June 30, 2007 09:29 AM UTC
Pro Se Litigation in Colorado
21 Comments- by: tiltawhirl
According to a U.S. magistrate judge of the federal court in Denver, no pro se litigants are allowed their day in court. In this article, I will argue that this phenomenon cannot be fairly attributed to the explanation that they’re all completely inept but, rather, that life-tenured, $165K salaried judges are delegating all of these cases to magistrates for the sole purpose of ridding of them.
What really happens to the ordinary person, who files a case of great importance to him/her or of great importance to society from a civil rights perspective1 and, who does so because of his or her faith in the rule of law and the belief that the purpose of the civil law is to provide for redress as the only alternative to inappropriate self help? As with all of my posts, my contentions are supported by real documents and statements –this time, from the judges, themselves.
Some Polsters may recall that I’ve mentioned that I work in the legal profession. Yet, at the same time, I am a court reform advocate, a member/contributor to H.A.L.T. and it may have become apparent that I have been or am a champion of the right to prosecute one’s own case in court, especially when the resources to underwrite a major litigation initiative (against “towne hall” or well-heeled corporate interests) are unavailable, because one is not independently wealthy.2
My observations, which cause consternation among both lawyers and jurists alike (who would rather not acknowledge a problem or promote any change to their lucrative industry), should not be taboo: I note that many of these jurists pay sanctimonious lipservice to the importance of, “the Rule of Law [as] probably the single greatest achievement of our society. It is our bulwark against both mob rule and the overweening power of the modern state.” 3 They give annual state of the judiciary addresses discussing the importance of “access to justice” and the need for well-reasoned judicial opinions and professional responsibility in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. At CLEs (training for attorneys), there is less emphasis on such lofty platitudes (for public consumption) and there is more candor about their pragmatic concerns.
However, the truth is where the rubber meets the road –what happens in real cases with real people.
__________________________________________________
I make a comfortable living doing nothing more strenuous than thinking about things people ask me to think about. There is no heavy lifting; no shift work. I’m not required to drive through snow and I don’t come home smelling of fish. When I’m done thinking about these things, I give my “opinion” about them and start thinking about some-thing else. Anyone churlish enough to complain about such a job, any-one who asked so little would fail to give every case, regardless of whether it’s handled by a successful attorney or a prison inmate, full consideration, is an ungrateful lout.
-Justice Wlm. W. Bedsworth, IMPROPER PERSONA, 45-Nov. O.C.LAW 40 (Nov. 2003)
________________________________________________
Pro se, also termed pro per, originates from Latin and is today defined by Black’s Law Dictionary simply as, “One, who represents oneself in a court proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.”
In the United States, litigants in civil cases do not have a constitutional right to self-representation. That constitutional right applies only to criminal cases.4 Civil litigants do, however, have a long-standing statutory right to self-representation under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, § 1654, which provides:
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
A violation of this right to self-representation –at least in criminal cases– is a “structural defect” in the proceedings. So-called “structural defects” are among the few irregularities that warrant a new trial.5
In many earlier threads over the last few months, including another diary, I have obstreperously pointed out that pro se litigants are systemically denied their day in court in Colorado and, especially, in the federal court. However, at least one of our attorney Polsters, Oh-Willike, with a profession to defend,6 has denied this is so. (“They aren’t systematically discriminated against.” –click here) In support of his contention, he cited to examples, like Kay Sieverding. If all pro se cases were like hers, how could anyone argue? So, the question is: Are all pro se litigants like Kay Sieverding? What are the odds? What are the numbers?
In a comment several weeks ago, I revealed that another pro se litigant, Suzanne Shell, testified in her affidavit that Magistrate Michael J. Watanabe (formerly a Colorado District Judge) told her that, “Pro se litigants NEVER win in this court.” Id. at ¶ 22 (on p. 20 of 22).
Oh-Willike said, “With all due respect, Shell is not a very credible source. Also, pushing for more respect for pro se litigants, who often do, in good faith, do ill advised things in litigation, isn’t a good path to solutions. A fair shake from a judge isn’t worth much when you still don’t know what you’re doing.”
While his comment seems to tacitly acknowledge that some or all pro se litigants aren’t getting a fair shake (but that it would be pointless to give them one), we really don’t need to take Suzanne Shell’s word for anything, because I came into possession, just today, of an Aug. 8, 2004 order from Steiner v. Concentra by U.S. magistrate judge Edward Schlatter (a former Colorado district judge in Salida and Cañon City). I think I’ll go ahead and take his word for it –unless Andrew thinks he’s not a very credible source, either?
In cases where plaintiffs are proceeding without a lawyer, district judges typically will refer such cases to a magistrate judge for case management, for settlement conferences and for “recommendations” on motions to dismiss or for summary judgment
If a party objects to one of my recommendations, Judge Nottingham must reconsider any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment the same as if I made no recommendation at all, and he is free to reach any conclusion on the motion that he deems appropriate
Approximately 2,500 to 3,000 cases are filed here each year. That is the number of cases that are divided up among the district judges. Of that total number of cases that are filed, approximately 600 each year are cases that are filed by litigants without counsel.
* * *
I then informed plaintiff that she would be well-advised to obtain a lawyer to assist her in this matter, because my magistrate judge colleagues and I cannot recall a single case in which a pro se litigant has proceeded all the way through a case, obtained a jury trial and received a favorable verdict. Our memories may be inaccurate, but, if so, they are inaccurate only by a very, very few individuals, and, if such exceptions exist, we have not heard of them.
Now, that we have half of the truth (supplied to us from this case filed
pro se by Yale grad, Elizabeth Steiner, M.D.),
7 let’s supply the other half: The
pro se cases don’t make it past dismissal or summary judgment
not because each and all of the six hundred plaintiffs (each year) are inept and conduct themselves like Kay Sieverding. Rather, they never make it that far, because:
As Magistrate Schlatter acknowledged, all such cases are swatted aside and deferred by an article III judge to a magistrate, creating a double standard of justice. See Bloom & Hershkoff, Federal Courts, Magistrate Judges and the Pro Se Plaintiff, 16 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 475, 477, 503 (2002) (describing general reference to magistrates as, “a way to funnel unimportant matters that society regards as annoying away from Article III judges to magistrate judges without life tenure, and so raise concerns about second class justice for unrepresented litigants. . . Some commentators warn that the use of magistrate judges for pro se cases will lead to the ‘ghettoization’ of indigent persons’ claims: the possibility of creating a two-track system of justice– district judges for wealthy litigants and magistrates for [less wealthy] litigants”). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third § 20.14 (Federal Judicial Center, 1995) (Article III Judges often defer pretrial supervision to magistrates to enable those judges “to devote time to more urgent matters”).
A district judge almost never overturns any magistrate judge’s recommendations (just ask any “decent” appellate attorney in Colorado (e.g.,Walter Sargent, Blain Myhre, Dean Neuworth, Paul Grant, etc.)). Article III judges merely rubber stamp whatever recommendations the magistrate has cobbled together, especially on those pro se cases that were perceived as not worth the Article III judge’s time.
Article III judges don’t perform the de novo review of the portion of the recommendations that had been objected to, as Schlatter most disingenuously misrepresented. For example, in the Harrington v. Wilson case, Judge Nottingham simply struck the objections, because he didn’t want to perform de novo review. In fact, he was in such a rush to not have to deal with the merits of the case that, prior to that, he had already dismissed the case before the time for filing the objections had run. This error was, of course, not addressed by the Tenth Circuit in its decision regarding that case. Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has provided an “out” for judges to rubber stamp magistrate recommendations by permitting them to simply state, in a one-sentence order, that they had, in fact, performed the de novo review.8 It’s also worth mentioning here that Magistrate Wantanabe has been a speaker for one of the Harrington defendant’s lobbying group. (click here).
“[J]udges desperately want to avoid trials. This is a poorly kept secret among judges and their law clerks, and sometimes it even spills out into public statements like this one, uttered by a judge as an explanation for why he opposed reforms that would have combated collusive class settlements: ‘[F]rom the court’s perspective, it would be terrible if a case went to trial.’ ” 9
Adding insult to injury, the Tenth Circuit has, for years, been selling a false bill of goods to the public and legal community by misrepresenting that pro se litigants are actually treated more leniently than attorneys. For example, in Russell v. Sherman & Howard, et al., (10th Cir. 2007) (another Magistrate Watanabe-intercepted case) the Tenth Circuit claimed:
Although we construe pro se filings liberally, Mr. Russell’s pro se status does not excuse him from “comply[ing] with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Among these requirements is a directive for the appellant to set forth his or her arguments in the opening brief, with supporting authority and citations to the record. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). “Under Rule 28, which applies equally to pro se litigants, a brief must contain more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority. When a pro se litigant fails to comply with that rule, we cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (alteration, citation, and quotation omitted); see also Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that this “court will not construct arguments or theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those issues”). In short, “[a]rguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998). Mr. Russell’s failure to raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the underlying district court decision necessarily results in a waiver on appeal.
Frankly, this is especially offensive because, when an appellant does make cogent, specific arguments in his Opening Brief, as in Harrington, supra, the Tenth Circuit waives them by choosing not to acknowledge or address the arguments in any manner. Ibid.
In conclusion, a reasonable, objective reading of Magistrate Schlatter’s admission combined with our independent real-world analysis reveals that, in fact, pro se litigants are systemically denied their day in court and that magistrate judges are used as goalies, rather than referees in the litigation.
____________________
1 Rob’t L. Tsai , Conceptualizing Constitutional Litigation as Anti-Government Expression: A Speech-Centered Theory of Court Access, American University Law Review, Vol. 51, Pg. 835, June 2002
2 See, e.g., Amy Robertson, The Pro Se Project: A Dissenting View (1999) (“defendants who decide to fight you will fight hard and they generally have lots of money to spend to defeat you. Without a lawyer you face the possibility of incurring enormous expense”)
3 Quote attributed to Professor Michael Mullane during his June 5, 2006 interview with NPR.
4 Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124 (1st Cir. 1985); O’Reilly v. New York Times Co., 692 F.2d 863 (2nd Cir. 1982).
5 See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279 (1990); McKaskle v Wiggins, 465 US 168 (1984); and Sullivan v Louisiana, 508 US 275 (1993).
6 See Robertson, supra (“I must start with background and a disclaimer: I’m a [Denver] lawyer who practices disability rights law, so I have a natural bias in favor of hiring an attorney”).
7 I mention that this pro se plaintiff was a doctor, to demonstrate that not all such plaintiffs are like Kay Sieverding. For examples of how pro se parties are treated in Colorado state courts, see Yale grad / Denver doctor Bryan Spofford’s story (click here) and his affidavit (click here).
8 Northington v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1570 (10th Cir. 1996).
9 John Bronsteen, Against Summary Judgment, Geo. Washington L. Rev. (2007) (quoting Class Action Lawyers Doubt Provisions in Legislation Aimed at Curbing Abuses, 72 U.S.L.W. (BNA) 2593 (Apr. 6, 2004) (quoting Judge Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland).
I am a Colorado Family Advocate. I work privately, to help parents who are at risk of, or have lost custody of their kids through accusations of neglect or abuse, and in some cases, in nasty divorce cases. (many times one type of case will generate a case in the other venue!) We work to help them find services to remedy any problems, find providers of services who are NOT the puppets of the DHS or courts, and also to guard against malfeasance amongst the various “players” involved in their cases. To the very last one, these parents, even the best educated, are painfully ignorant of their rights in legal actions. The prospect of losing a child often renders a person emotionally incapable of functioning with any clarity. When they have poor representation, and coercion and intimidating threats coming at them in barrages, they desperately need a friend. WE are that friend. I BECAME an advocate for these parents and family members after my personal experiences with this “family friendly” court system. I became an advocate because the things I saw going on were shameful and outrageous and I couldn’t sit by without trying to balance the scales of “justice” in whatever way I was able.
Suzanne Shell taught me a lot about the “system”. She was far from my ONLY tutor, but she was one of them. Her uncanny ability to analyze and collect information made her an excellent teacher. Contrary to popular opinion, advocates don’t run around looking for cases to inject ourselves into, those desperate, panic stricken, emotionally charged parents call us EVERY DAY for help. I work a full 40 hour week. MOST nights, my voice mail contains at least five or six calls asking for immediate help. My emails nearly always number at least 200 per day. MOST of those are from people who are either involved in a case, or are family members/friends of parents involved. I can’t begin to describe for you the frustration felt by those of us who have knowledge of what SHOULD be done by way of legal representation in court, when we hear some of the things being said and done in these cases. Suzanne Shell is the pioneer who saw the gaps in the system, pointed them out, analyzed them, and started shouting that the injustices must stop. For that effort, paid NOTHING for her considerable effort, she has been attacked with GARBAGE like this comment that she is not “credible”. I can’t think of anyone I know who is MORE credible than Suzanne Shell. If anything, she has understated some of the transgressions we’ve all found in the system.
The following is a snippet from an affidavit written by my adult, learning disabled daughter, about her experience in a “settlement conference” in the chambers of Magistrate Michael Watanabe in 2003. Her co-petitioner was Suzanne Shell. They were both there, in private “settlement” conference with the Magistrate, regarding their civil rights complaint against multiple members of the “family courts” in Fremont County, Colorado. This affidavit was written, in it’s original form, by my daughter. It was done with the assistance of her sister in law, so that the spelling and grammar might be more acceptable. I hope this will dispel any tendency to accept that “Suzanne Shell isn’t credible”. This incident HAPPENED, it happened exactly the way that Suzanne Shell described it, and for the record, in my considerable experiences, I have never met anyone as rigidly HONEST, to a fault, as Suzanne Shell. Blunt, to the point, scathingly honest. To read some sanctimonious person characterize her as “not exactly credible” makes my blood boil. I don’t always agree with her, we have engaged in some heated debates in our five years or so of association. But I have NEVER heard her misrepresent or lie about one tiny thing. To the contrary, in fact, she is sometimes “brutally” honest.
Here is my clip from my daughter’s affidavit, written in early 2004:
_________________________________________________________
A Judge Robert Blackburn assigned our case to Magistrate Judge Watanabe. Suzanne named all the people involved in my Fremont County case, all lawyers, DHS workers and the judge, who worked together to back up each other’s lies. No one pushed or forced me to sue them, the things they did to me and my little girl should be told to someone who could make them stop. My little girl and my family had all been hurt by these people being dishonest.
In June, 2003, we thought we were going to Denver to a hearing where the Magistrate would set times and dates for all the steps of the case. When Magistrate Watanabe started, he said that Suzanne Shell had been ordered to stop writing things for me, but he could see that she had not stopped. Suzanne said that she had not written anything for me, and she wanted him to know that. He seemed angry, but he didn’t exactly say anything except he found that hard to believe. My mother stood up and said that she was the one that was helping me write things for my case. He told my mother that he didn’t believe her, but if that was true, she could get in trouble for that. My mother asked him: “If she is not able to explain the violations of her rights, may not even fully understand what those rights are, and if she is poor and can’t afford an attorney, if no one will accept a case with such a low potential for money settlement, then do I gather that it is okay for court officials and state government employees to trample her rights? Isn’t that saying that she HAS no rights? Where is her due process and equal protection?” He didn’t answer her. He said that she should sit down, and she should know that if she continued to write for me, she might be found guilty of practicing law without a license.
The next thing that I remember is the Magistrate asking Attorney Ziporin if he had held a “settlement conference”. The attorney said he had not. This seemed to make the Magistrate mad, and he said that he would do the settlement conference himself right then. He had Suzanne Shell and I taken to a conference room in the back. We waited for a very long time, maybe 10 or 15 minutes there by ourselves before he came in.
When he first started talking to us, he said that “pro se litigants never win in this court”. He said he could not remember anyone who had won without a lawyer. We looked at each other, we were surprised that he was basically telling us that he had already decided that he would not let us win. We tried to tell him that Suzanne had only been watching my case to write about it and tape interviews, and that when they ordered us not to have contact, they stopped us from being able to work to make the documentary. First, he asked how much money she would have made on the documentary. When she said none, he didn’t believe her. He asked Suzanne why she would need to write about the child protection court when some TV station had already done a story about that. Then, he asked how much money we wanted to get from this lawsuit. When we both said that we hadn’t thought of money, he said that he didn’t believe that. He asked again what amount of money we would “settle” for. We both said again that we had no idea, we were more concerned with stopping Fremont County from hurting us by twisting the facts around and by working together to gang up on us. We told him all of the things that they had done to both of us that violated our rights, and said that we wanted them ordered to stop those things, and money really wasn’t even thought of. He still didn’t seem to believe us. He asked Suzanne why she would work for so long without getting paid, said he didn’t believe she would do that. She said something like “because it is the right thing to do” and he almost laughed out loud. He didn’t believe her.
He told us that he used to be a child protection judge and that he trained Judge Julie Marshall, one of the people we were complaining about, (11th Judicial District court judge), and that he did not believe that she did any of the things we said she did or said. He again told us that he didn’t believe us, and we couldn’t win without a lawyer. When I said I get Social Security and can’t pay a lawyer, he said I could find one on “contingency”. I said we tried, but there isn’t enough money involved and lawyers told us that these cases eat up too much of their time if they can’t get huge settlements. He shrugged, and said, “Then I guess you’ll have to drop out.”
He kept asking us how much we wanted. We kept telling him we didn’t have money in mind, we were concerned that our rights be protected. He told us at least a couple more times that people without lawyers never win in his court and that if we lost, we might have to pay all of the fees for the other lawyers. He said that part about losing and then having to pay all of the other lawyers several times like he was trying to scare us. Then, when we said we thought we had proof enough to convince him of our claims, he gave up and said that he would “set the schedule”. We thought that he would talk with the other attorneys and then come back to talk with us again, but he never seemed to talk with them at all. He had us go back to the courtroom.
_________________________________________________________
I would still like an answer to the question I posed to the Magistrate that day: If she has no money, cannot articulate the violations of her civil rights which have taken place, no lawyer wants to handle the “powder keg”, particularly not when the culprits are other attorneys and judges, and when there is precious little MONEY to be made in settlement, no contingency is likely to prove lucrative, if she cannot gain legal representation, can’t speak for herself adequately, and has been HORRIBLY abused by the court officials, if she can’t utilize the help of her family and friends to help her address a higher court for redress, doesn’t that mean that she HAS no civil rights BECAUSE she is disabled???
He refused to answer, and so have every other one of MANY I have posed that question to since. Why? Because they don’t want to admit that my assessment is accurate. If you have no money, and the “bretheren of the BAR” don’t want to address your issues, you HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS. It matters not what the LAW says if there is no actual access, MEANINGFUL access, to the courts where one could gain redress.
Christine Korn.
Please email us to make arrangements to provide a copy of the affidavit that contains the text:
Obviously, we need get that posted on a future page on KnowYourCOURTS.com, so that visitors and skeptics have the option of seeing the evidence for themselves (even if they don’t take the time to read it) to be assured that we’re all not just making this up years after the fact.
To the best of my knowledge, the scam that the federal courts in the Tenth Circuit are running on the citizens of this country (denial of access to the courts and departure from stare decisis with non-precedential, unpublished opinions in the instances where the pro se fools have appealed, isn’t going on in the First and Second circuits or, perhaps, the others. This is not only worthy as a news story but, it warrants reporting to and hearings by the House and Senate judiciary committees.
These judges are being paid $165K a year (for life) and the magistrates are pulling down $155K a year (for eight year terms, making them among the highest paid public officials. Notwithstanding their bitching and moaning about not being paid well enough, I think we deserve better.
Bottom line is, justice is for sale. Here’s a case example-possibility:
Yes, this anecdotal story, almost entirely fictitious (except for the URL/citations), is a little dramatic. But, this is an example of what justice money can buy.
disclaimer: Nothing in this post is tended to be legal advice and it should not be construed as legal advice. Any similarities between the fictitious events described therein and real events, except for those denoted as real events or persons, are purely coincidental.
What’s really frightening about this scenario is that collectively everything you have described here has actually occurred to individuals, right here in Colorado, that I have spoken with or read about.
And all of it occurred under the auspices of the Colorado Judiciary.
It may be fictitious but the fact that attorneys can befriend judges and get decisions changed and that money buy decisions is apparent. I recently heard of a case involving the above named attorney where the judge determined the magistrate made a “mistake” in a ruling and reversed the magistrate’s order. I am sure this is not an isolated example.
We need consumer protection, a system of checks and balances and a process for continuous improvement in our family courts. We need to abandon Colorado’s codependent and broken family court system that currently exists. In my opinion, the current system emotionally and financially bankrupts families and victimizes children.
There is no consumer protection from court appointed family court helpers. Colorado is considering requiring licensure of “personal trainers”. The arguments I saw were the listing of who is licensed and regulated and the emphasis on the importance of regulating those who provide services to consumers.
Yet there is no system that regulates court appointed “family court helpers”. They do not have to adhere to any licensure standards of practice if they are a mental health professional or acting as a mediator. They set whatever fee they want (except for Child and Family Investigators (CFI’s) in Larimer county–it appears someone there is trying to stop the consumer fraud (at least those serving as CFI). They can now attach child support of a parent if the parent fails to pay the unregulated fee the CFI is charging or disagrees with a bill they receive from the family court helper.
They do little or no follow-up as to the outcome of their work with families and children. There is no process for continuous improvement in place. They make recommendations based on theories and ideas that have had little if any testing as to the effect the outcome has on the children or the families.
Parents who attempt to use the family court system are described by Robert Smith, Robert Lacrosse and others as having an “unbelievable, breath-taking, inability to self observe”. Robert Smith was a “family court helper” for the Rick Walter family, I wondered if perhaps this perception got in the way of Robert Smith being able to work in a non-biased manner. Rick Walter killed his x-wife and all but one of his children before killing himself.
The latest groovy “family court helper” roles being promoted by those who work in the family court industry are the parent coordinator and family-decision maker role in addition to the CFI. The parent coordinator role was legislated with no standards of practice for those serving in the role. There were more individuals who spoke against the bill that created the role than those in favor. The bill still passed. Representative Sheri Jahn introduced and advocated for the passage of the bill. The bill was co-sponsored by Senator Dan Grossman.
Teresa Spahn, Robert LaCrosse and others have done presentations on this most recently legislated family court helper role. Yet we have yet to see a final version of any standards of practice for the parent coordinator. There is no system in place to monitor the effectiveness of the role or track outcomes of children where a parent coordinator or family decision-maker was court ordered. I am sure there will be no limit to what the parent coordinator can charge the consumer. It is my understanding the parent coordinator role is only court ordered for “non-indigent” families.
To see a summary of what Bill Fyfe envisions the role of Parenting Coordinator in Colorado should be, click here.
For more information regarding Colorado’s Divorce Industry (most of which you already know about), click here.
Also, we have some notes regarding both Robert M. Smith and the situation you spoke of in Larimaer County from a recent CLE here.
It is palpably clear by now that District of Colorado magistrates, whose reappointments every six years must be approved by a majority of the district judges in their district, believe that their own reappointment hinges in large part on their recommending dismissals of every pro se case—or at least every pro se case assigned to Blackburn, Nottingham, Babcock and one or two others who have made it clear that this is what they require.
The high potential for this type of thing is, in my opinion, what renders the Magistrates Act unconstitutional. The counterargument, of course, is that without the Magistrates Act to provide them with the cover of a magistrate’s recommendation, these judges would simply dismiss all pro se cases themselves.
And they would. But it is the cover of the magistrate’s recommendations that gives these categorical dismissals the gloss of legitimacy. Appellate judges who actually act in good faith—and presumably there are enough of them, if only barely, on the Tenth Circuit Court, to comprise a majority of a merits panel occasionally—might actually notice after a while that these judges are mechanically dismissing every pro se lawsuit assigned to them, and might even reverse wrongful the dismissals.
The Magistrates Act should be replaced with an Act that substantially increases the number of district court judges.
Possibly, there would have to be a reconsideration of the PAYROLL provided to these judges. IT seems to me that they are paid an exhorbitant amount for relatively short work days. The clerks do the bulk of the research and recommendations, maybe if we paid less, we could pay MORE JUDGES. If I am right, Magistrates make only a small amount less than a Judge. Surely, between the pay now used for MAgistrates, and a new pay scale for Judges, we should be able to add additional judges without serious impact on the financial strains of the courts. Hmmm?
CMK
Magistrates are paid $155K; Article III district judges are paid an add’l $10K; circuit judges are paid an add’l $10K on top of that.
According to the June 28th article, Judges behaving badly, which contains some hilarious examples of recent judicial conduct infractions, such as
Hon.William Carter, who suggested that the police “thump the shit out,” of an allegedly disrespectful defendant, asserts that federal judges, who are paid at a rate of $165K per year, are paid at the same rate as a first-year associate in a top law firm and that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, who earns “just $212,000” is half the salary of England’s top judge and one-fifth the average income of a partner in the majority of America’s 100-top grossing firms. The Chief Justice has said that the issue of judges’ pay has reached, “the level of constitutional crisis.”Clearly, the comparisons the article is making are against the incomes of law firms, who charge confiscatory rates (I know, because a few of the lawyers I’ve hired were grossly incompetent and lazy). The article is not mentioning that the salaries are among the highest of public officials and are stratospheric in comparison to the average family household income in the U.S., which is further evidence that the judiciary (and the legal profession, in general) is out of touch with ordinary Americans.
With all due respect, I think the fact that all pro se cases are disallowed from proceeding to trial is an issue that has reached “the level of constitutional crisis,” because it’s a fundamental denial of the citizens’ right of access to the courts, a fundamental liberty of the highest order and, which means more than simply being allowed to file papers or pass through the courthouse halls.
There is no question that litigation in this country has become the “sport” of the wealthy (only). The only legal alternative to self-help has evaporated like a fart in a dust storm.
[R]espondent made a crude comment from the bench in which he appeared to encourage the use of physical violence by a police officer against a defendant. According to the officer, the defendant, Charles Willis, had just made an offensive gesture after being released. Respondent told the officer, who was upset that respondent was not going to do anything about the gesture, “If you are so upset about it, why don’t you just thump the shit out of him outside the courthouse, because I am not going to do anything about it.” On its face, respondent’s remark is outrageous. It suggests to a police officer, and to anyone else who heard respondent’s words, that the court sanctioned violence as an acceptable means of retaliating against unruly defendants. In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to WILLIAM A. CARTER, a Judge of the Albany City Court, Albany County
I have appeared pro se in El Paso County District Court at numerous times over the past five-plus years commencing with my uncontested final orders divorce hearing in December of 2001. Today, my parenting and visitation rights with my now eleven-year-old daughter remain suspended despite the fact that I have never been charged with a felony much less been convicted of one. (The Court suspended my parenting rights less than one-day after final orders via an ex parte ruling without the requisite hearing pursuant to 14-10-129(4)CRS.)
During this time, I filed some twenty motions with El Paso County District Court and actually had two motions filed on my behalf by an attorney. None of these motions, even the two filed by my then attorny, have ever been ruled on by the Court. Pro Se, once interrupted, means “no say” in El Paso County District Court as every ruling is arrived at ex parte.
http://www.knowyourc…
Currently, I am in the prcess of losing my “no say” objection to a stepparent petition for adoption of my daughter. Even though I have paid all child support for the past seventeen-months and attempted to telephone my daughter each week during the court allowed (benevolent) calling time, the Court has already demonstrated that they have arrived at their predetermined ex parte decision which will be made official next month. Oh, btw, the stepparent is my ex-wife’s divorce attorney who married her just four-months following final orders.
http://www.knowyourc…
Identify pro se winners?
I think the idea of doing a statistical outcome study of pro se’s is great. Does anyone know any pro se litigant who won money from anyone other than their Ex?
I don’t know what that crack was about me (Kay Sieverding) though. My Dad says they must think I am a “pushy broad” or a “PITA”. I asked my college professor how I could sue a lawyer and he said to hire an aggressive litigator. I looked for an aggressive litigator to sue a lawyer but I couldn’t find one so I willed myself to be an aggressive litigator. My current tactic is confrontation whenever and wherever possible. Given a choice between getting the $30 million (based on their refusal to state their objections in standard form at assigned time and provide any affidavits) and having someone think I am feminine and cooperative, I’ll take the PITA label and work on my image later. I can be a little old lady grandmother with my millions. Actually its not that much by the time it is split up with my co plaintiffs and we pay taxes. The tax rate on punitive damages is as ordinary income not capital gains.
The 10th Circuit said they were removing my right to self-representation because I filed too many motions. They didn’t say bad motions. The district court never had a hearing on any motion I ever filed, including my rule 56 motions for summary judgment, and the defendants never filed any response in standard form –stipulating to facts. I also had Magistrate Schlatter and he “struck” my motions and ordered the defendants not to reply to them. Their case would have fallen on the first one and the others would have mopped up the co-defendants.
I really want to provide starting funding to Citizens Bar Association. I’d like to know more about “Halt” but I don’t like that name. A bar association has many more cash flow opportunities and it’s a model that people know. The ABA gets $16 million per annum from the feds in contract income and I want to compete for that. Why not?
I want to fund lobbying about court systems. Maybe “tiltawhirl” would be a good employee if he would not be so sexist. Doesn’t the idea of working on court systems sound interesting to you.
I saw a U.S. court web site that listed part time magistrate jobs for only $40,000. That was a year or two ago. The DOJ is currently paying GS 11 lawyers $67,000. The lawyer positions start at GS 9
I wanted to further address the accusation that I was “inept” in D. of Col 02-1950. First of all, they complained that my conspiracy complaint was “too long” and “too detailed”. However, it was very similar in length and level of detail to that recently filed by famous attorney Dickie Scruggs against State Farm. (see Wall Street Journal law blog). Before the defendants were even served, Magistrate Schlatter wrote he had discussed the case with David Brougham defense counsel, and he was scheduling an oral conference. A month later the defense billed for a three way ex parte conference with Magistrate Schlatter and Mr. Brougham later billed for 25 ex parte conferences. The Anti Corruption Judicial Conference of Bulgaria specifically does not allow any oral conference until all written replies are filed. One of my defendants was a district attorney, Wittemyer, who had dismissed the charges against me but then gave a press conference saying that I was guilty and there was a victim. The Supreme Court specifically says that there is no immunity for a D.A.’s giving a press conference but Magistrate Schlatter said there was. I quoted that Supreme Court decision when I objected to the Magistrate’s report and also to the 10th Circuit.
I then wrote a motion for partial summary judgment against Ms. Wittemyer in which I discussed the press conference, the lack of a warrant, the lack of a police officer claiming to witness a crime, the contradictory evidence, the ulterior financial motivations of the complaining party, and the fact that the husband of the person who complained helped Ms. Wittemyer’s husband get a permit for the “Stagecoach” ski area, which he tried to sell for $20 million through a classified ad in the Wall Street Journal.
My big mistake was in conferring with Mr. Brougham about the motion for summary judgment instead of filing it without conference. Mr. Brougham then got Magistrate Schlatter to close the pleadings to me only (violating the 14th amendment) without any 3 days notice as required by the magistrate’s act. When I sent the motion in, the clerk’s signed for it but it was not docketed. If he hadn’t violated the Magistrate’s Act, it would have been docketed.
Magistrate Schlatter then dismissed the complaint stating that I had not stated any intentional torts by government employees. That was not true as all the claims against government actors were intentional and all were supported by evidence that they were intentional. He violated the rules of evidence by not stating his intention to take notice of facts. I timely filed the allowed 10 page objection. I then refiled the motion for summary judgment against Wittemyer but he “struck” it and claimed I was not entitled to use summary judgment motions. I then supplied the 1948 amendment to the rules of civil procedure. Since I had 29 defendants I wrote additional motions for partial summary judgment addressing the claims about them. I “offered proof”.
At this point the ABA weighed in, writing to Judge Nottingham that they wanted to skip summary judgment and asked him to relay messages to them. So I guess you can say that I should have anticipated that the ABA itself would ask to violate Canon III and the rules of civil procedure. But I didn’t. I thought that the ABA would conform with all the written rules and with their own Guide to Litigation Conduct.
When Judge Nottingham let me out of jail the first time, I asked him why he dismissed my case and the only reason he gave was res judicata. However, the case he cited as causing res judicata I had dismissed under rule 41 without serving the defendants. The Supreme Court said in Semtek v. Lockheed Martin that rule 41 dismissals do not cause claims preclusion and I had quoted that case about 12 times.
I didn’t need to appeal the order against pro se litigation because when Judge Nottingham gave the order he said it was against all litigation “based on the same events”. My rule 60 b(3) action was based on new events. If there had been an evidentiary hearing on the motion to find me in contempt of court, (which required an independent prosecutor who was not involved), then the required hearing of clear and present duty to perform (Marshal v. Marshal) would have kept me out of jail. The Colorado Supreme Court in Stull said that there is an absolute prohibition against any order issued without rule 65 procedure, which that one was—without bond, hearing, or anything complying with rule 65(d).
I applied to the 10th Circuit for a mandamus to allow me to represent myself. They said that I was not allowed mandamus because I had the option of appealing. Because they were the 10th Circuit I believed them. However, appellate rule 21 lists the requirements for mandamus and exhaustion of remedies is not one of them. An appellate court can issued mandamus even if remedy by appeal is available.
So my mistakes were in being inadequately cynical. And you can say that if I had been adequately cynical I wouldn’t have brought the case. But, in addition to our personal damages, we also had $400,000 of economic damages. I knew when I started that these defense counsel were bad because they had already tried to bankrupt another party who sued the City of Steamboat and its city council members and because they had already subordened perjury. I thought that by including the bar associations as proximate causes that they would stop the dirty conduct by their co defendants. Also, I made a table of the factors of liability listed by the Col Supreme Court in U of Denver v. Whitlock and almost every factor was present—the effective regulation of the court system was much less than before 1983, for instance, because the ABA had recommended watering down the rules of professional conduct reporting requirements.
If the defendants had paid a bond when they got the injunction against pro se litigation, their damages for that would have been limited. But they didn’t, apparently thinking they didn’t need to do so because it was a sua sponte injunction. Also, that would have required a hearing, which would have required a law and evidence neither of which they had. However, in the defense bills they discussed the injunction before it was issued. Also, the rules of professional conduct required them to object to the order against pro se litigation. And I asked their help in getting out of jail and documented it.
The ACLU in Washington D.C. wrote to me and said that I should have applied for habeas corpus the first time they sent me to jail. But when the 3rd arrest warrant was issued I did apply for habeas corpus, Judge Nottingham didn’t respond and the 10th Circuit didn’t rule on it even after 6 months. I tried to get the ACLU in Denver to help me get out of jail. But it turned out that the defense counsel, Christopher Beall, did an FIA case for the ACLU pro bono so they owed him.
I complained to the Bar Regulation Counsel in the D of Columbia. It turned out that the lawyer I complained about, Jerome C. Schaefer, is an alternate member. The ABA recommendations said that only full time bar regulation counsel can rule. But even though they had a full time staff and 11 three person committees, the D.C. bar regulation counsel sent my complaint to a private attorney who was a friend of the lawyer I complained about and he denied it 9 months later without explanatory detail.
Even though I was in jail without my records, when “O’Brien Butler” filed in D.C., I recognized the name from Christopher Beall’s bills and used that to supplement my jurisdiction in D.C. I called O’Brien Butler from jail to confirm that the lawyer on Mr. Beall’s bills was a former associate in their office. When released, I searched the Internet to find that the “Mutual Insurance” listed on Mr. Beall’s bills was based in Bermuda and that the D.C. defense counsel, Jerome C. Schaefer, was their president and CEO. I found a U.S. patent office filing showing conclusively that the lawyer who directed the defense in Colorado in 2003 and 2004 from the D.C. office of “O’Brien, Butler” was working for Mr. Schaefer two years before he became involved as defense counsel when I filed under rule 60 b(3) in D.C.
yes you heard it right Oh-Wilike thinks Suzanne Shell isn’t “credible!!!! and neither do i In Fact I Think She Is so Much Of A Scam http://thetruthistol… Was Born check it Out This is one site that Suzanne Shell Loves To Hate :+} Billy Wiseman http://thetruthistol…
Who is The Nemesis? Who is Billy Wiseman?
Do a Google search on *any* site where Suzanne Shell is discussed or mentioned and you will find this troll following her here and there and hither and tither making his wild allegations much like the poster known as The Nemesis followed around Ken Smith (Rio Grande) from site to site.
If you click in to Mr. Wiseman’s so-called Web page, it’s like taking a walk into a amusement park Fun House; a veritable den of chaos.
I say this not because I am a “Suzanne Shell supporter,” per se but, because I became so turned off by what-appears-to-be the mentally ill rantings of Mr. Wiseman, who is about three fries short of a Happy Meal.
Thats sad when a person cant send me a email and fight me face to face without hiding behind code names, and if im three fries short of a Happy Meal.Please tell me why my site Looks Better Then badadvocates.com and profane-justice.org Both sites owned by Gun Toteing Suzanne Shell ?? who was convicted as a Play Lawyer?? From Now on Wanna Fight??? You Got My Email Let Me Post your words, and unlike shell i wont post your email, so what are you waiting on??
http://binaryfreedom…
An interview takes you farther down the rabbit hole.
by rkamens on Sun, 2007-06-03 13:54.
There is a lot of disfunction going on here between court reformers. It’s almost as if we were minorities in older days who assumed prejudice. It is hard to spend the time to know someone else’s case.
I hope to get a web site up for Citizens’ Bar Association, or perhaps I will give up that name which I like and go with another reform group. What is was thinking of is a web site with areas for suggestions and for facts separately.
first you should look at what you want to name your ip address before you pick a name for your website it should be short so people can remember it the name below is taken i checked, secound you haft to find The Right webdesigner Read this below before you look for any i hoped that i helped you…billy
Taken Name
http://citizensbaras…
Don’t Get Burned By Web Designers
If you bring up the subject of web design with small business people, it wouldn’t take long to find someone who has been burned by a web designer. Perhaps they have even come to the conclusion that a web site is not worth the expense. Let’s look at how and why that happens, and outline some success principles that will help you when you need web design services. Since so many web designers get it wrong, the web design principles that actually work may surprise you.
One of the problems with web design is that software programs have made it seem easy to create a web site. If you have the software, it would not take you long to build a web site. There are an abundance of inexpensive templates available to make it even easier to put together a web site. Getting a professional looking web site is not difficult at all. So you may wonder, why is that a problem?
Advertisment
Top 10 Rankings!
The process of creating a web site does not end with making it look professional. In fact, that could very well be one of the least important aspects of a web site design. Let’s face it, there are ugly web sites that make a lot of money. Since life is not fair, there are great looking web sites that make little or no money. I’m not saying the professionalism of your web site is not important; I am saying it’s not enough.
There is a serious flaw in the web design industry, and small business owners are especially prone to fall victim to it. The problem is that usually, very little business planning goes into a web site design. Too many web designers are more concerned with selling web design than taking the time to build an effective web site.
This deficiency stems from the fact that very few web designers are marketing people. Small business people do not have big advertising budgets, so they are easily attracted to the low rates of average web designers. Good marketing means setting priorities and effectively using your resources to accomplish goals.
The one element I find seriously missing in web design is the very thing that is fundamentally important; that element is uniqueness. A Unique Selling Point (USP) is one of the basic tenets of marketing. You must answer the questions: why should I buy from you, and, what makes you different from my other choices? If you fail in this area, your web site visitor will not be kind to you. They will leave and not come back; they will probably not tell you why they left either.
Read your web site copy to see if it contains another common error. Does it say, “We this,” and, “We that?” Do not “we” on your web site visitors! Your web site copy should speak to the visitor, address their needs, and solve their problem. It must compel them in some way. You need to draw them in and sell them on your solution.
When you take notice of how many web sites violate these basic marketing principles above, you will begin to see how you have the opportunity to rise above your competitors. Just think, if the majority of business web sites are violating even these most basic principles, how much more could you benefit from hiring a web designer who understands marketing?
There is a lot of emphasis placed on search engine optimization (SEO), and there should be, because this is very important if you want to have your web site found by people using the search engines. For most web sites, search engines account for 80% to 95% of all visitors. However, as important as SEO is, if you have a web site that is not creating sales with the visitors you are already getting, SEO is the wrong priority.
The next principle is the one you will probably find the most surprising. People actually read web sites! Yes, they do have a short attention span, and we will look at that point next, but they do read. There have been many studies done to document the way people use web pages. Even though so much attention is given to graphics, the studies show that well over 75% of the time, web page users read the text before they notice graphics.
This does not mean that graphics are unimportant. Visual elements are one of the many advantages a web site can provide. When you consider that people use the Internet to seek information, then it does makes sense that they will read your web site’s content. Providing the right information can mean the difference between winning a customer, or surrendering them to your competition.
Advertisment
Get #1 rankings on Google and Yahoo!
I also promised to cover the short attention span issue. It is often called the 3 second rule. According to web studies, if you cannot capture the attention of your visitor in approximately 3 seconds, that’s how fast they usually leave your web site. I suspect the reason is because so many web sites are such a horrible waste of time, that people’s patience has been worn down. The solution is to have a fast loading page that quickly clues them in that you can solve their problem. If they can “skim” in a few seconds, and you grab their attention, you have successfully drawn them in so they will stay a while.
Statistically, it takes 7 visits before you make a sale. If your web site is not done correctly, you will have dismal results because you can’t get them to come back seven times. That is why so many web site owners are disappointed with their success. That is why some web designers provide what seems to be a bargain, while other web designers have to charge more to give you a better value. It takes more time to plan and create a good web site design.
The good news is that most of your competitors will go for the bargain and suffer the same fate as everyone else who does not realize the value of an effective web site design. Very few of them will invest the resources needed for success. If you do, you can win. This does not mean you need the big budget of a major corporation, or that it has to be expensive, it just means you need to be willing to do better than average. The rewards are much greater when you stretch beyond the norm.
About the Author: Steve Chittenden seeks to help business owners and organizations market themselves effectively and succeed. His company, Creative Business Services, provides carefully planned web design, graphic design, writing, and marketing services aimed at achieving this goal. Please visit http://www.cbscreative.com for more information.
I almost had a heart attack when I saw your post but when I checked whosis my IP address came up. Apparently they take advertising until you get your web site up. I have several versions of the name.
The 10th circuit ruled recently
“findings of fact and conclusions of law…where multiple grounds ate presented by the movant and the reasons for the district court’s decision are not otherwise clear from the record it may vacate and remand for a statement of reasons…a dismissal order that fails to disclose the district court’s reasons runs contrary….increases the danger that litigants… will perceive the judicial process to be arbitary and capricious” Roz v. United States