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%
June 08, 2007 04:59 PM UTC
34 Comments
ColoPols really has it out for McCasky….
Does anyone really believe that McCasky didn’t know what Congrove and Paschall were up to or what was going on up at the Jeffco Cesspool? Before Congrove set-up Paschall they were best friends. Congrove and McCasky were then voted in together, same Jeffco Republican Party, same clubs, same fundraisers, same political fliers, same campaign contributors, same breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, same closed-door meetings, with the same lawyers, adjoining offices, and they sit next to each other at every meeting. Sure, Congrove has the longer history of bad behavior, but McCasky has an obligation to not enable Congrove while he does hits on their political enemies, in many cases with taxpayer money. How much McCasky knew and when he knew it remains to be seen. But you can bet on one thing – a rat is a rat. And before this is all over, the rats will turn on the rats because no rat gets sent up the river alone. Congrove has already turned on Paschall, Paschall will turn on Congrove, and Congrove will turn on McCasky. Count on it.
I wish I knew more about the CMOs. the range of quality and maturities is to great to say much other than it violated the investment restrictions. On the other hand unrated CMOs (that could be private label–non government agency)in a collapsing Subprime market could be quite serious
concentrating business is common in the industry, it helps you get better execution (volume discounts), but given the breadth of scandals, the motives for concentration could be more sinister.
I doubt the state can legally compel the BD to buy back the securities. I think the BD is out of state which would make it nigh on impossible. I would have to read the the law and see what it said, but there is an easier way.
Just put the BD in a statewide box. If no public monies from state or local governments were allowed to be invested with the BD, the BD would buy back the securities in a heatbeat.
I think the public in Colorado faces significant insurance related risks. One of these I think is thru CIRSA, Colorado Intergovernmental Risksharing Agency, a registered trademark. I tried to sue the State for their part in a conspiracy to deprive my rights and the CO AG’s office pled that they are not a state agency. They are not listed on the Secretary of State, the last time I looked on their word search, as a municipality or municipal agency, not as a corporation or partnership or charity, and I tried three or four different records and an FIA. Then, they did eventually file something with the Colorado Insurance Agency, DORA, I think they call it, but fairly recently, after I complained. That, is signed “KPMG” in block letters and doesn’t have any real person’s name and signatures other than Tim Greer, its founder and long term CEO. All the other audits I saw, and this was for a lot of money and involving a lot of people and risk, would have usually at least three people’s full names and signatures, with a description of their various CPA, CLEO’s etc. Always really strong resumes. But this so-called audit had no one’s. I have a copy of it. Then I looked up a report from another casualty company in a different state and there was about three times as much detail. That one had switched reinsurers and there was quite a lot of disclosure and discussion about the circumstances and the reinsurers were identified. There was only one at a time. With CIRSA, when I looked, there ere several at the same time and they weren’t disclosed. Also there was some fine print about CIRSA buying stock from them and Greer, it sounded like getting director’s fees or some other income.
Years ago I went to a conference on government fund accounting. They were very specific in that if you have a business owned by a government, like a bookstore, or an organization like a hospital as much as possible you should use conventional accounting for the subsidiary, so that you can compare to industry standards. Fund accounting is really a lot more work and harder to analyze and they said you aren’t supposed to use it to obscure, but only with things like national landmarks where you don’t use standard depreciation assumptions. But CIRSA uses harder to follow statements than it needs to, but no one that I can find told them to. They just decided to act as much as possible as a government agency to escape regulation and income tax is what I think. I don’t think they are paying income tax.
When I looked they didn’t list educated people as directors. It seemed that their directors were part time city council members who were from small cities. I know that there would be strongly qualified people available to take those directorships, which are supposed to protect the public. Also, when I looked, and I looked at their web site on multiple occasions and tried through FIA and interrogatories inside civil lawsuit etc. I could not find the names of their directors. Now, that is shocking to me.
Also, over the years it seems that they’ve expanded what they insure. They offer various deals and sponsorships. I had the impression that they were insuring some really serious physical plant where there could be real risk to public safety. I think they insure some public water facilities. And if they were trying to avoid investigators and paper trails and if funds were being diverted, then there might also be some 2nd hand pumps, or shorted concrete, or substandard condition or understaffing or something else that could, say accompanied by a storm, ending up really doing some damage or having a big expensive lack of plumbing. Then, if the chicken has flown the coup, you are out of luck. The U.S. Attorney General in Georgia had an announcement on their web sight last August about some so called insurance company from the Caymans that sold I think they said $10 million of discount worthless medical liability insurance and then diverted the proceeds. It seems to me that you have huge weaknesses in your effective regulatory system that should be plugged ASAP.
are you Kay Sieverding who went to jail for contempt regarding a series of lawsuits?
who was ordered by the judge not to bring any more frivilous lawsuits to the Steamboat courts without a lawyer’s permission?
IIRC, Kay Sieverding has what none of you could ever hope to attain: a degree from M.I.T.
Why won’t you consider her complaints on the merits?
although I doubt you’ll like the answer.
I don’t care.
You want to go after judges and trial lawyers and divorce lawyers and the courts, go nuts. Its your issue and you think it is the most important thing. I don’t and I’m tired of reading about it.
When y’all continually write and write and write thousand + word posts about the travesties of the judicial system and then it is revealed y’all have personal axes to grind with the system you rail against, it kills your credibility.
Y’all’s post bore me to tears and if you think this is a forum for getting people to take action and make a change, you’re wrong. We discuss Colorado politics.
We got the idea that you’re pissed about your lives and at the courts for f****’n ’em up. Now ease up a bit.
This IS Colorado politics, CAR. If a judge can disregard the law you take such pains to write any time s/he damn well feels like it, our state legislature is scarcely more than a ‘circle jerk.’ I am personally shocked that you, who posit yourself as a state legislator, would not see this as problematic, in light of the fact that you swore an oath to uphold and defend the state and federal constitutions.
We have faced a remarkable hostility from you. Even before I offered my first post, we were dismissed as kooks and cranks, and then, you whine when I return your verbal abuse.
Let’s face it, CAR: We just can’t win for losing with you and your band. If we merely state that our judiciary is corrupt, we are dismissed as “disgruntled litigants” — never mind that we have something to be disgruntled about. OTOH, if we post credible evidence to support our complaints, we are denounced as being unduly verbose?
We have to ‘get in your face’, because you are not doing your job. This is Colorado politics, and logically germane.
There are 3 branches of government, not two. Without the courts to implement our rights, then our writes as written are just toilet paper. There has been a problem in the past with rights on paper not being rights in reality. For instance, the slaves were freed in the civil war and the 14th amendment was passed but transportation was segregated until Rosa Parks made her stand. Previous to that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that it was all right for interstate trains to have segregated cars. As I understand it, the cars for racial minorities had no bathrooms and they had to use the fields. Then they were ridiculed because they had to urinate and defecate in public, like I was forced to rencently by the orders of Judge Nottingham and the request of the agents for Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance, adn Mutual Insurance of Bermuda
If I had to pick one issue to investigate that I think is most important to Colorado citizens it would be why Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda are selling insurance in Colorado without registration or censure and what influence they have on judicial case assignment and procedures.
The rules of civil procedure state that a new action is to be assigned to any judge already assigned to an action involving the same parties. Thus, my case was assigned to Judge Masch. Then Thom Ernst emailed to me that when he and his family were looking at my former property in Steamboat my former neighbor Kevin Bennett threatened to shoot them. At that time, Magistrate Schlatter had forbidden me to talk to the Steamboat Police so since my former property was again listed for sale to the public on the advise of Steamboat attorney William Hibbard I contacted the real estate agent. Then Thom Ernst was apparently threatened and I had to engage in him email exchanges for months to verify that what he had initially emailed to me was correct. I used that as the basis for a new federal lawsuit and filed it in the D of Colorado again but instead of it going to Judge Masch it went to Judge Nottingham. Then my main action 02-1950 was transferred to Judge Nottingham although Judge Masch didn’t claim a conflict nor a health issue and the chief judge didn’t sign the transfer form. This was after Lloyds of London was billed by David Brougham at Hall and Evans:
On 4/14/03, “Confer with Slezak regarding case assignment, Review
fax regarding same”. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, c/o Lord, Bissell &
Brook, Attm Walter Slezak, 115 S. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60603-3901
claim 6603013-1896 (e57)
If Lloyds can influence and control which federal judge gets a case that they have insured, then there are major major problems in the Colorado and U.S. judiciary that affect all of us.
Don’t think that you are not at risk if you can avoid interacting with district attorneys who have purchased insurance from Lloyds. According to Lloyds and Beazleys web sites, they are also selling architects, contractors, and builder’s insurance, so anyone who lives in, works in, or visits a building they insured or walks under a bridge they insured, could end up in a lawsuit involving Lloyds. They are supposed to tell you right away if Lloyds or any other insurance company is involved and let you photocopy any policy that may pay or may reimburse but they didn’t for me even after I started requesting the insurance policies and updated notices of appearance as required by the 10th Circuit local rule 46.1:
“Each entry of appearance must be accompanied by a certificate listing the names of all parties not in the caption of the notice of appeal so that the judges may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.” Rule 46.1
“The certificate must list all persons, associations, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, and other legal entities” Local rules 10th Circuit
Damn, girl. You did go to MIT!
What I have is over 2000 pages of undisputed facts. In the rules of civil procedure it says that if a party can contest a written pleading and they don’t contest what is written it is accepted as fact.
I verified everything I wrote under penalty of perjury.
I didn’t start out to write 2000 pages. I started out with 116 pages and then Magistrate Schlatter told me to cut it down to 40 pages, which I did. I listed numbered facts and claimed they were facts and the defendants didn’t dispute them so then I listed them as undisputed facts and gave more detail and more summaries and claimed those were undisputed facts etc.
The parties that did not dispute the facts included the Colorado Bar Association, the American Bar Association, The City of Steamboat Springs, the Colorado attorney general’s office and Hall and Evans in addition to many individuals including Kevin Michael Bennett, former Steamboat city council president, Jane Bennett, his wife, Traci Van Pelt, a lawyer, David Brougham, a lawyer, Richard Tremaine, a lawyer, Randall Klauzer, a lawyer, James “Sandy” Horner, Anthony Lettunich, a lawyer, Melinda Sherman, a lawyer, P. Elzabeth Wittemeyer, a lawyer, Daniel Foote, a lawyer, Paul McLimans, a lawyer and Colorado judge, and Kerry St. James, a lawyer and Colorado district attorney.
Really none of this is rocket science. Laws are unconstitutional if they are vague and all laws have had lots of hearings and public scrutiny. All I did was look them up and quote them.
doesn’t mean a person’s also logical or sane.
I don’t know Kay personally, so I mean no disrespect. I’m just swatting down the idea that we should listen to her because she’s an MIT graduate.
I have a bachelors and a masters degree from MIT in urban studies and city planning in my maiden name Kay Anderson
What a degree from MIT means is that you had good enough grades and test scores to get in and you worked hard enough long enough to get out.
What I found was an attitude at MIT that they really respected their students’ intellects. For instance, MIT paid to patent my husband’s bachelor’s thesis and then eventually sent us a check after they thought that all his education subsidies had been repaid. The assumption seemed to be that you could make real contributions in research even if you didn’t have a phd. What I came away with was the impression that if I just stayed calm and plugged away that I could do as good of work as anyone even people with more advanced degrees. So when I met federal judges my thought was not that they were better than me but that if I had made different choices in my life that I could have been a federal judge and that I am and was just as capable of understanding the law as a federal judge as long as I research the law step by step and document my sources. The strength of MIT, I think, is that as an institution MIT emphasizes independent thinking and encourages a framework whereby ideas and research are to be evaluated on their own strengths not on the degrees of their originator.
It’s not like she got a degree from Harvard or Yale — if you are rich enough, they hand ’em out like friggin’ penny candy (e.g., GWBush).
I can find no evidence that Kay is any less sane than you or Cuervo; it’s just that you’ve rigged the game in such a way as to render it impossible for you to give her complaints a fair hearing. On the one hand, if she states her complaints simply and succinctly, she is merely a “disgruntled litigant” who is making conclusive allegations. On the other, if she lays her case out in excruciating detail, you whine that she is being pedantic (or worse). She simply can’t win for losing.
Let’s put it this way: If our legal system has truly become so abstruse that even an M.I.T. grad can’t parse it out, then the problem lies with ‘the system.’ In the alternative, if it has become so arbitrary that travesties like Tilt, Condor, Kay and others have suffered are commonplace, perhaps it is time that we replace our judiciary with a random number generator, and decide disputes by the casting of lots.
I’m sure she’s very smart. But an MIT degree doesn’t make her right which is what you suggested. Save your “oh you polsters just won’t give us courties a chance” for the people who have actually taken that fight to you.
FWIW I don’t understand any of Kay’s posts, other than that she alleges that Lloyd’s of London is doing business in Colorado when they have no license to do so – which, if true, is strange indeed but she doesn’t give me a reason to care. And I’ve never discerned what wrong she suffered in the first place that led her down this path – knowing that might engender just enough sympathy so that I, for one, might try to read long, complicated legalize posts which a layman like me can’t fathom. At least Condor and Tiltawhirl have a base issue (messy divorces, restricted visitation rights) I can understand and sympathize with. What’s Kay’s beef?
I didn’t want to get drawn off topic
The first time I went to jail I didn’t get a warrant and was told I was not allowed an evidentiary hearing. There was no government prosecutor.
The 2nd and 3rd times I went to jail the warrant said “failure to appear in a civil matter”. There was a standard form that had a place for An Act of Congress to be inserted, a “USC section” number but that place was blank. The Assistant U.s. attorney in Western Wisconsin Robert Anderson said on 5/11/07 that the U.S. government was not prosecuting me and I never received any sort of indictment. I had emailed and called the U.S. Attorney in Colorado and they didn’t say that they were prosecuting me either. I read the U.S. criminal code, which is on the Cornell University Legal Insitute, and didn’t see anything listed there as a crime that I did. Rule 4 of the rules of criminal procedure says that a warrant must contain the crime you are accused of doing and the probable cause that you did it. Litigating without a lawyer is a right according to the Wisconsin and Colorado constitutions and the rules of civil procedure rule 17 says that the right to sue is determined by the state in which you reside. I think the only time it is an issue is when there is some sort of committee or informal group and it is a question as to the legal status of the plaintiff–if it is a corporation or what.
David Brougham, while representing CIRSA, sent me a copy of a bilsl saying:
On 2/12/03,:“Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding
Bennett and may 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.” bill from steamboat city attorney Anthony Lettunich)
2/28/03 “Telephone call from David Brougham regarding new pleading
Sieverding and review pleading with Brougham as to most significant
allegations. Telephone call with….and Clerk’s office” (bill from steamboat city attorney Anthony Lettunich)
“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”. 6/24/03 (bill from steamboat city attorney Anthony Lettunich)
Brougham sent me a bill saying
On 4/14/03, “Confer with Slezak regarding case assignment, Review
fax regarding same”. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, c/o Lord, Bissell &
Brook, Attm Walter Slezakclaim 6603013-1896 (e57)
but Lloyds is not listed as registered to sell insurance in Colorado on the word search at DORA, the last time I looked. ‘
7/18/03 “Telephone calls to St. James (district attorney) regarding
contact with plaintiff, documents from court, threatened motion for summary
judgment” . (e 38 David Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyd’s London)
8/15/03 “Confer with court regarding status of pending motions and
timing of ruling”. (e58 Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyd’s London)
CIRSA sent me insurance policies they issued to the City of Steamboat for employee crime and public officials errors and omissions. David Brougham sent me itemized bills he sent to CIRSA and the city of Steamboat saying:
2/12/03 “Confer with court clerk regarding new pleadings from plaintiffs”. (e60 David Brougham bill to CIRSA)
3/21/03 “Confer with court clerk regarding possible re-filed amended
complaint” (e10 David Brougham to Colorado Intergovernmental risk
Sharing)
3/24/03 “Confer with city attorney regarding status of amended
complaint and service issue, telephone call to federal court clerk regarding
same” (e61-62 Brougham to Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing)
3/31/03 “telephone calls to and from Lettunich regarding new filing,
telephone call to federal court regarding same”(e62 Brougham to CIRSA)
4/23/03 Telephone call to court regarding status of recent orders” (e64)
5/6/03 “Confer with court clerk regarding status of defendant
responses”(e67)
6/11/03 “Telephone call to court regarding response to motion to
compel” (e67 Brougham to Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing)
6/16/03 “Telephone call to court regarding 6/15 filing” (e68 David
Brougham to Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing)
6/16/03 “Telephone call to court regarding status of plaintiffs’ response
regarding motion to dismiss” (e68 Brougham to CIRSA)
7/2/03 “Telephone call from clerk regarding certain motions” (e72)
7/16/03 “Review plaintiffs’ proposed letter regarding motion for
summary judgment” (which was not yet filed) (e73 Brougham to CIRSA)
7/30/03 “Telephone call to Court regarding latest filings” (e75)
8/4/03 “Telephone call to court regarding filings by plaintiffs since
(7/31) order”. (e75 David Brougham to Colorado Intergovernmental)
8/11/03“Telephone call to court clerk regarding post 7/31 filings”e46
8/14/03“Confer with court clerk regarding status of ruling on motions”
e76 (Brougham to CIRSA)
9/8/03 “Telephone call to court regarding status of pending motions”
(e76 Brougham to CIRSA)
9/09/03 “Confer with court regarding status of motions” (e77)
9/24/03 “Confer with Lettunich and court clerk regarding status of
pending motions” (e78 Brougham to CIRSA)
9/24/03 “Confer with court rgarding status of pending motions) (e58
Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyd’s London)
10/07/03 вЂConfer with court clerk regarding rule status’ (e78)
10/10/03 “Telephone calls to court clerk regarding new filings”(e78)
10/14/03 “Confer with court clerk regarding filing of recommendation
regarding pending motions” (e78, Brougham to CIRSA). That
recommendation was issued 10/20.
10/24/03 “review 13 additional вЂmotions’ filed by plaintiffs. Telephone
call to court regarding status and acceptance or rejection of same.” (e79-80,
Mr. Brougham, Hall & Evans to CIRSA
10/27/03 “Confer court clerk regarding filing dates and plaintiffs’ latest
filings” (e 80 Brougham to CIRSA
10/31/03 “Review actual court file regarding most recent pleadings,
вЂstriking’ majority of same, confer with court clerk regarding same” (e80,
Brougham to CIRSA)
11/21/03 “confer with court clerk regarding status of pleadings” (e81)
12/2/03 “telephone call to court clerk regarding status of 50 or more
filings” (e81)
12/11/03 “Review actual court file” “confer with clerks regarding case
s, pending motions” “Further conference with court staff regarding
motion status” (e82, Brougham to CIRSA)
1/07/04 “Confer with court regarding status of plaintiff pleadings,
ing motions, etc. Analyze motion to enjoin grounds, etc.” (.40) (e82,
Brougham to CIRSA)
2/11/04 “”Telephone call to court regarding Plaintiff’s latest filings.”
(e83, Brougham to CIRSA)
2/17/04“Confer with court clerk regarding status of recent plaintiff
filings.”(e83, Brougham to CIRSA)
3/23/04 “confer with Court Clerk, city attorney, and Merrill regarding
latest plaintiff filings” e85 (Brougham to CIRSA)
4/15/04 “Telephone conference with 10th Circuit clerk’s office on status
of case” (e25 Faegre to Schaefer in D.C.)
One “wrinkle” in this is that the verified bills from Mr. Brougham and Mr. Lettunich were in 02-1950 attached to document 465, a request for attorney bills. The last time the U.S. marshals released me, on 6/1/07, I went to the federal clerk’s office and asked to see document 465. But there were only the first four pages in the files and the rest were missing. In the 10th Circuit, in 07-4179, the defense counsel had submitted the bills from Mr. Brougham to Lloyds of London, the City of Steamboat Springs, and CIRSA. It was Mr. Brougham who had submitted Mr. Lettunich’s bills and in what they recently filed in the 10th Circuit there is a verication by Mr. Lettunich that the bills are correct but the actual bills themselves are missing. I only have the original copy of Mr. Lettunich’s bills that they sent in April 2004 and I am missing some of the pages but I many times sent them scans of the three pages referred to above and they have not disputed that those bills are accurate renditions.
The bills also show reference to discussion of an “injunction” but within the lawsuit itself there was nothing called an injunction until after I was sent to jail for 4 months. They never used the term “rule 65” in any document and there was never anything from the defense titled “motion for an injunction”, bond for an injunction. There wasn’t anything scheduled called “hearing for an injunction”. There wasn’t anything until Jan 2006 that said what was enjoined without incorporating another document. Application for an order is supposed to be by a motion and a motion is supposed to state with specificity the grounds for its issuance.
What is so hard about finding out CIRSA’s legal status? I asked David Brougham to tell me what kind of organization CIRSA is and he refused but maybe he would tell someone else what kind of organization CIRSA is. The report that I saw didn’t say anything about annual meetings. I wrote to the ABA and asked for a copy of their financial statements and they sent me an income tax filing on a special form for nonprofits. Does CIRSA have anything like that? What I saw was something the wrote saying that CIRSA doesn’t have to pay income taxes because they are a government but you’d think that if CIRSA is a government that the Colorado AG’s office would know that they are a government and they would have a government charter. To the best of my knowledge Tim Greer has been the CEO of CIRSA for 20 years and long time management without reappointment or public review is usually something associated with a sole proprietarship. I didn’t see anything about the governor appointing or reappointing Tim Greer or his being elected. I didn’t see CIRSA listed as a sole proprietarship on the Sec of State search function.
The reason that every state has a large insurance commission is that insurance has been an industry frought with crime.
The first time I was in federal custody, from 9/2/05 to 1/4/06, I wrote to the federal public defender’s office and asked them for help and they wrote back that they couldn’t assist me because I wasn’t accused of a crime. A copy of that letter is in the 02-1950 docket.
I was always very polite also in all my written communications and oral appearances.
“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Title 18 part 3 chapter 301 В§ 4001.
“If a Justice Department attorney pursued a contempt prosecution for violation of an injunction benefiting any client of that attorney involved in the underlying civil litigation, that attorney would be open to a charge of committing a felony under В§ 208(a)…. “[a] scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision…The exercise of supervisory authority is especially appropriate in the determination of the procedures to be employed by courts to enforce their orders, a subject that directly concerns the functioning of the Judiciary. We rely today on that authority to hold that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order.” YOUNG V. UNITED STATES EX REL VUITTON, U.S. Supreme Court, 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 1987.
Threatening Prosecution a) A lawyer shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter nor shall a lawyer present or participate in presenting criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” (Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.5)”
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: “(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch/ 73 В§ 1512,).
Is there any reason that the readers know of why when David Brougham (paid by CIRSA, the City of Steamboat, and Lloyds of London), Traci Van Pelt (paid by TIG insurance) and Christopher Beall (paid by O’brien Butler McConihie and Schaefer for Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, which sells defamation and libel insurance across North America), repeatedly asked Judge Nottingham to put me in jail until I would file motions to “voluntarily dismiss” other district court actions and/or appellate court appeals, why that did not meet the legal definition of witness intimidation and conspiracy to deny rights under color of law? There seem to be a lot of lawyers and officials on this site, please explain if you can why my being put in jail as a federal prisoner three times, transported in chains across state lines, and strip searched at gunpoint was legal, since I was not accused of a crime. I think it was kidnapping and assault because holding someone against their will and forcing them to expose their private parts are crimes unless there is probable cause formally stated that they are accused of a particular crime. The wardens at JEFFCO told me informally that they thought what they were doing to me was not legal and that they thought I should sue for it. The U.S. marshals showed me their transport papers, which had a preprinted place to fill in the U.S. statute and that was crossed out. The wardens at JEFFO said they had never before seen a prisoner coded as “U.S. Marhals civil”.
The District of CO never provided this form to me:
вЂIn a detention order issued under subsection (e) of this section, the judicial officer shall—(1) include written findings of fact and a written statement of the reasons for the detention” TITLE 18 PART II CHAPTER 207 В§ 3142. Release or detention of a defendant pending trial
The U.S code says
”the term “offense” means any criminal offense, other than an offense triable by court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal, which is in violation of an Act of Congress and is triable in any court established by Act of Congress” TITLE 18 PART II CHAPTER 207 § 3156. Definitions
so I don’t think there is a legal offense called not doing what the judge wants
“Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear.” TITLE 18 PART II CHAPTER 209 § 3182. Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District, or Territory
by that definition I wasn’t a fugitive because I wasn’t charged with a crime.
“Such request shall be accompanied by an express statement that a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest has been issued within the jurisdiction of the authority making such request charging the fugitive with the commission of the crime for which his extradition is sought to be obtained.” TITLE 18 PART II CHAPTER 209 В§ 3187. Provisional arrest and detention within extraВterritorial jurisdiction
I haven’t received a copy of that
“(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from— (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if … if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 245 Federally protected activities
Why woudn’t this law protect people engaged in civil litigation–isn’t that a government program?
“(the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;
(E) the term “kidnapping” means an offense that has as its elements the abduction, restraining, confining, or carrying away of another person by force or threat of force;…
the term “serious violent felony” means—
a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of… kidnapping… extortion… or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses; and any other offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another or that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may be used in the course of committing the offense; TITLE 18 PART II CHAPTER 227 SUBCHAPTER A § 3559
D.) Chris Beall’s Dec 05 “motion for further relief”:
“on 9/2/05, this Court found Kay Sieverding in contempt of that filing restriction..based on Kay Sieverding’s filing—and her refusal to withdraw—her pro se lawsuits…in federal courts in ….The District of Columbia…where pro se lawsuits all were based on the same series of transactions….into the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service until such time as she purges her contempt by dismissing her pro se actions in the District of Columbia…her pro se litigation in the D of Columbia remains open….she was assisted by one of more persons…David Sieverding is a co-conspirator…schedule a hearing and require that David Sieverding appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for assisting Kay Sieverding’s further violation of the 3/19/04 order”
Court (Judge Nottingham) “I’ve checked with the District of Columbia clerks—two cases have not been dismissed (p.9.)….are the defendants suggesting that she be jailed until she purges herself of contempt…(p.10)….I will have access to the database…in the District of Columbia. And I will check out and make sure (p.12) that you have dismissed all those cases…you have to show up, Mrs. Sieverding, unless the hearing is vacated. And I’ll vacate the hearing if I’m satisfied that you have dismissed all these cases (p.16)…
(Mrs. Sieverding) “So in order to stay out of jail, what I need to do is file separate motions to dismiss…?”
(Court) “Right, I think that’s right. And then you need to follow up—you need to call the clerk in the District of Columbia…(16)…so you’ll stay out of jail if all of these cases are dismissed in time for met to vacate the hearing. Otherwise, the next time you show up, you pack your toothbrush, because you’re going to jail.” (17)
(Mrs. Sieverding) “So what you’re saying is that if I file a motion to dismiss and Judge Urbina …won’t dismiss it, that you’re going to put me in jail…” (17)…
2/16/06 hearing transcript
So assuming that these transcripts and filings are quoted correctly, do the readers have any reason to believe that I am not a victim of extortion, attempted extortion, kidnapping, conspiracy to deny rigths, witness intimidation etc.?
I have looked and looked through the federal code and I haven’t found anyplace where there is legal authority for a judge to put you in jail for not doing what he wants if the act you did against his wishes was not defined by Congress as a crime. The Supreme Court ruled in Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union that there can be no legal obligation to refrain from doing what is legal.
I would really appreciate the reader’s input on these questions, because I know that high government officials and lawyers read these postings. You could also ask David Brougham, Traci Van Pelt, and Christopher Beall to post any authority they have for believing that it was legal for them to ask Judge Nottingham to have me put in jail and taken across state lines in chains. There wasn’t any sentence, sentencing hearing, bail, bail hearing etc.
It is true that Mr. Beall, Mr. Brougham and Ms. Van Pelt did not explicitly request that I be strip searched but that is an expected part of interstate transport by the federal marshals. Since there was no crime specified on any of the required forms even though the language specifying the forms specifically referred to the need to state a crime and the place for a crime was either ignored or crossed out, I think it was assault to strip search me. I have been having nightmares about this. I don’t like people to touch me physically except my husband. It wasn’t just being kept away from my life that bothered me, the whole physical handling bothered me. At least 20 different strangers stuck their hands in my crotch at various times. My arms were grabbed and every day I encountered armed guards and it was really clear that if I resisted I would be held down, hit, or shot if I were to try to run away at the airport. Every night I have nightmares about this. What did I do to deserve this kind of treatment from my government? The court and the defendants didn’t even claim that I wrote a single sentence that was fraudulent.
I don’t have a dog in or out of your fight. But I do have a dog in Pols and I am tired of long diatribes taking up great volumes of space here that I must scroll through. I agree with you and rio that courts are part of CO politics, but this isn’t the judge and jury here. If you have noticed, you have probably made more enemies than allies, if only through your sheer volume and tediousness.
I think it fairly safe to say that no one here cares in the excruciating detail you insist on providing. Projecting again, probably most Polsters wouldn’t mind some BRIEF descriptions and updates and links, but not this eye glazing legal tome you and rio provide us with.
Stop the pain, please.
a famous (and forgotten) professor was (it tells you something about how Lincoln was viewed in his day: Inviting him to speak at Gettysburg was an afterthought, and even then he wasn’t given top billing!). The latter spoke for two and a half excruciating hours. Lincoln spoke for two poetic minutes. Even the good Prof. Windbag admitted he had been completely outclassed.
With a little bit of bait, you can hook a reader (or listener) and reel her in. But if you hang a whole damn carcass from your pole, well, it just stinks up the water and attracts a lot of flies.
long oration was considered a great art in the 19th Century – the longer and more eloquent, the better. Some people would travel for days to hear the likes of Daniel Webster, John Co. Calhoun, or Henry Clay speak. (Remember, there was no TV back then, so people had longer attention spans.) It just happens that the Gettysburg Address was the single most concise summation (from the Union standpoint) of what the Civil War was all about.
That said, blogs aren’t the place people go to read essays, especially if they contain a great deal of legalize. If essays are what people want to write, they should post diaries (although many would not be read except by a few, which I suspect some of the authors know, hence their posts in general diaries).
As I learned in my first real job after college, KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. (And no, I’m not calling anyone stupid, it’s something they added so the mnemonic wouldn’t just be KIS.)
The County Commissioners have an important role in these matters.
What did they do when they received the Treasure’s report showing investments of this type?
On the other hand how good was the rate of return?
It depends on quality and maturity. the implication is that the CMO’s are relatively short term securities.
New treasurer Faye “Griffin said there is nothing inherently wrong with CMOs and that they have been earning returns of about 5.25 percent, which she described as ‘pretty good.'”RMN
In order to be pretty good the securities would have to be short term. CMO’s, unrated ones in particular, have pricing issues as the term increase (quality and convexity). also the yield could be fixed or floating. That’s why I’d like to see more information on the securities.
If they are low risk short term, holding them to matutity may be the most cost effective solution. If they are longer duration or very low quality, JeffCo and maybe the state AG and treasurer needs to drop the hammer on the BD.
In either case the motives for the sales needs to be investigated: it reminds me a little of the New Mexico Treasurer scandal
I wrote to the Routt County CO commissioners and pointed out that the property tax assessment for Kevin Michael Bennett at 701 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs showed only one 2900 square foot building built in 1956 but that there were 4 buildings clearly present on the property and visible from the street and that there are building deparment reports showing one 2009 square foot building built in 2001 and another with a bathtub and kitchen being installed. I talked on the phone about it to a county employee, and emailed with her, (I think her name was Amy but I could look it up) who said she had been told to investigate my letter but the last time I looked the other three buildings still weren’t listed on the tax assessment report.
The Routt County attorney, John D. Merrill, sent me a letter saying that he would not sell me a certified copy of the buiding department applications by my former neighbor Kevin Michael Bennett but the web site of Colorado attorney general KEN SALAZAR discusses getting certified copies of government documents as if it is normal. It says, “A willful and knowing violation of the open records act is a crime, punishable by a fine not to exceed $100.00, ninety days in jail, or both. “
Given that, how can you rely on the county commissioners, at least the Routt County commissioners, to perform any legal obligation?
There was something in the paper in Wisconsin yesterday that said that a KPMG auditor testified that he had discussed a $15 million payment that was made without the required approval and procedure with the former governor of Illinois (thompson) who was on the orgnization’s audit committee and that Mr. Thompson didn’t act surprised to hear that an unauthorised $15 million payment was made. Why would you think that Colorado law would be more effective than Illinois law? I would think Colorado white collar law would be less effective than Ill white collar law because I think that the attorney regulation counsel of Ilinois has tighter procedures than the CO attorney regulation counsel does.
The Jeffco Commissioners see themselves as the all-knowing all-powerful ones when it comes to “protecting the taxpayers.” Even if it means trampling on other elected officials statutory and constitutional duties. However, the all-knowing all-powerful ones almost always turn a blind eye to each other’s misbehavior, and simply allocate themselves large sums of taxpayer money for personal lawyers. On a 3-person Board, that second vote is gold, so they all stick together.
With respect to your comment about “rate of return,” Colorado Statutes generally mandate that public entities must invest in accordance with what is known as “The Prudent Man Rule (or Standard).” Without being too verbose, this guideline prohibits any speculative investments and limits investing to highly-rated securities with consequently low rates of return. In a nutshell, when investing the taxpayers’ money, the rate of return is all but irrelevent. Safety is paramount.
Most Govt Treasurers (rightly) adopt this approach: “No taxpayer will notice if you make an extra basis point on a shrewd investment, but they’ll scream bloody murder if you lose a single dollar on a bad investment.”
The crime insurance that CIRSA sells apparently covers embezzelment but when i tried to trace their flow of funds and compute their liquidity ratios I couldn’t tell if they actually have enough money in U.S. banks to cover any significant claims.
I couldn’t tell if their reinsurance policies actually had any real value as there wasn’t enough detail about the insurers, the policies and their assets. I think their reinsurers are all foreign insurers.
One of the insurance companies that paid Chris Beall to ask Judge Nottingham to put me in jail for filing civil appeals was Mutual Insurance in Bermuda. One of their officers is a Michael J. Burns and he had a powerpoint presenation at
http://www.weather.bm/2005-archive/attendees-presentations/Rent-a-Captives.ppt. which included:
:”Rent-a-captive is an insurance company which “rents” its core capital, insurance license and legal capacity to policyholders or risk participants who are not its voting shareholders… Michael J. Burns, Partner, Appleby Spurling Hunter… ADVANTAGES OF A RENT-A-CAPTIVE …Cost-effective and flexible alternative risk management solution when compared to commercial insurance….Offers program participants many of the advantages of a wholly-owned captive but without the higher start-up (including capital) and ongoing operational costs… A Rent-a-Captive can be structured to achieve the complete legal segregation of the accounts of each program from the liabilities of every other program and those of the Rent-a-Captive itself…. Most Rent-a-Captives are Class 3 insurers (minimum capital and surplus of $1 million; annual loss reserve opinion) But may qualify for treatment as either Class 1 (minimum capital and surplus of $120,000; no loss reserve opinion) or Class 2 (minimum capital and surplus of $250,000; triennial loss reserve opinion ADVANTAGES Less costly Avoids issues of time, solvency and perfection… Created by way of private agreement…. INSURANCE USES Rent-a-captives Life and annuity companies Transformer companies Financial guarantee companies Securitisation and derivatives structures / SPVs…. SUMMARY OF THE ACT Establishes system of public voluntary registration…. No restrictions on application by insurance companies… Segregated accounts are not legal persons… Must appoint segregated account representative in Bermuda…. Permits inter account transactions…. Provisions protect the Registrar and Official Receiver from liability…. Annual fee of $250 per segregated account Maximum annual fee (for any number of accounts) of $1,000… mbu@applebyglobal.com” (Internet advertisement by the v.p. of Mutual Insurance, Michael J. Burns, for insurance activities in the U.S.)
There is a report on the Internet that says there are now hundreds of so called insurance companies based in Bermuda. Bermuda’s population is about 90,000 I think and it has very high illiteracy. This Mutual Insurance is located on the first floor of the Swan building in Hamilton Bermuda behind a brown door and I think it has only one full time employee. You could find out more about them by calling their president CEO and general manager Jerome C. Scheafer at his office in Washington D.C. I think his phone number is 202 298 6161.
I think that the same Mutual Insurance that paid Christopher Beall to ask Judge Nottingham to put me in jail also insures the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post and The Denver Publishing Company. They wrote articles about me and when I asked them to correct them they refused and when I posted on the articles they deleted my posts. They quote Anthony Lettunich as saying that he can’t understand anything I write. That is the same lawyer who sent me a bill for a three way otherwise unrecorded ex parte conversation between himself, David Brougham, the lawyer paid by CIRSA and Lloyds of London, and former federal magistrate Schlatter
the actual defition “Those with responsibility to invest money for others should act with prudence, discretion, intelligence, and regard for the safety of capital as well as income.” It is generally interpreted to mean returns need to be appropriate to risk. But your fundamental point is accurate, taxpayer monies held short term prior to their use need to be invested in low risk, low volatility instruments that preferably are liquid. This is why longer term investments, such as pension obligations can and should be invested in more volatile and illiquid securities. I prefer the words volatile and illiquid because there are many different kinds of risks in investing.
But generally unrated, illiquid CMOs are on first look, not a prudent investment. That’s why I want to know more.
In my professional opinion most county treasurers are some of the most ammatuerish money managers. The good ones realize it, the bad ones–well….I was just coming into the business when Bob Citron blew up the orange cnty CA common fund by buying inappropriate investments.
The MFOA, or whatever it is now called, has guidelines for investing public funds and seminars.
“Amateurish” is putting it politely. If these people were any good at managing many millions of dollars, they’d be earning ten times the Treasurer’s salary by providing that service in the private sector.
Most of these people are wannabees – either burnouts or term-outs from other political offices, losers who get wood ostensibly wielding millions in buying power, or newbees looking for a way to get free lunches from securities brokers while learning the ropes on the taxpayers’ dime.
Protecting the taxpayers’ money isn’t the only reason the statutes require prudent investments, the other reason is to prevent the public lynchings of the morons who are elected to these posts.
Even professional managers have a hard time avoiding risk. However, private companies can be sued if they invest under false pretenses or have a personal interest. Those protections are much less when government immunity can be claimed. One risk when government invests tax payer money is that the investment will be made into a vehicle in which public official(s) have a personal interest. That is one potential problem with the minimal regulation of Colorado Intergovernmental RiskSharing Agency. The only report I was able to get didn’t divulge the compensation of the executive director Tim Greer but did say something about him getting payments from their reinsurer and also something about CIRSA buying stock in a reinsurer.
There are many ways for private parties to gain access to tax payer funds. In Steamboat Springs CO they have a part time city attorney Anthony Lettunich who also has a private law firm Lettunich and Vanderbloemen. According to the city clerk, Mr. Lettunich has no contract and no job description. Lettunich & Vanderbloemen represented the Haymaker Gulf course, a private golf course, that got a taxpayer guarantee of their debt. The rules of professional conduct prohibit successive government and private representation on the same or related issue without written permission of the government.
The problems in Jeffco stem from the fact thay they’re still trying to run a 500,000+ pupulation county as if it were Mayberry. Expand the number of commissioners to 7 and elect them from districts rather than at large, and it won’t be a corrupt GOP fiefdom anymore.