean. Hope she can now pray for Divine help. Just not at a Catholic church...

Anonymous said...

I'd fuck JEAN PETERS BAKER in her ass. Then cum all over her face.

Anonymous said...

Bratcher won't win this. Baker is the CEO. The decision to terminate is hers alone and rests solely on her shoulders. Big deal if she got input from other people on her staff, the decision was still hers alone. Not a fan of Mean Jean but I don't see a judge agreeing that she lied under oath.

Anonymous said...

Poor Jean. This means an automatic complaint to the Missouri Bar, the licensing authority for attorneys. She will have to defend this miscsonduct both in court and in a disciplinary hearing. Hard to practice law when you don't have a license. Last time I checked, you have to be a licensed attorney to have that job . . .

Anonymous said...

10:52 should familiarize herself with the cat's paw employment discrimination doctrine concerning subordinate input and subsequent liability for the principal. JPB is in a shitload of trouble for this.

Anonymous said...

@11:14. Ms. Bratcher: Read the final sentence of my comment. The entire comment was referring to the entire basis of Tony's post, that of the Motion filed in court and not the entire suit. Based on the attached exhibits, I still don't see that she lied under oath. On the one hand, she said the decision to terminate was hers and hers alone. On the other hand, she said she made her decision with input from others on her staff. Two different questions, two different answers. Doesn't mean she lied.

Also, I'm quite familiar with the Cat's Paw doctrine. It has nothing to do with my comment. Suggesting Mean Jean is in a shitload of trouble makes the assumption that her staff from whom she got input lied to her for discriminatory reasons. I'm not convinced, especially given Mitchell's reputation as a slacker and inept prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

Write legible please.

Anonymous said...

I would not go getting too excited over this. Whether or not the issue becomes a big deal will be more about the politics involved. All the lawyers, including the judge, belong to the same bar association and the judge may belong to the same political party as Jean Dearest. I expect there will be lots of howling to make it look good in front of the clients paying the bills, but I bet the judge defers ruling or sanctions until later.

The real crime here is that that chicken shit Sanders conned the county into providing thousands of dollars for Jean Baby's defense while the plantiff is left to scratch shit with the chickens to be heard. This is your Jackson County justice in action. If you aren't part of the good old boys you are shit.

Anonymous said...

10:52 comment & again @ 11:46 is correct. It's a case of semantics isn't it?

The key word is "decision."

JPB was the the sole person making the decision. Others provided information which JPB may or may not have considered in making HER decision to terminate plaintiff's employment.

Anonymous said...

It's worked for Darryl Forte'.

Anonymous said...

It's not about WHO made the decision to terminate. It's about who was INVOLVED in the decision to terminate.

Either Dawn Parson was not involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Mitchell, as JBP states in Affy A, or Dawn Parson provided input into the decision, as JBP stated in Affy B.

The two positions are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

Anonymous said...

8:20am This a JACKSON COUNTY issue. Not the City of KCMO. Not every problem is the City government's responsibility.

Anonymous said...

George W. Bush made the decision to bomb Iraq based on input from his executive team. Bush was the sole decision maker.

JPB was the sole decision maker. JPB said Parsons was not involved in the decision and did not make any recommendation. JPB also said she got "input" from Parsons. So JPB asks Parsons what she thinks of Mitchell and Parsons says "I think he is a douchebag." That doesn't sound like involvement in the decision nor does it sound like a recommendation. The terms involve and input are different enough and vague enough that no judge will ever ding JPB for being untruthful. I'm not sticking up for JBP, I'm just saying that the motion will be denied and the Bar won't do a thing.

Anonymous said...

So basically 1:04 is saying that input and involvement mean the same thing. I suppose input could BE involvement but I guess it depends on what the definition of is is.

Without a hell of a lot more, Mean Jean gets a pass on this one.

Anonymous said...

Check out Bratcher's blog. It seems that she runs with the CRIMINAL former disgraced Jackson County Circuit Court administrator TERESA YORK. How can you say Jean is a liar, move for sanctions, get all holier-than-thou on an issue that clearly is not cut and dried - and give props to Teresa York, the CRIMINAL, on her blog? Maybe it's not the same Teresa York, but she could at least clarify.

Anonymous said...

But how does Wilson and his blonde figure into all this?

Anonymous said...

1:28 PM Yes, it is Patsy Kline. Get off and stay off of Tony's Blog while geting taxpayer money. Work like everybody else, chump!

Anonymous said...

teresa is a criminal. wasn't she kicked out of the court house on her illegal mortgage schemes?

Anonymous said...

Teresa York, with her hand on the pulse of the entire 16th Judicial Circuit, pleaded guilty to criminal charges involving turning court cash into personal gift cards for herself and others. She pleaded guilty last month and awaits sentencing in federal court. The JaCo folks, including Steve Nixon, don't want this story spread around. DIDN'T YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT, LYNN BRATCHER?????

Anonymous said...

Here is the link for ya, Lynn:

http://www.kctv5.com/story/24038418/former-jackson-county-court-administrator-pleads-guilty-to-embezzling

Anonymous said...

Wonder how she will look in orange

Anonymous said...

6:40 pm...I am not a government employee. But I am an informed voter.