Home » Uncategorized

Category Archives: Uncategorized


Missouri AG Josh Hawley Ignores Kim Gardner’s Prosecutorial Misconduct and therefore is…

Preface: Missouri Governor Targeted By A Paid Off “Whore”, Racist “House Negro’s” and Self Serving Sell Outs

also guilty of Prosecutorial Misconduct!

Eric Greitens

Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Prosecutors are bound by law to turn over any evidence to the defense that shows that either their defendant is not guilty, or that he deserves a lesser punishment.

This type of evidence is referred to as “Brady material,” after the case Brady v. Maryland. In this example of prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutors are required by the Constitution to turn over such evidence.


Image result for meme lying "house nigger"

Woman who accused governor Greitens of taking racy blackmail photo admits she might have DREAMED ...

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner

53 Very Funny Liar Meme, Gifs, Jokes, Pictures & Photos ...

 Missouri Attorney General calls on those subpoenaed to ...

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley

Liar Liar GIFs on Giphy

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutorial misconduct is the act of breaking the law, or a code of ethics, while working as a prosecutor. Prosecutors are responsible for determining who should be held accountable when a crime is committed. An example of prosecutorial misconduct might occur if a prosecutor failed to turn evidence, which would prove the defendant’s innocence, to the defense attorney, choosing instead to convict the defendant and win the case. To explore this concept, consider the following prosecutorial misconduct definition.


Definition of Prosecutorial Misconduct


  1. The act of breaking the law, court rules, or code of ethics of law practice, while working as a prosecuting attorney.

Types of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutors may engage in a wide variety of illegal and unethical acts in the name of getting a conviction. What follows are several types of prosecutorial misconduct. This kind of behavior can vary from case to case, but the types of prosecutorial misconduct presented in this list are some of the more common examples of prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutor in Greitens case accused of ‘gross misconduct’

“I’ve practiced law for 35 years,” defense attorney Scott Rosenblum said. “I’ve never once accused a prosecutor of incompetence. I am doing that this morning.”

Prosecutors said there is nothing in the video or notes that affect the criminal charge.

At issue is a Jan. 29 interview Gardner and a private investigator, William Tisaby, had with the woman at the center of the case, identified in court documents as K.S. They had originally told defense attorneys that a video recorder malfunctioned, and that Tisaby had taken no notes during the conversation. But defense attorneys told Judge Rex Burlison they received the tape and notes Wednesday night, just after the release of a report from the special state House committee investigating Greitens’ conduct. The woman told the committee that the encounter at the heart of the felony case was coerced. The committee found her testimony credible.

25+ Best Ideas about Lawyer Jokes on Pinterest | Good ...

The tape shows that there are “major flaws in K.S.’s story, more than we were aware of,” said defense attorney Jim Martin. “Her story is just that — a story.”

The defense team also accused Gardner of encouraging Tisaby, the investigator, to lie under oath during his March 19 deposition. They quoted numerous portions of the transcript in which he said he took no notes during the January interview, including once after a question from Gardner. But in the video, Martin said, Tisaby can clearly be seen taking notes, which were also turned over on Wednesday night.

“She sat there, and allowed him to lie under oath” during the deposition, Martin said.


Attorney’s For Michael S. Stewart Give OK For His Death Threats And Cyberstalking Of Yours Truly!



This DWI lying stalking me with death threats X cop jumped on the “Stupid Is Stupid Does” bandwagon of my other stalkers and perverts and pathological liars and said I didn’t serve in the Corp or in Nam! Reminds me of those faggot queer hippies of days gone by…they do they DO! Stewart is a liar like those he is suing. “Turds From A Shit Hole Fall In A Shit Hole”!

Read my lips… THE COURT NOW HAS THIS INFORMATION DIRTBAG! And I told your attorney to tell you to back off and either she didn’t pass the message or you but no matter PUNK…


18 months…”tour and a half” and yep that’s me in the “Nam”!

Lie to me and about me…using me and manipulating me…then threatening me with “DEATH THREATS”…is the wrong move Mr. Criminal “XXX” loser cop! I will “out you” and those who…

View original post 687 more words

Who is David Hogg, Florida Parkland School shooting survivor?

HoggShit Xposed!

Fellowship of the Minds

In the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, metropolitan Miami, Florida, a young man named David Hogg has appeared in many TV news videos and interviews, such as this one:

This is what David Hogg claims to be:

  • A 17-year-old student, a senior, atMarjory Stoneman Douglas High School (CNN).
  • The son of a FBI agent — the federal agency that is so maligned by President Trump.
  • He and his family moved to Florida several years ago, when he was a freshman. Hogg once wrote on Reddit about moving in the middle of his freshman year and how hard it was because so many people in high school weren’t authentic (Heavy).
  • Hogg is an aspiring broadcast journalist.
  • He said he was in his environmental science class when he heard the first gunshots, and that they never had…

View original post 757 more words

Dead at 42: Broward County Sheriff deputy who questioned Parkland school shooting’s gun control agenda


Fellowship of the Minds

Reblogged from Memory Hole Blog

Second Amendment Proponent, Criticized Marjory Stoneman’s Gun Control Cavalcade

Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Fitzsimons

By James F. Tracy

Sometime on or around April 1, 2018 Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Jason Fitzsimons, 42 years old and in excellent state of mind and health, called in sick to his job. Shortly thereafter Fitzsimons was found dead on his sofa. There has been a complete “news blackout” of this curious and untimely death.

Deputy Fitzsimons wasn’t just any law enforcement officer. Unlike many of his peers, he took to social media to question the potential agenda behind the February 14 Marjory Stoneman High School mass shooting, suggesting that the event was being used to promote the Democratic Party’s gun control platform in anticipation of the 2018 midterm elections. And recent personnel decisions involving public officials indicate (e.g. here and here), an unwritten law of taxpayer-funded institutions is that employees disavow and steer…

View original post 568 more words

And Now, for my next guest—Richard Boyden!

This was my first syndicated article!

Truth Farmer

I encourage you to go to the original article house at Black Hills Portal, and click through links if you haven’t already read them. The gentleman who authored the following article,Richard Boyden,(this article is a masterpiece indictment of the bureaucratic foolishness surrounding raw milk) will be my guest on this week’s Truth Farmer radio show at He is an absolute wealth of information! I am very much looking forward to the show.

For those who might wish to know, I am supposed to be on Derry Brownfield on Thursday. The show is going to be on the smoke and mirrors NAIS implementation…and who knows what else!

Please read, this will be good for your health!

Headline News

South Dakota Raw Milk Producers vs Big Government

State of South Dakota Initiates “Pogrom” Of Economic Genocide Against Small Farm Raw Milk Producers

By Richard Boyden

Small farm raw milk producers are…

View original post 3,536 more words

Attorney’s For Michael S. Stewart Give OK For His Death Threats And Cyberstalking Of Yours Truly!

This DWI lying stalking me with death threats X cop jumped on the “Stupid Is Stupid Does” bandwagon of my other stalkers and perverts and pathological liars and said I didn’t serve in the Corp or in Nam! Reminds me of those faggot queer hippies of days gone by…they do they DO! Stewart is a liar like those he is suing. “Turds From A Shit Hole Fall In A Shit Hole”!

Read my lips… THE COURT NOW HAS THIS INFORMATION DIRTBAG! And I told your attorney to tell you to back off and either she didn’t pass the message or you but no matter PUNK…



18 months…”tour and a half” and yep that’s me in the “Nam”!

Lie to me and about me…using me and manipulating me…then threatening me with “DEATH THREATS”…is the wrong move Mr. Criminal “XXX” loser cop! I will “out you” and those who stand by your side. Pretend to care about what happened to a murdered woman named Toni Anderson…sending me info about those involved in your DWI  “guilty” by JURY (later by APPELLATE court) while YOUR real motive is to save yourself from being convicted for a DWI etc. in the hopes of having that conviction overturned..then you crossed the line again!

Lie and say “I came to your house…threatening your wife and children…then you crossed the line again BIG TIME YOU PRICK!

Use other undocumented lies about me by liars like “YOU”…a full blown LGBT/SPLC member and Queer/Faggot/Sodomite Satanist named Bill Bunting who admits to “sodomizing himself” on Skype and who promotes the RAPE OF WOMEN…. (Native American woman too)…and parroting that freak of nature saying I NEVER SERVED……and BY YOU WHO NEVER SERVED….YOU REALLY CROSSED THE LINE BECAUSE NOW I OWN YOUR LYING ASS!

Michael Shane Stewart is GUILTY OF ALL OF THE ABOVE and why his attorney’s evidently have no problem with him cyberstalking me and lying about me when ALL that I posted on his behalf which he now claims he had no part of information wise…is why THIS BLOG is naming him and his those attorneys and who they can thank for me turning them in to the BAR!

Just know…I have all his information…say DEATH THREATS IN TEXT AND EMAILS! End of story!


Death Threats From A Cyberstalking Criminal Ex-Cop Named Michael Shane Stewart

Michael Shane Stewart

Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel


Image result for Rebecca M. Randles

Brian J. Klopfenstein & Rebecca M. Randles  can personally thank their lying client for this blog and being REPORTED to the MO BAR!

I told his attorney’s by phone messages… Brian J. Klopfenstein & Rebecca M. Randles  that I would turn them into the OCDS and MO BAR for giving this convicted criminal ex cop and pathological liar the “green light” to continue to threaten me and lie and psyberstalk me and so…read my lips…consider it done. (Taking my time 🙂 )

This pathological liar lies about me coming to his home threatening his wife and children in his official “Mr. Boyden emails” which go to his believing attorney’s but…no police report…no time…no description of vehicle etc. whereas when North Kansas City Police Officer kept going by his home over and over…he would try to follow him etc. etc. Just like he lied about “not drinking” when arrested! I don’t know where he lives…never got an addy…don’t care where he lives but Bill Ficken does! 🙂 We met once only at MacDonalds and he lied about that experience in a email about me interviewing a company who specializes in exposing altered video’s…yes…in a official “Mr. Boyden email” while he then sends another lie personal email and at the same time sends a “official Mr. Boyden” one which goes to his attorney’s saying not to contact him.

Just a reminder to the attorney’s and judges…that Michael S. Stewart contacted me to lead me on that he wanted to help find the truth about what happened to Toni Anderson. Fact is…he LIED! It was all about him only and trying to convince me he was a poor innocent HONEST x cop who was victimized by corrupt cops and was not drinking the day he was arrested…then convicted by jury…and then conviction upheld by the Missouri Appellate Court. He lied…HE WAS DRINKING because when I asked him if he was…he never answered me that he was not! WHOOPS! SAY GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Every blog I published with the names of all the attorney’s and judges in his case…HE GAVE ME AND GAVE APPROVAL TO EVERY BLOG! Never said…take it down or make changes. He even wanted me to “trash” the wife of Prosecuting Attorney Joe Gagnon on my blog!

More on this later but wanted to get the word out…

AND…my apologies to all the attorney’s and judges I offended in believing the LIES of Michael Shane Stewart and his case…but…let it be known…as for Toni Anderson and those guilty of her abduction and murder…NO MERCY FOREVER when it comes to exposing YOU…AKA NKCPD, BILL FICKEN, RANDY MAY ETC ETC ETC…

Death Threats From A Cyberstalking Criminal Ex-Cop Named Michael S. Stewart



Meet the LYING DIRTBAG who said I drove by his house threatening his wife and children! No wonder he is in Orange and a convicted criminal X COP!

Michael Shane Stewart

Michael Shane Stewart was booked in Livingston County, MO on 6/14/2016 at 13:00. ID: 137778648
Inmate Name: Michael Shane Stewart
Age: 48
Race: W
Gender: M
Booking Number: B000029499
Arresting Agency: Livingston County
Booking Date: 6/14/2016 at 13:00
Bond: $0

Charges:  Assault Law Enforcement Officer; DWI – Sentenced Jail Time

My cyber stalker Stewart’s LIES were deemed just that by ALL COURTS and his GUILT WAS AFFIRMED…in Livingston County and the State of Missouri Appellate Court! Read this link to a story about his lies!


Is Cyberstalking a crime?

A stalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. He may be anonymous and solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.
Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under various state anti-stalking, slander and harassment laws.
Is threatening a crime?
Threat, criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of bodily injury. “Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury…physical or mental damage…act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person.”
What is the punishment for threatening someone?
It is a criminal offence for anyone to threaten to… The maximum penalty for threatening death or bodily harm is five years imprisonment.
Verbal assault usually involves threatening physical violence on someone, although sometimes yelling or aggressively using words to offend or attack someone can constitute verbal assault. The threats must be something the assailant is capable of carrying out, and which cause fear of imminent danger to the victim. (FORMER  COP!)

Image result for Rebecca M. Randles

Tracee L. Norfleet

Lindsay Poehling Windham

Introduction: First let me say that for MOST reading this “in the know” are aware of the fact I was contacted by Stewart and at his request with information given me…shared his case on my blog “defending him” with information he sent me not knowing until recently that I was deceived, used and lied to. The result of what he did is THIS…this information is going to Stewart’s attorneys  and the attorneys for each party that he is “suing”!
Michael Shane Stewart has sent criminal threatening communications to me for the purpose of intentionally putting me in fear of bodily injury and in collusion and agreement with another cyberstalker named Bill Bunting WHO GLORIFIES THE RAPE OF WOMEN! Bunting was smart enough to leave me (full time pot smoker) a death threat voice mail threatening to murder me which voice mail was played to Major Paul Thurman of the Independence Police Department.
Stewart FOLLOWS THAT SAME PATTERN and in fact “plagiarizes” the same slanderous lies and THREATS by Bunting about me over and over by email and text and sends me links to Buntings YouTube links about me NOT serving in the Marines AKA Vietnam and other slanderous lies about me with comments on my blog over and over.
Stewart intentionally “invites me to his house” via “text” for one purpose only…TO INITIATE A VIOLENT HOMICIDAL LETHAL ACT AGAINST ME! As if I would ever have any reason to respond to the invitation of a homicidal cyberstalker. No wonder he is a “x-cop”!
These are the most obvious and threatening communications from Stewart…”I WILL FIND YOUR ASS”…and “IF YOU SAY ANOTHER LIE ABOUT ME YOU WILL BE SORRY!” and “WATCH WHAT HAPPENS”!
Also he is a confirmed pathological liar when it comes to not only me but BY THE COURTS OF MISSOURI who have judged him GUILTY AS CHARGED and that includes A JURY OF HIS PEERS! See the cases below!
I also want to state that in conversations with me HE NEVER DENIED DRINKING WHEN ARRESTED IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY! Can you say GUILTY OF A DWI! I can…GUILTY! Add to that his telling me that he over and over told the arresting officers in his case when being asked questions…he yelled ‘FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU”!



565.090. 1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she:

(1) Knowingly communicates a threat to commit any felony to another person and in so doing frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional distress to such other person; or

(2) When communicating with another person, knowingly uses coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility and thereby puts such person in reasonable apprehension of offensive physical contact or harm; or

(3) Knowingly frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making a telephone call or any electronic communication; or

(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is, or who purports to be, seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional distress to such other person; or

(5) Knowingly makes repeated unwanted communication to another person; or

(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed, and such person’s response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.


WD 79807.

529 S.W.3d 905 (2017)

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Shane STEWART, Appellant.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: September 26, 2017.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph A. Gagnon , Lathrop, MO, for respondent.

Brian J. Klopfenstein , Kearney, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.

30.25. Appellate Court Opinions – Summary Orders


Per curiam:

Michael Stewart appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgement convicting him of driving while intoxicated and assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree. Stewart argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions in that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that: (1) he was intoxicated; and (2) he assaulted a law enforcement officer by taking a fighting stance.

We affirm. Rule 30.25(b). GUILTY IN OTHER WORDS!

(b) Summary Orders. In a case in which decision is unanimous and all judges believe that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, disposition may be made by a written summary order. By local court rule this Court or any district of the Court of Appeals may require a brief written statement be attached to any such order. The statement shall not constitute a formal opinion of the court and shall not be reported. Neither shall it be cited nor otherwise used in any case before any court.

In the below case…Stewart’s claims to the following per injuries were found to be unsubstantiated or..LIES!

“Stewart claimed law enforcement officers injured him and he had to be taken twice to North Kansas City Hospital. He claimed he suffered a fractured right wrist, dislocated left shoulder, headaches, neck aches, difficulty with vision, muscle stiffness, brain trauma and short-term memory loss”


No. 16-6117-CV-SJ-BP.

MICHAEL STEWART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAVID SPEISER, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division.

January 29, 2018.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael S Stewart & Jennifer Stewart, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian J. Klopfenstein & Rebecca M. Randles , Randles Mata, LLC.

David Speiser, Lathrop Police Department, John Wilson, Lathrop Police Department, John Patterson, Clinton County Sherriff Dept., Jeffrey Parton, Clinton county Sheriff Department, Nicholas Neill & Porter Hensen, Clinton County Sheriff Department, Defendants, represented by Tracee L. Norfleet , Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith & David S. Baker , Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith.

Gary W. Ficken, Jr., Security Officer, Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Frets , Rouse Frets Gentile Rhodes LLC, John W. Witten , Rouse Frets Gentile Rhodes LLC & Mary C. O’Connell , Rouse Frets Gentile Rhodes LLC.

Christopher Kimmel, North Kansas City Police Department, Defendant, represented by Karen J. Halbrook , Halbrook Wood, PC, Andrew Klonowski , Halbrook Wood, PC & Lindsay P. Windham , Halbrook Wood, PC.


BETH PHILLIPS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, (Doc. 34), asserts nine claims against law enforcement officers from the Lathrop Police Department, the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department, the North Kansas City Police Department, and a security guard at the North Kansas City Hospital, (“the Hospital”). All defendants are purportedly sued in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. 34, ¶¶ 9-10.) The first eight counts are claimed civil rights violations, brought by Plaintiff Michael Stewart (“Michael”)1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count IX is a claim for loss of consortium brought by Plaintiff Jennifer Stewart (“Jennifer”).

Defendant Christopher Kimmel is an officer with the North Kansas City Police Department. He has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending the undisputed facts demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs contend that there are disputed issues of material fact that preclude judgment as a matter of law. As set forth below, Kimmel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 69), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.


A. General Observations

At the outset the Court addresses some general matters to explain why they are not discussed in greater detail in this Order. First, some aspects of Plaintiffs’ claims refer to incidents that Kimmel was not involved in and that form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims against other Defendants. Each side disputes the other’s characterization of these events but the Court should not delve deeply into those disputes because, as stated, Kimmel was not involved in them and they do not form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims against Kimmel. The Court can provide sufficient context for Plaintiffs’ claims against Kimmel by discussing those other matters generally, without detail.

Second, in some instances Plaintiffs attempt to dispute facts by discussing unrelated facts that have nothing to do with the proposition originally advanced by Kimmel. The Court finds it unnecessary to discuss these extraneous allegations.2 Relatedly, there are several occasions in which Plaintiffs attempt to dispute a fact with a contention that is not supported by the portion of the Record cited by Plaintiffs. The Court will not point out all such occasions, and will provide citations to the Record as necessary.

B. Events Giving Rise to Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Kimmel

Michael was arrested outside a convenience store in Lathrop, Missouri, on August 8, 2014; the arresting officer (David Speiser, of the Lathrop Police Department) administered force in the course of arresting Michael. He was then taken to the Clinton County Jail; there, he was involved in another physical altercation. At some point thereafter, Michael was transported to the Hospital by ambulance. Two deputies from Clinton County (John Patterson and Jeffrey Parton) and Speiser came to the Hospital as well. An incident occurred when the officers removed Plaintiff from the ambulance, after which Speiser signed a complaint alleging that he was assaulted by Michael. Speiser did not have authority to arrest Michael (because he was not a law enforcement officer for North Kansas City or Clay County), so Gary Ficken — an off-duty North Kansas City police officer who was working as a security officer at the Hospital — directed that Michael be arrested when he was discharged from the Hospital. The arrest was effectuated by Kimmel.

According to Michael, when Kimmel put the handcuffs on “he slapped the handcuff on” and Michael “said `Ow, could you do that a little bit harder next time?’ and he did. He smacked on [sic] the right side.” (Doc. 101-1, p. 36 (Michael Stewart Depo., p. 134).) Michael further testified that “[i]f you slap the handcuff from a distance, it hurts . . . and that was done.” (Doc. 101-1, p. 36 (Michael Stewart Depo., p. 135).)

At the police station, Michael refused to answer questions asked by Kimmel and told him to talk to his attorney; the two eventually became “verbally aggressive” in their exchange. (Doc. 101-1, p. 38 (Michael Stewart Depo., p. 141).) However, there is no suggestion that Michael was physically aggressive; the evidence viewed in the light most favorably to Plaintiffs suggests that Michael was uncooperative, perhaps belligerent, and refused to answer certain questions. After the booking process was completed, Kimmel told Michael that he was “going into the tank,” grabbed him, and began escorting him to a cell. According to Michael, when the pair reached the doorway to the cell, Kimmel stepped back, hit Michael from behind, and knocked him into the wall. (Doc. 101-1, p. 38 (Michael Stewart Depo., p. 143).) Michael described the contact as similar to a football player running into another from behind, and stated the force was sufficient to knock him off of his feet and into the wall head-first, at which point Michael fell to the ground. (Doc. 101-1, pp. 38-39 (Michael Stewart Depo., pp. 143-45).) Michael then asked for an ambulance to return him to the Hospital, and this was done.

As summarized earlier, Michael was involved in several altercations with law enforcement on August 8 prior to the incident with Kimmel. The Record contains some evidence regarding Michael’s injuries, but there is little evidence that would allow a factfinder to attribute a specific injury to a particular incident.3 Michael testified that his collision with the cell’s wall caused a knot on his head. (Doc. 101-1, p. 39 (Michael Stewart Depo., p. 146).) Jennifer testified that at the end of the day Michael “looked disheveled, like he had been in a fight, bruis[ed],” “had a mark on his face and he had a huge bump on his head and he complained of a headache,” and his [w]hole body hurt.” (Doc. 101-5, p. 40 (Jennifer Stewart Depo., pp. 150-51).)4 Records from the Hospital on his return visit indicate that Michael complained of a sore throat and swelling on his side and neck from being choked earlier in the day (not by Kimmel), but nothing specifically related to the incident at the North Kansas City Police Department. (Doc. 101-5, p. 4.) He was not treated for head trauma or wrist pain at the Hospital. Michael saw Dr. Braden Dunbar approximately twelve days later; a CT scan was performed but the results were normal. (Doc. 70-6, pp. 1-2.) He returned to Dr. Dunbar in November 2014, complaining of injuries from the events of August 8 (including “being pushed forcefully unto the jail cell where he struck his head on the wall losing consciousness”); those injuries consisted of frequent severe headaches and pain in his neck and wrist. An MRI was normal. (Doc. 70-6, p. 6.)5

Most of Plaintiffs’ claims do not involve Kimmel, but the Court will list them because Plaintiffs allege that Kimmel conspired to commit the violations in all of the claims in the Amended Complaint. Count I asserts Michael was subjected to excessive force before he was brought to the Hospital. Count II alleges that Michael’s arrest outside the convenience store in Lathrop was not supported by probable cause. Count III asserts that law enforcement officers failed to protect Michael from excessive force. Count VI is a specific attempt to impose liability on Lathrop and Clinton County. Kimmel is not a defendant in any of these claims.

Kimmel is named as a Defendant in Counts IV, VII, and IX.6 Count IV is a conspiracy claim, which asserts that all or most of the law enforcement officers (including Kimmel) conspired with each other to violate Michael’s civil rights as set forth in the Amended Complaint’s other claims. Count VII alleges that Kimmel employed excessive force. Count IX is a loss of consortium claim asserted by Jennifer; Kimmel is a defendant on this derivative claim to the extent that he is a defendant in Counts IV and VII.7

Kimmel argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Counts IV and VII because the uncontroverted facts demonstrate that (1) he did not apply excessive force and that he did not form an agreement with any of the other Defendants to violate Michael’s civil rights, and (2) even if he did, a reasonable officer in his position would not have known that he was violating Michael’s constitutional rights. He further contends that he cannot be liable to Jennifer under Count IX if he is not liable under either Count IV or Count VII. Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment. In the course of the Court’s analysis additional facts will be discussed, but as detailed below Kimmel’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.


A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only upon a showing that “there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See generally Williams v. City of St. Louis,783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir. 1986). “[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the substantive law, it is the substantive law’s identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores,638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). In applying this standard, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986); Tyler v. Harper,744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1057 (1985). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest on mere allegations or pleading denials, but must point to evidence in the Record demonstrating the existence of a factual dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams,620 F.3d 902, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2010).

A. Count VII — Excessive Force8

“Qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Mitchell v. Shearrer,729 F.3d 1070, 1074 (8th Cir. 2013). The Court has discretion to decide these two steps in either order. E.g., Pearson v. Callahan,555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

A claim of excessive force is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment, Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989), and the reasonableness of the amount of force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, giving due regard to an officer’s need to make split-second decisions based on evolving circumstances at the scene. E.g., Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97; Estate of Morgan v. Cook,686 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir. 2012). “The determination whether the force used . . . was reasonable ultimately requires a case-specific balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Chambers v. Pennycook,641 F.3d 898, 906 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Considering the “governmental interest at stake” plainly requires the Court to consider the proffered justification for the use of force. Factors to consider include whether the person poses a threat to the safety of the officer or others and whether the person is resisting arrest. E.g., Mack v. Dillon,594 F.3d 620, 623 (8th Cir. 2010).

In addition, while not controlling, “[t]he degree of injury is certainly relevant insofar as it tends to show the amount and type of force used.” Chambers, 641 F.3d at 906. A de minimis use of force is not unconstitutional, but “[t]he degree of injury should not be dispositive, because the nature of the force applied cannot be correlated perfectly with the type of injury inflicted.” Id. “[I]t is logically possible to prove an excessive use of force that caused only a minor injury, and a rule that forecloses a constitutional claim in that circumstance focuses on the wrong question.” Id.; see also LaCross v. City of Duluth,713 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2013); Finally, the Court must keep in mind that

[p]olice officers undoubtedly have a right to use some degree of physical force, or threat thereof, to effect a lawful seizure, Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, and reasonable applications of force may well cause pain or minor injuries with some frequency. It remains firmly established that “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). The dispositive question is whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, as judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time the force was applied.

Chambers, 641 F.3d at 907.

If the facts permit a jury to conclude that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, the officer may still be entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must be able to prove that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates a constitutional right, and that the constitutional question was beyond debate.” Story v. Foote,782 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted). There is no need for a case to be directly on point, but the established law must not be analyzed at a high level of generality. E.g., Smith v. City of Minneapolis,754 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir. 2014).

1. The Handcuffs

Based on the standards set forth above, the Court concludes that the Record construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff establishes nothing more than de minimis force in connection with the handcuffs. “Handcuffing inevitably involves some use of force, and it almost inevitably will result in some irritation, minor injury, or discomfort where the handcuffs are applied. To prove that the force applied was excessive in that context, therefore, a plaintiff must demonstrate something more.” Chambers, 641 F.3d at 907 (quotation and citations omitted). A plaintiff who “produce[s] no evidence that he suffered anything beyond minor injuries due to the handcuffing. . . cannot demonstrate a Fourth Amendment violation.” Stepnes v. Ritschel,663 F.3d 952, 961 (8th Cir. 2011). Here, the Record demonstrates that Michael suffered no injury and that minimal force was involved. Therefore, this incident cannot support the excessive force claim asserted in Count VII.

2. The Incident at the North Kansas City Police Station

Kimmel argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim of excessive force at the North Kansas City police station because (1) the force employed was de minimis and (2) the use of force was justified. The Record, construed in Plaintiffs’ favor, does not support Kimmel’s arguments.

First, with respect to the degree of force, Kimmel contends that he used de minimis force because Michael suffered no injuries. However, the Record does not conclusively establish that Michael did not suffer any injuries. More importantly, as noted earlier the relevant inquiry examines the amount of force employed, not the degree of injuries caused. Even if the Record established a lack of severe injuries, this fact would not establish that Kimmel administered de minimis force. Here, construing Michael’s testimony in the light most favorable to him, Kimmel was escorting Michael to the cell when he stepped back and rammed his shoulder into Michael’s back. Kimmel administered sufficient force to knock Michael off of his feet and into a wall head-first, thereby causing (at a minimum, because a jury could find more severe injuries) a knot on Michael’s head and continuing headaches. A reasonable jury could find that Kimmel utilized more than de minimis force.

Second, with respect to the justification for the use of force, Kimmel relies on cases that are readily distinguishable. For instance, he relies on Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann,800 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2015) to contend that “[w]here an arrestee is uncooperative and obstructs the booking process it is not unreasonable for officers to use some force to accomplish their duty.” (Doc. 70, p. 7.) However, in Hollingsworth, the plaintiff “repeatedly refused to change from her street clothes into an orange jumpsuit when she was booked into the jail” and “[t]he officers had a legitimate safety reason for requiring the change of clothes.” 800 F.3d at 990. Thus, a reasonable degree of force was justified to make the plaintiff change clothes and accomplish the legitimate safety objectives; as the Eighth Circuit explained, the situation was different from cases “where there was no justification for the use of any force.” Id. In a Tenth Circuit case Kimmel relies on, the Court of Appeals held that a certain amount of force was justified to control and handcuff a physically combative detainee, and a video of the incident demonstrated that the plaintiff accidentally tripped over his leg irons. Tapia v. City of Albuquerque, 101 Fed. App’x 795, 797-98 (10th Cir. 2004). However, there is no evidence that Michael was combative or physically resisting Kimmel, and the evidence construed in Michael’s favor contradicts any suggestion that Michael accidentally fell into the wall. Finally, Kimmel points to Crumley v. City of St. Paul, MN,324 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2003), which considered the use of force necessary to effectuate an arrest. The case is inapplicable here because Michael was already under arrest (and, in fact, was in handcuffs).

Kimmel also does not point to any evidence justifying his use of force on Michael. He contends that Michael was belligerent and uncooperative during booking, but the Record contains evidence demonstrating that this amounted simply to Michael’s unwillingness to answer questions during the booking process — and the booking process was already completed when the use of force occurred. The Court does not believe that Kimmel intends to suggest that he could use force to either (1) make Michael answer questions or (2) punish him for refusing to do so,9 but if he does the law is clearly to the contrary. Similarly, Kimmel’s claim that “Ficken . . . observed [Michael] being combative” at the Hospital, (Doc. 70, p. 8), is irrelevant, because Kimmel’s use of force occurred much later and was not intended to protect anyone or to control Michael at the Hospital.

It has long been established that the use of more than de minimis force can be justified, depending on the circumstances. However, there must be a justification for the use of that force — and here, Kimmel suggests none. A reasonable officer in Kimmel’s position would have known that the Constitution required some justification for the use of greater than de minimis force. And, there is evidence in the Record that would permit the jury to find that Kimmel violated Michael’s clearly-established right to not be subjected to excessive force when he shoulder-blocked Michael into the wall. Therefore, Kimmel is denied summary judgment on this aspect of Count VII.

B. Count IV — Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights

Count IV asserts that Kimmel was part of a conspiracy to violate Michael’s constitutional rights. It alleges that all Defendants “formed a plan and/or had a meeting of the minds on August 8, 2014, at the Fast Break Store [i]n Lathrop, MO; or at the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department; or at the North Kansas City Hospital” to violate Michael’s rights and “specifically to seize the Plaintiff physically and through the use of cruel and inhuman use of force having unlawfully assaulted where Plaintiff was [sic].” (Doc. 34, ¶ 65.) Four overt acts are alleged: one involves removing Plaintiff from his car at the convenience store without probable cause, two involve the application of force, and the fourth alleges that Defendants took Michael “into custody without probable cause to suspect the commission of any unlawful act.” (Doc. 34, ¶ 66.)

To prove a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant conspired with others to deprive him of constitutional rights; (2) that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) that the overt act injured the plaintiff. Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1999). The plaintiff is additionally required to prove a deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege in order to prevail on a § 1983 civil conspiracy claim. Id.White v. McKinley,519 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2008). The first element requires proof that there was a meeting of the minds among the alleged conspirators, Murray v. Lene,595 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing cases), and this element cannot be established with mere speculation. E.g., Johnson v. City of Shorewood, MN,360 F.3d 810, 817 (8th Cir. 2004); Mahaney v. Warren County,206 F.3d 770, 771-72 (8th Cir. 2000).

The Court’s description of the facts, alone, is sufficient to demonstrate that Kimmel is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Kimmel was not present when Michael was arrested at the convenience store in Lathrop, taken to the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office, or removed from the ambulance. And, Plaintiffs identify no evidence explaining how Kimmel could have conspired with anyone to engage in those events. Plaintiffs contend that “all of the officers, including Kimmel, were in a position to view the events” when Michael was removed from the ambulance. (Doc. 101, p. 25.) For support, they cite their response to Defendants’ Statement of Uncontroverted Fact 11 and Exhibit 11, but neither refers to Kimmel. Plaintiffs’ response to Fact 11 discusses whether Plaintiff kicked at a nurse after being removed from the ambulance and does not mention Kimmel at all. (Doc. 101, p. 6.) Exhibit 11 is a single frame from the video of the events at the Hospital, but it is almost completely black and nothing can be discerned. (Doc. 101-11, p. 2.)10 Plaintiffs also insist that the Record provides evidentiary support for the conspiracy because Kimmel is a joint-tortfeasor with the other law enforcement officers and all of them combined to cause a single indivisible injury. (Doc. 101, p. 20.) However, this characterization — even if supported by the Record — would not establish a meeting of the minds necessary to support a conspiracy claim.

Plaintiffs also insist that Count IV survives summary judgment because the Record supports their claim that Kimmel conspired with Ficken to arrest Michael. (Doc. 101, pp. 22-23.) However, the Amended Complaint does not allege that this arrest violated the Fourth Amendment; the only arrest alleged to violate the Constitution is the one described in Count II, which relates to Michael’s arrest in Lathrop. The arrest by Kimmel is mentioned, but all that is alleged is that the arrest occurred. (Doc. 34, ¶ 8.) The Amended Complaint does not allege that the arrest by Kimmel was unconstitutional, nor does it set forth any facts that would support such a claim. Therefore, Count IV cannot be interpreted as alleging that Kimmel conspired with anyone to have Michael arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Regardless, Kimmel would be entitled to summary judgment even if the Amended Complaint alleged this theory. Ficken acted on Speiser’s signed complaint that Michael assaulted him, which provided Ficken and Kimmel with probable to arrest Michael. See, e.g., Kuehl v. Burtis,173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir. 1999) (“an officer may make an arrest if a credible eyewitness claims to have seen the suspect commit the crime”); Peterson v. City of Plymouth,60 F.3d 469, 474-75 (8th Cir. 1995) (“officers are generally entitled to rely on the veracity of information supplied by the victim of a crime . . . .”).

The evidence in the Record demonstrates that Kimmel did not form an agreement with anyone to violate Michael’s constitutional rights and Plaintiffs identify no evidence that creates a factual dispute on this matter. Accordingly, Kimmel is entitled to summary judgment on Count IV.

C. Count IX — Loss of Consortium

Kimmel’s liability to Jennifer on Count IX depends on his liability to Michael under Counts IV or V. Kimmel is granted summary judgment on Count IX to the extent that he is granted summary judgment on Counts IV and VII.


For the reasons set forth above, Kimmel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 69), is GRANTED IN PART, and Kimmel is granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim that Kimmel violated Michael’s constitutional rights when he applied the handcuffs and that Kimmel conspired with others to violate Michael’s constitutional rights. Summary judgment is denied on Plaintiffs’ claim that Kimmel utilized excessive force when he was putting Michael into a cell.



1. Michael is sometimes referred to by the parties as “Shane.”2. Among the topics the Court will not address in this Order is Plaintiffs’ repeated claim that one or more Defendants tampered with a video of Plaintiff’s removal from the ambulance at the Hospital. Plaintiffs’ claims against Kimmel are not based on Kimmel’s actions when Plaintiff was removed from the ambulance and, as will be discussed, Kimmel was not even present. Therefore, the video is irrelevant to the issues addressed in this Order.3. Plaintiffs assert that “[w]hen Kimmel aggressively handcuffed [Michael] he broke [Michael’s] wrist.” (Doc. 101, p. 19.) They point to “Ex. 9, Meritas 0000167” for support. However, Exhibit 9 is not a medical record; it is a copy of photograph that is so dark that it is impossible to describe what it depicts. (Doc. 101-9.) Records from Meritas are provided as Exhibit 8, but Bates Number 0000167 is not included. (Doc. 101-8.) Plaintiffs identify no other documents for the Court to consider, and the Court has not independently located any other document establishing that Kimmel broke Michael’s wrist.4. Plaintiffs have supplied pictures, but (1) there is no indication as to when they were taken, (2) there is no indication as to what caused any of the injuries depicted, and (3) the copies filed with the Court are so poor that they do not reveal anything. (Doc. 101-6.)5. Plaintiffs insist that Michael suffered a concussion, and point to a Neuropsychlogical Evaluation Report from the Rehabilitation Institute of Kansas City prepared in May 2018. (See Doc. 101, p. 11 (citing Doc. 101-7).) The Report does not actually contain a formal diagnosis; instead, it reports Michael’s representation that “Dr. Kosa . . . told him that he thought he had a concussion” and that he was improving until he experienced a “setback when he was struck in the head by a volleyball while at his daughter’s match.” (Doc. 101-7, p. 3.) The Report also diagnoses Michael as exhibiting “evidence . . . of Post-concussion Syndrome . . . .” (Doc. 101-7.) However, Plaintiff has not discussed Dr. Kosa, provided his medical records in this proceeding, or identified any evidence establishing that Kimmel caused him to suffer a concussion.6. Kimmel was also a defendant in Count VIII, but Count VIII was previously dismissed. (Doc. 47.)7. Plaintiffs have also sued Kimmel in his official capacity. A suit against an officer in his official capacity effectively names the municipality for which he works. E.g., Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985); Baker v. Chisom,501 F.3d 920, 925 (8th Cir. 2007). While suing Kimmel in his official capacity may be sufficient to name the municipality as a defendant, it is not clear that serving Kimmel effectively served the municipality; the municipality may still have to be served in the manner required by law. The parties do not raise this issue however, so the Court will not consider the matter further.8. For the sake of clarity the Court will discuss Count VII before discussing Count IV.9. Plaintiffs argue that Kimmel exerted force in retaliation for Michael’s exercise of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, (Doc. 101, pp. 21-22), which may simply be Plaintiffs’ theory as to why Kimmel utilized force. However, the manner in which the argument is presented causes the Court to observe that the Amended Complaint does not contain a separate claim of retaliation, or any claim asserting a violation of Michael’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.10. The Court has reviewed the entire video and Kimmel does not appear. Even if the video was tampered with, it could not have been tampered with in a manner that completely removed Kimmel.

Emails documenting I was first contacted by Stewart. I have documentation of every “threat” he has sent me and including the slanderous lies. Have I remained “silent”? NO! But I have reacted to his lies…maybe not perfectly in a gentleman’s way…but more like a throwback to what I as a MARINE would say to nut case liars and criminals like Stewart who aligns himself with RAPISTS OF WOMEN!
Shane Stewart <>

Thu 3/16/2017, 10:17 AMYou

%d bloggers like this: