COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE

2190 S. Mason Road, Suite 201

St. Louis, Missouri 63131
^ *. ^
"'
,w
E-mail: jim.smith@ c o u r t s . m o . g o v (314) 966-1007 Facsimile: (314) 966-0076
COMPLAINT ABOUT A MISSOURI JUDGE OR COURT COMMISSIONER
[PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION]
Name: _ William Duff
Address: loSNWioiPl Kansas City.
Phone: Daytime: (816) 429-5038_ Evening: (__) same
I have information of possible misconduct or disability on the part of;
and the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 , of the 7th Judicial Circuit Court
(name of judge or court commissioner)
in Kansas City , CLAY . Missouri.
(city) (county)
1. When and where did this happen?
Datefs): JUNE s TO PRESENT Time: Location: DIVISION 2
2. If your information arises out of a court case, please answer these questions:
(a) What is the name and number of the case?
Case name: DUFF VS FRAZIER ET AL Case no: 07CY-CV06125
(b) What kind of case is it?
criminal domestic relations small claims traffic
probate civil X juvenile contempt
other [specify]:
(c) What is your relationship to this case?
__X__ plaintiff/petitioner defendant/respondent
attorney for witness for
other [specify]:
(d) If you were represented by an attorney at the time of the conduct of the judge or court
commissioner, please identify the attorney:
Name: N/A
Address:
Phone: ( )
Page 2 of 3
3. List documents that help support your information that the judge or court commissioner has engaged in
misconduct or has a disability, noting which ones you have attached:
_07CY-CV06125 CASE FILE SUPPORTS THIS CLAIM

4. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct of the judge or court commissioner:
Name(s): NUMEROUS
Addresses:
Phone: ( ) ( )
5. Specify below the details of what the judge or court commissioner did that you think constitutes
misconduct or indicates disability. [PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY; ATTACH ADDITIONAL
PAPER IF NECESSARY].
SEE ATTACHED

PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT 12, THE IDENTITY OF INFORMANTS IS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.

YOU MAY CHOOSE TO WAIVE THIS CONFIDENTIALITY.
_I choose to waive the confidentiality of Supreme Court Rule 12 and request that a copy of my
complaint be sent to the judge or court commissioner.
I do not waive the confidentiality provided by Supreme Court Rule 12 and request that the
Commission not disclose my identity to the judge or court commissioner.
Signature: William Duff Date: 12/29/2007
 ! COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
2 2190 S. Mason Road, Suite 201
5 St. Louis, Missouri 63131
i E-mail: jim.smith@ c o u r t s . m o . g o v (314) 966-1007 Facsimile: (314) 966-0076
5
6 COMPLAINT ABOUT A MISSOURI JUDGE OR COURT COMMISSIONER
7
8
9
10 Case # 07CY-CV06125 was filed seeking remedy for trespass with injury and trespass on the case as a
Court of Record1 proceeding according to the course of the Common Law2 in Clay County, Missouri
i: Circuit Court3 and the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 was assigned to hold it.
13
14 The case seeks damages against two private individuals for trespass with violence who were initially
15 acting in their office as Kansas City Missouri police officers and who claimant claims vacated their
16 office of authority by and through their acts that intruded into plaintiffs private domain (jurisdiction)
17 for the purpose of restraining plaintiffs right of action without probable cause of attending crime and
18 therefore acted in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right. As such,
19 defendants acted in their own private capacity and under color of State and local Law. Frazier issued 3
20 municipal citations to plaintiff to be heard in the municipal court of Kansas City. This suit proceeded

1
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently
of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the
course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v.
Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, CJ.
See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.
2
This action proceeded according to the course of the common law by decree of the sovereign and
his suit and as described generally in Ko f f 1 e r, " COMMON LAW PLEAD ING, " page
80,and by Stephen, A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading In
Civil Actions, c. I, Of the Proceedings in An Action, from Its
Commencement To Its Termination, 59, 60 (3rd ed. by Tyler,
Washington, D. C. 1893).

3
COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and
determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times
and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d
1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

william duff Page 1 12/29/2007

21 against Frazier and Roth in their private capacities on that premise. All Documents filed in this case
22 by plaintiff are testimony and offers of proof as if sworn to under affirmation in that proceeding
23 according to the course of the common law, all evidence is in the filed papers and plaintiff has signed
2A in verification thereto.
--
26 Simultaneously, the action filed by Frazier proceeded in the Municipal Court of Kansas City: Judge
27 Williams of court room A. Duff answered those charges and the clay county court issued an order first
28 for the Municipal court to stay it's proceedings and finally for the Municipal court to dismiss the action
29 before it as the matter had been fairly settled in the Clay county court.. Williams ignored both orders
JO and proceeded to find Duff guilty of two of the three charges brought.
n
J2 The questions to be decided in the Clay county case are:
33
34 1. Were plaintiff actions a constitutionally protected activity? If yes;
35 2. Were there any oaths agreements or applications for benefits, entered into by plaintiff that
M. diminished the protectied nature of that activity? If no;
37 3. Does the office of police possess authority to restrain by force a constitutionally secured
38 activity? If no;
39 4. Does the officer vacate the office of trust in order to perform the act of forcefully restraining
40 such activity? If yes;
n 5. Is the act/restraint a trespass? If yes
42 6. Is Plaintiff injured by that trespass and due remedy and damages., if yes;
43 7. Finally, what are the damages.
44
45 As such, the subject matter to be decided here is law. Defendants have admitted to the facts alleged,
46 and the entire case proceeds upon the paperwork. Verbal testimony may be wholly unnecessary in
47 order for the court to reach its conclusion especially where defendants have admitted the facts
48 complained of by plaintiff, as here.
49
50 All the above was established and proven up by plaintiff in the original action and the attending
51 exhibits, filed on 6-15-2007 with return service made on 7-17-2007, as shown on the docket in this
52 case and as is typical of a case proceeding according to the course of the common law. The
- Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert (ARG) had opportunity to question plaintiffs construction of the
court and allocation of jurisdiction since that time but has remained silent on the matter until the 11-7-
55 2007 hearing where only by implication did he contest. He merely ignored the substance of the action
V- and injected rules and law foreign to that decreed in this case.

william duff Page 2 12/29/2007

57
58 Plaintiff filed, on 8-1-2007, motion to recover property1 taken by defendants and for stay of municipal
59 court proceedings (administrative law) until such time as this superior court decided on the issue of
60 plaintiffs right of action. The right of action issue is the boundary separating appropriate statutory
6] enactments (administrative law) and enforcement and enactments that exceed the authority of the state,
62 (rule making and legislation that abrogate constitutionally secured rights) Recovery was sought in the
•••• form of Replevin as decreed in the law of this case4, see Exhibit F. The court5, on 8-1-2007, ordered
64 replevin, w/o bond, of plaintiffs property and stay of the underlying municipal action and for the clerk
65 of this court to issue writ of execution on said replevin to be delivered to the sheriff. The court further
66 invited the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert and all parties to agree with the courts order or to show
67 cause why same should not stand6. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request
68 for additional time. There was no objection to the order and there was no action taken by the
69 magistrate or the clerk to fulfill the order. Plaintiff contends The magistrate had a duty attendant to his
70 office to extend the judicial power to this case at law or to show cause why that power should not be
71 extended. ARG did neither and we begin to find out why he did neither in the 11-7-2007 hearing. It
72 therefore must be obvious to any reasonable man; the magistrate is injecting what he apparently
73 believes is his discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction and rules of court not
74 previously decreed in this case. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiffs case for
75 the benefit of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported by
76 substantial evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.
77

4
The very meaning of'sovereignty1 is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana
Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
3
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of
the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it. and proceeding according to the course of
common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.
6
"Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other
interested parties a brief no later than ten (10) days after receipt of this order to show cause to this
court why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said brief
must be filed within three (3) days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing same
into the record of this case. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair
play, will liberally construe the arguments presented."

william duff Page 3 12/29/2007

78 Defendant filed its first motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was marked received by
79 the clerk 8-20-2007 with copies in the case file marking it filed on 8-16-2007. Plaintiff has a certified
80 copy of the entire case file through 8-16-2007 but this document is not included therein. Defendants
81 second motion to dismiss replevin was filed 9-6-2007.
82
83 The Court issued its order denying defendants first motion to dismiss and judgment in default on 8-24-
si 2007, which included the paragraph shown in FN6, All were silent beyond the time allocated and there
85 was no request for additional time.
86
87 Plaintiff rebutted both Defendants motions to dismiss on 9-11-2007
88
89 The court denied both defendants motions for cause shown on 9-11-2007 with the paragraph seen in
90 FN6 thereon. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request for additional time.
9]
92 The court then issued a second command on 9-12-2007, entitled "PRECAEPE", for the court clerk to
•••'• issue writ of execution on the stay order and the replevin order including a similar paragraph as in
94 FN6, but adding clerk thereto. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request for
95 additional time. The clerk, magistrate or the parties took no action.
96
Plaintiff, on 10-10-2007 noticed hearing for 10-17-2007, or as soon thereafter as the court could hear
98 it, for case management conference. The filing was returned to plaintiff by Division 2 clerk who told
99 plaintiff she does not set hearings that way. Further that plaintiff must contact clerk and get a hearing
100 date before noticing the hearing. Plaintiff got the new date and re-noticed the hearing for 11-7-2007.
101 Note: it was during this conversation that plaintiff was first made aware of an undercurrent functioning
102 in the circuit suggesting that plaintiff was a belligerent. The clerk commented 'you have been
103 belligerent since the first time you came into this circuit'. This comment prompted plaintiffs next
104 filing, "Jurisdictional Statement-Restatement from the Action" that being an attempt to explain what
105 the clerk and others were obviously taking as belligerence.
106
107 On the day of the hearing all were present and the record will show: The Honorable Anthony (REX)
108 Gabbert of Division 2 called this case. As we rose to take our positions the bailiffs (2) closely

william duff Page 4 12/29/2007

109 surrounded the bench and one denied the Special Master appointed in this case into the bar. Plaintiff
110 and MAAG proceeded to the bench where the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 asked
111 MAAG to present arguments on defendants motions to dismiss. Plaintiff objected declaring the court
112 had already ruled on those motions and that they had been denied. Plaintiff further declared the
113 hearing was on plaintiffs motion for case management hearing. The Honorable Anthony (REX)
114 Gabbert declared 'it was not, that he didn't do such hearings, that the hearing was on defendants
115 motions to dismiss'. Plaintiff objected and asked if the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of
116 Division 2 had read the documents filed in this case to which he responded that he had read all.
117 During the hearing, the bailiffs appeared to make an uncommon effort to hover close around plaintiff.
118 The Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 thereafter adjourned the hearing saying 'he
119 would take the motions under consideration.' Plaintiff took the hovering activity of the two bailiffs as
120 some evidence that the clerks belief in plaintiffs belligerence was shared by ARG and others in the
121 circuit and that such unfounded belief serves to prejudice plaintiff.
122
123 On 11-8-2007 an order purporting to originate by the court and stating '"you are hereby notified that the
124 "court" duly entered the following: 08 Nov 2007 dismiss by Ct w/o prejudice - upon review of the
125 court, defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs petition are granted and cause is dismissed for cause as
126 stated in both defendant's motions. Clerk to notify plaintiff and defendants attorney. ARG". It
127 therefore must be obvious to any reasonable man, the magistrate is injecting what he apparently
128 believes is his discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction (administrative law) and rules
129 of court not previously decreed in this case. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing
130 plaintiffs case for the benefit of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not
131 supported by substantial evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.
132
133 The court, on its own motion, thereafter filed in this case a writ of error Quae Coram Nobis Residant
134 vacating the hearing on defendants motion for cause shown and reversing the resulting magistrates
135 order entered onto file and docket of this case. The court, further, admonished the magistrate not again
136 to issue any ruling order or judgment respecting the instant case that did not have prior agreement by
137 the court and further warning of contempt proceedings should the magistrate fail to adhere thereto. In
138 addition, the court admonished the clerk for accepting the magistrate's order of dismissal and placing it
139 in the case file and on the docket of this case without leave of this court to do so.

william duff Page 5 12/29/2007

140
141 IN SUMMARY
142
143 The entire record will show ARG's belief, by implication that plaintiff possesses of no right to life,
144 liberty or property except as the State or its subdivisions define and declare. Such would not be
145 unalienable in nature and therefore must be a void assertion in that all would be rule making or
146 legislation abrogating rights secured by the controlling constitutions in opposition to Miranda, Hale v
147 Henkel, Chisholm v Georgia, Yick Wo, Chicago v Collins, and countless other cases that declare the
148 unalienable nature of plaintiffs unalienable right of action. Further, ARG did so without there being
149 one shred of evidence in the record of this case that the state or its subdivisions possessed higher title
150 to plaintiffs life, liberty and property or that plaintiff had otherwise lawfully consented to such state
151 authority. As such, ARG could only have made his decision from his own knowledge or belief which
152 in and of itself voids his acts. Obviously, the magistrate is injecting what he apparently believes is his
153 discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction (administrative law) and rules of court
154 foreign to and not previously decreed in this case, all of which would be administrative law not
155 common law. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiff and his case for the benefit
156 of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported by substantial
157 evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.
158
159 Plaintiff has no problem with an "out in the open" and honest descent to his claims that bring about
160 evidence and proof in support of arguments, but he vigorously objects to the innuendo and acts by
161 implication that obviously seek to discredit said claims without proof (acts of despots). Those acts are
162 not acts of an honest and respectable government or judiciary and must breach the controlling cannons
163 in numerous ways. Plaintiff will leave this commission to identify the specific breaches being
164 complained of here.
165
166 Finally, the commission is informed that there is no appeal from the decision of a court of record
167 proceeding according to the course of the common law. Therefore, plaintiffs only recourse to the acts
168 complained of here are with this commission or in the federal courts under title 18 ss241 or 2.
169 Plaintiff does not wish to be at odds with this judiciary but only seeks fairness, respect and open
170 discourse in pursuit of justice and protection for the freedoms this judiciary is oath bound to protect.

william duff Page 6 12/29/2007

171
172 Wherefore, plaintiff, having no interest in arguing with the 7th judicial circuit when that argument
173 diminishes his real claims against defendants, and not wishing to start contempt proceedings against
174 ARG and the Court Clerk, asks this commission to reign in this out of control judicial officer so that
175 further waste of the scarce judicial resource is unnecessary and so that fairness and justice can prevail
176 "out in the open" for all to see.
177
178 Respectfully submitted
179
180 William Duff
181 816-429-5038
182 wdd@williamduff. com
183 108 NW 101 PI Kansas City, Mo 64155

william duff Page 7 12/29/2007