21-5907.
Simulating legal process.
(a) Simulating legal process is:
(1) Distributing to another any document which simulates or purports to be, or is designed to cause others to believe it to be, a summons, petition, complaint or other legal process, with the intent to mislead the recipient and cause the recipient to take action in reliance thereon; or
(2) printing or distributing any such document, knowing that it shall be so used.
(b) Simulating legal process is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(c) This section shall not apply to the printing or distribution of blank forms of legal documents intended for actual use in judicial proceedings.
History:
L. 2010, ch. 136, § 132; L. 2012, ch. 150, § 21; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Escalante v. Burmaster (D. Kan. 2024).
· cites it 2× “) Plaintiff further alleges that the service of that order somehow violated a Kansas criminal statute, K.S.A. § 21-5907. Notably, less than two weeks after filing his motion to amend, Plaintiff filed another suit against Defendant Burmaster alleging a violation of civil rights…”
Escalante v. Burmaster (D. Kan. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff further stated that the service of that order somehow violated a Kansas criminal statute, K.S.A. § 21-5907. Notably, Plaintiff then filed this action (“Burmaster III”) against Judge Burmaster alleging a violation of his civil rights because Plaintiff was “improperly…”
Knoche v. Droege (D. Kan. 2024).
· cites it 2× “) Plaintiff alleges the administrative order is a “simulation of Legal Process” and violates K.S.A. § 21-5907, a criminal statute. Magistrate Judge James screened the amended complaint and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should not be dismissed as Judge Droege is entitled…”
Escalante v. Droege (D. Kan. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff further stated that the service of that order somehow violated a Kansas criminal statute, K.S.A. § 21-5907. Notably, Plaintiff then filed this action (“Burmaster III”) against Judge Burmaster alleging a violation of his civil rights because Plaintiff was “improperly…”
Knoche v. Droege (D. Kan. 2024).
“It prohibits the attorneys of record from giving a copy of a child interview report to their clients or allowing the client to read and make notes from the report, but allows the attorneys to discuss the contents of the report with their clients.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.