CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI POLITICS -- AUDIT
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION -- FOR DEAD DRAINAGE DISTRICT
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI'S HAZARDOUS SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE
Double-click on highlighted text to view documents.
Clay County does have an honest County Clerk and an honest County
Auditor. But they are opposed by powerful political forces.
It appears that they may not be able to help taxpayers who have been charged
unauthorized taxes for a dead public corporation, Birmingham Drainage District,
which expired in 1963 even though it is against the law. "’If a municipal
corporation’, declares the Supreme Court of the United States, ‘upon the
surrender, or extinction in other ways, of its charter, is possessed of any
property, a court of equity will equally take possession of it for the benefit of
the creditors of the corporation.’" (Watts v Gross, 408 S.W.2d 223) Not only that,
but the corporation was state constitutionally prohibited from being organized within
the city limits of Kansas City after its term of life expired as noted in the auditor's
When the Clay County Clerk, Pamela Mason, found out in 2004 the county was
collecting taxes for a levee district that never existed, without legal authority,
and giving the money to an unknown person, or persons, without legal authority to
receive or spend the tax money, she reported the facts to the County Prosecutors
Office. It would appear that the Prosecutor's office is not interested in
protecting the public due to the powerful political entities involved?
They do know who was receiving the money and operating as the dead
district in 2000, a lawyer (Robert W. McKinley) and a LDS Priest (Norbert A.
Kemp) out of Salt Lake. They also know these gentlemen couldn't have
been elected in a legal district. One has to wonder if there is a political payoff,
blackmail, or simply protection of the legal brotherhood involved? Why else would
McKinley sign a 1990 contract (as president of a dead drainage district) that
violated a court order? Why else would Kemp (as head of a church corporation)
have his name on a contract that violated Christian principles. Neither gentleman
appeared to gain anything of significant value by attempting to destroy the
life work of several landowners. The maintenance tax of $33,546.45 wasn't
worth their reputation.
Local, state and federal officials appear to support the lawyer who has been
studying the drainage district law for the past 25 years and the priest who
controls a lot of political money. They were in for a dime, now they are in for a
dollar. The Maintenance tax is up by ten times to $373,883.31 a year. Not bad for
a dead district with over a million dollars in the bank in 2003.
It would appear the lawyer wants to plead that he still doesn't have it right,
rather than have people believe that he is manipulating the officials and the
system by registering the district as a water supply district. The same lawyer
who has helped revise the rules of the Missouri Supreme Court. The same
lawyer who portrayed himself as president of the dead district and as its
lawyer in 2001 when he petitioned the court in the name of the supervisors,
who could not legally serve, to extend the life of the dead district for
another 80 years. The same lawyer who sent the 33 year out of date court
document to the Secretary of State. The same lawyer who represents ZION
SECURITIES, which controls the LDS church property in Missouri.
When the County Auditor, Vic Hurlbert, was appraised of the facts he looked at the
situation and posted his audit report on the dead Birmingham Drainage District on
the county website, May 11, 2005. He did his job. He said the district appeared to
exist based on a 2004 court action to extend the life of the dead district for another
But then the auditor noted the 1923 Supreme Court action outlining the constitutional
prohibition against creating a drainage district within the city limits of Kansas City on
a petition of landowners and a 1970 court action ordering a dead districts assets to
be sold by a court of equity because its term of life had expired.. Kansas City
currently claims to be the sponsor of the district based on the constitutional
The auditor also posted a review and comments of the audit which noted that the
county had documents on file which show the state carried the district as an expired
corporation as late as 2003.
However, it was the auditors opinion that the county would continue to collect
maintenance taxes for the unknown person, or persons, alleged to be operating as
the Birmingham Drainage District until a court told the county not to or the people
voted the dead district out of existence.
The audit report didn't address the legal questions or why the maintenance tax would
jump from $37,739.17 in 1998 to over $733,854.00 sent to the lawyer's office noted
in the report. The report did mention a lease --- which brought in another
$140,000.00 a year for the same period for the dead district.
Here is the link to the audit on Clay County's website.
By 2002, the corporate representatives alleged to be supervisors of the Birmingham
Drainage District had a major problem as expressed by the AG.
Attorney General's Opinion 39-2002
There is no provision that an authorized representative of a corporation that
owns property in a drainage district may be elected to the board of
supervisors of a drainage district under Section 242.150.
The reality: 1) an expired public corporation; 2) that was legally required to be
liquidated, 3) that could not exist in Kansas City; 4) operated by individuals who could
not serve as supervisors in a legal district; 4) gave sworn testimony before a legislative
committee, 5) to get Bill HB 1085 passed, 6) an Ex post facto law, 7) which simply
implied it was legal for the corporate representative to operate the dead Birmingham
SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED
FOR A TIME
Corporate existence begins, when.
355.101. 1. Unless a delayed effective date is specified, the corporate existence
begins when the articles of incorporation are filed.
Even if that were true, there is still
Liability for preincorporation actions.
355.106. All persons purporting to act as or on behalf of a corporation, knowing
there was no incorporation under this chapter, are jointly and severally liable for all
liabilities created while so acting.
(L. 1994 H.B. 1095)