LuPardus vs City of Gardner KS/Gardner KS Police Dept, et al

LuPardus vs City of Gardner KS/Gardner KS Police Dept, et al Civil Lawsuit: JO-2024-CV-006094
Federal Lawsuit: 2:25-CV-02645 EFM-TJJ

Civil rights case filed by Lonnie LuPardus against the City of Gardner, KS and police officers for false arrest, retaliation, and due process violations tied to a KORA request.

04/07/2026

How I feel every time I face an attorney in court. Especially every time I face an attorney in court and the case continues. Must be doing something right, eh?

Letter to , City of Gardner, KS Government City Administrator
02/16/2026

Letter to , City of Gardner, KS Government City Administrator

12/17/2025

A summary of the events of LuPardus v City of Gardner, Kansas

11/24/2025

Gardner Police Department City of Gardner, KS Government The Kansas City Star LuPardus vs City of Gardner KS/Gardner KS Police Dept, et al

City of Gardner, KS Government Gardner Police Department
11/23/2025

City of Gardner, KS Government Gardner Police Department

11/10/2025

🚨 Update: LuPardus v. City of Gardner, Kansas 🚨

So here’s the latest twist — instead of answering the lawsuit like they were supposed to, the City’s attorney, Connor Russo, decided to yank the case into federal court at the last minute. Why? Because the deadline to respond had already passed, and this move conveniently stalled the default judgment that was about to hit.

The kicker? There was no proper notice of removal in the state court record when I filed for default — the docket was clean. Only after I submitted my motion did they suddenly “discover” a removal. Funny timing, right?

This is exactly why accountability matters. The City of Gardner and its counsel shouldn’t get to rewrite the record when they miss deadlines or dodge responsibility. Federal or state, the facts don’t change — the law still applies.
Transparency isn’t optional. Due process isn’t negotiable.

⚖️ Case Update: October 14, 2025 – LuPardus v. City of GardnerAn evidentiary hearing before Judge Robert Wornall in the ...
10/17/2025

⚖️ Case Update: October 14, 2025 – LuPardus v. City of Gardner

An evidentiary hearing before Judge Robert Wornall in the County District Court centered on whether service of process on the City of Gardner was valid.

The City’s attorney, Connor Russo, argued that service was invalid because the mailing did not include a signed return receipt.

In response, Lonnie LuPardus presented USPS tracking records and called City Clerk Renee Rich to testify. Ms. Rich confirmed that mail addressed to the City Clerk is delivered through the City’s front desk or utility counter, where staff are authorized to receive mail for the Clerk — even if she doesn’t personally sign for it.

After hearing both sides, Judge Wornall ruled that although the original service technically did not comply with K.S.A. 60-304(d)(3), Kansas law allows a 90-day period to cure service defects. He found that Lonnie had already done so and declared that service on the City of Gardner is now effective as of October 14, 2025.

The Court set a Case Management Conference for November 6, 2025, confirming that the case remains active and will move forward toward discovery.

Judge Wornall handled the hearing with professionalism and fairness — giving both sides a full opportunity to speak and ensuring that the record clearly reflected the evidence presented.

âś… Summary of the Outcome:

- The case remains active and will proceed.
- Service on the City is officially recognized as valid.
- Statute of limitations concerns are resolved.
- Next hearing: November 6, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.

We appreciate everyone’s continued support in standing up for accountability and fairness.

⚖️ PUBLIC NOTICE: The Kansas Attorney General Found the City of Gardner Violated the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA)After...
10/05/2025

⚖️ PUBLIC NOTICE: The Kansas Attorney General Found the City of Gardner Violated the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA)
After months of silence, the Kansas Attorney General’s Office (Open Government Enforcement Unit) officially determined that the City of Gardner, Kansas violated state law by withholding public records from me — records they were legally obligated to release.

According to the Attorney General’s October 1, 2025 letter, Gardner illegally denied access to public records, citing litigation as an excuse. The AG found this reasoning invalid under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(11) and ordered the city to take remedial action within 30 days.

➡️ The violation is now officially recorded in the State’s Annual Report of KORA Violations — meaning Gardner’s conduct is on record as breaking Kansas transparency law.

This isn’t a “difference of opinion.”

This is a documented violation of the law by a Kansas municipality — confirmed in writing by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General’s letter to the City of Gardner states:
“When the City of Gardner did not comply with the requirements of the KORA by failing to release records responsive to Mr. LuPardus’s KORA request, it violated the KORA.”

They were also instructed to:
Supplement their response and provide all records wrongfully withheld; and
Review internal policies to ensure future compliance.
Yet, Gardner still tries to hide behind procedural excuses instead of doing what’s right — following the law.
I didn’t file this complaint for sport. I filed it because public transparency is not optional. The City’s continued deflection is exactly why Kansas citizens need to know their rights and hold local government accountable.

đź•° Timeline:
May 9, 2025: KORA request submitted
July 15, 2025: Follow-up filed after City ignored request
October 1, 2025: Attorney General issues finding of violation
October 2, 2025: Notice sent confirming inclusion in the state’s

Annual Report
Let’s be clear: the City of Gardner broke the law.
Now they’re being watched by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.

Transparency isn’t a courtesy — it’s a legal duty.
Gardner failed that duty, and Kansas residents deserve better.

-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --August 21, 2025LuPardus v. City of Gardner, Kansas: Court Reconsiders Dismissal After New Evi...
08/21/2025

-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --
August 21, 2025

LuPardus v. City of Gardner, Kansas: Court Reconsiders Dismissal After New Evidence Reveals City Misled Court on Service of Process: City of Gardner, KS Government — "Today, in a pivotal hearing in LuPardus v. City of Gardner, Kansas, plaintiff Lonnie LuPardus, representing himself, successfully revived his civil rights case after presenting new evidence showing that the City misled the Court about its mail-handling procedures.

The case had previously been dismissed when the City argued that LuPardus failed to properly serve the lawsuit. The City’s attorneys claimed that front desk staff at City Hall were not authorized to accept service for the City Clerk, and therefore, service was defective.

At today’s hearing, however, LuPardus produced a recorded statement from City Clerk Renee Rich, in which she confirmed that:

- All certified and legal mail addressed to the Clerk is received at the Utilities Department front desk;
- Front desk staff are expressly authorized to sign for and accept mail on behalf of the Clerk;
- Once received, legal documents are delivered to the Clerk’s office through internal routing.

This directly contradicted the defense’s earlier assertions. By demonstrating that the lawsuit had in fact been properly served, LuPardus established that the City obtained dismissal by relying on misleading representations about its own internal mail procedures.

Courtroom Dynamics: Observers noted that the ruling in favor of LuPardus’ position was a remarkable moment. As Judge Robert Wonnell signaled agreement with the pro se litigant’s argument, City’s attorney Connor Russo appeared visibly concerned and unsettled, recognizing that the City had lost an important procedural battle to a self-represented plaintiff.
The exchange underscored both the strength of LuPardus’ preparation and the weakness of the City’s position, which had rested on a claim now disproven by the City Clerk’s own admissions.

***Implications Moving Forward***

Today’s outcome is significant: The dismissal of the case is subject to reversal, clearing the way for LuPardus’ claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and civil rights violations to be heard on their merits. The City of Gardner has been placed on notice that procedural maneuvers and misleading statements will not shield it from accountability. The case may again be removed to federal court, but with the service dispute resolved, the City will have to defend against the substance of LuPardus’ allegations rather than hiding behind technicalities."

Address

16540 Moonlight Road
Gardner, KS
66030

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when LuPardus vs City of Gardner KS/Gardner KS Police Dept, et al posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category