U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 04, 2007 08:56 AM UTC

John Andrews interviewed by Colorado Law Week's Don Knox

  • 25 Comments
  • by: tiltawhirl

Law Week Online interviewed John Andrews about his pending and continuing objectives for judicial reform in Colorado.  Andrews posted a transcript of the interview on his Website, “Backbone America.”  My comments are below:

What stood out for me from his comments were the following quotes (followed by my commentary):

  • “the courts are out of control, and we’re looking at different pressure points to try to remind the judicial branch that independence of undue influence should not mean the prerogative to make up the law and depart from the written text of the Constitution.”  I recently wrote about this in the context of judicial inactivism, through capricious, arbitrary and/or pragmatic bases for judicial decisions in the nature of departure from stare decisis and, almost always, occurring in unpublished opinions, affecting individual persons, families or corporations. See diary here. It is not clear to me whether Andrews is complaining about published opinions with political ramifications that he disagrees with and may be describing as “judicial activism.”

  • “simply placing a 10-year-and-out ceiling on the service of Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court judges would not of itself assure that judges more carefully would follow the law in the future. In other words, term limits for judges is decidedly a blunt instrument, but the screaming panic that it stirred in the bench and bar establishment, this little, closed, self-protecting club, certainly signaled that even though it’s a blunt instrument and an inexact way at getting at their unaccountability, it certainly got their attention”  He’s right on here on a couple of points.  First, the barking mad response arising from the judiciary club was particularly obstreperous to the point that one has to really wonder, what are they afraid of?  Why so protective?  It sure is hell isn’t an effort to protect the rule-of-law or the people of Colorado or the Separation of Powers doctrine.  Secondly, term limits truly doesn’t fix anything, unless your only objective is to get rid of dead weight (e.g., Mary Mullarkey, et al.).  Polsters, no doubt, appreciate the sentiment of hope when bringing in a freshman congress, only to be followed by disappointment a few years later as the result of unfulfilled promises.
       In my view, a better idea for obtaining oversight (and insight into) the Judicial Performance Commission and Rick Wehmhoefer’s Commission on Judicial Discipline (the subject of a recent RMN article) is to have an independent non-partisan group outside Colorado provide audits, much the same way that corporations bring outside auditors under Sarbanes-Oxley.  In other words, we really don’t need to replace the existing [broken] system with something else but, rather get the existing system to function as it is purported to do.  A good place to start would be firing Rick Wehmhoefer and John Gleason in addition to adding these outside audits based either on all (or a sampling) of the administrative submissions now handled by these commissions.

  • There’s no “amount of repair to the nominating commissions that sufficiently addresses that broader concern about unaccountability of our judges and a culture of arrogance and what I’ve called a ‘God complex’ among the judges”  Not much I can add here.  He’s right. I realize that the position judges lends itself to the formation of this complex1 but, the complex exists, nevertheless.  It causes judges to be out of touch with the people (the peasantry) other than their perceived social elitist circles and, which is conducive for decision-making that is capricious, arbitrary or devoid of a sense of duty to the oath  or sanctity of the office (see the footnote!)

  • “I wrote in The Denver Post of my dismay at the intellectual bankruptcy of the CBA spokesman who testified against the Harvey bill in the Senate last February. . . at that hearing, all he said was more or less the bar association believes this is a bad bill. ‘The bar association will be working on something which we believe addresses the admitted room for improvement in the nominating process, and when we have that, we’ll be in touch with you.’ He made not a single specific criticism of the bill that was before the committee. He made not a single specific suggestion of what could or should be done, and what they claimed would be forthcoming from CBA. After the hearing, in the corridor, I told him politely but very bluntly that it appeared to me that the bar association was acting in bad faith, that there is no genuine bona fides [sic.] for improving the nominating process. And I reminded him that we had sat in this conference room last summer with Justice Kourlis, with John Moye from the bar association and with himself, and with Judge (Dennis) Graham from the Court of Appeals. I believe it was the four of them and me. And I reminded him that they had told me at that time if we dropped the amendment, or we didn’t succeed in passing the amendment, we could count on constructive cooperation toward reform in 2007, and I have yet to see any evidence of it during the legislative session, and I have yet to hear a word from anybody since then. . . if you cross the bench and the bar, and you try to break up their little closed game and let some fresh air blow through the windows and some light shine, in that they will do what they have to do to not only beat your proposal but crush you as an opponent. That’s where it stands between me and the bar association.”  Well, I’m certainly no conspiracy freak but, this outcome does lend some credibility to Condor’s allegations that the CBA is “complicit” in the current state of affairs.  I really have little to add except to say that the bar association, is obligated to protect the interests of its members.  That said, perhaps, the association, to which I also belong, should be reminded of former CBA President Laird Milburn’s call to action a few years ago regarding professional responsibility and legal ethics.

    • 1 See Max Boot, Out of Order: Arrogance, Corruption and Incompetence on the Bench, (New York Basic Books, 1998 (“A judicial selection process that often results in bumbling candidates being chosen.  A judicial oversight process that rarely punishes judges for even flagrant misconduct on the bench.  Put those together, and what do you get?  A breeding ground for a disease I call ‘gavelitis.’
      This dread disease can be caused by wielding a gavel in the line of duty, and its symptoms include advanced pomposity, pathological sanctimoniousness,  congenital self-importance, and aggravated eccentricity.  Judges suffer from this disease grow so arrogant, so out of touch, so remote from everyday life that they think the normal rules of good behavior and human decency don’t apply to them.
      Its not hard to understand how judges can fall prey to this malady.  After all, when you wear a black robe, everyone–staff, litigants, even haughty maitre d’s– bows and scrapes and genuflects before you.  All your witticisms are suddenly hilarious, all your observations astute, all your suggestions readily adopted. Your fellow man invariably addresses you as ‘Your Honor’ or ‘Judge.’  Nobody’s ever mean to you and if they are, why, you can lock them up.”) [ed.: or, you can just ask the cops to, “thump the shit out of,” him! (click here)].

    Tweet
    Share

    Comments

    25 thoughts on “John Andrews interviewed by Colorado Law Week’s Don Knox”

    1. I am involved in litigation in Colorado in both state and federal court, but I don’t live in that state and so I didn’t follow very closely the controversy last year about that ballot initiative.  I did, though, wonder why the proposed amendment would have imposed term limits on Supreme Court justices and appellate judges but not on district and county judges.

      I presumed that the reason was that the sponsors and supporters of proposal were interested in the outcomes of the so-called hot-button cultural-wars-type cases—cases that always are resolved in precedential opinions.  I presumed, in other words, that the purpose of the amendment was not to address the quiet, palpable, case-by-case abuses of office by district judges in cases that get no publicity at all—the casual, routine abuses of judicial authority of the sort that are so thoroughly ingrained in the culture of the Colorado judiciary that the judges there apparently don’t consider not engaging in them regularly—but instead to force a change in precedent in those hot-button social issues.

      The sponsors and supporters of the proposal are, as I understand it, rightwing political crusaders.  I, by contrast, am a liberal Democrat.  So I hoped the proposal would be defeated and was happy when it was.

      The problem here is that there are two entirely distinct issues that are always being improperly conflated.  There is, on the one hand, disagreement with the outcome of precedent (i.e., disagreement with the common law itself, and a belief that the judges issuing those opinions are overstepping the appropriate bounds of judicial lawmaking and are usurping the province of the legislature) and, on the other hand, intellectual corruption by people entrusted with the most awesome powers of government and who employ that power to engage in garden-variety thuggery. 

      Whatever the merits of the claims of judicial overreaching in establishing law, it is the conflation of those claims with the deliberate misuse of judicial authority and refusal to comply in individual cases with what is the undisputed law—that is, express statute or unequivocal common law precedent of the courts of appeals—that enables the canard of threats to judicial independence to undermine serious efforts to curb judicial abuse of power in ordinary, low-profile cases.

    2. The Colorado Bar Association paid lawyer Brett Huff of White and Steele to successfully request a federal judge to order me put in jail, without being accused of disrupting a hearing and without a federal prosecutor stating probable cause to believe I committed a crime.  This happened in a hearing on 9/2/05 at which Charles “Chuck” Turner, CBA director was present and Mr. Turner did not protest.  At that hearing, (before federal judge Nottingham in 02-1950), there were only financially interested prosecutors (i.e. insurance defense counsel). Christopher Beall, who was representing Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, stated that I was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a lawyer.  I was not allowed to cross-examine my accusers.  I was told I did not have a right to an attorney and the Federal Public Defender’s office wrote to me that they could not represent me because I was not accused of a crime.  There was no sentence, no reference to any sentencing guidelines nor any bail hearings. There was no hearing on clear and present duty to perform as required by the Colorado Supreme Court in Marshal v. Marshal and the so called injunction did not comply with rule 65(d) and was issued without an order to show cause, a motion, a bond, or a hearing.

      I had previously engaged in back and forth email with Mr. Turner.  I asked him how I could get copies of the insurance policies.  I later found out that that was a required initial disclosure under rule 26(a) but the various defense counsel disclosed the insurance (by Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance of Canada, and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda) only in their bills.  Mr. Turner did not inform me that the insurance policies were a required disclosure but merely emailed to me not to assume anything.  I think I was entitled to assume that all the rules of civil procedure would be followed whether I knew them or not and that the defense counsel would not engage in witness intimidation (which is a felony).  I believe that Mr. Huff was paid by Lloyds of London or other insurance but Mr. Huff won’t tell me.

      I have absolutely no criminal record but was jailed three times totaling 5 months and was transported 1200 miles across state lines at gunpoint by the Marshals and strip searched (which really upset me).

      1. Yes, it’s true that this is not my forum and, yes it’s true that you have a right to express your opinion wherever you want (within reason) but, I am asking you to stop hijacking my diary entries to go on long, prolix diatribes about the factual details of your case.  Nothing in your post is even remotely relevant to the John Andrews interview, judicial term limits, retention elections, partisan elections or independent auditing.  If you’re going to contribute, please make some effort to stay on point and not make everything about you and your case.  If you’re hoping some lawyer or law professor is going to accidentally come across your posts and say:

        “My God, I can’t believe this travesty of justice!  Where can I reach this woman in time, so that I can take over her cases, file pro hac vice in the other states where her litigation is and/or file a new law suit against these insurance underwriters and CBA commandos before the statute of limitations expires!”

        . . . it ain’t gonna happen.

        Please stop stalking my posts! Go make your own diaries or start your own Web site or citizens’ action consortium. Maybe you can get a cash advance on your expected $30M settlement from J.G. Wentworth to underwrite you grande schemes.

        1. The article says:

          “He made not a single specific suggestion of what could or should be done, and what they claimed would be forthcoming from CBA. After the hearing, in the corridor, I told him politely but very bluntly that it appeared to me that the bar association was acting in bad faith”

          And that is what I have futher supported–that the CBA acts in bad faith in paying for witness intimidation and not protesting informal and repetitive ex parte conferences. 

          I don’t know what your problem is–you post on my posts all the time.  This is a public forum.

    3. While John Andrew’s proposed terms limits may in an indirect way affect the actions of some members of the judiciary, as it affected John’s attitude toward his legislative efforts, it does not impose transparency and accountability on the judiciary especially in the district and county courts.  Even if term limits could be applied to the lower courts, judges can do a lot of damage in ten years when they are not held accountable for their actions.

      The framework for accountability is in place via the Attorney Regulation Counsel and Commission on Judicial Discipline, however, it is individuals such as John Gleason, Louise Culberson-Smith, and Richard Wehmhoefer within these agencies who have intentionally, unethically, and arguably criminally failed to provide any meaningful oversight on behalf of the citizenry. When the Colorado Legislature addresses this problem, I’ll sit up and take notice. 

      1. By the middle of the 19th century, “due process of law” was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that “it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The [due process] article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.”…. In 1934 the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”… Early in American judicial history, various jurists attempted to form theories of natural rights and natural justice that would limit the power of government, especially regarding property and the rights of persons”  Wikipedia

        The ABA argued to me that only the state attorney regulation counsel can provide a hearing on attorney misconduct.  To the best of my knowledge, all of them in the various states have no authority to award any damages to parties injured by lawyers in tort.  To the best of my knowledge in all states the same principles as recognized by the Wisconsin courts apply:

        “The qualified immunity falls away, however, when an attorney acts in a malicious, fraudulent, or tortuous manner, which frustrates or perverts the administration of justice.  ….Goerke, 67 Wis. 2d at 106-108.  If such behavior is properly pleaded and proved, there is no immunity and the attorney may be subject to liability to third parties.”
          Walter W. Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, N. 92-2279, 1994 WI 15227, 517 N. W. 2d 658, 185 WI 2d, 22, June 23, 1994.

        “The first issue is whether a lawyer can be liable to a third party, non-client for acts committed within the attorney-client relationship where the attorney does not have direct contact with the  third party.  We conclude that an attorney can be held liable for actions rendered in the course of representation if those actions are fraudulent”.  Goerke v. Vojvodich, 67 Wis. 2d 102, 226 N.W. 2d 211 (1975) Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis 2d 304, 401 N.W. 2d 816 (1987)
        The second issue is whether a lawyer and a client are incapable, as a matter of law, of engaging in a conspiracy pursuant to Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis 2d, 3967, 405 N.W. 3d, 354 (Ct. App. 1987).  We conclude that they are not.
        The third issue is whether Badger Cab permits a plaint to pursue an action against the defendant and the defendant’s attorney where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant engaged in fraud and a conspiracy—giving rise to the litigation.  We hold that Badger cab does not bar an action against the defendant’s attorney under such circumstances.
        … “Goerke explicitly stated that an exception to the general rules of attorney immunity from liability to nonclients exists when an attorney’s conduct is fraudulent with respect to nonclients”  Green Spring Farms, 136 Wis 2d at 321-22.
        Neibler cites no authority, nor are we are of any, that requires direct contact between the third party and the attorney accused of fraud or collusion.  Although the facts of Goerke and Green Springs Farms differ from the facts of this case, the general statement as to the liability of attorneys to third parties remains constant.  Here, Lane alleged that Niebler acted ‘maliciously’ and ‘with actual intent to….defraud Lane’ and that Niebler “exceeded the bounds of his professional obligation to Sharp and the Scarberrys and became an active participant in …fraudulent activities, acting in bad faith our of self-interest and/or malice toward Lane”.  Under this standard, Lane’s complaint sets forth facts sufficient to maintain an action as a third party, non-client against Niebler….
        ….
        We conclude that Niebler may be held liable to Lane, a third party, non-client, for fraudulent acts committed within an attorney-client relationship.  We also conclude that an attorney and the client are capable of engaging in a conspiracy.  Finally, we conclude that Badger Cab does not preclude Lane from pursuing his claims against Sharp, the Scarberrys, and Niebler in this single action.”  Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc. 248 Wis 2d 380,m 635 N.W. 2d. 896, 2001 WI App. 250 (Wis. App. 09/26/2001). Wisconsin Court of Appeals, No. 02-0708, 248 Wis. 2d 380, 635 N.W. 2d. 896, 2001 WI App. 250, 2001 WI 00001059 9.26/01

        1. You’re not getting it. Cutting-and-pasting text from an opinion dealing with attorney liability to non-fiduciaries, third parties or opposing parties is not relevant to this topic..  You’re diluting this discussion with an archaic, prolix, tedious and selfish focus on your case, most of which, in my opinion, is based on a profound lack of understanding of basic legal principles.

          Please stop diluting otherwise-meaningful discussion with your selfish self-focus.  There are other people in the world with legal issues and concerns besides Kay Sieverding of Wisconsin but, you don’t seem to care about any of them!  You keep ranting here and everywhere about, “I want the money!”  Great, go get a damn job.  You obviously don’t have one, because you post about the minutia from your case[s] all over the internet on any and every open forum dealing with legal issues of any remote nature.  My God, woman!  You even went over to Condor’s blog on ProgressActionNew and diluted his entire thread with a hundreds of lines of billing records from your case.  Leave us alone, please. Beat it. Scram. Go away.

          1. If you think my case violates legal principles you can email me at kay.sieverding@gmail.com or you can post on “Kay Sieverding’s very own thread”. The defendants didn’t claim that I violated rule 11 except my claiming that attorneys do not have immunity.

            I know that you work for a law firm so you have a financial interest in supporting the idea of attorney immunity. 

            Your blogs are pretty long.  You brought up the ethics of the CBA in what you chose to quote. 

            The only quotations I provide are related to bills for ex parte conferences, malicous injunctions, attorney liability, and witness intimidation.

            My other work life is none of your business.

            1. Yes, indeed.  I work with Brett Huff of WHITE & STEELE, P.C. and I’m meeting David Brougham later today for golf.

              How did you figure it all out, Kay?!?!  Never mind, please don’t answer that.

              1. You already published on this web site that you work for a law firm and that your pro se litigation had to do with child custody issues, not suing a lawyer in tort. 

                Maybe baiting me will make you some money. In my D of Columbia cases, the State of Colorado was reoresented by Daniell Moore and then Hall and Evans hired her and she immediately asked to have me put in jail for engaging in pro se litigation.

                1. The state has a pilot program that I’m participating in that will pay out $5 per day for each pro se litigant that is jailed as an actual and proximate result of my efforts.  My entire posts on pro se litigation are intended to bait all the “courties” and pro se or would-be pro se litigants far and wide, so that I can make secret ex parte arrangements to have them jailed.  Here, again, I was unable to fool you, Kay, even for minute.

                  p.s.I I never published on this site or any other site that I “work for a law firm.”  If I did, my employer would have my ass, by now.

                  1. “and I must read twenty or more legal briefs and opinions in any given week” tiltawhirl @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 16:54:56 PM MDT

                    1In fact, my job is to assist law firm and attorneys to prevail in individual cases (where e-discovery or comptuter forensics come into play) or to be a profitable law firm (where law practice management software comes into play) by: tiltawhirl @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 17:43:21 PM MDT

                    I’m not trying to give you a hard time.

                    1. . . . supports your allegation that I “work for a law firm.” I am a computer forensics examiner and legal technology consultant. It’s my business to read case opinions to follow the evolving law on electronic discovery, admissibility of computer animations, e-filing technologies and forensics case law, so that I can properly serve my clients, who do not spend their days doing such research, because they’re busy preparing for trial or preparing appellate briefs.  No secret there, as you’ve handily discovered with your gumshoe Ace Ventura detective work.  Gosh, I feel like one of the villains on Scooby Doo that has just been unmasked.  Great work, Kay!  Can we move on, now, and let someone else get in word in about the original subject of this thread (hint: Law Week interview with John Andrews)?

                    2. . . . supports your allegation that I “work for a law firm.” I am a computer forensics examiner and legal technology consultant. It’s my business to read case opinions to follow the evolving law on electronic discovery, admissibility of computer animations, e-filing technologies and forensics case law, so that I can properly serve my clients, who do not spend their days doing such research, because they’re busy preparing for trial or preparing appellate briefs.  No secret there, as you’ve handily discovered with your gumshoe Ace Ventura detective work.  Gosh, I feel like one of the villains on Scooby Doo that has just been unmasked.  Great work, Kay!  Can we move on, now, and let someone else get in word in about the original subject of this thread (hint: Law Week interview with John Andrews)?

                    3. TiltaWhirl:  ” I am a computer forensics examiner and legal technology consultant”.  So you work for multiple law firms not just one?

                      So what’s your relationship with John Andrews? 

                      Have you done any work for the Colorado Secretary of State or the Colorado Insurance Commission (DORA)?

                      Have you worked for the CBA?

                      Do you consider yourself a Republican or a Democrat?

                      Are you involved with sales and marketingl?

                      2. I have no party affiliation.  ParsingReality has accused me of being an “independent thinker.” (I won’t hold it against him).
                      3. I provide consulting services to several small to medium sized law firms, solo practitioners and, of course, Lloyds of London.
                      4.   I don’t do any work for the Colorado Secretary of State but we enjoy a game of golf together at least twice a month.
                      5.   My relationship with John Andrews is quite complicated:  It involves at least two Intel or AMD processors; several 3Com or Cisco routers; thousands of miles of optical cable; a DSL and/or cable subscription; a couple of flat-screen monitors; a couple of keyboards & pointing devices; and a cup of coffee to satisfy the needs of the keyboard-chair interface.
                      6. I am, indeed, involved in sales and marketing.  As a side job, I market and sell prime ocean-front real estate in your neck of the woods, Wisconsin. Are you in need of any? I can email you an account number to wire a deposit to.

                      7. What is your name? What makes you think that is is respectable to post misleading comments about people anonymously?

                        Do you work for Faegre and Benson, White and Case, McConnell Siderius et al. or Hall and Evans?

    4. The director of the Colorado Bar Association has reason to know of informal ex parte conferences with the federal courts from which the CBA benefited but did not protest them.  These were documented in the defense bills and scans can be downloaded from the D of Colorado 02-1950 docket 998 and 1006 and include:

      On 2/12/03: “Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane Bennett and many city defendants. Telephone call to Dave Brougham—discussed pleadings from Wisconsin court and Sieverding letter.  Conference call to Magistrate Schlatter.  Further discussion with Brougham on notice letter to Sieverding.”(Anthony Lettunich bill to City of Steamboat Springs CO attached to 07-5109)

      6/24/03 “Telephone call from Dave Brougham (defense attorney for government defendants) advising me that the Clerk for Magistrate Schlatter advised that no Reply would be necessary”. (e88 attached to 07-5109 )

      6/23/03 “confer with Van Pelt regarding reply issues. Telephone call to Court regarding need for same”.  (David Brougham bill)

      8/15/05  “prepared final revisions and filed electronically with U.S. District Court for D.C….telephone call from Judges Chambers re motion for extension of time” (15 minutes Bill from O’Brien Butler McConihie and Schaefer to Faegre and Benson attached to 07-5109)

      10/27/04 “revise letters to Judge Tunheim; discussion with M. Chester and J. Walborn (former clerks for Judge Tunheim)” (e35 Jon Borger to Schaefer at O’Brien Bulter McConihie and Schaeffer in D.C. attached to 07-5109)

      2. You’re not getting it. The minute details (billing record of allegedly ex parte communications between an attorney and whomever) of your case are not meaningful contributions to this discussion.  You’re diluting this discussion with an archaic, tedious and selfish focus on your case, most of which, in my opinion, is based on a profound lack of understanding of basic legal principles.

        It is not the CBA’s job to step in an object to anything in your case. In fact, they were the defendants to your frivolous, meritless lawsuit, duplicative lawsuits.  Why didn’t you go sue the ACLU, as well? No wonder Nottingham wanted you jailed.  It was a public safety move, I’m beginning to think.

        Please stop diluting otherwise-meaningful discussion with your selfish self-focus.  There are other people in the world with legal issues and concerns besides Kay Sieverding of Wisconsin but, you don’t seem to care about any of them!  You keep ranting here and everywhere about, “I want the money!”  Great, go get a damn job.  You obviously don’t have one, because you post about the minutia from your case[s] all over the internet on any and every open forum dealing with legal issues of any remote nature.  My God, woman!  You even went over to Condor’s blog on ProgressActionNew and diluted his entire thread with a hundreds of lines of billing records from your case.  Leave us alone, please. Beat it. Scram. Go away.

        1. Tiltawhirl:  You say “It is not the CBA’s job to step in an object to anything in your case. In fact, they were the defendants to your frivolous, meritless lawsuit, duplicative lawsuits”

          I think the CBA should observe the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct including:

          A lawyer is …an officer of the legal system and…having special responsibilities for the quality of justice…“…A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate other” ….“…it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action” ….“it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”… “A lawyer …should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.” …“The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government”…. “Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”… “A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers”…. ”rules are imperative (when) cast in the terms “shall” or “shall not.””…. A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty…shall inform the appropriate professional authority…“A lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority”.
          Continuing to quote the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct “Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct.”… “ An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover…”
          Here the CBA had reason to know that foreign insurance companies were operating in Colorado without registering with DORA, that their co defendants were having repeated ex parte conferences, that the civil litigation was being conducted in violation of the published rules, and that the Witness Intimidation Act of 1982 was violated (a felony) and they allowed it to happen without protesting or reporting it that I know of.  Meanwhile, Lloyds of London is selling some $1.4 billion of insurance in the U.S. directly to lawyers, contractors and architects, without registering with state insurance agencies that I know of.  Furthermore, Lloyds paid David Brougham to have ex parte conferences and they also discussed with him case assignment issues after which my case was transferred from Judge Matsch to Judge Nottingham.  Similar conduct by Lloyds to pervert decisions on the merits could really ruin a lot of lives. 

          What makes you able to comment on my lawsuits if you are not a paid blogger sent to represent the interests of private law firms?

          My cases could not have been decided on the merits because not only was there no jury trial and no motion hearings, there were no stipulations to any facts.  Under CRS rules of civil procedure rule 46 the first case was not res judicata to the 2nd.

          1. For the last time, you have your very own thread, courtesy of Pols; this thread is not about you or about the particular, tedious details of one of Kay Sieverding’s case.  I did not write this thread, because I am being paid by a consortium of private law firms, to trick you to post non-sense, so that I could comment on your case[s].

            What more could I possibly say other than that you’re self-centered and have no concept of social boundaries to post all this irrelevant foolishness all over the Internet on everyone’s forum. Hell, you’ve posted this gibberish on the Corvette Club of Pawtucket, Rhode Island forum; the Dodge Ram TurboDiesel register forum; the Unofficial StarTrek fan club forum; the Temples of Syrinx Rush fan club forum; the Gary, Indiana Book Club forum; the Wok Cooking Club of America forum; and the Rutland, VT Garden Club forum.

            I’ve had all the fun I can take for one holiday afternoon dealing with the non-sense.  I am turning over this thread back to any lonely soul, who might have something substantive to opine about the John Andrews interview with Law Week Online.

            1. TiltaWhirl:  ” I am a computer forensics examiner and legal technology consultant”.  So you work for multiple law firms not just one?

              So what’s your relationship with John Andrews? 

              Have you done any work for the Colorado Secretary of State or the Colorado Insurance Commission (DORA)?

              Have you worked for the CBA?

              Do you consider yourself a Republican or a Democrat?

              Are you involved with sales and marketingl?

              1.   . . . so that I may request, on your behalf, a visit from some nice men in white overcoats. They will be taking you for a ride in a van with no insignia thereon, called a paddy-wagon, to a very nice resort with your very own room.  There will be many other “vacationers” at the resort, many of whom will be eager to learn all about legal doctrine and theory.

                1. Since government and legal corruption is such a big risk to society, do you think we could stick to legal and political subjects  and skip the sarcasm?

    Leave a Comment

    Recent Comments


    Posts about

    Donald Trump
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Lauren Boebert
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Gabe Evans
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado House
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado Senate
    SEE MORE

    142 readers online now

    Newsletter

    Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!