Court filing: Impeachment of Carl Junction mayor was conspiracy to nullify will of the voters

The battle's not over yet for impeached Carl Junction mayor Mike Moss.

A petition for judicial review filed Tuesday in Jasper County Circuit Court challenged the impeachment, noting that a chief allegation against Moss occurred outside his duties as mayor and the participation in the voting of the city council member who filed the initial complaint.

The petition also claims that Moss' impeachment was a "conspiracy to nullify the will of the voters."

From the petition, which was filed by Moss' attorney William Fleischaker:

 The Resolution of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Carl Junction, Missouri, removing Plaintiff from the Office of Mayor:

(1) Is in violation of constitutional provisions of the State of Missouri; 

(2) Is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Carl Junction, Missouri; 

(3) Is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record; 

(4) Is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law; 

(5) Is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial; 

(6) Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; and 

 (7) Involves an abuse of discretion. 

The Resolution referred to herein is a final decision in a contested case, Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies provided by law and is aggrieved by said decision. 

In finding Plaintiff guilty of the Articles of Impeachment, Defendants considered evidence of events prior to Plaintiff’s assumption of the office of Mayor. Said events do not rise to the level of specifically relating to and affecting the administration of his office and are not so substantial as to directly affect the rights and interests of the public. 

In finding Plaintiff guilty of the Articles of Impeachment the Defendants considered evidence that Plaintiff made a statement during a conversation with Aldermen Shanks at the Alderman’s residence and totally outside the scope of any official duties of Plaintiff. The statement does not rise to the level of specifically relating to and affecting the administration of Plaintiff’s office and was not so substantial as to directly affect the rights and interests of the public. 

On May 8th, 2025, Alderman Shanks made a written ethics complaint to the City Administrator regarding the statement made in his presence by Plaintiff. The complaint was neither signed nor sworn to as required by section 100.600 B of the city code of the City of Carl Junction, Missouri. 

Instead of submitting Alderman Shanks’ complaint to the city attorney to determine the sufficiency thereof as required by section 100.600 B of the city code of the City of Carl Junction, Missouri, the City Administrator unilaterally determined that Shank’s complaint was a public record that he disclosed to the public by providing a copy to a reporter who then published the substance of the complaint in a newspaper on May 14th, 2025. 

If a disruption of the operation of the government of the City of Carl Junction occurred (and Plaintiff denies any such disruption) it was the direct result of the conduct of the City Administrator who wrongfully released Shanks’ unsigned and unverified complaint to the media which then caused it to be repeated in gossip on social media. 

Because Alderman Shanks was the instigator of the ethics complaint leading to the bringing of Articles of Impeachment against Plaintiff, he was not a neutral and unbiased judge of the merits of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment and should have been disqualified from participating in the vote on the merits of the allegation of the Articles of Impeachment. 

The City Administrator testified at the hearing that the work product of the employees of the city has not been impacted by Plaintiff’s statement to Alderman Shanks or the publicity surrounding impeachment proceeding. As a result, the comment made by Plaintiff to Alderman Shanks was not so substantial as to directly affect the rights and interests of the public. 

The acts of Defendants seeking to remove Plaintiff from office constituted a conspiracy to nullify the will of the voters of the City of Carl Junction. No reasonable person could find that the conduct of Plaintiff constitutes grounds for removal from office. The conduct of Defendants was frivolous, causing Plaintiff to unnecessarily incur attorney fees to defend his office. 

As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants his attorney fees incurred in defending his office and in bringing this Petition for Administrative Review. 

Pursuant to Section 536.120 RSMo., Plaintiff is entitled to an order by this Court to require the City of Carl Junction to stay the enforcement of its resolution removing Plaintiff from office and to permit Plaintiff to remain in the office of Mayor until this Court completes its review of the resolution removing Plaintiff from Office, conditioned upon such terms as shall appear to the Court to be proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court to review the decision referred to herein and reverse said decision and remand the case to the City of Carl Junction for dismissal or such other proceedings as the Court deems proper, for an order staying or directing Defendants to stay the removal of Plaintiff from the Office of Mayor until the review is completed upon such terms as shall appear to the Court to be proper until the conclusion of these proceedings and to award Plaintiff his attorney fees incurred in defending his office and bringing this Petition for Administrative Review, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the premises.