CHIEF JUDGE MERYL WILSON
21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, KANSAS

Chief Judge Meryl Wilson has played a direct role in continuing the systemic failures of the Kansas family court system in Case No. 2018-DM-000019, despite the fact that there has never been an adjudication of paternity in my case. I never signed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP), I never took a DNA test, and no court has ever entered a valid adjudication order in Rush County or anywhere else. Without an adjudication of paternity, every single order issued in this case — from child support obligations to sanctions and parenting-time directives — is void ab initio (void from the beginning). Yet Judge Wilson allowed these orders to stand and be enforced against me, while denying me basic due process.

Motion to Recuse – Denied Without a Hearing

Because of these conflicts and the appearance of bias, I filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Wilson under Rule 2.11 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. This motion outlined his refusal to address the lack of adjudication of paternity, his ongoing enforcement of void orders, and the perception that he was protecting state actors instead of upholding parental rights and due process. Instead of setting a hearing, Judge Wilson denied the motion outright by email — not by an official filed court order. Sending a judicial denial by email, without a hearing, is a violation of proper procedure, due process, and the rules governing judicial conduct. 

Motion on Ex Parte Communication – Still Unheard
 
I also filed a Motion addressing Ex Parte Communication after Judge Wilson referred to undisclosed information in his email responses — information not presented in open court, not filed in the docket, and not part of the record. Such conduct raises serious concerns under Rule 2.9 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits ex parte communications and requires all information to be presented openly to all parties. Nearly a year later, this motion has still not been scheduled or heard. By refusing to address it, Judge Wilson denied me the opportunity to have the record clarified and my due-process rights protected. 

Denial of Address Disclosure and Child Safety Concerns

Judge Wilson also denied my requests for the disclosure of my children’s residence, despite the fact that Kansas law requires parents to keep the court and the other parent informed of the children’s residence. I specifically stated in a hearing that my children’s mother was residing with a known felon convicted of manufacturing methamphetamines, yet Judge Wilson refused to order disclosure of the mother’s address. This refusal not only violated statutory requirements but also ignored a significant safety risk to my children.

Pattern of Judicial Misconduct and Due Process Violations

Judge Wilson’s actions fit a broader pattern of judicial misconduct, abuse of discretion, and denial of constitutional rights:

• He allowed void orders to continue even though there is no adjudication of paternity in the court file.

• He denied my Motion to Recuse without a hearing and without a proper filed order, issuing only an informal email response.

• He ignored my Motion on Ex Parte Communications, leaving due-process concerns unresolved nearly a year later.

• He contributed to the continued enforcement of child support on a child who is not biologically mine, despite my requests for DNA testing being denied.

• He failed to enforce the most basic standard of judicial fairness — providing impartial hearings, written rulings, and acknowledgment of constitutional rights.

 
Conclusion

In my opinion, Chief Judge Meryl Wilson embodies the corruption and abuse of authority that defines the Kansas family court system. By denying hearings, enforcing void orders without jurisdiction, and refusing to address ex parte communication, Judge Wilson placed the protection of state actors above the welfare of children and the rights of parents. His decisions have denied me due process, violated my constitutional rights, and perpetuated a broken system designed to cover up judicial mistakes rather than correct them.

 
Denial of Hearing, Refusal to Address Jurisdiction, and Enforcement of Void Orders
 
 
Case: Rush County District Court – Bonjorno v. Jennings, Case No. 2018-DM-000019
Presiding Judge: Chief Judge Merrill D. Wilson
Documents Referenced: Motion for Relief from Void Judgment (June 27, 2025), Supplement Motion (July 4, 2025), Notice and Objection to Clerk Refusal (July 13, 2025), and the Order of July 11, 2025 denying relief.
Filed by: Tyce A. Bonjorno, Pro Se Petitioner
 
 
 
1. Overview of Judicial Misconduct and Denial of Due Process
 
 
In June and July of 2025, I filed multiple motions exposing a fundamental legal defect in my case: there has never been any adjudication of paternity. Despite this, Rush County continues to enforce custody, visitation, and child-support orders as if a lawful adjudication exists.
 
My filings cited K.S.A. 23-2208, In re Marriage of Welliver, State ex rel. SRS v. Castro, and Stanley v. Illinois, all of which hold that paternity must be lawfully established before any parental obligations can attach. I requested a formal hearing to present the Clerk’s written confirmation that no adjudication of paternity or Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) exists in the record.
 
Instead of setting a hearing or addressing the jurisdictional defect, Judge Merrill Wilson summarily denied my motion by written order dated July 11, 2025, without oral argument, without written findings, and without addressing the constitutional or statutory authorities raised .
 
 
 
2. Key Facts from My Motions and Supplement
 
 

• Filed June 27 & July 4, 2025: My Rule 60(b)(4) Motion and Supplement sought relief from the void March 30, 2020 order, which falsely claimed a “temporary adjudication of paternity.” I demonstrated through official correspondence that the Rush County Clerk confirmed in writing on June 21, 2025, that no such adjudication exists.

• Constitutional Basis: My filings argued that any order issued without lawful paternity jurisdiction violates Substantive and Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutes a deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

• Hearing Requirement: I cited Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, Goldberg v. Kelly, and Kansas precedent (Kuhn v. State, 40 Kan. App. 3d 563 (2008)) affirming that a judgment entered without a hearing where a party is denied opportunity to be heard is void .

• Emergency Relief Demand: My supplement requested an expedited hearing, citing the ongoing constitutional harm caused by enforcement of a void judgment .

 
 
Judge Wilson denied the motion without hearing and continued to enforce custody and support obligations based on the false assumption of adjudicated paternity.
 
 
 
3. The July 11, 2025 Order — Judicial Evasion and Fabrication
 
 
In his order, Judge Wilson misrepresented the record by claiming:
 

• My 2018 verified petition’s line identifying myself as the “natural father” was a legally binding voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP);

• Judge Gatterman’s 2020 reference to “paternity already established” closed the issue permanently; and

• The time to appeal the 2020 order had expired.

 
 
These findings are factually and legally false:
 

• A self-drafted petition statement does not meet the statutory requirements for a VAP under K.S.A. 23-2204;

• The Clerk of Court confirmed there is no adjudication of paternity order on file; and

• Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived or cured by passage of time. A void judgment is “a nullity and may be attacked at any time” (In re Marriage of Welliver, 257 Kan. 259 (1994)) .

 
 
Judge Wilson’s refusal to address these jurisdictional defects and his issuance of a coercive enforcement order constitute clear due-process violations and judicial misconduct.
 
 
 
4. Clerk Obstruction and Unlawful Refusal to File Exhibits
 
 
In addition to judicial denial, I documented how the Rush County Clerk refused to file my exhibits, claiming they lacked a case caption—even though they were properly attached, formatted, and referenced in the motion.
 
Under Kansas law, clerks perform ministerial duties only and cannot reject filings based on content or discretion. My filing cited Smith v. City of Hammond, 388 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2004), and State v. Caldwell, 19 Kan. App. 2d 529 (1994), confirming that clerks have no judicial authority to reject filings .
 
This obstruction effectively altered the official record and denied me access to justice, violating my Fourteenth Amendment rights.
 
 
 
5. Pattern of Constitutional Violations
 
 
Judge Wilson’s conduct reflects a systemic pattern of constitutional deprivation and retaliation:
 

1. No hearing on a jurisdictional motion raising constitutional issues.

2. Fabricated adjudication where none exists, contradicting the official record.

3. Clerk interference in the filing of evidence.

4. Threat of sanctions and coercion to enforce a void order.

5. Protection of state actors rather than correction of legal error.

 
 
As noted in Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1985), and Johnson v. Rodrigues, 293 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2002), the enforcement of void orders constitutes a deprivation of rights under color of state law .
 
 
 
6. Federal Preservation and Ongoing Litigation
 
 
These events are now preserved as part of the record in my pending federal civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985. Each filing cites the Rush County Court’s refusal to adjudicate paternity, denial of hearings, and reliance on fabricated jurisdiction as evidence of systemic due-process failure.
 
My Notice and Objection explicitly warned that Rush County’s conduct “invites federal scrutiny and legal consequences under § 1983” .
 
 
 
7. Conclusion
 
 
Chief Judge Merrill Wilson’s actions exemplify judicial misconduct and abuse of discretion.
By:
 

• denying hearings on motions raising fundamental jurisdictional defects,

• allowing clerical obstruction of filings, and

• enforcing orders without legal foundation,

 
 
he has denied due process, violated constitutional protections, and perpetuated fraud upon the court.
 
Every document, email, and order cited here is archived and available for public review. This case now stands as a documented example of how Kansas courts have enforced custody and child-support orders without lawful adjudication of paternity — a direct violation of state and federal law.