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 12, 2007 03:42 AM UTC
279 Comments
http://www.upi.com/N…
Sounds like he got really hurt. Thank goodness he still has a way to seek a remedy.
he immediately hired John Edwards…..
Six of the Quigleys’ claims against Rosenthal and the ADL proceeded to jury trial in April 2000. The jury found in favor of the Quigleys on five claims: (1) defamation against Rosenthal and the ADL based on statements made by Rosenthal during the December 7, 1994, press conference; (2) defamation against Rosenthal and the ADL based on statements made by Rosenthal during his December 7, 1994, appearance on the Greg Dobbs Show; (3) false light invasion of privacy against Rosenthal and the ADL based on statements made by Rosenthal during the same press conference and radio show; (4) invasion of privacy by intrusion against the ADL based on the interception and/or use of the Quigleys’ private telephone calls by Towbin, Lozow, and/or Kritzer, acting as the ADL’s agents or co-conspirators; and (5) violation of the federal wiretap act (18 U.S.C. В§ 2511(1)(d)) against the ADL based on the use of intercepted telephone calls by Lozow and/or Kritzer, acting as the ADL’s agents or co-conspirators, in preparing and filing the Aronsons’ lawsuit. The jury awarded Mr. Quigley damages in the following amounts: (1) $900,000 in economic damages; (2) $100,000 in non-economic damages; (3) state-law punitive damages of $500,000 against Rosenthal and $250,000 against the ADL; and (4) federal-law punitive damages of $5,000,000 against the ADL. The jury awarded Mrs. Quigley damages in the following amounts: (1) no economic damages; (2) $500,000 in non-economic damages; (3) state-law punitive damages of $500,000 against Rosenthal and $250,000 against the ADL; and (4) federal-law punitive damages of $2,500,000 against the ADL. The district court, pursuant to the defendants’ post-trial motions, reduced the compensatory damage awards by $175,000 to “reflect the monies received by plaintiffs in their settlement with Lozow and Kritzer,” and reduced Mrs. Quigley’s “award of state-law punitive damages . . . to an amount equal to her compensatory damages of $325,000.” Id. at 1527….
Defendants contend that the compensatory and punitive damage awards must be vacated “[s]ince one or more of the Quigleys’ claims upon which the jury found liability was improperly submitted to the jury, [having] involved conduct that was, as a matter of law, protected by the First Amendment.” Defs’ Op. Br. at 58.
We reject this contention for three reasons. First, defendants fail to point to where in the record they raised the issue in the district court. Second, for the reasons outlined above, we conclude the district court’s submission of the plaintiffs’ claims to the jury did not violate the First Amendment. Finally, as outlined above, the defendants themselves urged the district court, over the objection of the plaintiffs, to utilize a verdict form asking the jury to assess lump-sum compensatory damage awards for the state and federal claims (the jury was asked, however, to assess separate punitive damage awards for the state and federal claims). Further, in doing so, defendants conceded that the compensatory damages on all of the claims were the same. Thus, they are in no position to establish reversible error arising out of the fact that the compensatory damage awards are not divided separately between the claims.
WILLIAM J. QUIGLEY; DOROTHY QUIGLEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v, SAUL F. ROSENTHAL; ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE,
Defendants-Appellants.
Thomas B. Kelley, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver, Colorado (Steven D. Zansberg, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver, Colorado; Joseph C. Jaudon, and David H. Yun, Jaudon & Avery, LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for the defendants-appellants.
Tbomas Kelley was one of the lawyers who requested I be put in jail for going to a different court.
If I were him I might resort to drinking or crying myself to sleep. I can’t figure out whether I should admire the guy for his immense amount of patience or just feel terribly sorry for him.
Freedom isn’t free, and for some the bell tolls.
No one likes to have to stand in the fire against the fascists but sometimes, you can’t avoid it.
I think that most of the time the torch of liberty is carried by ordinary people who are basically forced into the battle zone because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once you are there, I think actually most people will try to do what they think is their duty. These are all incremental decisions too. It’s not like I knowingly decided to risk everything when I filed a civil lawsuit. Before doing so I spent months reading Supreme Court decisions on CaseClerk.com and it seemed that if I just told the truth all the time nothing too bad could happen. I never ever thought that the U.S. of America would put me, a U.S. citizen in good standing, in jail for extended periods of time and on multiple occassions, without probable cause. If I had lived in China or Russia, for instance, I probably would have been afraid to send emails to the city council complaining that their president had converted the road and was building in violation of the development code. Because I was born in the U.S.A., I thought it was “safe” to leaflet charges of government corruption as long as I told the truth.
It’s not like I was obsessing about a few inches or a few feet either. We lost 60 feet of street frontage, access to five or six thousand square feet of public land with a beautiful view, had traffic forced towards our home with attendent noise, loss of privacy plus actual safety and expense concerns. The buildings in question were 10 feet from our property, looking into our living room, generated a lot of traffic, and increased the number of buildings on my neighbors low residential density zoned property from 1 to 4. I never met a single person who said that they wouldn’t have cared about the construction if it was their own property.
I know that some people don’t believe in zoning. But I did because I had studied it and in Steamboat at the time the urban planning issues were in the paper constantly and not a week went by without a public meeting on the subject. That land was, and is, very special and valuable land. The weather was wonderful, we had some 20 feet of topsoil and great drainage, we had views of the Mr. Werner Ski Area, Buffalo Pass, and Emerald Mountain. we were only 10 minutes from both FEDEX and UPS, the schools were walking distance, and we could walk to a lot of nice restaurants, a movie theater, an ice rink, a nice health club with a swimming pool, machines and classes, art galleries and art openings, government meetings and events, outdoor music events in two locations, a horse boarding facility, places to downhhill and cross country ski, serious long and beautiful hiking on Emerald Mountain. We could take a bus to Mt. Werner. Plus the property kept going up in value and had interesting develpment possibilities.
I was entitled to rely on the protections of the written law every step of the way and every year they were denied me
my husband thinks that he and I are both crime victims and that we were denied our equal protection rights in court. He blames Christopher Beall, Thomas Kelley, David Brougham, Traci Van Pelt, Brett Huff etc for that. It wasn’t us who had the ex parte conferences, It wasn’t us who refused to stipulate to facts. It wasn’t us who used violence and threats of violence.
He thinks that for Judge Garrecht to issue and order based on my molesting Jane Bennett when I was never alone with Jane Bennett and she said there was no offense touching and on the only date that her lawyer said was a problem she was either in her car or with 3 men and we were 30 feet apart was a criminal deprivation of rights.
He thinks that for me to be jailed without the involvement of a government prosecutor and without a trial and without disrupting a hearing and without being accused of a crime was a criminal deprivation of rights.
I agree with him.
I know David Yun. He’s a nice guy (for a lawyer) :-]
I never heard that name
You should’ve. His name is in your comment.
of a personal theory that Kay’s posts are largely copied and pasted, which would explain how she can “write” so many wordy posts in so short a period of time.
That’s awesome…damn you for pointing out the obvious. 😛
to which most people are responding. In the case of Bork, it is the irony. In the cases of Kay and yourself, it is the tediousness of your presentations.
Colorado Judge Garrecht said
“before the court can issue the restraining order, the Court needs to find that the defendant has attacked, beaten, molested, or threatened the life of the plaintiff or threatened to do serious bodily injury to the plaintiff, and that unless restrained and enjoined will continue to attack, beat, molest, or threaten the life of the plaintiff or threaten to do serious bodily harm to the plaintiff…obviously, Ms. Bennett has not been attacked, beaten, and her life hasn’t been threatened.” (Transcript CO Routt County 002180 Sept./6/00 page 161).
He then said he was issuing it because I “molested” Jane Bennett. Her lawyer agreed while she sat there and she and her husband paid him.
But under oath she said
In the court appearance before Colorado District Judge Thompson (in same court building) on August 31, 2000, Judge Thompson asked Jane Bennett “She’s (referring to Kay Sieverding) not following you around town, or anything like that?” Jane Bennett answered, “Uh, I don’t believe so” (Transcript Routt County 002180)
In the court appearance before Judge Thompson on August 31, 2000, Judge Joel Thompson asked Jane Bennett “She’s not calling you late at night” (referring to Kay Sieverding). Jane Bennett replied “She may have called me in the night years past. I can’t remember the date. She called one time… that was like a couple of years ago” (Transcript Routt County 002180 August/31/2000 page 6 lines 7-10). 180 August/31/2000, page 5 lines 17-18)
In the court appearance before Judge Joel Thompson on August 31, 2000, Judge Joel Thompson asked Jane Bennett “There has been no offensive touching?” Jane Bennett answered “no”. “She hasn’t shoved, or pushed, or kicked, or anything like that? Jane Bennett “Not me, no.” (Transcript Routt County 002180 August/31/2000).
.) In the court appearance before County Judge James Garrecht on September 6, 2000, Kay Sieverding asked Jane Bennett if they had any interaction between a planning department meeting when Kay Sieverding had suggested they go out for coffee in the winter of 2000 and August 29, 2000 and Jane Bennett answered, “I don’t recall interacting with you.” (Transcript Routt County 002180 Sept./6/2000 pages 93-94).
Kay Sieverding asked Jane Bennett about their conversation about a week before the restraining order hearing when Jane Bennett was leaving a neighbor’s house directly across from Sieverdings’ drive, asking “Did I say anything to you on any other subject other than the smelling of smoke that being the day that the condominiums burned?’ and Jane Bennett answered “No”. (Transcript Routt County 002180 Sept./6/2000 page 93 lines 10-20).
In the court appearance before Judge James H. Garrecht on September 6, 2000, Kay Sieverding asked Jane Bennett “Have I ever physically threatened you?” and Jane Bennett answered, “I don’t know what you mean.” (Transcript Routt County 002180 Sept./6/2000 page 99 lines 4-7)
.) Marc Wilk, Jane Bennett’s employee and witness, testified under oath on September 6, 2000, that he had seen Kay Sieverding approximately 20 times in the 60 + days proceeding 8/29/00 when he worked outside at the Bennett’s residence next to Sieverdings and that on those occasions Sieverding was gardening. (Transcript 09/06/2000 p. 33, lines 4-10.) Kay Sieverding asked Marc Wilk “when you saw me, did I seem like I was going about normal business, with the possible exception that I garden more than most people do?” (Transcript Routt County 002180 Sept./6/00 p. 35 lines 23-25) Marc Wilk, Bennetts’ employee and witness, answered, “Well you know, yes” (Transcript Routt County 002180 Sept./6/00. 36, line 1.)
So how could I have “molested” her? That was a deprivation of rights under color of law
The law states that if one wants a restraining order on another party that party must be found to have “attack, beat, molest, or threaten the life of the plaintif” and that that charge must have been in the complaint. Jane Bennett’s complaint didn’t state that I molested her and it wasn’t brought up in the testimony either. Judge Garrecht brought up the accusation of molestation after the testimony had been closed. This was a special low process hearing meant to protect abused women. There was no discovery and no jury trial. Judge Garrecht stated that there were no constitional lawyers in Steamboat and that I would never be able to figure out the law myself because it was too complex. The law states that the judge who issues a restraining order can void it. I wrote to him and pointed out that the criminal charges had been dismissed and that there was perjury at his hearing and I quoted Jane Bennett but instead of voiding the restraining order he attached my deed to pay Jane Bennett. Then I filed a special form under the law for correction of criminal records and he refused to process the application.
I couldn’t sue Judge Garrecht for damages because he has “immunity”. In my Col hearing the State of Col was represented by David Brougham of Hall and Evans who also represented Colorado Intergovernmental RiskSharing Agency and Lloyds of London. He’s the one who billed for the 25 ex parte hearings. I then filed similar claims in the D of Columbia. For filing those claims I was put in jail 3 times at the request of Mr. Brougham and the lawyers representing Mutual Insurance and TIG Insurance. In the D of Columbia, the State of Colorado was represented by Danielle Moore. She argued that there is no injunctive relief available in federal court against a state employee. That is contrary to what the Supreme Court says but she figured I wouldn’t know because at Dave Brougham’s request I was in jail and couldn’t go to the law library. Then, she quite working for the Col A.G. and went to work for Hall and Evans and she appeared before Col Judge Nottingham to ask that I be arrested for filing a motion in the D of Columiba. It is against rule 4.5 of the Col Rules of Professional Conduct to threaten criminal or administrative sanctions to gain an advantage in a civil matter. It is also against the rules of prof conduct to have succeeding government and then private employment on the same matter without the written permission of the government but she did it anyway. Her former supervisor at the Col AG Beth McMann confirmed that Ms. Moore did not have permission to appear in a civil matter involving me. So I guess I should go write to the Colorado Att Regulation Counsel about that. However, everytime I have ever written to them saying that this or that lawyer acted in a way prohibited by this or that rule, the same person, Matt Samuelson, has written back in a vague manner that the conduct described in my letter, which he never describes, was allowable as an advocate. I complained to the D of Colorado that Dave Brougham had billed for ex parte conferences and his response was that the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel had said it was all right to do so.
So far noone has posted here in response to my posts with anything other than insults and sarcasm. I think you are working for the defense lawyers.
I’ve challenged the critics to respond substantively, and they invariably sing the same circumstantial ad hominem tune. “You are a disgruntled litigant!,” they cry, ignoring the very real possibility that you may have some legitimate reason for being disgruntled.
They didn’t mind concentration camps, as long as they contain only Jews. They didn’t mind slavery, as long as only blacks were slaves. They didn’t learn the lesson of Niemoller.
I never ever thought my rights would be deprived until they were.
though I suspect many will agree: I am not responding to your position, I am responding to you. There may be a serious problem of judicial corruption in this country. The constitution may be effectively undermined by it. Your analysis of the problems of illegal immigration, and your notions of how best to address them, may be precisely correct. On the first topic, I imagine that there is a kernal of truth involved. On the second topic, I imagine that there have always been challenges to the effectiveness of the constitution, and that the constitution’s main value is that people believe in it, not that it is an unimpeded political force. On the third topic, I have actually made arguments very similar to the ones you have made. But, regardless of the degree to which I agree or disagree with your respective positions, I am appalled by various aspects of your presentation. If you agreed with me on every single point of every single topic, I would have the same reaction to you that I have now. It is comforting for you, I know, to believe that people are responding to your “heroic” stands on unpopular issues. I think, for the most part, they are not responding to that at all. I know that I’m not. I, and possibly they as well, am/are responding to the obnoxious jerk who is making the arguments, not to the arguments themselves. If you want people to respond to the arguments, you have to cleanse them of the offensive personal presense with which you have infused them. If and when that happens, maybe more than a couple of (extremely patient and generous) people might start paying attention to what you actually have to say.
…which may be part of what you’re talking about.
Note that up on the Wednesday (6/13) Open Thread, several posters who can’t stand Rio decided that they are beginning to like Tiltawirl, who is part of the judicial corruption crowd. It’s not the issue; it’s the person.
Rio, the fact is that you do the issues that you care about tremendous injustice by the manner in which you advocate for them. Whereas normally I am glad to see someone advocating a position which I hold as well, because it bodes well for that position, I would feel just the opposite to see you advocating a position I happen to hold, just as I would hate to see Osama Bin Laden advocating a position I happen to hold: When the advocate is particularly unsavory, they only serve to discredit the position. Nothing would be more rhetorically useful to me in a disagreement than to be able to say, “you know, you are arguing the same position that Osama Bin Laden has argued.” Similarly, in this community, it is to the advantage of any blogger to have you advocate for the side he/she opposes, for by doing so, you discredit it.
None of us have invested as much time on this issue as you have. I believe you have three options. You could rise up against the judges that issued strong judgments against you and try to get them dismissed, you could try to leave the country and cut your losses and leave the rest of us to deal with the “concentration camp” that is the United States, or you could actually drop your lawsuits. But then again, I am just one of the defense lawyers so please don’t take my advice as having you and your lawsuits around is GREAT job insurance!
Are you a defense lawyer? In my case? Who
I have no intention of leaving the U.S. because here I am a citizen and have family.
I have no intention of dropping my lawsuits
I have options of filing various filings in various courts.
What I have is uncontrovertible evidence that 1.) the Defense engaged in ex parte conference recorded only in their verified bills 2.) the magistrate acknowleded ex parte conferences 3.) Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance, and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda paid bills but didn’r provide policies nor unpdate appearance forms–they hid a court record a form of obstruction of justice 4.) physical court records are missing from the D of Colorado 5.) A Colorado judge did what the law specifically said he couldn’t and said at the time that I wouldn’t be able to stop it becuase there were no constitutional lawyers in town and it was complex litigation 6.) subordination of perjury 7.) colorado judge knew there was subordination of perjury which was irrefutable and verifiable 8.) Dismissals without statements of facts and laws 9.) ABA itself solicited ex parte conference not allowed by Canon III–they did this in writing 10.) Fraudulent collection of non final judgment for attorney bills without form 451 and with multiple defense admissions that the attorney bills weren’t a final judgment 11.) multiple acts of successful and unsuccessful witness intimidation.
It’s not a matter of what I think and what I say. The court records prove the above.
There’s no reason for me to be a victim in silence. In fact, I think I owe it to my fellow citizens to protest and publicize as needed so that the same crimes are less likely to be inflicted on someone else.
They tell rape victims it is important to come forward so that someone else won’t be raped.
What happened to me and my family was a lot worse than rape.
You said: What happened to me and my family was a lot worse than rape.
Ever try to pass that theory off to an actual rape victim, face to face? Hmmm, violent rape versus having your property values lowered and being belittled — tough choice.
Title 18 property offenses and all crimes of violence. (18 U.S.C. ‘ 3663A)… Charging Decisions. When exercising their discretion, prosecutors shall give due consideration to the need to provide full restitution to the victims of Federal criminal offenses. This discretion is also governed by the Principles of Federal Prosecution,…
(C) 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
“The term “crime of violence” means—(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense” TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 16. Crime of violence defined
I was taken by force with guns in view on three occasions. I was chained and physically detained on three occasions totaling almost 5 months. I was shackled on multiple occasions. Strangers stuck their hands in my crotch on average several times a week. I was strip searched and forced at gunpoint to expose my genitals for inspection. I was forced to bathe and use the toilet in front of strangers and to be present with others were using the toilet. I was taken across state lines in chains at gunpoint against my will. That meets the definitions of a crime of violence as described herein and there were invasions of my physical privacy that I feel were like rape and leave me with nightmares.
These crimes of violence were in 2005 t0 2007. The last ended June 1, 2007 and I am still trying to recover from that trauma. I don’t think I ever got over the first time and then the reoccurrence made it worse.
My family and I were damaged by the restraining order in two ways. One is that the Steamboat Pilot published articles about it that were misleading and it damaged my family and my reputations. The City of Steamboat, which was controlled at the time by Kevin Bennett, and Prudential Real Estate, where the d.a.’s husband worked, were big advertisers at the Pilot. The owner of the Pilot, Mr. Simons, gave an interview in which he said that newspapers should print material other than news in order to please their advertisers.
The restraining order said that I must stay 30 feet from Jane Bennett or I could be put in jail for 18 months. After she got the restraining order she started following me. She repeatedly parked in front of my house and I had to get a police escort just to go to my car. She called the police and asked to have me arrested because she saw me in my yard. She asked to have me arrested because she was inside the drug store and saw me outside. When the police got there luckily I had already crossed the street and gone inside the bank or I would have been in jail. She fiiled a police report and said that she had followed me through Walmart trying to take my picture but she couldn’t get her camera to work. On that report the police came to my home and interviewed me in front of my son’s friends. She followed me through the 4th of July parade yelling at me to get away from her and then called the police. Her husband claimed that there was a footprint in the mud on their property that was mine. The police followed me to get my shoe which did not match and they went to the school to interview my son at school. He then dropped out of school.
When we sold our house the only party who made an offer was one of Jane Bennett’s lawyers. That was the same lawyer who had threatened our business when we had complained about the Bennetts fencing off and barricading a parcel of public land 60 by 100 feet that adjoined our land and included the street. We sold it for $00,000 less than appraised and then he flipped it. We also subdivided our land into two parcels and sold the other separately. The second was large enough for two homes or a duplex but we had problems getting access into it because of the land that the Bennetts had converted and because the city then changed the law to say that there could be only one driveway entrance. Also, an investment banker named Thom Ernst later emailed to me that he had been interested in our lot, which had a beautiful view and a great location, but that when he and his wife and their 3 small children were walking the lot, which had a for sale sign on it, they ran into Kevin Bennett and he threatened to build a spite fence and to shoot them if they bought our property and buiilt on it and then one of their children, oldest age 4, went on his land. So he said they never went back. So I ended up selling that land for half of what I had it listed for to the father of the former assistant city attorney. She told me on the phone that she knew all about the blockade of the conversion of the road and the earlier threats but did nothing because the city attorney Anthony Lettunich, “Tony was the front man”. They then sold the lot to the assistant city attorney. He then tried to get a permit for the same driveway that he had opposed when I owned the land, which was a right by law in the code when I bought the land.
I also claimed damges for the Bennetts buildiing in violation of the zoning and developmentn laws. I did this on the Lisa Subry precedent of dollars per square foot of violating construction which the city had established a year before when they let another city employee build in violation of the development laws. They let her break the law but made her pay her neighbor, When I complained that the Bennetts were building in violation of the law, the planning director lied about it and I was charged with criminal harassment for complaining about it.
If you go now to the property of 701 Princeton Ave owned by Kevin Michael Bennett and Jane Bennett you can see 4 buildings from the street. The building department records show the 2009 square foot one, which includes a two car garage, as being new. The guest house is shown in the building department as having a bathroom and kitchen. The “tack house” isn’t shown in the building department at all. It is small but on a concrete foundation. The last time I looked, however, at the on line Routt County accessor’s report, the only buildings they showed were one house built in 1956. So that shows you something right there. I wrote to the Routt County Commissioners and pointed out that they were missing buildings on the property tax rolls but they didn’t change the property tax records.
The Rocky Mountain News has the same lawyer and the same insurance as the Steamboat Pilot. Previous to filing 02-1950 I paid to file several versions of the facts, that I rewrote and paid to file again without serving. These were not res judicata because nothing was decided according to the Supreme Court in Semtek v. Lockheed
The Anti Injunction Act prohibits injunctions against litigation.
“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress…. TITLE 18 PART III CHAPTER 301 § 4001. Limitation on detention; control of prisons
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; …. They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years… if sumandamch acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap… they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 241. Conspiracy against rights
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
The Denver Publishing Co, which owns both the Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News, has the same lawyers and the same insurance company as The Steamboat Pilot. Are they insuring ColoradoPols also? What happened in my lawsuit was:
David Brougham has advised me that in the event that plaintiffs obtain service upon any of the municipal defendants he will be the attorney for such defendants. In light of that fact, I will direct that Mr. Brougham also attend the status conference” p. 7 “order setting status conference 1/10/03 Magistrate Schlatter” Colorado 02- 1950 document 9
“When Federal Magistrate Schlatter was asked “Do you think that if any attorney knowingly lies in court to hurt you and succeeds, that they should be liable for that? His answer was “No” …Judge Schlatter said “Even if the lawyer gives a false statement of law or a false statement of the facts, I would have to sit here and look at you and say no claim” and “if any attorney makes up something that you think is a lie, there’s some likelihood that no they’re not liable for that if they’re representing a party that is opposed to your interest” Asked again “If an attorney makes a knowing false statement of law, you think they should have no liability?”, Magistrate Judge Schlatter responded “You have no claim against them for that” 05-01283 complaint p. 33. (transcript on record)
On 2/12/03,:“Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane 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.”(e86, Lettunich to City)
“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 (e88)
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)
In October 2003, the 02-1950 case was transferred from Colorado Judge Masch to Colorado Judge Nottingham.
2/28/03 “Telephone call from David Brougham regarding new pleading from Sieverding and review pleading with Brougham as to most significant allegations. Telephone call with….and Clerk’s office” (e73 Lettunich)
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)
/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)
7/30/03 “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)
8/15/03 “Confer with court regarding status of pending motions and timing of ruling”. (e58 Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyd’s London)
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 status, 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, pending 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.”
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)
8/15/05 see “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” (e 2) (Bill from O’Brien Butler McConihie and Schaefer to Faegre and Benson
do you see a pattern here? It’s called ex parte and its illegal.
Get a life!
mean and vicious except for Kay Dingaling. It took some doing but we finally came up with somebody even goofier and more narcisstic than Rio Grande!
My rights were invaded so I sued. If the defendants thought they would win in front of a jruy, then they should have taken me to a jury. But they didn’t. Instead they had multiple instances of ex parte contact, which is a crime. They misquoted laws, violating the rules of professional conduct. They engaged in use of force and intimidation in order to delay and deter presentment in court. That is a felony.
Now, I am not saying that my problems were of national importance. To file in federal court all you need is $75,000 in damages and I had itemized $400,000 in economic damages, a lot of money to most people plus personal damages and punitive damages.
What is of national importance I think is that there was so much ex parte contact, that the ABA was a part of the defense and didn’t stop the ex parte contact nor the witness intimidation, that Lloyds of London was involved even though they aren’t registered in Colorado, and that a firm called Mutual Insurance of Bermuda is not only selling defamation insurance without being registered but influencing newspaper and Internet reporting about defamation lawsuits.
Another subject that I think is of national importance is that pro se litigation is growing by leaps and bounds because of the Internet. For instance, New Hampshire reported that 85% of all state litigation involved at least one pro se litigant. Pro ses can find the law and they can win in court also. Lawyer done lawsuits are very expensive so most middle class people don’t have access to court. If the lawyers will stipulate to the facts and observe rule 11 even if the other side is pro se, it could only be a few months of work for most people and there could be a jury trial completed in less than one year. Right now, they say that only 3% of potential lawsuits are actually filed. Partly because the insurance defense tries to make an example of people like me, using anonymous bloggers like you. In other times there were many more lawsuits and they were finished quickly and inexpensively to the satisfaction of most people. Maybe people weren’t getting huge settlements but they were getting settlements plus their conflicts were resolved.
The insurance companies and other parties that are afraid of getting sued, don’t want more people to sue them because they don’t want to pay for the bad things they do. So they have tried to win by making it unnecessarily expensive. That is harder to do with pro se litigants. The ABA committee on litigation published an article saying that the way to win against pro se litigants is to file motions over and over claiming that you can’t understand what the other side is saying and then get a court order saying that the party will go to jail if they file for relief in a different court. That is not a legitimate way to win a lawsuit and is contrary to the ABA’s model codes. In my lawsuit, I claimed that the ABA was a proximate cause to extortion, which I believe. Ithought the ABA would react with horror at what the lawyers did, Randy Klauzer saying I molested Jane Bennett, their helping the Bennetts violate the development codes, etc. but instead I ended up being the victim of virtually every dirty trick possible.
The land use issues are important because in this time people’s homes and businesses are being taken by eminent domain so that the land can be redeveloiped for private parties. Also, buildings can be built that are not allowed by law or in places they are not allowed. For instance, power plants were built on the public beaches in Queens. If city planners can participate in this process by lying about the properties status under the law or their credentials, as happened to me in Steamboat, then lots of people can lose their homes and businesses. So my lawsuit can be precedence either good or bad.
Internet defamation is also a huge issue for many people. There is no reason that people should suffer in silence. What is different about my situation is that I have absolute proof that the articles contain republications of fraudulent statements. Also, I found out that my former neighbor, the former Steamboat city council president, Kevin Bennett, and the Steamboat city council, helped get forest service approval for a ski area permit at Stagecoach and the real estate agent was the husband of the district attorney who prosecuted me without probable cause (P.Elizabeth Wittemyer). I don’t usually read the Wall Street Journal real estate classifieds but that day I did and saw the property listed for $20 million and recongized the name.
My point is that we all face injustices in our lives and we move on. You’re obsessed. A real life is multi-faceted. We have friends and family and jobs. We have troubles AND triumphs. We pick ourselves up and move on. That’s my point.
Yes, people “move on” but that can take many forms including making lemonade from lemons–i.e. filing a lawsuit. If you were closed to closing on $30 million and furthermore were fired up about saving the world, you’d be “obsessed out” too.
Mentally ill or just weird? that is the question. Either way, it is just sad. Obviously there is something deeply wrong here, and it isn’t a zoning dispute in Steamboat Springs. These situations crop up often enough, but it doesn’t make life any easier for those who have to defend these frivilous lawsuits, or for the families who have to deal with massive court imposed sanctions imposed on the pro se litigator for this irresponsible, and often irrational, behavior. It is at least as bad as gambling addiction, if not worse.
There is no room for sympathy in cases like this, just pity.
For cripes sake, anyone who sues the American Bar Association or Colorado Bar Association or CIRSA, as Kay did, in the absence of a relationship with any of them, really doesn’t understand the legal system at all.
Suing a host of public officials can make sense the first time, but doing it over and over again, after losing and having the law explained by judges, and expecting different results, requires a special contempt for the legal system.
These lawsuits seem like the stuff that militia members and constitutionalists file, but without all the gun nonsense.
There are really only a few cases when representing yourself ever makes sense — in low stakes traffic court, in small claims court, and in divorce court because you have no other options, and it is rarely a good choice, even these cases. These kinds of cases give pro se litigants a bad name.
for what passes as a legal system in this country, because that contempt has been well-earned.
AOW: Suing a host of public officials can make sense the first time, but doing it over and over again, after losing and having the law explained by judges, and expecting different results, requires a special contempt for the legal system.
Having it “explained” … or invented? When judges cook the books, the stench is unmistakable. As Llewellyn remarked, “[s]uch action leaves the particular point moderately clear: the court has wanted [the result] badly enough to lie to get it.”
It has been axiomatic in Anglo-American law since Lord Coke first announced the principle in Dr. Bonham’s Case (in circa 1600) that that “no man may be judge in his own cause.” But in Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005), judges did precisely that, despite the fact that eighteen judges were specifically authorized by statute to hear the case in their stead. To make matters worse, the judges didn’t even have statutory jurisdiction.
This is a shockingly clear and unmistakable violation of the Due Process Clause … but you know as well as I that there isn’t an attorney in the state with the cojones to take on a tort claim here. It’s pretty easy to have contempt for the system and the Bar when (a) such obvious travesties are now a commonplace occurrence, and (b) many in the Bar are little more than shameless whores obliged to defend the system even where they know it can’t be defended. For most, proceeding in propria persona is a product of necessity.
The stark reality, as proven again last week in Erickson v. Pardus, No. 06-7317, 551 U.S. ___ (2007)(per curiam) and Harrington v. Wilson, No. 06-1418 (10th Cir. Jun. 7, 2007) is that pro se litigants are routinely discriminated against in our courts. I’ve cited other examples on this blog, but brevity demands that I not repeat them.
Feel free to defend any of those three decisions, Andy.
“The Sixth Circuit erred in dismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal for lack of counsel”
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
—–
“Access to Courts is the Right from Which All Other Rights Flow”
former ABA president Robert Grey
The 10th Circuit got Harrington right. The Magistrate’s decision in Harrington was thoughtful, well reasoned, and patient. There was no reason for either a U.S. District Court judge or a 10th Circuit judge to add anything. Harrington didn’t have a federal case. End of story. He may well have been screwed in state court, but getting screwed in state court does not a federal case make.
Mr. Smith’s federal case (at least in so far as it applied to state courts) was likewise rightly dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction. I’m sympathetic to both the notion that unpublished opinions are a bad thing, and to the notion that the bar admissions process over regulates mental health. But, you generally can’t raise state court issues in federal court (outside the limited circumstance of a habeas corpus petition). The federal court also rightly noted that his federal appeal decision was published (for that matter, the 10th Circuit publishes even its “unpublished opinions” on the web except for spooky national security shadow cases.
Mr. Smith’s suit in state court that culminated in Smith v. Mullarkey, was likewise ill conceived. Your remedy when you lose on an issue in a court is not to sue the judges, let alone to sue the in a personal capacity, as Mr. Smith did. When you don’t like the result you get in state court, you have one remedy to change that result — appeal to a higher court. You can’t appeal to a lower court. You don’t get to sue the judge. You don’t get to sue the other litigants. And, while I am sympathetic to Mr. Smith’s plight, precedent is not. Mental health evaluation requirements for bar admission have generally been upheld. Likewise, there is no constitutional requirement that judges recuse themselves whenever a litigant sues them for their official capacity acts (and there were in fact no personal capacity acts to sue over in his case).
Pro se parties usually lose because they make really, really bad arguments. And, in the rare cases where they win, like Pardus, they still suffer because other pro se litigants who just don’t get it makes life hard for those with legitimate cases.
I am not familiar with those other cases, which someone else cited. However, what I do know is that if you object to a magistrate’s recommendation the supervising judge is supposed to do a “de nova” review and if there was no jury trial he is supposed to state facts and laws in any decision. The 10th Circuit generally does not allow pro se litigants to address the court nor to provided an appendix (an annotated record),
Judges cannot be sued for money damages but they can be “sued” for injunctive relief. Legally you can sue anyone other than a judge for damages. President Clinton was sued. Attorney General John Mitchell was sued. The Catholic Church and the U.S. government have been sued successfully many times. I think that if you have damages from a federal judge, such as for unlawful imprisonment, that the Federal Torts Act applies and what you are supposed to do is to notify the government that you have a claim, wait 6 months, and then sue the government in the federal circuit, a special court.
Rule 60 b 3 allows you to file in any other district court on the basis that the first lawsuit was not conducted legally. They are supposed to do an evidentiary review and you are supposed to be able to have a jury decide whether the procedure in the first case was legal or not.
To the best of my knowledge the U.S. Judiciary Committee has no findings that pro se litigants have in any statistically valid number been filing bad lawsuits or not following the rules of civil procedure. That is insurance company propaganda and is equivalent to saying that women shouldn’t have responsible jobs because they are too emotional.
While it is a general rule that judges are immune from suit at common law as it is now interpreted (this is a direct function of judicial law-writing in Pierson v. Ray, which cannot in any reasonable way be defended), it is not true that a judge is in every sense immune from liability in tort. Specifically, in Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), it was held that a state judge is like any other public official when it comes to supervision issues. This was of considerable importance in my case, as I sued the Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court on a negligent supervision theory, complaining of numerous due process violations during the bar admission process.
Similarly, there is a long thread of law indicating that if an licensing or disciplinary process is not sufficiently judicial in nature, judicial immunity does not attach. While absolute quasi-judicial immunity is “strong medicine,” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 230 (1988), it is only administered when the вЂpatient’ doesn’t need it. Specifically, participants in a tribunal only qualify for absolute immunity where the safeguards built into the process are deemed вЂadequate to control unconstitutional conduct.’ Horvitz v. Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Colorado, 822 F.2d 1508 (10th Cir. 1987). And in a case evaluating a process substantially identical to Colorado’s, the Second Circuit found virtually identical safeguards inadequate. Diblasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292 (2nd Cir. 2003). If our Circuit had followed Diblasio, I would have won easily — but we know that judges protect judges, and their whorish handmaidens on the Bar are obliged to follow suit.
I was not aware of those cases saying that judges can be sued for damages. One Supreme Case that I am familiar with is Dennis v. Sparks. It is interesting to me that it is hard to find this case, even though it is a Supreme Court case. The last time I looked it was not on Findlaw nor on the Cornell Legal Insitute. But it is on Caseclerk.com as I quote below. It is interesting to me that the subject has to do with the liability of parties who conspire with the judge to get an illegal injunction. In my case, the defendants conspired with Judge Nottingham to get an injunction against what is legal, even though in Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union and other cases the Supreme Court is clear that there can be no duty to refrain from what is legal.
This is a long quote but since the case is so hard to find I think it is warranted
DENNIS v. SPARKS ET AL., 101 S. Ct. 183, 449 U.S. 24 (U.S. 11/17/1980) that: “Respondents then filed a complaint in the United States District Court purporting to state a cause of action for damages under 42 U. S. C. ? 1983.*fn1 Defendants were the Duval County Ranch Co., Inc., which had obtained the injunction, the sole owner of the corporation, the judge who entered the injunction, and the two individual
sureties on the injunction bond, one of whom is now petitioner in this Court. Essentially, the claim was that the injunction had been corruptly issued as the result of a conspiracy between the judge and the other defendants, thus causing a deprivation of property, i. e., two years of oil production, without due process of law. All defendants moved to dismiss, the judge asserting judicial immunity and the other defendants urging dismissal for failure to allege action “under color” of state law, a necessary component of a ? 1983 cause of action. The District Court concluded that because the injunction was a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the state court, the judge was immune from liability in a ? 1983 suit, whether or not the injunction had issued as the result of a corrupt conspiracy. Relying on Haldane v. Chagnon, 345 F.2d 601 (CA9 1965), the District Court also ruled that with the dismissal of the judge the remaining defendants could not be said to have conspired under color of state law within the meaning of ? 1983. The action against them was accordingly dismissed “for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In a per curiam opinion, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the judge was immune from suit and that because “the remaining defendants, who are all private citizens, did not conspire with any person against whom a valid ? 1983 suit can be stated,” Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 588 F.2d 124, 126 (1979), existing authorities in the Circuit required dismissal of the claims against these defendants as well.*fn2 The case was reconsidered en banc, prior Circuit authority was overruled and the District Court judgment was reversed insofar as it had dismissed claims against these defendants as well.*fn2 The case was reconsidered en banc, prior Circuit authority was overruled and the District Court judgment was reversed insofar as it had dismissed claims against the defendants other than the judge. Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (1979). The court ruled that there was no good reason in law, logic, or policy for conferring immunity on private persons who persuaded the immune judge to exercise his jurisdiction corruptly. Because the judgment below was inconsistent with the rulings of other Courts of Appeals*fn3 and involves an important issue, we granted the petition for certiorari. 445 U.S. 942. We now affirm. Based on the doctrine expressed in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), this Court has consistently adhered to the rule that “judges defending against В§ 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).” Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 734-735 (1980). The courts below concluded that the judicial immunity doctrine required dismissal of the В§ 1983 action against the judge who issued the challenged injunction, and as the case comes to us, the judge has been properly dismissed from the suit on immunity grounds. It does not follow, however, that the action against the private parties accused of conspiring with the judge must also be dismissed.As the Court of Appeals correctly understood our cases to hold, to act “under color of” state law for В§ 1983 purposes does not require that the defendant be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting “under color” of law for purposes of В§ 1983 actions. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970); United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966).*fn4 Of course, merely resorting to the courts and being on the winning side of a lawsuit does not make a party a co-conspirator or a joint actor with the judge. But here the allegations were that an official act of the defendant judge was the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judge. Under these allegations, the private parties conspiring with the judge were acting under color of state law; and it is of no consequence in this respect that the judge himself is immune from damages liability. Immunity does not change the character of the judge’s action or that of his co-conspirators.*fn5 Indeed, his immunity is dependent on the challenged conduct being an official judicial act within his statutory jurisdiction, broadly construed. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); Bradley v. Fisher, supra, at 352, 357. Private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in connection with such conduct are thus acting under color of state law within the meaning of В§ 1983 as it has been construed in our prior cases…..
It’s obvious, Andy, that you don’t have the first clue as to what the issues in the case were. Fortunately for you, Rule 1.1 doesn’t require you to do due diligence before you spout an obviously ill-informed opinion.
I would cordially challenge you to read http://www.coloradop… and review the complaint as filed, and invite you to emend your remarks. For instance, while there is nothing wrong with a mental health evaluation per se, there is something legally wrong with requiring a bar applicant to pay for it — it’s called the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the state of California cannot make a disabled person pay a lousy $6 for a handicapped placard, Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999), it certainly can’t ask a bar applicant to pay ~$6,000 for a “mental fitness” evaluation.
For an appellate attorney, Andy, your blissful ignorance of the controversy regarding so-called “unpublished” opinions is truly staggering, and would seem to implicate Rule 1.1. This statement of yours is remarkable:
Tell me that you’ve read Anastasoff, Andy. The problem with so-called “unpublished opinions” is not so much that they are secret (well, they actually ARE in Colorado) but rather, that they have no precedential value. What this means is that a judge can decide a case one way on Monday, and the other way on Tuesday, without any regard for the fact that he decided the case on Monday. In effect, the judge writes “designer law” applicable to one and only one set of litigants — an act violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution and arguably, in violation of the judicial power of Article III. Please take the time to educate yourself before making such presumptuous comments — see http://www.nonpublic… and especially, http://www.nonpublic… for decent background.
For sake of brevity, I won’t post a seriatim refutation of your comments but rather, would ask that you reconsider them after actually considering what you obviously don’t know. A biblical injunction applies: He who speaks without hearing, it is folly and shame to him.
I subscribed to the ABA section on adminsitrative law and received their publications. They state unequivacally that rule making is to be a transparent process.
TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 131
В§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals
В§ 2077 (a) The rules for the conduct of the business of each court of appeals, including the operating procedures of such court, shall be published,,,
В§ 2071. (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order….(f) No rule may be prescribed by a district court other than under this section.
В§ 2074. Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.
Well then, let’s make it a published decision, so that everyone else can rely on it, because the magistrate’s recommendations, adopted and affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, is chock full of sua sponte arguments and new precedents, overturning both Tenth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court holdings and dicta including the following:
Isn’t interesting that the Article III judge (Nottingham, known by many attorneys as a petty tyrant in this district), the Tenth Circuit judge (O’Connor) and now Oh-Wilike all read and cite to the “well-reasoned, sound” magistrate recommendations, but none of them cite any argument or authority from any of the principal briefs? So much for de novo review under Rule 72, Section 636 or, as it should be applied during appellate review, to conclusions-of-law. Like I said, these maxims don’t apply to pro se cases against “town hall” or implicating the legal system and, so, they get dismissed under the because-I-said-so legal doctrine.
How could I forget? Regarding the magistrate, Michael J. Wantabe, who wrote the “well-reasoned, sound” recommendations and performed “yoeman service”: He’s mixed up with the lobbying group, the MDIC. One of the defendants in that case, Bill J. Fyfe, is a member and past-officer of the group. Gee, no wonder all the cases against MDIC underwritten members (CFIs and CLRs) inexplicably get assigned to Wantabe for dismissal (whether pro se vel non) notwithstanding the courts local rule purportedly mandating random computer assignment of cases? See the group petition raising this complaint with the then-Chief Judge of the district.
What’s next? Is Nottingham (regarding as a petty tyrant by many attorneys in this district) going to order one or more of the underwriters of KnowYourCOURTS.com take down the site, or else throw them in jail indefinitely, like he did with Kay Sieverding? You can count on it.
While I’m on the topic of Sieverding, a situation that I know very little about, has anyone mentioned on this site that Nottingham was reversed in part in that case?
In fact, the judicial system was looking out for her. They decided to consider her request for mandamus as an appeal. This means that, in fact, they took into account that as a pro se litigant she, although filing incorrectly, should be heard. And then they modified the original order.
It is not uncommon for courts to declare that when someone can’t play well with others they can’t use the playground equipment.
I think that Seiverding is still not telling us everything. She assert that her claim in the P&Z issue was very clear. I have found that (I’ve served on P&Z commissions for over 9 years) when things are truly clear is not when there is a problem, it is when they are a little murky and they often are murky.
. . . that I’ve always maintained that I don’t know the facts of her situation and that, perhaps, she is holding something back. You’re right –a lot of complainers usually only tell you there side and, in fact, Cuervo (I think) has intimated that about mine. Thus, when we (a group of people, other than myself, who arent’ currenlty Polsters) started KnowYourCOURTS.com, the purpose was to post everything so that our criticisms wouldn’t be vulnerable to that particular accusation. For example, almost everything about weveral individual cases are all right there. If you want to see how the Attorney Regulation Counsel handles complaints, how the Commission on Judicial Discipline handles complaints, how the Psychologists Examiners Board handles complaints, how some D.A.s’ Offices handles complaints from ordinary citizents, it’s all right there.
TiltaWhirl: I never published on this site or any other site that I “work for a law firm.” John Andrews article 7/4
TiltaWhirl: ” I am a computer forensics examiner and legal technology consultant”. John Andrews article 7/4
The court of appeals should be reversed because it adds a condition, exhaustion, to Appellate Rule 21, and is in conflict with the already established principles in the Department of Interior cases that the proper remedy for illegitimate ex parte conferences is thru mandamus…
“petitions for writs of mandamus… the petitioners claimed “any reports [Balaran] completed after the time he should have been recused would be tainted and invalid and should not be released or shared with the District Court…. The judge’s undertaking to review the clerk’s findings de novo would not be assurance against the biases of the clerk affecting the judgment of the court… our concern is with information that “leave[s] no trace in the record… ex parte contacts… may reasonably be expected to color the way in which he approaches his task, and ultimately his reports and recommendations to the district court, and thus to taint the contempt proceedings despite the steps taken to insulate those proceedings from the information to which Balaran was exposed ex parte…. Moreover, the nature and extent of his ex parte contacts would lead an informed observer reasonably to question his impartiality, thereby requiring his recusal independently pursuant to В§ 455(a). We therefore hold the district court erred in failing to grant the petitioners’ motions to recuse Balaran… those proceedings should never have been referred to him. Therefore any reports, recommendations, or other work product Balaran prepared pursuant to the September 17 referrals may not be submitted to the district court or otherwise disseminated in any manner.” IN RE: PHILLIP A. BROOKS PETITIONER No. 03-5047, Consolidated with, Nos. 03-5048, 03-5049, 03-5050, 03-5057383 F.3d 1036, 2004.CDC.0000192…
…
“Supervisory control of the District Courts by the Courts of Appeals is necessary to proper judicial administration in the federal system; and the All Writs Act confers on the Courts of Appeals the discretionary power to issue writs of mandamus in the exceptional circumstances existing here…. They amounted to little less than an abdication of the judicial function depriving the parties of a trial before the court on the basic issues involved in the litigation… [W]here the subject concerns the enforcement of the . . . [r]ules which by law it is the duty of this Court to formulate and put in force,” mandamus should issue to prevent such action thereunder so palpably improper as to place it beyond the scope of the rule invoked…. were the Court “. . . to find that the rules have been practically nullified by a district judge . . . it would not hesitate to restrain [him]… Litigants are entitled to a trial by the court, in every suit, save where exceptional circumstances are shown.”… La BUY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, v. HOWES LEATHER CO., INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. ”
The D.C. Court of Appeals has already recognized that multiple legitimate avenues for relief exist:
“Jurisdiction over PEPCO’s present appeal could rest on four possible bases. The decision to reopen the proceedings could be construed to be a final order reviewable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321 and 2342(5); alternatively, 49 U.S.C. В§ 10327(f)(2) and (j) could be interpreted to make the ALJ’s decision a final order of the Commission. Jurisdiction could also be established on two other bases through the power to issue a writ of mandamus granted in 28 U.S.C. В§ 1651(a): we have the inherent power to construe the mandate of our earlier decision, and we might employ our power of mandamus to aid our future appellate jurisdiction over these proceedings.”POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, PETITIONER v.INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS; 1983.CDC.48 1983.CDC.0000048…
…. The right to adjudication without contamination through ex parte conference is absolute:
“’The Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias…’By 14 of the judiciary act of September 24, 1789…’Repeated decisions of this court have established the rule that this court has power to issue a mandamus, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and that the writ will lie in a proper case to direct a subordinate Federal court to decide a pending cause.’…. In Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 647, 8 L. ed. 815, the same rule was laid down by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, requiring a Federal court of inferior jurisdiction to reinstate a case, and to proceed to try and adjudicate the same… Inasmuch as the order of the circuit court…. might prevent the adjudication of the questions involved, and thereby prevent a review thereof in the circuit court of appeals, which had jurisdiction for that purpose, we think that court had power to issue the writ of mandamus to require the circuit court to proceed with and determine the action pending before it….the circuit court of appeals should not have dismissed the writ of mandamus, but should have ordered the alternative writ, or an order to show cause, to issue, in order that the district judge might have been fully heard before the question was determined as to whether mandamus should issue or not. MCCLELLAN v. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268 (1910)
…
Furthermore, one express purpose of mandamus is to aid in the jurisdiction of a future appeal to be perfected. The word used by the Supreme Court is “perfected”. It does not mean “paid”. Thus, the possible appeal is in the future whereas the mandamus is already filed but cannot be perfected if the contaminated record is used. Furthermore, the plaintiffs the Sieverdings consulted with the defense counsel about the possibility of “perfecting an appeal; Frank Panapolous emailed as attached that White and Case is opposed to striking Magistrate Schlatter’s report from the record because of the ex parte….
It is not unfair to the defendants to strike the reports based on the ex parte conferences because their counsel were their agents and the ones who repeatedly engaged in the ex parte conferences. Furthermore, these defense bills for ex parte conferences, in the possession of the D.C. Court of Appeals, were submitted and paid from Jan 03 to Aug 05 and on many many pages. So both the defendants and the four insurance companies knew about and condoned ex parte conference as a way to gain advantage in a lawsuit. Furthermore, the insurance companies committed obstruction of justice by hiding the records of their involvement
Kay, I’m sure you’re very bright and I’m sure you’re a sweet lady but, I have no idea what you just said –and I must read twenty or more legal briefs and opinions in any given week.
I’m not filing a mandamus action. It’s a waste of my docket fee. I may as well cut out the comics from the Sunday paper and mail it to the court.
when there is ex parte conference the D.C. court of appeals has ruled that the reports by the judicial authority who had the ex parte conference must be thrown out, struck from the record, and so must all the reports referring to those.
In my case, after Magistrate Schlatter issued his report and recommendation, even though I objected and was supposed to have a de nova review, and applied for summary judgment, there were no other hearings. Judge Nottingham was unable to say why he dismissed the case when I asked him at a contempt of court hearing except for a reason, rule 41 dismissal, conflicting with the Supreme Court decision of Semtek v. Lockheed. The 10th Circuit decision on my appeal of that case, 04-1108, quotes Magistrate Schlatter, and no one else. It is short and says that Magistrate Schlatter is a good writer.
In D.C., they billed for a 15 minute conversation with Judge Urbina’s “chambers”. Following that no facts were stipulated, there were no hearings and everything he wrote quoted Magistrate Schlatter.
Everything the defense submitted quoted Magistrate Schlatter. This included before he issued his report and recommendation. On 1/10/03, document 9, he ordered a hearing and said that he had already discussed the case with David Brougham who will be the defense attorney for some of the defendants. At that hearing he gave his opinion that attorneys and local governments have immunity. Then the defendants submitted motions to dismiss and used Magistrate Schlatter’s statements at the hearing as their legal authority.
I submitted 42 pages of case law showing that attorneys are liable to non-clients in tort, contrary to what Magistrate Schlatter said, before the defendants filed motions claiming immunity and they ignored that case law.
They also refused to accept West Law’s Hornbook Textbook by Dan Dobbs, The Law of Torts, as a legal authority even though it is the standard textbook used in most law schools today.
It is impossible for them to contest the fact that there was ex parte conference with Magistrate Schlatter. He acknowledged it in Jan 2003, they billed for it (a long distance 3 way conference call for which there will be a telephone bill somewhere), and the Magistrate in his report also referred to two letters he had received from the defense, which I never received and they refused to give me.
I emailed to White and Case last week. They claim to be representing the ABA but I think they are really representing Lloyds of London. I asked them if they were opposed to striking Magistrate Schlatter’s report from the record because of the undisputable record of ex parte conference and they emailed back that they were opposed to such a record. Unbelievable, a law firm claiming to represent the ABA admits it plans to use the results of ex parte. They also filed that the ABA has no duty to the public. They also filed that 42 U.S.C. title 85 doesn’t protect all citizens only some citizens which is directly contrary to a Supreme Court decision in I think 1983 or was it 1984 as well as to the plain language of the law.
In law, duty is defined by knowledge. The ABA published the McGee report which discussed the fact that citizens are hurt by lawyers and you can’t get a lawyer to sue a lawyer so by their own admission they knew that lawyers were hurting people and that once someone has been hurt by a lawyer they can’t get another lawyer to help them.
The ABA also did a study about attorney misconduct. I emailed to the various respondents and asked them why the report didn’t discuss the possibility of suing lawyers to deter misconduct and return email said that wasn’t a part of the study.
I downloaded a BNA web site, which says that lawyers are liable in tort and submitted it to the D of Colorado in support of a motion for summary judgment, which none of the defendants disputed.
The rules of civil procedure state that when a statement of fact is made and there is an opportunity for a responsive pleading and the statements of fact are not disputed, then they are admitted. Every time they made false statements of fact, I disputed them even though it expanded the pleadings. They never disputed any of my statements of fact including my calculations of what they owe me.
I have clients (I’m a paralegal that caters to pro se litigants) who are confused about legal process or imprecise and verbose in how they describe their grievances. But I generally understand what they’re ‘on about’.
Kay believes she did not receive a fair hearing because of ex parte contact, largely with the clerk or possibly law clerk of the judge/magistrate who was to hear her case. I’m not certain if contact with a clerk/law clerk is tantamount to prohibitted ex parte contact but I recognize why she’d be concerned. Most attorneys develop a tin ear when it comes to listening to a client. Lawyers are some of my best salesmen. And I don’t tell clients what they want to hear, either…I tell them the truth, or what I believe to be the truth.
Incidentally, sympathetic to Kay’s plight (in general) as I’ve seen first hand how outrageous judges and prosecutors can be.
Recently, I was attacked (unprovoked!) by a security guard named T. J. Doyle in a FEMA field office while I was seeking help for a flood disaster my wife and I suffered (she almost drowned, we lost our vehicle, uninsured for flood losses, and all its contents which was our only transportation) at Theler Centerr in Belfair, WA. on 12-23-07. Although seriously injured in the attack, I was arrested by a local deputy sheriff (Rhodes) and eventually told (by jail staff, not Rhodes when I asked) it was for ‘felony harassment’ and 1st degree trespass. I spent Christmas Eve in jail without bail after being admitted to the ER at the local hospital when jail staff saw how banged up I was. I’m diabetic, hard of hearing, have arthritis, and now a heart condition (atrial fibrillation) after this incident/assault & battery. The judge (Sheldon) refused to find probably cause at the intitial court appearance on the ‘felony harassment’ (because you have to threaten or intimidate someone as an element) and at the initial arraignment, the prosecution declined to file a charge with respect to the trespass information–no doubt because there was no case in a state where of all felony charges filed, only 0.5% result in acquitals and 3.5% result in dismissal.
My question: Is there a jurisdiction question where FEMA (a federal agency) has assumed occupancy/control of a building, rented it (even though temporarily in a disaster situation with the cooperation of local county, i.e. arm of the state, officials) and ‘security’ is provided by a federal subcontractor (Paragon Security)?
I’m thinking the arresting officer (Rhodes) stated Doyle has no ‘arrest authority’ despite having handcuffed (after beating me to the ground with a club) and dislocating my arthritic shoulder and damaging my elbow. I’m 61. I believe jurisdiction is a fundamental question that needs to be answered before I can intelligently decide on what is the best course to take in seekingg a remedy.
I’m brand new to this forum and don’t know how folks who care to respond will reach me, but I’d be interested in their reasoned/qualified opinion. Thanks.
Indeed, someone from the federal court (D. Colo.), probably Nottingham or Wantanabe, is poking around on KnowYourCOURTS.com, not doubt incensed about the First Amendment exercise thereon found. Yeah, that pesky First Amendment can be a real bitch, sometimes, as this article suggests (and this article and this one, too.
Building in violation of the zoning is not common, it is very unusual. Usually what is called a zoning dispute is related to an application for a zoning change. In Wisconsin the commercial real estate association web site noted that there were only two buildings they new of in the entire state that were built in violation of the zoning and development codes. One was denied an occupancy permit and one was torn down.
Any defendant will state any lawsuit is “frivolous”. In Australia they claimed that suing tobacco companies was frivolous. In Colorado. there is a benchmark case called U of Denver v. Whitlock. That Col Supreme Case lists indicators of liability. Practically all of them were there for the ABA and CBA. I claimed they were proximate causes. I filed for summary judgment against the bars and the attorney for the ABA Patricia Larson wrote to Judge Nottingham and requested that he not have a hearing and that he have his clerks call her. If my arguments weren’t legally valid then she should have just filed a reply to my motion for summary judgment. After she wrote to Judge Nottingham, he refused to have hearings on my claims against the other defendants as well. If we had gone to a jury trial against the other defendants then the jury would have decided if the ABA and CBA were negligent. In their public representations they implied that lawyers can’t be sued by anyone except their own clients. The ABA published the McGee report which states “you can’t get a lawyer to sue a lawyer”.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court states clearly that lawyers are liable in tort, they don’t have to meet the person to be liable, and that lawyers can be liable for conspiracy with their clients. So your argument that lawyers can only be liable in contract shows that you are in fact some sort of shill for the CBA. One reason the CBA apparently didn’t want me to win anything at all is that they didn’t want anyone else suing any Colorado lawyer except under contract (which was also opposed the first few years)
Magistrate Schlatter said he was dismissing the public officials because of “immunity” but the U.S. Supreme Court says that local officials don’t have immunity and the Colorado Government Immunity Act says that Col local governments and officials don’t have immunity for intentional acts. Every other court was tied to ex parte conference by the defense bills and/or the statements in court by the defense lawyers. The lawyer for Mutual Insurance stated in Judge Nottingham’s court that he called all the other courts. The other courts either dismissed on the basis that I was pro se or they dismissed on the basis that Judge Nottingham had dismissed. However, rule 17 says that the right to sue is determined by the state in which you live and in Wisconsin the right to represent yourself is in the constitution. It is also in the U.S. Judiciary Act and has been so since George Washington signed it. As far as res judicata, the U.S. Supreme Court says that the defendant has the responsibility of showing what was decided by pointing to the record. In 02-1950 the magistrate’s report was adopted even though I had objected and offered proof that it was wrong. They never had any other hearings. What was decided was that Magistrate Schlatter was a good writer. When I asked Judge Nottingham why he had dismissed my case his only explanation was res judicata. But I had already cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Semtek v. Lockheed stating that rule 41 dismissals do not cause claims preclusion. All that happened previously is that I paid to rewrite.
I think that pro se litigants who are willing to do the research can handle any kind of lawsuit. The law is not that hard to research anymore thanks to the Internet. I have been happy with CaseClerk.com, an online database of case law. The legal service industry is threatened by the potential loss to their business from do it yourselfers and the insurance defense is threatened by the idea that more lawsuits can be filed and more can be sustained because the barrier of paying for the legal expenses is reduced. Other industries have also been substantially changed by computer technology such as graphic design.
The deductible for the City of Steamboat was only $10,000. The attorney bills are being accrued by the insurance companies and the bills are mainly for the lawyers talking to each other. They had the option of stipulating to the facts and going to a jury in 2003 but they didn’t do it. Now, I think I can get all the money just because the case precedents show that when there is ex parte conference the reports coming from the ex parte conferences must be struck. If you strike the reports coming from the ex parte conferences from our record, all that is left is what I wrote. They never disputed the amount of damages, the basis for the damages, or the calculations for the damages. They never supplied a single affidavit or any other evidence that anything we claimed was incorrect. So they are in such a hard place that they used threats of violence to try to stop the lawsuits. That is a felony under the Witness Intimidation Act of 1982.
A judge can’t legally put you in jail for not doing what he wants. Crimes are defined by the legislature and a government prosecutor has to state what crime you are accused of and what the probable cause is that you did that crime. I wrote to the U.S. attorney in Colorado and asked if I was accused of a crime and they didn’t accuse me. There was a hearing just 5/11/07 in Wisconsin and the assistant U.S. attorney Robert Anderson said that the U.S. government was not a party, I was not accused. In order for a judge to put you in jail with “summary procedure” for contempt in the presence of the court, you actually need to disrupt a hearing—shouting etc.—which I never did.
Very, very wrong.
You disobeyed court orders repeatedly and willfully. You refiled cases that were dismissed. You brought suits on completely baseless legal theories. You have no understanding of the law and have deceived yourself into believing that you do.
You hurt your family. You hurt a lot of people who you baselessly sued, in something that will turn out to be a taxpayer expense. This is really unfortunate.
The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure state that a dismissal with prejudice is meaningless and does not bar a new lawsuit. Because of the principals of conformity and outcome independence, the federal court in Colorado was supposed to adopt that law.
A non procedural court order is supposed to only be issued in conformance with Rule 65. That requires a motion. A motion is supposed to state its basis in law with particularity. An injunction is supposed to require a bond so that if the enjoined party is damaged but the injunction they will be compensated. Then there is supposed to be a hearing. The injunction is supposed to be a separate document and it is supposed to state its reasons in law and fact and specifically is not allowed to incorporate a complaint or other document. In my case there was no motion for an injunction against me. There was no hearing. There was no bond. There was no separate document. There was no statement of fact and laws and the order incorporated the complaint. The first time I was in jail supposedly for filing a pro se complaint “based on the same series of events” is what Judge Nottingham ordered I wrote to the Supreme Court and I included the so called “order”. They wrote back twice and said I hadn’t included the order.
The taxpayers paid about $15,000 to keep me in jail. The only other taxpayer expense that I know of was the $10,000 deductible on the City of Steamboat Springs employee crime and public officials errors and omissions insurance policies from CIRSA.
I didn’t hurt my family; Judge Nottingham and the defendants did. Magistrate Schlatter himself stated that my complaint sounded like a Hornbook textbook because so many torts were stated. If the defendants thought they were baselessly sued then they should have filed a reply that stipulated and disputed facts and filed for summary judgment. There was nothing to stop them from following the rules of civil procedure if they had a legitimate defense.
AOW: You disobeyed court orders repeatedly and willfully.
If a judge orders you to give him a blowjob, is it an order with which you must comply? (This actually happened quite famously, in United States v. Lanier.)
Judges (and public officials in general) have only the power bestowed upon them by the constitution and laws of these United States (including state law, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment), and not one scintilla more. If a judge oversteps his bounds, he should be held personally accountable for his actions … and in extreme cases, he can be injured and even killed. For example, Judge Lanier would have had a VERY hard time explaining it if his victim had bit down and off (a la Lorena Bobbitt).
“As we have repeatedly said: “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction . . . .” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375, 377 (1994) U.S. Supreme Court Rasul v. Bush, 124 S.Ct. 2686, 542 U.S. 466, 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (U.S. 06/28/2004)
KaySieverding said…
I’ve heard you described my litigation as “inept” and I was wondering why you say that? The big mistake I think I made was conferring with David Brougham before I filed a motion for summary judgment. That shouldn’t have been so bad. How was I to know that David Brougham could get Magistrate Schlatter to close the D of Colorado 02-1950 pleadings with no advance notice (contrary to the Magistrate’s Act) and to the plaintiff only? How could I realize that David Brougham was able to call the court over 25 times to discuss my motions etc. If I had tried calling Magistrate Schlatter, not only would that have been illegal, but probably I wouldn’t even have got through to him.
It’s not like I was inept in a jury trial, because there was no jury trial although we specified jury trial. There were no motion hearings and the 10th Circuit had no hearings. No one accused me of misrepresenting any facts or misquoting any laws. I started the case with admissable evidence in the form of county court transcripts and Freedom of Information Act responses to prove almost my entire case. I found the Supreme Court cases and quoted them as well as Moore’s Federal Practice of Federal Procedure Lawyer’s Edition. Why weren’t there stipulations of even one fact by the defense? Is it because they can’t accept the idea of an aggressive pro se litigant? Or is it because lawyers in Colorado want to pretend that they have immunity for intentional torts? Or is it because Lloyds of London is so powerful that it can arrange case assignments behind the scene (they billed to discuss and then my case was transferred to Judge Nottingham)? Or are Mutual Insurance of Bermuda and TIG Insurance really powerful? We itemized $400,000 of economic damages in addition to the personal damages and our 14 year old son testified about how the events in Steamboat really hurt him.
Do you think the outcome was so bad just because we were pro se? The lawyer for the ABA, Patricia Jean Larson, called my husband in June 2003, very early on, and told him all our work would go to waste.
7/14/2007 11:25 PM
No response has been posted
Kay,
Attorney involved in litigation before a court are officers of the court. Therefore, for practical (and legal?) reasons, they could well be viewed as having a degree of immunity, especially from opposing sides, else they would be too timid to be useful.
So long as they are acting in their capacity as officers of the court, I think this immunity is sound public policy–not absolute, but sufficient in the examples you cite in your case. They’re not immune from bar complaints–although those are a mixed bag. Neither is the judge–well a state judge anyway. I think Congress is the only body that can sanction a federal judge. In Washington, the judicial conduct commission can sanction a state judge.
One other salient point: You’ve repeatedly stated your case before this or that judge was dismissed for reasons (stated) that you were a pro se litigant. I’ve experienced and witnessed judges expressing egregious prejudice toward pro se litigants and even grousing (from the bench, no less) about them in general. But I have NEVER seen an actual written court ruling entered into the record pronouncing a lawsuit of any sort being dismissed fundamentally or solely on the grounds the litigant is pro se. I challenged you to post such an official written entry as a ruling in any case YOU have filed and been heard before an actual judge, federal or otherwise. I would be astounded to actually see an official written court order entered into the record dismissing your action only or essentially because you are pro se.
That’s not to say unexpressed prejudice isn’t the most pernicious. Judges seldom wear their prejudice on their sleeve. And judges (I’ve seen this too often) are no strangers to improper ex parte communication. It’s lonely at the top–perhaps they feel a natural human compulsion to share their moods and experiences at the expense of one or more of the parties! I mean, what the Hell good is power if you can’t abuse it? When you got all those knives and forks, you just GOTTA CUT SOMETHING!
Yes, indeed, we should all hire attorneys, often incompetent, unmotivated and lazy, at a rate of $250 per hour so that they can maintain their mortgages, Porshe payments and laptop dances. Indeed, it’s a poor choice even for the self-represented litigant, who did his homework or actually knows the law (such as, for example, an attorney proceeding pro se). See separate diary on this subject.
Sarcasm aside, I agree with everything else you stated in this post.
I applied for summary judgment but the defense didn’t replay and there were no hearings. The magistrate’s report misstated the facts and applied the law to the wrong facts after the defense billed for ex parte conferences with him. It wasn’t multiple lawsuits either, the later ones were dismissed solely on the basis that I was pro se.
Or maybe put Kay and Tilt in a room and see what happens? 🙂
If in fact you are a defense lawyer, a defendant, or their associate, then file something here that has substance in fact and law.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll tell you why I won’t post any “substantive” responses
1) I don’t read your long posts. I’ve read a couple of them and frankly, I don’t have the attention span.
2) You have completely hijacked things here, and most of us obviously don’t appreciate it. If you or Rio had come here, said “this is how I feel” once or twice and then post about other things, I might take interest. But you’ve come here and complained to no end about the same thing. I understand that you’re frustrated. But you’re making the rest of us frustrated too.
3) You’ve shown your self to be easily offended and paranoid. You’ve basically accused those who don’t agree with you to be “a defense lawyer, a defendant, or their associate”. You’ve posted under your real name and then got upset when people called you out on who you are and your case. You have basically been asking for what you’ve been getting.
4) Your’s and Rio’s tactics have effectively crushed any goodwill any of us might have had for your situation, but you have done it in 24 hours by bugging the crap out of everyone.
Hopefully you understand my frustration. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many others who felt the same way
This is supposed to be a web site about colorado politics. The judiciary system is government and it is political. The underlying events concern the Col Judicial System, the Federal Judicial System in Col, the Colorado AG. the U.S. Attorney in CO, the City of Steamboat Springs, Routt County, The Col Insurance Commission, and organizations in CO selling insurance to Colorado government employees and municipal entites.
My husband was born in Colorado and lived there most of his life. I lived there for 16 years. The only reason we moved was government and legal corruption.
I’m telling you why I’m not reading your posts. If you’re just talking to talk, then fine. You’ll continue to be ignored. But if you want people to listen to how you feel, and I don’t know….get your point across then you might want to look at attacking this differently. If you don’t care as to whether people listen or not, then you’re wasting all of our time.
then why are you posting on them?
Have at it folks, it’s recipe time and this is the best damn cake you’ll ever make. I guarantee it.
Cake
2 cups all purpose flour
2 cups sugar
2 eggs
2 teaspoons baking soda
1-20 oz. Can crushed pineapple (undrained)
Mix all ingredients together by hand. Pour into greased and floured 13 “ x 9” pan. Bake at 350 degrees for 35 minutes. Check with toothpick – may need to bake a little more.
Frosting
1-8 oz. Package cream cheese, softened
1 1/2 cups confectioner’s sugar
1/2 stick margarine, room temperature
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 cup chopped pecans
Mix all ingredients, except pecans, together by hand. Frost cooled cake. Sprinkle with pecans.
Proof positive that Middle of the Road is a defense lawyer working for the Denver Post! Yes, sir!
Does nothing get past you? The jig is up…:)
Christopher Beall and Thomas Kelley are the listed counsel in my 02-1950 case as can be seen on Pacer. They have their resumes on the Internet and on their resumes they say they represented the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, and Denver Publisihing Company. The Denver Publishing Company apparently ows both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.
So they were represented by the same lawyers. Plus I have email exchanges with the publisher, Mr. Moore.
It’s my sister’s recipe from Seattle, WA., so you would want to adjust for altitude with the flour, I think.
Although, come to think of it, I’ve made it without the adjustment (I live at 8,000 feet) and it turned out yummy as hell.
It’s the most amazingly moist cake (I think it must be the pineapple.) The frosting is awesome, too, if I do say so myself.
and learned to bake there. Since returning to Denco I find that throwing in another egg, or using XL instead of L eggs is all the adjustment I need.
I miss Seattle sometimes but it’s good to be back.
but I think I’m a Colorado girl–I really love the sun and the mountains although from the pictures I’ve seen of Bothell, she lives in an equally beautiful spot.
I usually bump up the flour a bit and that seems to compensate for whatever always goes wrong with recipes that need to be adjusted.
The egg tip is a good one. Thank you for that. I’ve always just bumped the flour but that makes sense to add a bit more moisture to hold it all together.
Tinker with the recipe only if you think it can make it better (or are feeling adventurous). If you’re satisfied, you’re better off leaving well enough alone.
Seattle is beautiful, especially when it’s sunny, and there are enough mountains around to compensate for the view (especially volcanoes like Mt. Rainier which are spectacular). But it definitely has its drawbacks (horrible traffic, a local government that takes a million years to decide anything, all that grey which can be oppressive even to a rain lover like me, and unaffordable real estate – what I paid for my 2500 sq ft 1950’s brick ranch with yard here in Denver would buy me a one-bed one-bath condo there, and that’s assuming I’m not in the core or one of the hip neighborhoods. (Granted I’m not in the core or a hip neighborhood now…)
why I sometimes post on this thread but seldom read your posts, Kay – the sheer volume of your output demands some kind of response, whether it be critical and/or insulting, substantive, or just to say “wha…?” (I try to keep myself to the second and third categories, because you have enough people from the first. Besides, it clearly doesn’t discourage you so what’s the point?)
. . .
So I guess that’s a blank authority to post what I want subject to laws on defamation.
No one has posted here saying that anything I wrote was in any way incorrect, that I can see, just general ridicule and insults.
I want this to be a substantive exchange and have challenged my defendants by name to respond to what I posted here. Again, if they have a meriorious defense let’s here it. Something like “here is the law that gave us immunity for doing what you said we did on page ___, which we admit we did” or “we didn’t do what you said we did on page ___”
It sure is, and you’ve taken full advantage. I’m not saying you can’t or you shouldn’t, but you have to take the responses along with it, ridicule, insults and all.
Tiltawhirl, your potential ally who has called on you to submit documents to his site, has commented that he can’t make heads or tails out of your briefs. I call that legitimate criticism regardless of it not saying you’re incorrect.
I don’t believe your defendants post here, so if you’re hoping that they’ll respond I suspect you’re doing so in vain. So what else can you get out of this?
Kay,
I doubt (having prevailed) the defendants in your case(s) are going to respond to your invitation to rehash the litigation here. Why would they want to risk it?
As to the insults and ridicule posted, I’ve seen as much over many years in other online forums and have to agree it exists and is disheartening. Please don’t give up on what you truly believe in because of it. I most recently experienced it myself on a pro-death penalty (AND anti-death penalty!) web site. Despite my most genuine and earnest appeals to reason and morality, I was egregiously insulted and ridiculed in BOTH forums–eventually being summarily banned. With rare exceptions, I’ve concluded the web isn’t a good place to seek genuine dialogue or support.
Even victims of violence and police brutality are ridiculed and demeaned. It’s tantamount to appealing to a mob. The mob can inflict the most cruel and demeaning emotional wounds with no accountability. If you’d like to call me at (360)427-3599, I’d be happy to establish a more private dialogue with you based on common cause. If I’m not here, my obnoxious answering machine will be. I don’t want to post my e-mail address here due to spam. As I’m in Washington State and not all that familiar with federal procedure, I may not be the best resource…but I do listen–something many Americans find too taxing.
I use the diaries sections for my rants, as you already know.
I for one appreciate.
Fixing the record that I molested Jane Bennett thereby stopping the articles from being published based on that record.
Collect the almost $30 million in undisputed claims
Get ECF revised so that it is pro se friendly and protects the rights of citizens.
I don’t care about having a blog, posting a diary, writing a book, making a movie, etc.
Conferences between attorneys and court clerks are common. Conferences to discuss motions are common. They are not wrong and are not the kind of ex parte contact that is punished. It is also common for an attorney to have more than one client and likewise an insurance company to insure more than one party. It does make things a bit sticky at times.
I’m not going to be an apologist for the courts, but I think that you, and many other folks who try to represent themselves, make a common mistake. You decide something is “not fair” and find something in the law that you think supports that position and then take it to the wall.
I’m not an attorney. I don’t have an attorney. I did attend law school many years ago for a year. If ‘Law and Order’ calls I’m ready to play an attorney on TV.
I am not opposed to looking for areas that need reform and I think our courts could use some. But, I think the real problems are NOT those that you and Rio describe. Those that the two of you describe arose out of a desire to take personal affronts and make them public by inappropriately filing suits.
The U.S. civil service publishes a guide for federal clerks that says it is not allowed for a clerk to discuss the timing on motions or how a judge may react. All that is supposed to be allowed is a discussion about the scheduling of a hearing. In my case no hearings were scheduled so that was obviously not the subject and there were over 25 bills for court conferences. In my case, the attorney bills show that there was direct discussion with the magistrate not just the clerks.
Yes, motion conferences are “common”. But they are supposed to be with all the parties present and they are supposed to be recorded, usually in a courtroom with a court recorder or tape recorded.
I can’t speak for Reo, but in my case I alleged both $400,000 of economic damages and personal special damages other than damage to ego. In the case of defamation and illegal imprisonment damages are presumed.
One of the cases I am relying on now says:
Under В§ 455(b)(1), (a judge) must recuse himself if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…. Interior responds that “a party confronted with adverse reports from a biased judicial officer is not required to litigate the merits of each of their findings and conclusions, but may properly obtain vacatur of the reports if grounds for disqualification are established.”… We believe suppression of Balaran’s reports is warranted and indeed necessary. As we noted In re Brooks, “selection bias” does not necessarily manifest itself in the record; it may derive from “information that leave[s] no trace in the record… Smith obviously was not a disinterested source, and his input was received ex parte and therefore untested by the adversary process. Because Balaran was disqualified from proceeding once he hired Smith, his subsequent work product… only s suppression can ensure neither the plaintiffs nor the district court will rely upon the reports in the future, to the detriment of the “public’s confidence in the judicial process.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864(1988)…. They shall “be stricken from the district court’s records” and given “no legal effect.” In Re: Dirk Kempthorne Secretary of the Interior in his Official Capacity. 03-5288449 F.3d 1265,2006 .CDC.0000115
The Supreme Court in Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 1992) concluded that “a judge should not engage in any conversation about a pending case with only one of the parties participating in that conversation.” Explaining this conclusion the court observed: Nothing is more dangerous and destructive of the impartiality of the judiciary than a one-sided communication between a judge and a single litigant. Even the most vigilant and conscientious of judges may be subtly influenced by such contacts. No matter how pure the intent of the party who engages in such contacts, without the benefit of a reply, a judge is placed in the position of possibly receiving inaccurate information or being unduly swayed by unrebutted remarks about the other side’s case. The other party should not have to bear the risk of factual oversights or inadvertent negative impressions that might easily be corrected by the chance to present counter arguments.” Id.; see Rollins v. Baker, 683 So. 2d 1138(Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Hanson v. Hanson, 678 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…. Generally, the critical determination in deciding the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify has been whether the facts alleged would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear he would not receive a fair trial. Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240 (Fla.1986); Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983); Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…. Here, attorney billing records reveal that respondents’ counsel conferred with the trial judge on two separate occasions, shortly after which, the trial judge issued a surcharge order against petitioners. *fn2 Surprisingly, this fact was made blatantly clear from notations in the billing records submitted to petitioners when respondents sought to recover their legal fees. Those records indicated 06/07/93 “Conference with Court re: Final Order re: Surcharge Order.” .25 06/14/93 “Conference with Court re: Order for Surcharge.” .25 Such ex parte communication would be especially disturbing when at issue, as in the instant case, was the highly sensitive issue of whether the estate’s personal representative had knowingly and willfully breached her fiduciary duty to her fellow beneficiaries. Moreover, these notations on their face demonstrate that it was not an administrative matter for which the court was being consulted. The client was billed for attorney time. Also, a party in an administrative, secretarial, or clerical capacity, would not be conferring on two separate occasions as to the content of a surcharge order…. “The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”), and the due process clause of the Florida Constitution, see Art. I, s 9, Fla. Const. (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law….”).,, considering the grave nature of the one-sided discussion at issue, and considering the subsequent rulings detailed above, which, regardless of the disqualification motion, would require our intervention, we conclude the instant writ should be granted. Our decision today should remedy any real or perceived injustice experienced by petitioners and provides the relief sought. See Rollins v. Baker, 683 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996);see also Garner v. Martinez, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D576 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 5, 1997)…. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We direct the disqualification of the trial judge, and remand the case for appropriate proceedings before another judge. 05/08/97 Eileen M. Brake, Et Al., v. Eve E. Murphy, Et Al.,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 96-3026 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 88-3398 1997.FL.0001843
1. Do you do anything other than post and respond here in your daily life? (Yes, I look frequently at Pols in my day, but seldom post long, detailed, um, posts.)
2. How do you support yourselves if you are on line all day?
2.a. Can I get a job like yours?
3. Have you estimated how many hours per day you spend typing out those tirades?
In case you are wondering why I’m on this thread after all my complaints, I assure you that I do not bother reading the tirades. The snippets, the responses, however, are good Pols entertainment.
My constiututional rights are of upmost importance to me Rule 1 prohibits litigation tactics that cause additional expense or delay but that it a standard though illegitimate insurance defense tactic. Another citizen, David Criste, sued many of the same parties I sued and his legal bills were reportedly over $100,000 without ever getting as far as a jury trial. He told me he got a deposition that one of the same Steamboat city council members that he sued and I sued, Arianthe Stettner, had told someone else that David Brougham, the same defense lawyer, had said that their strategy was to bankrupt him with legal bills.
One thing that really helps me at this time is the Spotlight search function on my Mac computer. This lets me quickly bring up legal authorities I;ve already reviewed. I have word files I call “legal basis” where I copied cases that I thought be be relevant in the future. At this point I know enough about law that I am really fast at finding cases. I am a fast reader.
I have both a lot to gain and a lot to lose. If I don’t ultimately prevail I will probably never be able to get a decent job and in my 90’s people could be accusing me of harassing and abusing poor Jane Bennett. Also, I would go to my grave thinking I had dropped the torch of liberty and let the citizens of the future down. If I win, my family and I get almost $30 million in undisputed claims (minus taxes). I want to do worthwhile things with the funds and am accustomed to middle class life but there will be tremendous ego satisifaction from winning and hopefully the directing of good deeds. The various defendants have the funds and I think that they deserve to lose them because of their bad faith and bad conduct. The government will get a windfall because punitive damages are taxable as ordinary income.
I think that winning recognition of rights for pro se litigants is my life’s work, my legacy.
My vision is getting worse
No wonder you “don’t get it” when so many Polsters were asking you to leave or find another forum. Or when you are held in contempt. Your brain is its own refuge and support system.
I don’t care what your research system is, how fast your read, or if this is your life’s work. Maybe if you learned to LISTEN instead of TALKING you might find an audience.
Dude, pull you head out of legalese for a minute. I just asked a few questions that have been in my head for many weeks as I see how much time you two must have on your hands.
Even when people are foolish enough to complement you or support you at one time or another, you manage to alienate them as well. Geez, mahn! How dense can one quasi-human being be? It’s not your “virtues,” nor your “electrifying” analyses, nor your “dangerous” invocation of the values of the founding fathers…, it’s your “personality,” expressed by a style that includes
1) defending positions by temporarily denying the parts that were criticized, and then reincorporating them after making the defense,
2) insulting everyone else by implying, ludicrously, that they are not as bright as you, not as much “in the know,” not as “courageous” in confronting the uncomfortable challenges of our day, but never, ever acknowledging that they have a point, and almost always a point better argued and better supported than any you have ever made,
3) inflating yourself with heroic phrases and limitless self-praise.
These are the kinds of characteristics that cause people, in general, to gag, and to avoid the company of those who display them. Yet never do you get the slightest inkling that it may be time to reexamine your commitment to them!
You are truly daft, man!
For me what is easiest is to think facts and laws and to think of them as building blocks. I usually try not to write much original text but to quote various courts and books.
You would be worked up too if you were me.
This is not the forum to share self-doubt. If I stick to the quotes and known facts not only do I feel more secure but also I try to avoid exposing weakness to the “enemy” who are all around.
This forum is an anonymous forum peopled by associates of my defendants. Part of my motivation is to flush out any hidden defense theories.
I do feel badly for other people’s poor experiences with the legal industry.
I have limited purposes at this time–to win our family actions is good because then we will have more freedom and relief from stress.
In turns of reform I am more focused on ECF than anything else.
that you think folks here are associated with the folks you sue? Not me. I can’t read everything on this site but I don’t recall anyone saying that previously. Why do you think such a thing?
And then accuses everybody who’s been here for a long time of being directly associated with the folks she’s suing…
I wasn’t accusing you of being associated with my defendants, I was asking you.
This site is so public and right in Colorado. I have used my defendants’ names on multiple occasions and asked for them to respond. If they have a meritorious defense I don’t understand why they don’t post it.
means you have zero knowledge about anyone here, and I find it offensive that you would come here, spew your story, and then “ask” if we’re aligned with the opposition attorneys just because we don’t agree with you.
FYI-that’s not a recommended tactic in “Winning Friends and Influencing People”.
It’s all about Kay…….(unless it’s about Kenneth/rio)……..(unless they are the same person)….(unless both are me)……….and don’t you forget it!
[If you don’t understand my response, it’s only because you’ve been fortunate enough to avoid some of the nonsense posted on here lately. In any event, I did laugh out loud at your post!]
The ABA litigation committee published a report suggesting that lawyers win against pro se litigants by claiming falsely not to understand them and then getting the judge to threaten them with jail if they file a rule 60 b 3 action.
There are many lawyers who are vulnerable to being sued in tort. Much of the evidence is from court records and cannot be disputed.
If lawyers believed they would be sued successfully or jailed for doing things like engaging in ex parte conference, asking a judge to jail someone to deter their filings in court, not protesting a judge finding that a person molested someone else even though they weren’t accused of it and the so called victim stated that their was no physical contact and molestation is a crime that necessitates physical contact, and hiding the information about the insurance companies even though that is a required disclosure, then they are much less likely to do it again. But if they think that nothing will happen to them, then under the badman’s rule they will use these illegal litigation strategies.
Phantom: but never, ever acknowledging that they have a point, and almost always a point better argued and better supported than any you have ever made,
When this happens, you’ll be the first to know.
When you stop lading on the “ad homs,” in all directions, at all times, as naturally and constantly as the breaths you take, by all means, put the rest of us in our place. Until then, might a recommend to you a regimen of auto-erotic self-penetration?
Actually, I don’t know any place I ever posted that ever disagreed with the facts and quotes that I posted. The only insults I remember were pretty vague. I do have a fact intensive situation and a different situation than the average “blogger”. However I have posted on various subjects comments that seemed well received.
I looked up what Coloradopols said. They said, as I understand it, that too high of a percentage of the last weekend open post was posted by me, but that they hadn’t read it. Actually I posted a lot about women in the criminal justice system and about immigrants, immigration, and the potential for computer aided civil court filings in 3rd world countries as an agent on social change. I also exchanged comments about the judicial system, the economies of Mexico, the impact of corruption on economies, and the historical basis of law. I posted also on other sties about peanut butter, bullying, Paris Hilton, and KPMG’s audit of CIRSA.
I’m still recovering from last stint in jail, which ended less than 2 weeks ago. When I get all stressed out like that it takes time to get the Cortisol, or adrenline by products or whatever they are, out of my system. It’s like jet-lag only a lot worse. This last time was really especially traumatic for me, what with the being chained and the shackles and other bad stuff. Also, I wasn’t expecting it and was taken by surprise. Believe me, jail is an experience you don’t want to have. And shouldn’t have to have if you obey the written law, as I did.
Anyway, the site said I was querulous. No one’s every called me that before. I think it is a word usually attached to boney old women. I’m not that old and boney yet. Anyway, I think there is a good chance that defense lawyer David Brougham came up with that word because previously he called me a “termagant” which is old English for “shrew”. I think he’s of Scottish descent so maybe these are words his ancestors used. It’s sort of interesting because they are both female directed words. I think the ideas come from the Spanish Inquisition that there are witches and that people should be pressured to confess that they are a witch. I read that the first big printed book was the Bible and the 2nd wss a book about witches. Maybe that’s what Mr. Brougham likes to read about. However, when I go out to Halloween I practically always go out as a plant of some sort. I’ve not really been into the witch images. For Halloween, I put up anti smoking decorations—skeletons holding cigarette butts.
Well, I guess I am guilty of rambling sometime, but this is I guess “open thread”
Guess what, I have a nest of baby robin’s in my trellis.
Kay has got an audience in this household. She may not have all the details lined up correctly, but she’s barking up the right tree. Ex Parte communication with judges is rife and its wrong–attorneys do it frequently to good effect…at least in singularly pursuing their interests.
If I win, my family and I get almost $30 million in undisputed claims (minus taxes).
I’m so glad you’re selflessly looking out for the rest of our rights.
Assuming you’re not one of my defendants, you and everyone else in Colorado will share the cost of $10,000. Meanwhile the feds will get about $11 or 12 million in taxes. You should also get Colorado Bar Association more motivated to make sure that lawyers in Colorado behave properly.
There is no reason to leave the funds in the possession of Lloyds of London, TIG of Canada, and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda. All of the claims are reportedly covered by insurance. The CBA etc. can collect from the insurance companies.
One of our plans is to spend the money in a producttive way.
Though I’m glad you didn’t immediately leap to that possibility, because that’s what paranoid people do.
And I’m no fan of insurance companies, but I’d rather they have 19 million to spend on cases that might just possibly have some basis in fact, than to blow it all on an absurdly overblown neighborly spat that has become conflated with protecting fundamental liberties.
Yes, the best result would have been achieved by earlier intervention. Which we tried for originally not even asking for any damage payments. Because that was denied my family and I, we incurred more damages. We itemized the damages and they didn’t dispute the dollar amount, which I brought up over and over.
We aren’t talking about State Farm. We are talking about Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance of Canada, and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda
The whole point of punitive damages is deterrence. If they can get away with using criminal defense tactics to not pay and then only pay what they would have had to pay if they had conducted the case legitimately, then that will be their regular defense. The $30 million is small compared to their assets but hopefully large enough to get their attention.
It will help reduce the government deficit also because punitive damages are taxed as ordinary income at the highest possible rate.
Yes the property issues did become mixed with fundamental liberties. That happens a lot in history doesn’t it? The Holocaust, for instance, was motivated by greed. And Mr.Simons, the owner of the Steamboat Pilot, already gave an interview advising that newspapers should publish material that is not news in order to please advertisers. The defendants and the court gave no reason to jail me other than that it would be to the defendants financial benefit not to be in court with me.
isn’t it appropriate for you to be fairly compensated for your injuries, and that the perpetrators be sufficiently punished for their wrongful actions that the next set of perps will be deterred?
Perhaps you would like to scrap the whole tort system?
As I understand it, That the tort system is a form of insurance and it to provide both deterrence and remedy.
It is sort of like society’s kidney, a cleansing organ. It it’s disabled, bad stuff builds up in the system.
2. Post your real name, address, current position and salary level, and I’ll consider answering.
3. Only the time I can spare.
Now a question for you: After a snarky post like that, don’t you think you deserve an appropriately nasty response?
that Paul (parsing’s real name) has done just that – click on his name and read his diary “Recent Events here on pols.”
Just some questions that I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering about? Apparently LOTS of time to spare
As Ari points out below, I have revealed exactly who I am, where I live, and in separate postings, told all what I do to scrape a few shekels together (computer based and repair work.)
Note that I did not ask for identifying yourself, but you read that into my questions. Kay, we know who she is.
A tad sensitive are we today?
…is that freedom isn’t worth fighting for. Our forefathers willingly left their homes and businesses, fighting for and even sacrificing their lives, so that they could bequeath to us the blessings of liberty. And you would criticize me for spending some of my time in trying to secure it for myself? Surely you jest, Paul!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
— Samuel Adams
I asked some questions that I wonder about, and all I got were evasions.
Your name, work, major issues etc
Nothing to do with the not-unreasonable questions I asked, which you immediately turned around as an evasive maneuver.
. . . comment at me, Paul. –at least I think I wasn’t included.
Paul, today is my daughter’s twelvfth birthday. I would much rather be spending my time planning a party for her or taking the day away from the home office at an amusement park with her. I miss her so.
Instead, I spend my time [futiley, apparently] writing legal briefs and/or trying to inform others about some ordinarily unnoticed aspects of our legal system. Please believe me when I say that I’m not drawn into this out of desire and recreation.
Remember that, in situations like these, we (all of us) have three options:
Because I have chosen option #1, it is my hope and expectation that the court[s] I approach will deal with me with an even hand and impartiality and that the same law will apply to me that is: (a) applied to all others (with or without counsel); and (b) applied as it is directed through prior binding precendents and court rules and statutes. In my experience, it was applied to me under (a), the because-I-said-so doctrine, which I’ve discovered really is applied equally to almost all pro se litigants, regardless of their legal acumen.
We might be able to do a joint mandamus to the Supreme Court directing that our filings be treated the same way as everyone else.
I have open FIA questions to the government U.S. judiciary about for instance how long a motion can be held open before the judge just has to rule.
I think they should just hire as many judges, as they need to get the job done and let people get their claims heard. It’s supposed to be less than 1 year start to finish even with a jury trial. I actually have thought that I would like to work for the courts. I wouldn’t mind being a magistrate at all and there are some interesting positions in court administration. I used to be a systems analyst at the NYSE.
I think ECF for pro ses is an absolute 14the amendment and Rule 5 right.
I’ve been working on a list of suggestions how to tighten up ECF and make it more automated and predictable. One option would be a new fee schedule, which could involve a two-part payment with the first payment partially as a credit for procedure classes. You could go to class once or twice a week for 8 weeks, what to expect etc., and at the end decide if you wanted to continue or hire a lawyer or wait o settle.
. . . will go over about as well as a fart in an elevator. Get with it, Kay. You don’t get to play, if you don’t play by the rules. The rules are, you go through an attorney. Otherwise, your “access to the court” is an illusion.
Please cite your source that only claims thru an attorney go thru. this is interesting.
. . . for not being clear. The unwritten rule is that you don’t file these cases pro se, even if you’re an attorney.
Apparently the CBA opposed the unbundling of legal services
I think I should be able to buy proofreading and any other legal services I want or need without handing over control of my cases.
You are probably familiar with the bar and court seminars. Maybe we should have a pro se and court seminars. Or at least a survey: What are ways that pro se litigants could change their pleadings and their court room strategy so as to make less work for judges or make judges more comfortable with us?
In my case, the defendants made more work for judges by refusing to stipulate to the facts, which therefore expanded the pleadings.
It’s not as if myself or other pro se litigants are hostile to judges or lawyers assuming they treat us according to the rules.
There are many types of bad apples but I for one try to be truthful and sincere in everything I do.
I don’t hate lawyers and I don’t advocate for the abolition of courts or our legal system as we know it (see my related post on Haners’ thread).
Whenever possible, I prefer to use a competent attorney (very difficult to find, at times) for any and all litigation that I may have to undertake. Even the very best attorneys admit that, when they’re involved in personal litigation (proceedings before the OARC, divorce proceedings, malpractice cases, etc.) that they never go pro se. Perhaps, even they know the result of going pro se, which is that you almost always will lose, irrespective of your legal acumen.
That said, sometimes circumstances and resources do not permit me to hire counsel for all cases. For example, as I’ve mentioned before, enforcement of parenting time (a/k/a “visitation”) is left entirely to the litigant (whereas enforcement of child support is underwritten entirely by the county and state DHS at no cost to the obligee). Therefore, a recalcitrant and obstructive parent can abuse process, move around and literally force the non-custodial parent to pursue litigation in two or more different forums. Each forum requires a new attorney and a new retainer. Then, if you start looking for accountability and damages (tort), you’re looking at separate attorney for that. Before you know it, you’d need the resources of O.J. Simpson and a dream team. And, I might add, this is exactly what the legal profession wants –let’s not fool ourselves, this is about being profitable.1
Sooooo, when we find ourselves in a situation where we need to seek redress and, yet, do not have any more resources for attorneys fees,2 we have to go pro se or forfeit the opportunity to seek redress forever more (res judicata or statute of limitations or mootness doctrine (absence of controversy) may operate to prevent one from doing so at a later time). When that happens, we expect to have the same meaningful access to the court and not to be dismissed out-of-hand.3
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)
2Very often, the reason that the resources have been depleted in these actions is because intial attempts at using counsel resulted in an incompetent attorney depleting the retainer, providing no meaningful progress in the case and needing to fire him/her. The needless generation of billable hours with very little accomplishment is a very real and well-documented problem. Ask for my evidence and, of course, you know I’ll have it!
3 I realize that someone (perhaps Cuervo or Oh-Wilike) may pipe up to remind me that pro se litigants are required to have the same knowledge of an attorney and the same level of compliance with the rules and that the court cannot act as an advocate. Please, spare me, I know all the case law on that particular subject, way, way beyond Haines v. Kerner and Faretta v. Calif. The entire point of many of my posts is that pro se litigants are held to a higher standard than attorneys, and I have more than enough evidence to support that assertion.
I met a woman who said she finished her divorce pro se because her lawyer told her he was single and tried to seduce her but then she found out he was married and she fired him She said she tried to hire another lawyer but noone would take her money. This may have been because they didn;t want to know what happened because they didn;t want to report him.
Anyway, she said the divorce property settlement turned out fine; that it was much easier than she thought and that if she were going to do it over again she would have done it pro se the whole way.
So even if the Supreme Court doesn’t take it you still have their numbered fact responses, which you can take back to a lower court.
In my case I feel that I have the issues and facts all set up for the pitch.
The Supreme Court has commented very favorably in the past on prisoner litigation and said that some prisoners have done great legal work bringing up important issues. They also say that a lot of lawyer appeals are just make work make bills. The issues such as should ex parte reports be struck? Should hidden insurance companies be punished for obstructing justice by hiding required records? Should threats and acts of violence be punished? These, to me, are mandamus issues.
Sandra Day O’Connor gave an interview and pointed out that they can’t rule on questions they don’t get.
The Colorado Supreme Court already ruled that the 14th amendment extends in litigation to pro ses (Tassien v. People). It is no leap at all from Tassien v. People plus Shelly v. Kraemer plus the rules enabling act to have a national statement. I think the Supreme Court must really care about their work and I wouldn’t make any assumption that they are jaded and biased. I think they are looking for the mirror of history. They make plenty of money and don’t need free golf games or any bribery in any form.
These could be more than one filing.
I can’t begin to imagine how you feel.
Wait, I slightly can. I self-exiled to California in 1981 to make me less accessible to my ex and her lawyers. The side effect was, of course, physical isolation from my daughters.
A month ago when all of the family was together for Rachel’s UT graduation, my ex, in a private discussion, confessed a lot of things to me. One of them was that she, and she thinks the girls, now understand that I “had” to leave Longmont and that it took the heat out of our conflicts.
Of course, it is I who paid the price tag in not seeing my girls grow up on a daily basis. (On the other hand, can you spell P-A-R-T-Y?)
The bitter good news is that probably some day your daughter will start to get very curious why she has no daddy in her life. At that too late time, everything will backfire on your ex.
Anyway, HBD to your daughter!
I know it’s not your problem. I do what I do because I don’t want others to needlessly inherit this problem. I’m sure Oh-Wilike and others could say, “If you did this differently,” or,”if you did that differently,” you wouldn’t have this problem. That answer absolves the system of any and all responsbility for creating an infrasctructure, where it’s possible for this problem not only to exist, but to flourish and spread like an infection. If they are right, then the whole host of commentators (not Pols court-reform whiners, but reform advocates, law professors, et al.) must all be wrong.
When I wrote my complaint in 2002, the legal resouces on the Internet were a fraction of what they are now, which are just the begining of what they could be.
I personally find that constructive acttion really helps my attitude.
I registered the domain name Citizens Bar Association and I am planning to use part of my tort settlement to staff up. I want to compete with the ABA for the government contracts they are getting and directly impact the form ECF takes.
I haven’t experienced alimony and child custody issues.
I only really have had related tort claims with one group — a continuing series of torts.
Previously, my exposures to law were mostly but not completely positive. They involved securities, patent and government law. And a little legislation.
I am sorry that you are feeling badly about your legal experiences. I continue to believe that a taking the high road approach is best in the long run. You and your ex might have argued over amounts of money that are small in retrospect compared to the costs and lost benefits of parenting.
I thnk the bars should run web sites/bloggs/use groups about issues such as child alimony and child support that would not try to shut out non lawyers. You never see a cancer or cadiac disease site that says “only for doctors to read”
I like the idea of unbundled legal services. Like if you build a house you can hire an electrician or plumber but do the dry wall yourself.
My relatives had much better medical experiences when they learned everything they could that could be relevant.
. . . such as this one.1However, they poorly attended and poorly orgnazized, probably because divorcing parents are a transient group (we hope) and many are not in a mindset that lends itself towards thoughtful contribution (forum posts). On the other hand, Polsters are local political junkies and some have been here for years. There’s continuity, rapport and credibility with some Polsters that you’re not going to find on transient divorcing parent/child custody bitch/complain sites.
1 . It may be worth noting that, as a almost-clever marketing ploy, many of these child custody bitch forums are hosted (somewhat inconspicuously) by so-called “family lawfirms,” (like this one) which provides them with a unique audience of prospective clients to advertise to.
Apparently the CBA opposed the unbundling of legal services
I think I should be able to buy proofreading and any other legal services I want or need without handing over control of my cases.
You are probably familiar with the bar and court seminars. Maybe we should have a pro se and court seminars. Or at least a survey: What are ways that pro se litigants could change their pleadings and their court room strategy so as to make less work for judges or make judges more comfortable with us?
In my case, the defendants made more work for judges by refusing to stipulate to the facts, which therefore expanded the pleadings.
It’s not as if myself or other pro se litigants are hostile to judges or lawyers assuming they treat us according to the rules.
Of the 72 posts on this thread so far by 5 pm, 28 have been by Kay Sieverding. And she has absolutely DWARFED everyone else in terms of sheer verbiage. She must do nothing more than type all day long.
“Write something substantive,” Sieverding tells me. OK, here’s substantive: Her actions are nothing more than abusive attempts to intimidate and punish her former neighbors – and anyone else who happens to cross her path – by flagrant misuse of the legal system. This all started over her protesting a neighbor’s home remodeling. Now that she has failed in the courts, after costing her neighbors and others thousands of dollars, she is trying to hijack this entire blog. (When she’s not suggesting that people join her for a “class action mandamus” suit in the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Over a neighbor’s home remodeling!!!
Here’s Kay Sieverding in a nutshell:
“Sieverding has objected strenuously this summer to construction projects occurring on the Bennett property at the end of Princeton, a dead end street. She contends that the size of an addition being built above a freestanding, two-car garage violates the city development code. She also alleges code violations related to the Bennetts’ conversion of an existing log shed into guest quarters.” – Steamboat Pilot, Sept. 6, 2000
“(Federal District Judge Edward) Nottingham, who jailed Sieverding for refusing to stop filing lawsuits, without an attorney, (said Sieverding’s) lawsuits were “frivolous,” “abusive” and “gibberish.”
“The cases stem from a dispute with neighbors in Steamboat Springs. Sieverding has filed lawsuits against not only her former neighbors but also Steamboat Springs officials, the local newspaper, several individual lawyers and the entire Colorado and American Bar Associations, among others. She has filed the lawsuits in Colorado U.S. District Court, and also in federal courts in Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and the District of Columbia.” – Rocky Mountain News, January 5, 2006
“Sieverding sued the neighbors, city officials, the local newspaper, the Colorado Bar Association and the American Bar Association, among others. When she has lost in one court, she has filed in another. Sieverding … told Nottingham on Jan. 4 that she would drop the suits if he would let her out of jail. But she didn’t drop them, and earlier this month filed documents in the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting Nottingham’s order.” – Rocky Mountain News, February 4, 2006
Please get your own darn blog, Kay Sieverding. Or if you must pollute this site further with your perseverations, at least have the decency (like tiltawhirl) to do it mainly in diaries where you can mainly mutter to yourself.
giving her a separate thread. Keeps her from bogging down the other ones.
I haven’t read a damn thing she’s written. Why bother? Brevity is the soul of wit and her the length of her entries clearly indicate anything but.
And yes, she is unusually prolific and seems to have an amazing amount of time on her hands which leads me to believe that she’s probably a very bored and very lonely person that doesn’t have any other hobbies or outlets for her obsessive behavior.
Kind of sad, really.
The interaction here is useful for me to see if there are hidden issues I am missing. I might submit this in court as proof that the defendants had no hidden meritorious defenses. So if you know the defendants ask them to post. I tried this on the Steamboat Pilot web site and they didn’t post any defenses there. They are:
American Bar Association, Jane Bennett, Kevin Bennett, Ken Brenner,
David Brougham, Colorado Bar Association, City of Steamboat, CO, Kathy
Connell, James Engleken, Art Fiebing, Sandy Fiebing, Daniel Foote, J.D.
Hays, Hall and Evans LLP, James Sandy Horner, Paul Hughes, Klauzer &
Tremaine, LLC, Randall Klauzer, Charles Lance, Anthony Lettunich, Paul
R. McLimans, Wendie Schulenburg, Melinda Sherman, Kerry St. James,
James B.F. Oliphant, Suzanne Schlicht, Steamboat Pilot & Today, Arianthe
Stettner, Paul Strong, Richard Tremaine, James Weber, P. Elizabeth
Wittemeyer
Defendants-Appellees
The lawyers in Col are David Brougham, Denise Moore, Traci Van Pelt, Michael McConnell, Brett Huff, Christopher Beall, Thomas Kelley, B.F. Oliphant, and Andrew Kitararie Patricia Larson, Jerome C. Schaefer, Carolyn Lamm and Frank Panapolous can post here too. So can CIRSA’s director Tim Greer. These are the fish that I am looking for.
So if you know any of them, please suggest that they post here if they have any meritorious defenses
The way I look at it all I have to do is win the actions and even though I won’t be big CEO rich we would still get a really nice house and could make various investments. Getting the rules of civil procedure made more pro se friendly doesn’t seem hard to me and I can speak from personal experience about the obstacles. If I can make the rules of civil procedure more pro se friendly than I willl go to heaven, metaphorically, because I will have actually accomplished something really significant and good.
I read Deuteronomy a couple of weeks ago and it said, basically, that if your enemies are bad you can get their money even if you are imperfect and “stiff-necked” and you can keep it and drink wine and eat good food and have a nice house as long as you obey the laws of Deuteronomy, which are actually really interesting.
I thnk Deuteronomy is the basis of British common law
TW, you may be right that Kay has gone off the deep end over a city ordinance issue (I wouldn’t know) but I do know that Nottingham is a petty tyrant, who ignores fundmental legal maxims at whim, like dimissing a case for want of jurisdiction but with prejudice or ruling on the merits of a case (declaring it “frivolous and vexatious”) after just ruling that he didn’t have jurisdiction to hear it and, for that reason, denied you the opportunity to develop the record, engage in discovery, offer evidence, call witnesses or personally appear (all the mechanisms necessary to determine if one’s claims are frivolous and vexatious)).
Every attorney I know in this district agrees that Nottingham’s a petty tyrant. One attorney joked that Nottinham has a thesaurus of insults on his desk, which he uses when he writes orders. Most of his orders contain language accusing one party of filing “gibberish,” or “a heap,” or of being “scurrilous,” “scandalous,” “lascivious,” “vexatious,” “harassing,” “frivolous,” etc., etc. The guy is so drunk with his own power that he’s out of control. Another attorney told me that he called him “lazy,” even `though he had written 60 and 70-page briefs throughout the course of the litigation. Nottingham is caustic and insulting to both attorneys and litigants alike (at least there’s no pro se bias, there. You won’t get a fair hearing in front of this jerk, unless he “feels” like your case is worthy of his time. What the law provides (circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedents) don’t mean diddly to him, unless he’s quoting it back to you in one of his orders (then, all of the sudden, they have some value).
In other words, Nottingham uses the because-I-said-so legal doctrine on just about everything I’ve seen. So, if you’re a litigant (with or without counsel), you have no idea what flavor of justice you’re going to get, no matter what the case law is governing the substance of your case.
I’ll bet he is a tyrant from what I read about the Qwest case. BUT… anyone who writes a 60 to 70 page brief to a judge IS lazy. You have to cut it down to a more manageable length! And that takes hard work…
Judges don’t even read the ten-page briefs, to say nothing of the 60-page ones. If you think this crowd has ADD….
. . . that, in the high publicity cases, like the recent Joe-Nacchio-insider-trading case or the telemarketers- do-not-call-list case (and, I don’t know about the Qwest case you mention), he’s on his better behavior. Check out this article where the lawyer-author clarifies some rumors about him and even “welcomes” the opportunity to appear “before” him again (no doubt mindful that Nottingham may read the article, where the groveling is unmistakable), yet revealing that, “We’ll agree he can be ‘irascible,’ . . . and you never know exactly what’s going to happen when you’re in front of him.” (This is what I call the because-I-said-so legal doctrine). You know, I’m sure many of you lawyerly-types out there will pipe up and say, “What’s wrong with that?” For the rest of, the application of law to a given set of facts should be relatively even and forseeable. With this guy, it’s simply depends on his mood. We’ve got a friggin’ problem in this country when the people we put in positions of interpreting the laws we pass think that they, themselves, have become the law. Go to this page and read the excerpt out of Max Boot’s 1998 book for a succinct description or explanation to this type of judicial behavior. We treat these people like Pharaohs and that has got to stop.
A judge from Texas filed a 56 page brief on his own behalf.
Faegre and Benson complained about the lengths of my briefs. However, they sued an individual for injunctive relief (prohibition against an anti abortion web site) and filed more than 70 pages the first day.
The more facts you have in your complaint that they must affirm or deny the less to be proven down the line in more expensive ways.
TW, your advice is spot-on. One of my Denver-area attorney friends, Karen Renne, Ph.D., has her doctorate in English and has an amazing record on appeal. Her secret is plain English (no legalese) and really short, concise, lightweight briefs. I haven’t fully incorporated that lesson into my own brief work, yet, but I’m working on it!1
Anyway, here’s a great discussion on the subject by Evan Schaeffer on his trial practice blawg.
1But then, I’m pro se on some of my cases, which we all know means that any brief is an exercise in futility, regardless of legal acumen, strength of the arguments or writing style.
…except for the footnote (a la the crazy combos of concurring opinions in the SCOTUS).
see, I don’t have to be argumentative always!
Richard “Dicky” Scruggs currently has a pending 101 page conspiracy complaint against State Farm. The Wall Street Journal law blog has a link to it.
ColoradoPols encouraged me to write here. They didn’t claim to have a shortage of disk space. They boast that their site is controversial and well read. So they should be happy if I bring more debate. I think that this debate could really affect the future of Colorado. If you’re not interested in my interests that’s fine.
What happened to me is what happens frequently when there is no resolution in court. That’s why adjudication on the merits is important.
When I was in Steamboat many people told me that they wouldn’t have let Bennetts get away with converting the road and building in violation of the zoning. This was not “remodeling”. This was 3 buildings in a front yard, one 10 feet from my property, one five feet from the street, and a physical location that forced traffic into my property. Also, my access was affected so as to cost me one valuable building site. So there was a lot of money, noise, privacy and congestion involved. Apparently the plan I interrupted was to build a bed, breakfast, and bring your own horse stable.
When Rick Brown’s neighbors built in violation of the zoning, all they had to do was call and they got a check.
It seemed reasonable at the time that I could make a stand that they couldn’t build in violation of the development code. That is a reasonable assumption to make I think. At the time Steamboat spent about $1 million in city planning.
I don’t think it was so strange for me to send 40 emails to the city council saying that the city council president shouldn’t build in violation of the zoning. We are not talking a few feet. I never ever expected to be criminally charged and run out of town for saying that there should be “same laws for all”. Then when I filed in court, I never ever expected it to drag on for 4 and ½ years, I didn’t expect them to bill for ex parte conferences, and I didn’t expect them to have me put in jail for filing truthful statements in court. I thought they would probably settle and that if we went before a jury that they jury would order them to pay us.
You have to remember that the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News have the same lawyers, Chris Beall and Thomas Kelley, and the same insurance company, Mutual Insurance of Bermuda. They fed them their quotes. What does “lost in one court” mean? There was no jury trial just a lot of paper with the resulting decision that Magistrate Schlatter was a good writer. Rule 60b(3) gives explicit authority and direction to refile in a different court when the rules of civil procedure are not followed–ex parte etc. I didn’t come up with the idea myself. I looked up “judgments” in American Jurisprudence and followed the directions.
I got the idea to sue the newspaper, the bars, and the lawyers from Prosser The Law of Torts. Prosser said to sue the parties who can pay if you can make it stick. He said to look for insurance and follow the money. How much money do you think there is to be had suing city council members? These defendants can pay and I think the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals will rule that they have to pay because of the ex parte and the fraud about the insurance companies and the witness intimidation. The ABA, CBA, WorldWest, Steamboat Pilot etc. have buildings I can file liens on. The ABA has a big rental property in Washington D.C. and I could file a lien on the rents. Then the defendants can collect from their insurance companies.
The vernerable Professors Prosser & Keeton told you to sue? C’mon, Kay, that’s a stretch.
If I told you that Professor Prosser’s middle name was Lloyd (it is), would you suspect that he’s actually being paid by Lloyds of London to encourage you to sue, so that, in fact, the defense attorneys in Colorado could make a quick buck?1
1Tongue planted firmly in cheek
Their hornbook textbooks on torts have chapters on defamation, constitutional violations, intentional interference with economic advantage, malicious prosecution, abuse of process etc. I read them and matched them with my facts. I also used Caseclerk.com. And Causes of Action Journal.
Prosser said to go for the big money and to find the insurance.
Dobbs textbook is widely used and I really liked it:
“In some cases, however, attorneys violate no duty to the client but violate a duty owed directly to the nonclient. That is surely the case if the attorney negligently drives his car on the way to the courthouse and runs down a nonclient in the process. It is also the case when the attorney pursues the client’s claim in a way that is forbidden by the law… The attorney may become liable to his client’s adversary if he instigates an action in bad faith and without probable cause. Such liability is based upon the rules of malicious prosecution.” The Law of Torts, Dobbs (P.1398)
This is exactly what happened with the Bennetts and their lawyers and involving the bar associations just widened the net a little bit. It was not at all obvious that adding the bars would make the litigation more dirty rather than less dirty and I really have no way to know what was said when I wasn’t there so I don;t make any assumptions about the roles anyone played in the plan to deny me a decision on the merits by not admitting a single shred of evidence. I guess they just underestimated me. It doesn’t seem very strategic on their part but I assume they never ever thought that anyone would leave the ec parte confernces in the defense bills or that the magistrate would acknowledge the ex parte conferences. That is one risk of over confidence.
Sheesh.
In D.C., 05-02122 I claimed the ABA was a participant in a conspiracy to deny my rights by pretending that there was a valid injunction against pro se litigation, knowing in advance that the plan was to threaten me with violence under color of law, i.e. illegal jailing, if I would not give into, what in essence was extortion, and file a “voluntary” notice of dismissal in the D. of Columbia cases of 05-01283 and 05-01672 and an appeal to the 8th circuit related to the issue as to whether my defamation case should be heard because I was pro se.
In the 05-02122 complaint I asked for $4 million for being put in jail and confinement to date and $10,000 per day of additional confinement. I pointed out that I didn’t know how to get out of jail but they could get my phsical liberty within a few days just by filing a motion saying that my confinement was illegal. But they didn’t help. Furthermore, I also sent them multiple letters from jail requesting assistance. I sent them to ABA officials in both Washington and Chicago.
In June or July of 2005 I interacted by email with Patricia Jean Larson, the ABA assistant counsel. There is a copy of that in the D.C 05-01283 docket under certificate of service that I filed at the time. In the email exchange I asked her to accept service of the 05-01283 complaint (a rule 60 b 3 declaratory judgment action) by email or postal mail so as to spare me the expense of a process server so I could buy new shoes for my son. She emailed back that she wouldn’t accept service because there was an injunction against litigation. I emailed back to her and requested that she produce a copy of the so-called injunction. However, she did not respond. If she thought there was a valid injunction she would have shown it.
The ABA was and is also a party to 05-01672, which was a representation of the D of Colorado claims plus additional facts about the 02-1950 litigation misconduct. After Judge Nottingham told my husband that he would put him in jail if he didn’t file a motion to “voluntarily” dismiss 05-01283 and 05-01672 within 10 days, my husband emailed to both White and Case and O’Brien Butler and told them explicitly that he wanted to continue in the case, that any dismissal would be on duress of jail. White and Case acting in the name of the ABA, which was supposedly reading their filings, then filed in those D.C. cases a copy of my husband’s email to them and suggested that he would be jailed if he didn’t get the document filed by the date ordered.
The Anti Injunction Act was common law from before the Constitution. When it says you can’t enjoin prosecution in state court under the laws of conformity and outcome independence it applies to federal courts invoked in diversity and state claims mixed with federal claims. There are other laws protecting Access to Courts on purely federal matters also.
In D of Colorado 02-1950 where the so called injunction originated, there were no rule 65 defense motions (only a motion by me, which was not heard), there were no defense bonds for an injunction, there were no injunction hearings, and there was nothing complying with rule 65(d)—there was no statement of reasons and no description of what was being enjoined that did not incorporate another document. Read rule 65 for yourself.
See Stull v. District Court of Pueblo County, 308 P.2d 1006, 135 Colo. 86 (Colo. 03/18/1957), there is a mandatory prohibition against an injunction issued without rule 65 procedure.
The order that Judge Nottingham issued in March of 2004 prohibited pro se litigation “based on the same series of events”. He later orally amended that to “based on related events”. But I relied on “based on the same series of events”. The other cases I filed were based on downstream events, after the events of 02-1950. My second defamation case was specifically based on later publication of the articles. This is significant also because Mr. Beall’s client was dismissed based on his claiming that defamation claims must be presented within one year. He quoted an 1895 case but a later case says that when claims are presented with more than one theory the statute of limitation for the longer one prevails. My claims were presented as fraud and conspiracy and we alleged, and detailed, special damages both personal and economic. Furthermore, Mr. Beall lied about the date our claims were first presented (3/31/03 they were filed, he claimed 4/2 or 4/1, there was a damaging publication on 3/31/01.) Also, in Feb 2003 they also published an article that was deceptive in ways contradicting their knowledge of the facts.
Not only is an usurpation of power for a judge to sua sponte issue an injunction, but there could not have been an injunction against pro se litigation legally issued. One reason is that there cannot be a duty to refrain from what is legal and pro se litigation is expressly legal (U.S.C. title 28 section 1654) (see Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union—the union wanted Senn to stop laying tile unless he joined the union, they wanted the court to order that but didn’t have a law to support the proposed order.) So therefore, they could not have written a motion, only a request, because a motion requires a law or a rule and they didn’t have one. And under the rules of civil procedure, you’re not supposed to file requests and requests for an order must be made by motion, which has a legal definition that is not just B.S.
In their bills however, the defense specifically discuss getting an injunction. Then one sua sponte appeared hidden in the magistrate’s 59 page report and recommendation. I specifically and timely objected. I also asked for copies of the defense letters to the court that the magistrate mentioned receiving and considering (which I never was sent). Then I offered proof by filing motions for partial summary judgment. I disputed his summaries of evidence.
One of the reasons that Magistrate Schlatter suggested that an order against pro se litigation be issued was that I had complained about government corruption. Owing to the fact that I studied city planning and muncipal finance and worked in that field, I actually knew enough to recognize what the city and county officials were doing. A lot of the events happened in 2000 and I searched on the Internet. Articles about the 2000 update of the rules of evidence appeared and I got the idea that government documents were admissible so I spent hundreds of dollars on Freedom of Information Act requests and got all the government documents to prove my facts. I knew I had a fax intensive case and wanted to reduce the burden of proof. I filed complaints with the city about the ongoing construction violations with photographs and copies of emails and then FIA’d them. Furthermore, in 1995, former police officer David Dechant filed a long police report, with my exhibits, and asked then Police Chief Jenson to intervene because the road had been barricaded and there were personal confrontations. Personal confrontations are an inevitable result of blockading a road and blockading a road is a crime in Colorado. Plus I had advanced a drug conspiracy theory for which additional supporting evidence became later available.
In 02-1950 I had pages and pages of detail supporting the proposition that the ABA was a proximate cause to what happened in Steamboat, which was essentially an extortion to which a lot of lawyers either helped directly or indirectly or knew about and ignored. If the ABA thought they had a defense then they should have responded to our motion for summary judgment. Why couldn’t they have defended their acts and omissions?
If you look at decisions about the Catholic Church, for instance, or any other institution, the assumption is that the instituion through its decision makers can and do make decisions for which they are responsible. Like the Catholic Church, the ABA could have decided to act in a way towards their members hurting and risking the public in such a way as to reduce both the incidence and the degree of hurt. Public documents show that they knew the risk to the public just like the tobacco companies did but chose to continue anyway. And the ABA pays its officers a lot more than the government does. It is not a government agency, by its own public representations it is a private organization. So they acted to protect private parties from the consequences of invading other people’s rights and by doing so the officers of the ABA got some pretty good salary and benefits as well as indirect compensation. If other people had been running the ABA or it was run in a different way or the ABA did not lobby for the positions that it did, then the probability of me or many other people getting hurt by lawyers misusing the law would have been much less and remedy much faster.
Kay,
I agree the court order/injunction prohibitting you from filing lawsuits ‘pro se’ was vacuous, erroneous, and improper.
HOWEVER, when such an order issues, isn’t the proper course to appeal it rather than IGNORE it?
I am aware of certain sanctions a court can impose in contempt proceedings, et al, including monetary, jail, AND the denial of considering motions, etc. by a party so sanctioned until the reasons for the sanction are addressed to the court’s satisfaction and removed.
It seems to me that a party cannot properly ignore a court order simply by alleging it is ‘improper’ or ‘erroneous’, but must appeal it to cure the defect. Failing to handle it in that manner is perilous as witnessed by your being jailed on 3 occasions.
I’ve also heard of instances where bogus tax protest claims have been ruled against so frequently by the federal courts that any litigant filing a similar claim risks virtually automatic sanctions for doing so.
So the courts do have some history of punishing demonstrably frivolous and vexatious lawsuits ab initio. The U.S. Patent office will no longer accept patent applications for perpetual motion machines.
A res judicata filing could (I think) be viewed by a court as frivolous and vexatious ab initio. Perhaps the injunction prohibitting you from filing such cases was improperly entered (an appeal would be the remedy) as you argue, but simply ignoring it would be risky, as your experience indicates.
I don’t believe we’re allowed, under law, as citizens, to simply ignore an injunction according to our own lights without written authority to so ignore it from a higher court with jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
e.g. I once had a judge refuse to allow me to represent myself pro se. If I had ignored his ‘from the bench’ refusal, I’d have been held in contempt. I waited for a subsequent visiting judge and raised the issue again, asking to represent myself. He ruled correctly and I proceeded to do so.
A judge may be absolutely incorrect in his ruling, but until we appeal and overturn the ruling, it’s binding on us.
? ? ?
look at the response you got!!!
And the funny thing is, I still don’t know the answer!
Why the crap did she sue the ABA? I can see individual lawyers, etc. (still all sounds frivolous to me, but at least they’re involved) – but the ABA? On a “conspiracy” theory?
Hoo boy.
..I know you didn’t just ask Kay the question AGAIN! here we go.
😉
4.) The Supreme Court of Canada upheld damages payable to a pro se litigant who sued the Barreau de Quebec for inadequately supervising an attorney saying:
“this is an exceptional case…she represented herself …issues of general importance…governing the professions in Quebec, the implications of which go beyond her particular case.” (Barreau du Quebec v. Christina McCullock-Finney, 2004)
June 12, 2007, 6:07 pm
New Lawyer Search Web Site Stirs Controversy
Posted by Peter Lattman
Check out Avvo, a new site that rates and profiles lawyers. It “marks the first time attorney ratings have been available for every attorney and the first time that detailed profiles and disciplinary information for those attorneys have been available in a single place,” the company says.
To gather information, Avvo, which is free, says it scours state courts, bar associations and lawyers’ websites. “In addition, consumers can submit client ratings and lawyers can endorse each other and upload content to their profiles so that users can see a complete picture of any attorney,” says the company. Avvo currently has the goods on attorneys in Arizona, California, D.C., Georgia, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington; more states will follow.
Steve Berman, the high-profile Seattle class-action lawyer, doesn’t like Avvo. In an article today in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, he called the site a “flat-out scam” that does not serve the interest of consumers. “You have consumers who are going to be making decisions about whether or not to hire a lawyer based on a rating system that is completely deceptive,” Berman told the P-I.
In a P-I story from Saturday, another Seattle lawyer, John Henry Browne, called the Avvo service a “joke” and said that the poor rating has damaged his reputation and business. Avvo had cited an admonition Browne received from the state bar in 2005 over compensation issues. Browne told the paper the admonition is a minor transgression that shouldn’t tarnish his practice, noting that has received high rankings from Martindale-Hubbell and Best Lawyers in America.
Avvo’s founder and CEO is Mark Britton, the former general counsel at Expedia. He started the company in February 2006, raising $13 million from the likes of Benchmark Capital and Ignition Partners. Its advisory board includes Stanford Law School professor Deborah Rhode and former ABA president Robert Hirshon.
Britton told the P-I that he stands by the attorney ratings. “What I don’t want to happen is for us to lose sight of the big picture here, which is you have a lawyer that was disciplined and that is what he is upset about,” Britton told the P-I in response to Browne’s remarks. “For consumers, we are shining a flashlight in some dark places, and this was information that was very hard for a consumer to find until just a week ago when we launched.”
It is interesting
That Kay Sieverding needs a life?
And yes again…
Has to be up there with the ones about Hillary running Gecko’s about why he’s a conservative.
I think that there is no doubt which has the most words, though…….
I know Gecko’s thread generated more than 200 posts but this one must dwarf it in terms of word count.
I’m trying to settle this litigation now for a number of reasons. One is that the recognition of the vioilations of my rights by lawyers and judges acting in conspiracy accompanied by actually paying out almost $30 million will make it much less likely to happen next month to someone else and I sould like to spare them that pain. Two is that I want to get ECF made pro se friendly and to do that I want to open and office and hire a professional statt, including lawyers, and to do that I need $$$ and settllying the lawsuit is the fastst and easiest way. Three is that I want my family and I to live with less stress, be able to pursue other business opportunities, buy a new house, and go on vacation.
That sounds like a pretty good life to me. Much better than accepting defeat that I don’t need to accept because I can win on the record.
A short post; I read it.
. . . you’re putting me into a position that I might have to agree with Nottinham and I really, really don’t want to be in that position. What you’re saying here is, indeed, “gibberish.”
In 02-1950 I presented undisputed evidence that my family and I suffered $400,000 in property damages and three people at $250,000 and one person at $75,000 in personal damages plus 10 times punitive damages, which I took directly from the Gore decision which was published the last week of March 2003. Then I added a little more damages and interest from 4/1/04 at 12% the Wisconsin rate. They didn’t dispute the amounts or the causation or the facts even though I labeled them undisputed many occasions where they had opportunity for responsive pleading.
There is another claim for$3 million defamation per se which they did not dispute.
There is a $5.7 or was it $6.7 million claim for unlawful imprisonment from 9/2/05 to 1/4/07 which they didn’t claim was legal nor did they dispute the amount of damages even when I filed for summary judgment.
Additionally I have new damages for new defamation, privacy invasions, interference in our current finances, a need to leave the country, two more jailing, and physical invasions of my body that they set into action and failed to stop when they knew and could have.
I found a bunch of appellate court cases that said that when a defendant is presented with a motion for summary judgment that estimates the damages and they don’t contradict the damage estimate, that the damage estimate is not subject to later challenge as to amount
Can you say “loss of perspective”?
(So if I sue for three thousand billion quadrillion dollars and the other side forgets to “contradict the damage estimate” – maybe they ignore my lawsuit and don’t file an answer on time, or whatever – I’m entitled to that?)
I had an ECF account in D of Minnesota and the 04-4317 record shows that I uploaded the pdfs, used the drop down menus and attached the documents to the references just fine.
I think Judge Nottingham is perfectly capable of using ECF and that he probably knows more about computers than you realize and also probably is learning more about technology every day.
Now you can do word searches on formed pdfs and cut and past from formed pdfs so that is a big advantage.
I think ECF should be modified so that if you identify a recognized tort, the system won’t accept an immunity plea. In Wisconsin there are numbered codes for various torts and claims one of which is simply “intentional tort”.
I think that all litigant court communication should be by email readable by the other parties.
I think that there should be a time limit on how long a court has to respond to a motion. I read that a pro se litigant in Illinois got an appellate order of mandamus to make a district judge respond to a motion but I think there should be a reminder and then a mandatory date. It is possible that could be by a scheduled on line chat.
I think that when a motion or objection or order is filed that there should be a mandatory outline and mandatory citations of laws, rules, and court cases—fill in the blank categories that must be filled in.
I think that the ECF system should be set to limit the judges sua sponte powers
I think there should be links to the rules
(A) I think Nottingham is cantankerous curmudgeon idiot and, so , reject your positive commentary; and (B) Why the hell would you think that yet another rule (“a time limit on how long a court has to respond to a motion”) would make a shit one way or the other? If they don’t comply with the rules (except to force you to comply with them), why are they going to comply with another? For example, in the Harrington case, we saw an example of where the district judge (in that case, also Nottingham), didn’t have to comply with F.R.C.P. 72 (providing time frame for objections to magistrate recommendations to be filed and requiring Article III judge to consider those specific objections de novo). In that same case, we also saw an example where the magistrate’s recommendations were supposed to have issued in March of ’06 and, instead, he took until September of ’06, during which time no one was allowed to file any motions (specicially barring the Harrington plaintiff, also, from filing leave to amend his complaint), which is a due process violation for everyone (not me saying so, that’s circuit court case law).
So, you’re not suggesting anything helpful, here. Go get someone on the House Judiciary Committee to listen. No one here is going to do anything but laugh about it (esp. the federal
monarchsjudges).I do want to present these positions to the House and Senate judiciary committees. The most effective way would be to hire a professional lobbyist with an office in Washington to personally meet and convince the various parties. These postings are intended to facilitate that. These aren’t postings on my own web site; they are on a public web site in the state in which I was subjected to witness intimidation, crimes of violence, deprivation of rights under color of law etc. This web site is called ColoradoPols and claims to have extensive readership among important people in Colorado, including people who read but don’t post. So I am using this web site as a vehicle for confrontation to support my claims so that I can get the $30 million and pay the taxes and then rent an office and put an advertisement to hire some people with special knowledge and skills. Then I deal with the judiciary committee from a stronger position.
I don’t know how federal judges and magistrates are paid but maybe the Citizens Bar Association could look into establishing incentives for timely and thorough response to all pleadings. The system could also red flag older filings and sends them reminder emails.
I only met Judge Nottingham three times, all of which involved my being or becoming a prisoner. These were short and stressful meetings. I never researched him and never met him in a neutral situation.
As earlier stated I have 3 goals: 1.) End to personal restrictions and defamation 2.) Getting the money (almost $30 million) and 3.) Revisions to Judiciary Act.
Someone once said, if memory serves, that the definition of insanity is doing something that doesn’t work, yet continuting in that practice over and over again without learning. You’re not getting it. How the hell are you going to buy a lobbying office in D.C.? With the $31M settlement that you believe is coming to you? By having lobbyists discover this particular thread on Pols and suddenly the light will come on? It ain’t gonna happen, Kay. Even I have not read your voluminous posts and I, for one, am guilty of writing lengthy posts, myself. You need to learn how to communicate effectively. Start your own BLOG (instructions on how to are right here, on Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground. Post your docs on KnowYourCOURTS.com. Learn about Search Engine Optimization. Then come back here and make short, succinct posts and refer readers back to the resource (or diary over to the right on this site) where your dissertation/essay or evidence may be found. People who want to click and look will click and look. Those who don’t will appreciate your brevity.
I read something recently that says that nonviolence is creative, patient and persistence. Lots of battles have been won thru persistence.
My goal is not to be a web designer.
Posting here suits me fine because of the traffic that comes into this site. Also, I have a ton of things to read, write, and do.
The words written on this site, from many writers, are less than in an appellate appeal.
The idea is that I submit this “blogg” in court whenever I need it as evidence that the defendants including the State of Colorado have no meritorious defense. Then I get the money by mandamus because of the undisputable record of obstruction of justice – ex parte conferences, prevention of evidence getting into the record, and witness intimidation. Then once I have the order I collect the money in one-way or another but very likely involving real estate liens. Since I already got the ABA’s tax statement, I know they own an office building in D.C. they rent out so I could potentially use part for an office. Madison WI is not a bad location either since it has 1.) Reasonable cost of living 2.) Direct flights to D.C. 3.) Driving distance to O’Hare and Chicago 4.) U.W. 5.) U.W. and State of WI law libraries (federal deposit libraries) 6.) One day drive to Toronto. There is a good multi-disciplinary work force with international experience. It’s really not that hard to start a lobby group, a trade association, or a bar association. Since bar associations are not licensed, we would only have to apply to be a lobbyist. Maybe we’d have to have two groups—one soliciting the government contracts competing with the ABA and one an independent lobby group. I haven’t had a chance to read up on the requirements for registration as a lobbyist. I think it is mostly reporting. I don’t think the ABA is registered as a lobbyist but I don’t know for sure.
Really this is a finite body of knowledge and tasks that is really not that much more difficult than forming a manufacture’s or service company trade association. There are all sorts of models to analyze and copy.
The problem with web sites and blogs is that they are a lot of work, actually cost money, and involve usually preaching to the converted. I helped get federal legislation passed before.
You write: “So I am using this web site as a vehicle for confrontation to support my claims so that I can get the $30 million and pay the taxes and then rent an office and put an advertisement to hire some people with special knowledge and skills. Then I deal with the judiciary committee from a stronger position.”
Uh huh. THAT’ll happen.
Hey, I’ve got an idea though: Why don’t you sell the rights to your $30 million to someone now? Maybe you could take the money and buy an office space right now.
Get crackin’!
My goodness, how could I have forgotten to mention this? Kay writes, above, that federal judge’s salaries should be tied to timely responding to motions. Aside from the fact that the proposal is untenable and laughable (they would just rubber-stamp deny motions coming in, like Jane Tidball does –takes no time at all!), Colorado state already has a law on the books, which has NEVER been enforced (Cuervo, if you or anyone else finds where it has, I will eat crow!). Yes, Colorado has this little known statute, 13-5-135
The following statute (the one that’s never been enforced) is 13-5-136:
Aside from the fact that items (a) through (d) is a lot of hoops to get through, “Dr.” Rick Wehmhoefer of our lovely Judicial Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline simply refuses to process any request under C.R.S. 13-5-136, so a complainant will never get past hurdle (a).
Of course, don’t take my word for it. At the bottom of that same page, you’ll find a series of complaints (silly memos) written by someone, who must remain nameless because of our Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline secrecy laws (Colo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 23(3)(g) & §§ 24-72-401 ~ 402), who demanded that the judge’s salary be withheld.
So, good ol’ “Dr. Rick,” who’s been on the dole in that job since the eighties (typing up denial letters to complainants day in and day out and travelling around the country to judicial discipline seminars on taxpayer dollars) simply snubs his nose at the will of the General Assebmly. Statute Schmatute!!!
Federal courts are required to absorb state law when they are acting in conformity under the principles of conformity and outcome independence. That is an idea and citation I can use in several ways.
Mandamus is the way to get the law enforced.
In the past, lots of laws weren’t enforced at first, only later. There is more than one way.
As far as paying federal judges, I saw, on the U.S. judiciary web site, funding for part time federal magistrates. Some paid as little as $40,000. If you have someone who is working part time for $40,000 and they could make $50,000 by doing their work a little faster then I think many of them will do it. The magistrates could take up the slack.
I know that various people have tried suing judges but I didn’t, except for relief from the Jane Bennett domestic violence injunction.
My litigation history is really unusual. I searched for twenty years in every circuit and every state appellate court and could find only one other case where the defendants actually billed for ex parte conferences and the other case they did so only twice. That very fact alone, I think, means that either a court of appeals or the Supreme Court will strike the defense pleadings (and because they submitted no affidavits and will suffer per St. Mary’s Honor Center).
The defendants underestimated me, they were disorganized, their strategy was flawed…I’m getting the money and the portion that I spend on public service I intend to get the most possible result for my dollar.
Yes, I went through this whole thread and pointed at every word on the screen saying “one…two…three…”
Let me start off by introducing you to word count, a marvelous new invention that can be used by almost any halfwit out there…including you, Rio.
I think it would be AWESOME if we can get this thread up to 200 posts…who’s game?
I am seriously approaching related subjects of law and justice for myself and other citizens. I don’t need some anonymous ridiculer changing the subject away. I read that there are P.R. firms that try to influence and spin away blogg discussions from what might cost their clients money or sales
God forbid this insane thread set the Pols record…I might just cry. If it does, I think I’ll start “spinning” like the PR firms told me to…I’m Kay Dingaling would soundly brow-beat me with her mastery of the English language. 😛 How sad…
And get a job, while you’re at it instead of suing your neighbors for your unique approach to the millionaire fast track.
In 2000, I agreed to mediation with my former neighbors Kevin Michael Bennett and Jand Bennett which involved their getting the rights to the street and some 5000 square feet of land for free in return for the city of Steamboat dropping their threats to put me in jail for gardening and/ot my worker trimming the branches hitting the cars when they drove into our drive. At that point I was sacrificing to end the conflict and go on with our lives. After that time they built in gross violation of the zoning and development laws, got an underserved injunction based on the false representation by their attorney Randall Klauzer that I sexually molested Jane Bennett, and made a false criminal complaint against me. At that time, they involved various other city and county employees, the private law firm of Klauzer and Tremaine, and a situation created by Hall and Evans and the bar associations.
After that time, my family incurred more damages and more parties tried to hurt us like the law firms of White and Case and O’Brien Butler McConihie and Schaefer.
Obviously my filing a lawsuit is not unusual nor is doing so pro se unusual. In fact, I read that there are 40,000 pro se litigants currently in the U.S. court system.
This is not a fast way to be a millionaire. However, my expected returns were increased by their refusal to stipulate to the facts, billing for the ex parte conferences, billing insurance companies not otherwise disclosed thereby giving evidence of obstruction of records, and repeatedly and explicitly threatening violence in order to deter and delay presentment in an official proceeding, The defendants and their counsel dug themselves into the hole, backed themselves into the corner. Why should I let them go now? Even if you are a defense or insurance lawyer, you have to admit that billing for ex parte conferences is really unwise.
I don’t care about your life story, your personal misery, your convoluted, fucked up version of events.
I don’t fucking care. I’m not a lawyer so you’re barking up the wrong tree with your paranoia. I just don’t care.
You’re boring and petty. Worst of all, you’ve hijacked a political blog with your personal agenda, which tells me that all you give a shit about is yourself. You haven’t weighed in on anything other than yourself and your personal vendetta and with that in mind, I’m done responding to you, mostly because I don’t care enough to continue to acknowledge you.
Moving on.
…this thread was given to her by Pols, so “we” are the guests here, in a manner of speaking. If she jumps out of this thread – which will expire soon – I would ask Pols to just block her.
It appears that the executive branch of Colorado wants the judicial branch to skip “ruling on the merits” on many issues.
See new diary entry for reason.
. . . which PR firm are you with?*
*(tongue planted firmly in cheek)
If I could get paid for blogging, I would have it MADE! Any good PR firms you know of that I can apply to?
In response to your challenge about evidence of paid bloggers I typed “public relations firms paid bloggers” into google. It reported 1,210.000 citations (1.2 million). On the first page…. “Public Relations: Cymfony Learn how to use blogs and”…” Companies like Market Sentinel can advise you on commercial blog monitoring. Blogs to explore”…” PayPerPost is the new highly-controversial system that pays bloggers to write about … In another interview Wales said, “I think that PR-firms editing in a”…” Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign – New York Times”… But the strategy raises concerns about what bloggers should disclose to … one of Wal-Mart’s public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers. … Wal-Mart blogs revealed to be done by PR firm’s employees – Oct …The blogs Working Families for Wal-mart and subsidiary site Paid Critics are written by three employees of PR firm Edelman, for whom Wal-Mart is a paid … B.L. Ochman’s weblog: Internet marketing strategy, social media …
Wall St Journal: Exxon Mobil PR Firm Behind “Inconvenient Truth” YouTube Spoof …. VOCUS Demonstrates How to Screw Up Blogger Relations ..
So that was the first page from the first search and it looks like there are businesses including Walmart and the PR firm of Edelman that pay bloggers
With 1.2 million or whatever the number was for results, I’m sure I can find ONE place out there that will pay me to blog-thanks Kay! 🙂
you can get any of the following to post here under their own names:
Christopher Beall, attorney Denver
Thomas Kelley attorney, Denver
Brett Huff, attorney. Denver White and Steele
Patricia Jean Larson, ABA assistant in house counsel
David Brougham. attorney Denver Hall and Evans
Danielle Moore attorney Denver Hall and Evans
Carolyn Lamm, attorney White and Case District of Columbia
Frank Panapolous, attorney White and Case, District of Columbia
Jerome C. Schaefer, attorney O’Brien, Butler McConihie and Schaefer, District of Columbia
Traci Van Pelt, attorney Denver
Michael McConnell, attorney Denver
Anthony Lettunich, attorney Steamboat Springs
Andrew Katarikawe, Col Attorney General’s Office
Elizabeth McMann, Col Attorney General’s Office
Colorado Insurance Commissioner
Tim Greer, director of CIRSA
Walter Slezak, attorney for Lloyds of London, Chicago,
Any representative of Colorado Bar Association
R.D. Evans, ABA, Washington D.C.
I might think of some other names too. Do you want their phone numbers and email addresses? They are all listed on google.
That’s how Kay is going to get her $30 million.
The only restraining order out there is that because Colorado Judge Garrecht and Randall Klauzer said that I molested Jane Bennett I can’t have contact with her without going to jail for 18 months. She’s not on the list.
I couldn’t have molested her because we had no phsyical contact and were never alone. I wasn’t accused of molesting her in a complaint or by testimony, The Judge announced that I molested her after the close of testimony. The only day her lawyer Randall Klauzer said in court was an issue she was either alone in her car or with three men 30 feet from me. I have been married for 25 years and am faithful to my husband. She said under oath that there was no offensive touching, that I hadn’t been following her around town, and that I hadn’t called her in years.
What I was accused of was telling her on the street that just because her husband was president of the city council didn’t give her a right to break the law.
and temps me to register sock (or is that cock?) puppets in all of those names and start posting stuff like “ha ha kay, we screwed you over good!”
But that’s just immature and I need to set a better example for my daughter.
I want them to reply through their law firms
Has the word “molested” been used in this thread?
Love that Opera search system.
My wife would lay off me blogging if it helped pay the bills…
🙂
And we hit 200…..
This will be post # 202 or 203… And not including this post, we have 35,942 words now, or 105 pages in a Word document. Way to go!!!!!
Would that really be 105 full pages? Dern….
Has hit an all-time low. My computer not only has word count, it calculates a ratio of how many of the words actually matter…27/31,656…thats about .0085…heck i’ll round up and say its at .009. even the worst college poli-sci papers that are full of repetitive BS can’t TOUCH that ratio!!!
What matters to me is whether I can use this public forum to establish beyond any doubt that the defendants, who refused to state their defense, never had a meritorious defense.
What matters to others is whether you can count on having a fair civil court system out there if you should ever need it. I was in my late 40’s before I ever filed a civil lawsuit and I have only sued one group of people for a controversy that continued and expanded after I was denied a decision on the merits the first time. Like most people I never expected to need to go to court. That is probably true of most people who file civil lawsuits too. Some of them take more than one filing to reach a decision on the merits or they have continuing damages but most people aren’t out there looking for people to sue. I did see one case where someone sued the same party for defamatory articles 13 times. The first time he won and they paid him but then they published the articles again and claimed he couldn’t sue them because they had already paid so he had to sue them 12 more times.
What matters to others is that my defendants billed for 25+ ex parte conference calls, hid the insurance companies although they were required disclosures, even though hiding court records is a form of obstruction of justice, and solicited the use of violence under the color of law in order to deter and delay my presentments in court.
What matters to others is that the King of England was forced to issue a decree that all people have the right to self representation because the legal services business in England centuries ago was so corrupt. For instance, lawyers would take payments from the other side. The first codification of common law, according to the New England law Journal, was done by the Puritans without lawyers–The Laws and Principles of Massachusetts in 1648 and that mandated a right to self representation and outlawed any injunction against litigation. The Anti Injunction Act and the Right to Self Representation were part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (hopefully I have all my years right). President George Washington signed that.
However, in recent years there has been some sort of conspiracy to remove the basic right of self-representation. These cases have relied on broke prisoner law part of the Prison Reform Act, which has not been challenged. That Act has to do with prisoners filing in pauperious and did not apply to me because I paid to file and because I was never legally a prisoner, since I was never accused of a crime. My personal opinion is that prisoners should have their own ECF system and that their complaints should be cross tabbed and analyzed by a multi disciplinary team of systems analysts.
My first action went no where because after the ex parte conferences, which the magistrate admitted in writing, no facts were formally admitted. I have facts which according to the rules of civil procedure are admitted because they weren’t denied but the court never said “these are admitted facts”. The defense offered no affidavits or any evidence contradicting what I said. They just filed motions discussing immunity that didn’t site statutes. The magistrate misrepresented the facts and every other court and judge simply quoted the magistrate’s report.
I was entitled to go to other courts under federal civil procedure rule 60b, under state of Colorado rule 46, un and also because I had new facts and new claims. These included defamation in a different time period and the facts surrounding the D of Colorado 02-1950 litigation–the ex parte conferences, failure to admit facts, lack of case management, etc. Other courts either threw out my pleadings on the basis I was pro se (7th circuit, 8th circuit) or they quoted Magistrate Schlatter without any new evidence or any procedure that established any facts contradicting my statements of fact.
Then, without the involvement of a government prosecutor, without being accused of a crime, and without disrupting a court hearing, I was put in jail 3 times for doing what was legal. That violated the U.S. code. The stated reason for the arrests and detention was that I had filed in other courts. However, The Witness Intimidation Act of 1982 says that for any person to use force or threat of force to deter or delay presentment in an official hearing is a felony. (U.S.C. title 18 chapter 73 section 1512) . Also deprivation of rights through color of law is a felony (U.S.C. Title 18 sections 241 and 232) and according to the FBI web site and the Supreme Court in Dennis v. Sparks that includes judges.
The bottom line for the public is that if I can get mandamus to make them pay the undisputed sum certain amounts the government will get a tax windfall and the insurance deductible to the City of Steamboat Springs is only $10,000. Then, the bars and the insurance companies will have learned a lesson about the risks of obstruction of justice even where the victim is pro se. Then if you or your children need to go to court you will have a greater chance of a decision on the merits obtained by faithful adherence to the Rule of Civil Procedure which are, after all, laws.
Immediately following a post about how wordy this thread is, you post yet another wordy, er, post. Good grief!
“Stop me…….before…….I ………write…….again.”
Congrats!
Read my post above about how to start your own blog. Get some help from someone on how to organize your thoughts and ideas and try to befriend an attorney (sans sexual favors), who can help you sort out the wheat from the chaff of your assertions. Become a member of H.A.L.T., Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and other organizations that advocate for civil rights and openess in the courts.
From what I gather, your cases are over but, you there may be other ways to either seek redress or advocate for change or to expose whatever insurance companys or whoever you were trying to tell us all about, hereinabove. Effective blogging is a good start, in my opinion.
DISCLAIMER: Please do not reply to my suggestions with a 2,500 word post containing paraphrasings of your activist objectives and implicating Lloyds of London, some insurance company in Bermuda and a vast array of lawyers and law firms.
Going gay on us? Maybe I need to place a call to Dr. Dobson……..
You know I’m kidding.
You get the touchy-feely color in compliment to the kind message, juxtaposed with the bold red to emphasize the solemnity and obduracy of the disclaimer.
You ever watch The Prisoner? Go take a look at the IE icon for KnowYourCOURTS.com.
Halt etc. are fine but I want to amend the judiciary code and also get $$$ now
My cases aren’t over. I have a mandamus in the D.C. court of Appeals and an appeal either of which can bring me all the $$$. I prefer the mandamus because the defense emailed to me that they want to use the results of the ex parte conferences.
First time the court of appeals said that the ex parte was hearsay. Then I sent it in again and said I could work thru appeal. But app rule 21 conditions were met and to perfect an appeal need to strike the ex parte. All there is in this case is ex parte. I am thinking about sending the mandamus to the Supreme Court and I don’t think they will like lawyers and judges having ex parte conferences and billing for that. The D.C. Court of Appeals accepted the defense verified bills as evidence of ex parte and only gave one reason for turning me down which I filed to reconsider.
Also, I can mandamus as a crime victim.
Even after reading far too many of your posts? I have no idea what your original legal issue was.
Things progressed from there to include acts of violence.
Any lawyers on this forum familiar with filling out a petition and affidavit under В§ 27-10-106, et seq.? As in, People ex rel. Kay Sieverding, 07-MN-xxxx ?
I meant “People ex rel. Kay Sieverding, 07-MH–xxxx“
I haven’t been accused of a crime
Do a Google search on ex rel. (ex relatio).
I know know that “TiltaWhirl” was/is Sean Harrington.
He hasn’t read my cases and doesn’t have time to. Which is fine but then he shouldn’t talk about them.
Lord knows I’m no member of the Kay Sieverding fan club but suggesting that she’d do that to befriend a lawyer is crossing the line.
I suggested no such thing! In fact, I was trying to be proactive by preventing any quips/invitations of that sort, when I suggested that she “befriend” (rather than hire) an attorney (given how difficult it must be for her to find someone willing to be formally associated with her case[s]). Didn’t mean to be offensive there.
I didn’t read it that way. Thanks for clarifying.
Why don’t you find a bunch of people who sued lawyers in tort if you think it is so easy to find a lawyer to sue a lawyer? In contract it is easier now I’ve heard (suing your own lawyer) but suing someone else’s lawyer is hard.
You’re not paying attention. I just argued your case (that it is very difficult to find a lawyer for your situation (which includes suing other lawyers or going up agaisnt Town Hall)).
Anyway, lawyers definitely have legitimate utility, just not as an exclusive.
I just sent the following to these emails. Hopefully this will work
please post any meritorious defense at coloradopols.com or email it to me
From: kaysieverding@aol.com
To: cbeall@lskslaw.com; tkelley@lskslaw.com; jschaefer@obmslaw.com; clamm@whitecase.com; fpanopoulos@whitecase.com; broughamd@hallevans.com; bhuff@wsteele.com; ttvanpelt@mfsch.com; andrew.katarikawe@state.co.us
Date:Thu, 14 Jun 2007 3:51 pm
Dear Chris Beall, Tom Kelley, Jerome Scheafer, Carol Lamm, Frank Panopoulos, David Brougham, Brett Huff, Traci Van Pelt, Andre Katarikawe
Please email your response to me or post it at ColoradoPols.com
Do you have any explanation as to why Colorado Judge Garrecht and Randall Klauzer took away my rights to move freely around Steamboat without police interactions on the basis that I sexually molested Jane Bennett? Why wasn’t I allowed my rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to both complain about the Bennetts’ violations of the development and zoning ordinances and to come and go from my home and on the public streets and to merchants without Jane Bennett calling the police to complain that she saw me? Why did the police follow me and ask questions about my whereabouts without them claiming to witness a crime or having a warrant? “Molestation” was not Mrs. Bennett’s complaint nor in her testimony and I was not allowed to contest that finding by Judge Garrecht. It was impossible for me to molest Mrs. Bennett since on the only date that Mrs. Bennett’s lawyer, Randall Klauzer, said was in question, 8/29/00, either we were in separate cars or we were 30 feet apart and she was with 3 men. The police report did not mention molestation nor any other crime and she said under oath that there was no offensive touching and she avoided interacting with me and I hadn’t been following her around town and hadn’t called her in years. So where was the evidence and the due process to support a finding of “molestation”?
Why is the Steamboat Pilot publishing that Jane Bennett is my victim if I didn’t molest her? What crime was she a victim of? Why is the Pilot publishing that a trial is set when the charges were dismissed, there was no warrant, and no police officer claimed to have witnessed a crime?
Why did you bill for 25 + ex parte conferences? Why didn’t you ask Magistrate Schlatter to recuse when the magistrate wrote in document 9 on 1/10/03 that he had already discussed the case with defense counsel David Brougham? Why didn’t you protest when the Magistrate referred to letters from the defense that weren’t in the docket? Why did you rely on Magistrate Schlatter’s report and recommendation when you admit Mr. Brougham and Mr. Lettunich had ex parte conference with him? Wasn’t the having the ex parte with Magistrate Schlatter and then the relying on it while refusing to stipulate to the facts, answer interrogatories, have case management, file responses to summary judgment, and submit affidavits behavior consistent with this portion of § 1512:
“withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both…. (c) Whoever corruptly— conceals a record… or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so”
Why did you interfere with the required records of the involvement of Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda? Wasn’t the hiding of the required disclosure of the insurance records a violation of
“Whoever corruptly— conceals a record… or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding” as in §1512 c b 1 c: from:
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; b.) (B) cause or induce any person to—(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;… (C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 10 years. b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to—(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both…. (c) Whoever corruptly— conceals a record… or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both…. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding… (4) causing a criminal prosecution …to be sought or instituted,” U.S.C. title 18 chapter 73 § 1512
Why did you request that force and threat of force in the color of law be used to delay and deter our presentment in court? Why didn’t you protest my being jailed even though
“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.
You knew the warrants were blank where the law was supposed to be and the rules of professional conduct required you to protest illegal orders.
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
Where is this record?
“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
How could I be “extradited” from Wisconsin without being charged with a crime or parole violation?
Is there any reason why you think the defense counsel aren’t guilty of TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 241 for threatening me and my husband with violence as defined by the U.S. criminal code if we filed motions or actions ?
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; …. They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years… if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap… they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 241. Conspiracy against rights
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Is there any reason you think the defense counsel isn’t guilty of TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 245
“(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
Is there any reason why you think that most of you aren’t guilty of TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 41 § 875. Interstate communications? doesn’t the following accurately describe the threatening papers and emails we received?
“(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both …(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 41 § 875. Interstate communications
Is there any reason why you think that most of you aren’t guilty of TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 95 § 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence for your threatening violence to myself and my husband in order to get the value of our claims?
“(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both….The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 95 § 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence
Is there any reason why most of you (Not Andrew Katarikawe) aren’t guilty of?
“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; b.) (B) cause or induce any person to—(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;…” by your repeated written and oral requests to Judge Nottingham to have me chained if I filed or didn’t withhold testimony?
Please email your response to me or post it at ColoradoPols.com or email it to me
Kay Sieverding 641 Basswood Ave, Verona, WI 53593 608 848 5721 kaysieverding@aol.com
you are going to stop posting on here?
You’re encouraging her! Do you really want an answer? Do you?!?!
im mildly amused by it as long as it’s kept to its own thread
. . . staying in this thread, anymore. See at the bottom of this thread.
LOL
I got this email from my defendants:
Ms. Sieverding:
The ABA and White & Case LLP oppose any such motion.
Frank Panopoulos
White & Case LLP
701 Thirteenth Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 626-3626
Fax: (202) 639-9355
email: fpanopoulos@whitecase.com
—–Original Message—–
From: kaysieverding@aol.com [mailto:kaysieverding…]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:33 AM
To: jschaefer@obmslaw.com
Subject: confer to prohibit submission of Magistrate Schlatter’s report and
recommendation in D.C. Appeal as well as any discussion relying
confer to prohibit submission of Magistrate Schlatter’s report and
recommendation in D.C. Appeal as well as any document relying on
Magristrate Schlatter’s report and recommendation for either statement
of fact or statement of law.
This is the only way to be consistent with the Department of Interior
Cases about the ex parte conferences since a.) Magistrate Schlatter on
1/11/03 wrote he had discussed the complaint with David Brougham b.)
Mr. Lettunich billed for a three way long distance ex parte
conversation with Magistrate Schlatter and David Brougham c.) David
Brougham has not disputed that Mr. Lettunich’s bill was authentic.
Please let me know by 5 p.m. if you disagree with this motion.
Kay Sieverding
608 848 5721
Ms. Sieverding:
The ABA and White & Case LLP oppose any such motion.
Frank Panopoulos
White & Case LLP
701 Thirteenth Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 626-3626
Fax: (202) 639-9355
email: fpanopoulos@whitecase.com
—–Original Message—–
From: kaysieverding@aol.com [mailto:kaysieverding…]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:33 AM
To: jschaefer@obmslaw.com
Subject: confer to prohibit submission of Magistrate Schlatter’s report and
recommendation in D.C. Appeal as well as any discussion relying
confer to prohibit submission of Magistrate Schlatter’s report and
recommendation in D.C. Appeal as well as any document relying on
Magristrate Schlatter’s report and recommendation for either statement
of fact or statement of law. This is the only way to be consistent with the Department of Interior Cases about the ex parte conferences since a.) Magistrate Schlatter on 1/11/03 wrote he had discussed the complaint with David Brougham b.) Mr. Lettunich billed for a three way long distance ex parte conversation with Magistrate Schlatter and David Bougham c.) David
Brougham has not disputed that Mr. Lettunich’s bill was authentic.
Please let me know by 5 p.m. if you disagree with this motion.
Kay Sieverding
608 848 5721
In the Court of Appeals for the D of Columbia, with about $30 million in joint and several damages, riding, the defendants let be admitted as undisputed fact:
“In an apparent effort to prejudice the court, White and Case has misrepresented the facts (these issues are discussed in greater detail in the Rule 52(b) motion that was filed on 01/10/07).
For instance,…
The Sieverdings were never allowed to present this story to a jury and the defense council misrepresented the facts to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ….
By presenting this omission of facts, the ABA has committed fraud on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It is undisputed that O’Brien, Butler, McConihe & Schaefer, P.L.L.C. billed for an ex parte conference between their associate Kevin Kernan and Judge Urbina’s chambers.
The defense prejudiced Judge Urbina by filing fraudulent reports written by former Colorado Magistrate OE Schlatter after the Colorado defendants had ex parte conferences with him. “ (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 07-5126/07-7060 “Sieverding’s consolidated objection to the clerk’s, ABA’s, and White and Case’s motions to dismiss on the basis of untimeliness”, filed 5/31/07)
Because my defendants wouldn’t stipulate to facts I used blogs for confrontation such as
my postings on Wall Street Journal law blog
From:
kaysieverding@aol.com
To:
fpanopoulos@whitecase.com; cbeall@lskslaw.com; clamm@whitecase.com; jjschaefer@obmslaw.com; bhuff@wsteele.com; broughamd@hallevans.com; andrew.katarikawe@state.co.ustkelley@lskslaw.com; tvanpelt@mfsch.com; kay.sieverding@gmail.com; plarson@staff.aba.net
Date:Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:38 am
Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_A_Tale_of_Two_Prosecutors.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_Do_Judges_Favor_the_Interests_of_the_Legal_Profession_.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_Judge_Recommends_Feds_Prosecute_Scruggs_for_Contempt.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_Robins_Kaplan_Attorney_Admits_to_Tampering_with_Documents.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_Sandy_Berger_Disbarred_After_National_Archives_Flap.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_Showdowns_Highlight_Lawyers-as-Directors_Risks.webarchive, Law_Blog_-_WSJ.com_-_TB_Patient_Litigates_in_the_Court_of_Public_Opinion.webarchive
Dear defense counsel
I am writing to draw your attention to my recent postings on the Wall Street Journal web site. Do you disagree with what I said in any of them?
Also, I never did receive any objections to what I posted on Coloradopols.com either by email or posted on the site.
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593
608 848 5721
1.) My flesh name is _________
2.) ____a.) I am paid to blog here
_____b.) I am not paid to blog here
my name is anonymous (sorry, I keep it that way for a reason) and no one pays me to blog here. If they did my wife wouldn’t keep asking me “if you’re on that damned blog again.”
Do you have an agenda you are trying to promote on this site and then add extra comments from time to time?
My only agenda is to talk freely about politics. And the screen name Aristotle has rather ignoble origins – there used to be a wingnut named Socrates who bugged me because his posts were anything but wise, so I picked Aristotle just to bug him.
Why are you so curious about me in particular?
I’m not curious about you in particular. I read that the insurance defense has an organized public relations campaign to convince the American public that citizens are bringing lawsuits for purposes of harassment and that they are doing so by paying people to pretend to be ordinary citizens while presenting that opinion.
The U.S. Judiciary holds various hearings but nothing has been scheduled about problems caused by non prisonern pro se litigants filing frivilous lawsuits. I don’t think it is a problem.
I wonder if, perhaps, I have the most suitable (if not comical) citation to describe the rantings on this page?
Weihofen, Testimonial Competence and Credibility, 34 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 53, 82 (1965).
I must, however, exhort critical analysis of this very dated piece, especially whereas suppressed “false” memory psychology has been largely debunked in the last forty-two years since this was published. I might also add that many psychiatrists, especially, are detached from the reality of everyday, ordinary life and could read into any normal range of human emotions or behavior the marked indices of paranoia or delusional thinking.
I submitted an evaluation from a court approved psychologist that said I was “normal”.
At 52, I am nore persistent than most people because in the past persistence has paid off for me. In fact, everything significant I ever accomplished took 5 years.
What I try to do in my court pleadings is minimize my use of my own words. I try to keep them focused on undisputed facts and quotations of statutes and case law.
Before I filed my lawsuit in federal court, I bought “Preparing for Trial in Federal Court” by James Publishing. That had all sorts of chapters aboud discovery etc. that proved to be irrelevant because the defendants didn’t file any reply to my complaint nor to my motions for partial summary judgment. However, I relied on the chapter “Alternatives to Proof”. Basically, if you make a statement in a court pleading and they have an opportunity to contravene it but don’t, then it is admitted in court. So I used that strategy repeatedly so all my facts would be supported in various levels of detail.
I don’t have “delusions of prosecution”. In fact, I am generally optomistic. As far as the events in Steamboat, I supported them by police reports, county court transcripts, and an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal by the prosecutor’s husband. As far as my complaints about being jailed 3 times without the required involvment of a government prosecutor and a warrant stating what I am accused of and what the probable cause is, I support that by quoting court transcripts, the U.S. code, and motions filed by Christopher Beall, who asked to have me and my husband put in jail for filing in other courts ( Mr. Beall and the other defense counsel did not claim that anything I wrote was false. I verified them under penalty of perjury and was not indicted for perjury).
In Deuteronomy, it says that anyone who makes a false accusation should receive the same punishment that they tried to get for the innocent party. Filing of false accusations is a crime in Colorado. “Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” is one of the Ten Commandments.
optimistic
I turned up the brightness and that helps
Although I emailed to the defendants asking for their defenses to be posted here or emailed to me, there was no response.
I did get a response from the ABA’s lawyer White and Case. I had emailed to them conferring about a motion to disallow presentment of former Colorado Magistrate Schlatter’s report and recommendation becuase the defense billed explicitly for ex parte conference with him (On 2/12/03,:“Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane 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 Anthony Lettunich to City of Steamboat Springs). White and Case emailed back that they were opposed to such a motion.
Under the rules of civil procedure, if you state a fact in a court pleading and they have the opportunity to contradict it but don’t then it is accepted as fact. The ABA has claims from me for almost $30 million in the D of Columbia in joint and several liability for conspiracy for unlawful imprisonment (05-02122) and being a proximate cause of extortion as well as interfering with civil due process (05-01672). I described the amount of damages as being undisputed and applied for summary judgment and they did not dispute the amount. So they should be motivated.
They filed a motion to dismiss in the court of appeals (07-7060.) We objected. They filed a reply. In their reply, they did not address or contradict in any way these verified statements from our objection filed 5/31/07:
“In an apparent effort to prejudice the court, White and Case has misrepresented the facts (these issues are discussed in greater detail in the Rule 52(b) motion that was filed on 01/10/07).
For instance, In Steamboat Springs, Co in the year 2000, Mrs. Sieverding was ordered to appear for a restraining order hearing on the basis of a warrantless criminal citation signed and issued solely by the Steamboat Springs, Colorado city council president’s wife, Mrs. Bennett, not a police officer. The citation cited Mrs. Sieverding for speaking to Mrs. Bennett about a matter of public policy from a distance of about twenty feet on a public street.
The citation did not claim or allege sexual contact between Mrs. Sieverding and Mrs. Bennett. Nonetheless, the citation provided a pretext for summoning Mrs. Sieverding to appear in court where Colorado Judge Garrecht issued a permanent injunction against Mrs. Sieverding for sexually molesting Mrs. Bennett even though sexual molestation was neither alleged in Mrs. Bennett’s complaint, nor in her testimony.
The sua sponte molestation charge was issued without procedural due process and was brought without legitimate public purpose to satisfy the illegitimate request of Mrs. Bennett’s lawyer, Randall Klauzer, for an injunction. The ABA is well aware that it is undisputable that the Bennetts were, at that very time, building in very substantial violation of local zoning and development laws adjoining the Sieverding’s former home. To cover up these violations, the Bennetts had motivation to banish the Sieverdings from Steamboat Springs.
After the close of testimony, the judge said:
“before the court can issue the restraining order, the Court needs to find that the defendant has attacked, beaten, molested, or threatened the life of the plaintiff or threatened to do serious bodily injury to the plaintiff, and that unless restrained and enjoined will continue to attack, beat, molest, or threaten the life of the plaintiff or threaten to do serious bodily harm to the plaintiff…obviously, Ms. Bennett has not been attacked, beaten, and her life hasn’t been threatened.” (Transcript CO Routt County 002180 Sept./6/00 page 161).
The judge then introduced the new charge that Mrs. Sieverding had sexually molested Mrs. Bennett, purely as a pretext for issuing a restraining order. Then, Mrs. Bennett’s lawyer, Randall Klauser, ratified this new charge. Then, without further testimony and without allowing Mrs. Sieverding to put on a defense against the charge of sexual molestation, without presenting any evidence or witnesses to substantiate the sexual molestation charge, or allowing Mrs. Sieverding to cross-examine any person about the molestation charge, the judge issued a permanent restraining order against Mrs. Sieverding for sexually molesting Mrs. Bennett.
Previous to that date, Mrs. Sieverding had not been following or calling Mrs. Bennett. Mrs. Bennett testified that there was no inappropriate touching and that Mrs. Sieverding and Mrs. Bennett had never gotten closer to each other than several feet.
This procedure violated Mrs. Sieverdings sixth amendment rights, 1) “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”, 2) “to be given the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him” and 3) “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” It also violated Mrs. Sieverdings first amendment rights to free speech and petition of government.
Having won the restraining order, Mrs. Bennett began hunting Mrs. Sieverding, trying to get within 30 feet to trigger the restraining order so that Judge Garrecht could jail Mrs. Sieverding for up to 18 months as allowed by Colorado law.
Once, Mrs. Bennett reported to the Steamboat Springs Police that Mrs. Sieverding walked on the sidewalk outside of the store where she was shopping and, in so doing, came within 30 feet of her. Mrs. Bennett did not claim that Mrs. Sieverding was aware that Mrs. Bennett was in the store at the time. Fortunately, the police did not make an arrest or Mrs. Sieverding might have served 18 months for walking down a public sidewalk while shopping.
Another time, Mrs. Bennett saw Mrs. Sieverding’s car parked at WalMart, so she waited in the doorway to trap her. Luckily, Mrs. Sieverding missed the trap.
Fearing that Mrs. Bennett would inevitably be able to get within 30 feet of Mrs. Sieverding and that Judge Garrecht would put Mrs. Sieverding in jail for 18 months, the Sieverding family fled Colorado. The Sieverdings economic costs alone were over $400,000. The banishment was especially traumatic for the Sieverding’s children, one of who dropped out of school during his freshman year of high school. Steamboat Springs is Mr. Sieverding’s boyhood hometown.
The Sieverdings were never allowed to present this story to a jury and the defense council misrepresented the facts to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ABA presents Judge Urbina as saying “The plaintiffs objected to what they perceived as zoning violations. Tensions between the families escalated culminating ultimately in the issuance of a restraining order against Kay Sieverding.”
By presenting this omission of facts, the ABA has committed fraud on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It is undisputed that O’Brien, Butler, McConihe & Schaefer, P.L.L.C. billed for an ex parte conference between their associate Kevin Kernan and Judge Urbina’s chambers.
The defense prejudiced Judge Urbina by filing fraudulent reports written by former Colorado Magistrate OE Schlatter after the Colorado defendants had ex parte conferences with him. “ (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 07-5126/07-7060 “Sieverding’s consolidated objection to the clerk’s, ABA’s, and White and Case’s motions to dismiss on the basis of untimeliness”, filed ¬¬¬¬5/31/07)
I applied to the District of Columbia bar regulation to sanction Jerome C.Schaefer because he paid Christopher Beall to threaten me if I didn’t drop my defamtion lawsuit against The Steamboat Pilot, because he failed to disclose the insurance policies sold by Mutual Insurance of Bermuda to The Steamboat Pilot as required by rule 26(a), because Mutual Insurance of Bermuda is not registered to do business in Colorado with DORA as required, and because Mr. Schaefer didn’t disclose that he is president, CEO and general counsel of Mutual Insurance.
Even though the D.C. bar counsel has many full time employees and complaints are supposed to be handled by their staff, I received no reply for 9 months. Then a private attorney, Timothy J. Bloomfield, responded instead of their staff. I looked up the model regulations and found out that that is not supposed to happen. I called Mr. Bloomfield’s office and they said he was on a committe with the lawyer I complained about.
Locations of scans for defense bills for ex parte conferences are included in the U S District of Colorado document filing system and are downloadable with Pacer. 02-1950 document 1006 (4/12/07) includes annotated copies of all the bills for ex parte conference the defense counsel sent me. The bills for the conference by long distance telephone with Magistrate Schlatter, David Brougham and Anthony Lettunich are at the end. The bill by Kevin Kernan for the conference with the D of Columbia’s Judge Urbina’s chambers is in the first batch. The bill by Jon Borger for conference with Minnesota Judge Tunheim’s former clerks M. Chester and J. Waldorn is in the second batch, as is the bill by Christopher Beall for conference with the 10th Circuit clerk’s office. The bills by David Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyds for ex parte and his bills to Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency for ex parte follow the bills by Faegre and Benson. There are 25 references to calling the court in Mr. Brougham’s bills, which start in Jan 2003 and run thru April 2004. These are attached to a writ of mandamus to strike the defense use of the results of the ex parte (D of Columbia 07-5109)
The original bills by Faegre and Benson for the ex parte with Judge Urbina’s chambers and with Judge Tunheim’s former clerks was filed by Christopher Beall in 02-1950 on 12/30/05.
02-1950 document 998 is a one page objection to ex parte with Magistrate Schlatter and a scan of the bill for the three way ex parte conference with Magistrate Schlatter, Anthony Lettunich, and David Brougham. That costs 24 cents to download.
The D of Columbia Court of Appeals turned down my motion for mandamus, 07-5109, on the basis that remedy through appeal was available. We motioned for reconsideration on the basis that jurisdiction for mandamus is available to perfect a future appeal and that the appeal cannot be perfected if the defense counsel submits documents, which are then read by the Panel, that are based on ex parte conference. We conferred with White and Case about their intention to use the reports from Magistrate Schlatter even though they were the result of ex parte and defense attorney Frank Panapolous confirmed his intention to use the results of the ex parte conferences with Magistrate Schlatter. (see copy of his email on last posting).
Jurisdiction over PEPCO’s present appeal could rest on four possible bases …and we might employ our power of mandamus to aid our future appellate jurisdiction over these proceedings.”POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, PETITIONER v.INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS; 1983.CDC.48 1983.CDC.0000048
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 (a), empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The exercise of this power “is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction” where directed to an inferior court, Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190, 193 (1832) (Marshall, C. J.), and extends to the potential jurisdiction of the appellate court where an appeal is not then pending but may be later perfected. Cf. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634 (1833) (Marshall, C. J.). These holdings by Chief Justice Marshall are elaborated in a long line of cases, including McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268 (1910), where Mr. Justice Day held: “[w]e think it the true rule that where a case is within the appellate jurisdiction of the higher court a writ . . . may issue in aid of the appellate jurisdiction which might otherwise be defeated . . . .” At 280. And in Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21 (1943), Chief Justice Stone stated that the authority of the appellate court “is not confined to the issuance of writs in aid of a jurisdiction already acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within its appellate jurisdiction although no appeal has been perfected.”… It must be remembered that the courts of appeals derive their power to grant preliminary relief here not from the Clayton Act, but from the All Writs Act and its predecessors dating back to the first Judiciary Act of 1789. Congress has never restricted the power which the courts of appeals may exercise under that Act.” MCCLELLAN v. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268 (1910)
I was told several times that Kevin Bennett was convicted and served jail time in Northern California for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. I put this in my lawsuit and his lawyer, David Brougham, did not object or deny. His bills show multiple references to discussing Bennett’s NCIC records.
The TRO was issued by former Colorado Judge Joel Thompson. A year later it was publicized that the DEA was investigating his girlfriend as a cocaine importer. Agent Sperry claimed that when he was in plain clothes, she introduced him to someone who, I believe, sold him cocaine. According to the Steamboat Pilot, a former d.a. knew that the DEA was investigating Judge Thompson but didn’t tell his boss. According to Steamboat Pilot, that same former d.a., Charles Feldman, was fired for cheating on his exoense account. He then joined a firm employing Bennett’s former lawyer, OIiphant, who bought my house for $100,000 less than it was appraised after my agent said no one else would buy it. Oliphant had perviously threatened our business if we complained about the the Bennetts fencing off and converting the road in front of our home.
My theory is that Kevin Bennett heard about Judge Thompson’s girlfriend and blackmailed him. Steamboat was on the DEA list as a high drug use area. There was an article in the Rocky Mountain News in Dec 2005 about a cocaine bust in Aspen. It quoted the city council as saying something to the effect that they want the area to be safe for tourists and noted that the DEA didn’t tell the sheriff about the pending bust. The article said there was a previous bust in Aspen for cocaine. I think they said it was a $9 million per annum operation and the indictment was dropped after the lead defendant was blown up by a car bomb.
One of my lawyers in Steamboat, Sandra Gardner, told me that she had long suspected that the police office was selling drug evidence. This was after I told her that I had heard that from someone who used to work for the Steamboat police force.
I was friendly with one of my jailers in Georgetown CO. (As previously discussed, I was put in jail without being accused of a crime at the request of Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda to force me to withdraw my lawsuit) He told me that one of his friends from the police academy went to work for the Steamboat Police force in 2003 and quit after only a few months because it was so dirty.
There is a downloadable report from the General Accounting Office about drug related police corruption.
In 2004, I received an email from an investment banker. It said that in the summer of 2001, when our former lot had a for sale sign on it, he and his family visited it for the 2nd time. He had 3 kids under 4 and our house and lot were a block from the elementary school. At the time we had the lot for sale for $350,000. He said that they ran into Bennett and he threatened to shoot them if they built on the lot and one of their kids then wondered onto his property. I put that story, and his email, into my pleadings and Bennetts’ lawyer, David Brougham, did not deny it.
I ended up selling the lot for $175,000 to a lawyer who was the father of an assistant attorney who allowed Bennetts to fence off and barricade the road in front of our home. I put the shooting threat and coverup of that and the loss of property value into a separate action which was referred to Judge Nottingham. He said that was frivolous.
In 1995, a former Steamboat police officer wrote a long report to the Steamboat police chief and asked him to investigate the blockade of the road and face to face confrontations we were having. That was after I complained that Bennett’s stepson had threatened me if I walked on the street past their barricade. The police officer did nothing. The city attorney Anthony Lettunich called me and said that he couldn’t do anything about the road being converted while Bennett was still in office. The amount of public land we are talking about was 100 by 60 feet.
In 1994, I wrote to the Steamboat police twice and told them that 3 different people had told me that Bennett was dealing cocaine and that if they called me I would tell them their names. But the police never called to get the leads I offered them.
My former lawyer Sandra Gardner said that her boyfriend told her he saw Bennett in the grocery store and pantomimed snorting and that Bennett lunged at him. I put that in my pleadings and Bennett’s lawyer did not deny that.
The husband of a former employee we had in Steamboat said that he had taken the police exam and wanted to be a police officer. There was always a shortage of police in Steamboat. He said that he went for an interview and told them that if they wanted to clean up illegal drug use in Steamboat they had to start with the police department. He said that he had seen the chief of police, some years earlier, snorting. He said that after that he was never interviewed for a police position again although he applied.
My husband said that when he was a teenager in Steamboat he went to a party and a sheriff was there smoking pot.
The last time I looked at the Routt County tax assessor roles for Kevin and Jane Bennett at 701 Princeton it showed one building there built in 1956. But there are 4 buildings there, clearly visible from the street. The building department shows that the one built in 2000 is 2009 square feet and two floors with a bathroom and central heating. The guest house that the Denver Post called a shed in the building department shows a bathroom with a tub and a kitchen.
The county attorney wrote and said that he refused to sell me a certified copy of the building department reports. I offered to pay the city $540 to compare the building department reports to the city development ordinances to compare the allowed volume of accessory building construction and they refused. These extra buildings were very close to my former house.
I put in my complaint that a former Steamboat police officer had come to mean to warn me that the district attorney’s office was “in on it”. I then did something I regret. I told the D.A.’s office what had happened. The next week the police officer was fired.
Magistrate Schlatter said that I should be sanctioned for complaining about government corruption.
I put this in the Wall Street Journal law blog and I emailed the blog to the defense counsel including David Brougham and Traci Van Pelt, attorneys for Kevin Bennett, Routt County, City of Steamboat, and Jane Bennett and they didn’t object or post on it:
“I was told several times that Kevin Bennett was convicted and served jail time in Northern California for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. I put this in my lawsuit and his lawyer, David Brougham, did not object or deny. His bills show multiple references to discussing Bennett’s NCIC records.
The TRO was issued by former Colorado Judge Joel Thompson. A year later it was publicized that the DEA was investigating his girlfriend as a cocaine importer. Agent Sperry claimed that when he was in plain clothes, she introduced him to someone who, I believe, sold him cocaine. According to the Steamboat Pilot, a former d.a. knew that the DEA was investigating Judge Thompson but didn’t tell his boss. According to Steamboat Pilot, that same former d.a., Charles Feldman, was fired for cheating on his exoense account. He then joined a firm employing Bennett’s former lawyer, OIiphant, who bought my house for $100,000 less than it was appraised after my agent said no one else would buy it. Oliphant had perviously threatened our business if we complained about the the Bennetts fencing off and converting the road in front of our home.
My theory is that Kevin Bennett heard about Judge Thompson’s girlfriend and blackmailed him. Steamboat was on the DEA list as a high drug use area. There was an article in the Rocky Mountain News in Dec 2005 about a cocaine bust in Aspen. It quoted the city council as saying something to the effect that they want the area to be safe for tourists and noted that the DEA didn’t tell the sheriff about the pending bust. The article said there was a previous bust in Aspen for cocaine. I think they said it was a $9 million per annum operation and the indictment was dropped after the lead defendant was blown up by a car bomb.
One of my lawyers in Steamboat, Sandra Gardner, told me that she had long suspected that the police office was selling drug evidence. This was after I told her that I had heard that from someone who used to work for the Steamboat police force.
I was friendly with one of my jailers in Georgetown CO. He told me that one of his friends from the police academy went to work for the Steamboat Police force in 2003 and quit after only a few months because it was so dirty.
There is a downloadable report from the General Accounting Office about drug related police corruption.
In 2004, I received an email from an investment banker. It said that in the summer of 2001, when our former lot had a for sale sign on it, he and his family visited it for the 2nd time. He had 3 kids under 4 and our house and lot were a block from the elementary school. At the time we had the lot for sale for $350,000. He said that they ran into Bennett and he threatened to shoot them if they built on the lot and one of their kids then wondered onto his property. I put that story, and his email, into my pleadings and Bennetts’ lawyer, David Brougham, did not deny it.
I ended up selling the lot for $175,000 to a lawyer who was the father of an assistant attorney who allowed Bennetts to fence off and barricade the road in front of our home. I put the shooting threat and coverup of that and the loss of property value into a separate action which was referred to Judge Nottingham. He said that was frivolous.
In 1995, a former Steamboat police officer wrote a long report to the Steamboat police chief and asked him to investigate the blockade of the road and face to face confrontations we were having. That was after I complained that Bennett’s stepson had threatened me if I walked on the street past their barricade. The police officer did nothing. The city attorney Anthony Lettunich called me and said that he couldn’t do anything about the road being converted while Bennett was still in office. The amount of public land we are talking about was 100 by 60 feet.
In 1994, I wrote to the Steamboat police twice and told them that 3 different people had told me that Bennett was dealing cocaine and that if they called me I would tell them their names. But the police never called to get the leads I offered them.
My former lawyer Sandra Gardner said that her boyfriend told her he saw Bennett in the grocery store and pantomimed snorting and that Bennett lunged at him. I put that in my pleadings and Bennett’s lawyer did not deny that.
The husband of a former employee we had in Steamboat said that he had taken the police exam and wanted to be a police officer. There was always a shortage of police in Steamboat. He said that he went for an interview and told them that if they wanted to clean up illegal drug use in Steamboat they had to start with the police department. He said that he had seen the chief of police, some years earlier, snorting. He said that after that he was never interviewed for a police position again although he applied.
My husband said that when he was a teenager in Steamboat he went to a party and a sheriff was there smoking pot.
The last time I looked at the Routt County tax assessor roles for Kevin and Jane Bennett at 701 Princeton it showed one building there built in 1956. But there are 4 buildings there, clearly visible from the street. The building department shows that the one built in 2000 is 2009 square feet and two floors with a bathroom and central heating. The guest house that the Denver Post called a shed in the building department shows a bathroom with a tub and a kitchen.
The county attorney wrote and said that he refused to sell me a certified copy of the building department reports. I offered to pay the city $540 to compare the building department reports to the city development ordinances to compare the allowed volume of accessory building construction and they refused. These extra buildings were very close to my former house.
I put in my complaint that a former Steamboat police officer had come to mean to warn me that the district attorney’s office was “in on it”. I then did something I regret. I told the D.A.’s office what had happened. The next week the police officer was fired.
Magistrate Schlatter said that I should be sanctioned for complaining about government corruption.”
see July 6, 2007,
Law Blog Q&A: Maine Bar Association’s Peter LaFond
I reread Magistrate Schlatter’s report. He said I should be sanctioned by being put in jail if I file in court because a.) I filed too many motions and b.) I complained about government corruption in Steamboat Springs involving cocaine.
I found out that in Colorado a judge is supposed to rule on your motion within 90 days or otherwise he’s not supposed to get paid.(a law in Colorado) I filed two motions to compel two pieces of information–why a restraining order was issued on me and what was the probable cause to criminally prosecute me. The defense bills showed that Magistrate Schlatter’s clerk called them to say they wouldn’t have to reply. Then the 90 days past without him ruling. Then I didn’t know what to do so I filed more motions. There aren’t any rules telling you what to do if they don’t rule on their motions.
My theory that there was cocaine related blackmail in Steamboat involving Kevin Bennett, former city council president, and Judge Thompson, who issued a TRO on me because I told Jane Bennett that just because her husband was president of the city council didn’t give her a right to break the law is supported by defense documentation.
Kevin Bennett’s lawyer, David Brougham, sent verified bills including:
6/20/03 “Confer with CBI and Attorney General regarding NCIC records on Bennett, confer with city staff regarding same.”
6/23/03 “Telephone calls From and To City Attorney regarding NCIC record Issue”
NCIC stands for National Crime Information Center.
http://www.steamboat…
“McLimans also suggests Feldmann told Townsend of a federal drug investigation that resulted in the arrest of 14th Judicial District Judge Joel S. Thompson’s live-in girlfriend, 36-year-old Billie Vreeman.”
This article was originally printed 8/24/01 less than one year after I believe Joel Thompson was probably blackmailed by Kevin Bennett.
It says “In court documents filed this week, McLimans said he suspects Feldmann gave Norm Townsend, Johnson’s court-appointed attorney, sensitive information about the Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team.”
“Feldmann served as a deputy district attorney under McLimans for five years. He resigned in May, and an investigation into how he used a GRAMNET expense fund was launched soon after. Feldmann was the project director for GRAMNET.”
“Townsend’s motion contends Sperry obtained a search warrant for Vreeman’s arrest in an attempt to gain an advantage over Thompson, who had threatened to force Sperry to testify about a warrant Sperry allegedly falsified to get pay phone records in the Johnson murder case.”
I forgot that this web site truncates links. The article quoted is from the Steamboat Pilot web site
Attorneys exchange accusations
McLimans: Defense using information from Feldmann
Friday, August 24, 2001
At a hearing this past Dec. 14th before disgraced judge Eddie Nottingham, attorney David Brougham (Hall & Evans, LLC) couldn’t seem to plausibly explain how ex parte conferences between counsel and magistrate judge Schlatter ended up on a billing statement charged to losing party.
Now, as you read the excerpt, recall that Magistrate Schlatter is the same magistrate, who went on record to say that pro se parties will not get their day in court. (Click here). So, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that he would have entertained ex parte conferences with counsel. My second observation is that Nottingham reminds us all that having one’s day in court is not a right but, rather, a dispensation by His Majesty alone. He did so by telling Kay Sieverding’s husband that, because the husband seems like a more reasonable chap, he was granted the opportunity to have his “say” and, thus, a “hearing,” whereas Mrs. Sieverding would not have had the same opportunity. My third observation is that this wasn’t a “hearing” at all. Rather, attorney David Brougham, gave testimony (by his own admission) in violation of Rule 3.7 (attorney as witness) and the husband was never given an opportunity to cross-examine Brougham to fillet apart his unpersuasive story.
Now, I don’t know about the rest of you but, I didn’t find Brougham’s stammering (“He — he doesn’t remember why he wrote that, but it just didn’t happen”) very convincing. In fact, reading through his babbling diatribe (and also the statements that follow in the full transcript (which will be posted on KnowYourCOURTS.com News & Comment section by tomorrow)), it seems clear that Brougham was throwing focus away from the key issue by playing up to Nottingham’s disdain of Kay Sieverding. In fact, at one point, he even mentions that Sieverding has made less-than-flattering comments about Nottingham, himself. How thoughtful of Mr. Brougham to be looking out for His Majesty’s best interests.
In the end, the attorneys get another pass (score) from the bench, which comes as no surprise to us.
******
Why are you still posting stuff to this thread? Just curious…
My findings didn’t seem to warrant an entirely new diary and the Sieverding thread seems to be the best place for it. I’ve often been a critic of Kay, noting, however, that there probably was some substance to her claims, if only we could cut through the crap to find out what they were.
My husband and I filed a Supreme Court mandamus petition, 07-884, see http://www.rightscase.com, to find our defendants in default for engaging in ex parte, witness intimidation, witness retaliation and extortion, and for representing insurance companies that didn’t file the required forms with the Dept of Insurance. David Brougham at Hall & Evans confessed to having an ex parte with former Magistrate Schlatter and he emailed to me that Lloyds of London was in our action as a nonadmitted unauthorized insurer. However, he didn’t file the information or bond required for use of the courts by an unauthorized foreign insurer under C.R.S. 10-3-1004.
The problem with our claims is that they are fact intensive and the defendants didn’t stipulate to any of our facts. However, since the defendants didn’t claim that any of our facts were incorrect, you should assume that they are correct. To the best of my knowledge, 5 years later, everything we filed was correct. I say this under penalty of perjury. We were properly in federal court because we claimed $400,000 in economic damages plus comp damages and punitive damages. Our damages were sustained either as a direct result of our former neighbor Kevin Bennett, former president of Steamboat’s city counsel, blockading and converting the road and building in violation of the development laws, or as an indirect result of the extortion, defamation, baseless criminal charges etc. that he and his wife used to try to get away with it. When you visit Steamboat, you should drive down Lincoln and go North on 8th. cross the creek and go to Princeton and Pahwintah. The brick house there used to be ours. At the end of Princeton is the property belonging to the Bennetts. Anyone can stand on the street and see 4 buildings. Anyone can look up 701 Princeton on the Routt County assessor’s records and see that it shows only one building built in the 1950’s. So there are 3 extra buildings. That should show you something. The building department has the records of the construction from 2000-2001 but they never made it to the tax rolls.