Judge on the hot seat

Public should learn if Nottingham is punished

Rocky Mountain News

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

It's too early to say whether U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham's, er, indiscretions might eventually lead to his impeachment.

We're not sure they should, but we understand why Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, the state's former attorney general, is concerned enough to publicly express his disapproval of the judge's conduct.

Among the unsavory information that's recently emerged, 9News reported in March that the judge's name and cell-phone number were on a client list seized during the raid of a Denver prostitution ring. And last year we learned that Nottingham had spent $3,000 over two days at the Diamond Cabaret strip club and claimed to be too drunk to recall what happened while he was there.

Soon after the prostitution allegations aired, the Rocky's Sara Burnett reported that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is moving forward with a formal complaint that Nottingham "has brought disrespect to the judiciary."

Nottingham may not face impeachment, of course. But some formal sanction could be imminent. The vast majority of the hundreds of complaints filed against federal judges each year are dismissed after an initial review - and this one wasn't - suggesting Nottingham may be in trouble.

That said, whatever punishment he might receive could remain a secret. If Nottingham gets what amounts to a slap on the wrist, the 10th Circuit is not obligated to disclose that penalty to the public.

This shield of confidentiality reaches far beyond Nottingham's case, and it's a disgrace.

Congress has allowed judges to deal with their own, as it were, because of a legitimate desire to maintain an independent judiciary. As a consequence, however, the judicial branch has been able to throw a blanket of secrecy over many allegations of judicial misconduct.

New guidelines recently approved by the federal judiciary that will take effect this month will afford better disclosure of the worst offenses. But Congress needs to demand even more openness.

The public deserves to know what people are complaining about, and how those challenges are resolved.

The new guidelines require any complaint against a judge that results in a serious penalty - such as a reduction in a judge's caseload or a request that he retire - be made public, most often on that federal circuit's Web site. The only penalties that now must be publicized are referrals for impeachment.

Judicial complaints that are dismissed or that lead to lesser penalties will be publicized, too - with a catch. Public reports of dismissals will not identify the judge or the party filing the complaint. And when judges are privately reprimanded - which could be Nottingham's fate - that information will also remain confidential unless the circuit chooses to publicize it.

Consider how much information would still be swept under the rug even with these "open" rules. Out of nearly 3,700 complaints filed against federal judges from 2001-2005, sanctions were imposed on only four judges. The new rules would keep information about the dismissed complaints confidential.

Too much secrecy remains. Even if 95 percent of the complaints are dismissed as frivolous, the public deserves to know which judges are drawing attention, who's complaining, and why the complaints deserved no further action.

Such disclosure would not threaten judicial independence. But it would give the public more confidence that judges are using their extraordinary power over the life, liberty and property of individual Americans wisely - and that the judiciary can effectively police itself.

• April 2, 2008

  6:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  I am trying to get Judge Nottingham arrested for Witness Intimidation, Witness Retaliation and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. In 2005, the same weekend he dropped $3,000 at the strip club, Judge Nottingham violated the S.C. order of YOUNG v. UNITED STATES EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A. ET AL. /http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/787/... that a lawyer cannot be appointed as a prosecutor in a contempt action benefiting his client and appointed the insurance defense as prosecutors. The defense lawyer said I was not entitled to a lawyer or an evidentiary hearing. Judge N said I was only allowed a 5 minute 'presentation' with no chance to cross examine my accusers and no warrant stating an offense before going to jail. Before the hearing I filed a motion to find out the procedure planned but Judge N denied that. The defense lawyers asked Judge Nottingham to use threat of violence to deter and delay our presentation in court, thus committing Felony Witness Intimidation. The defense lawyer/"prosecutor" said the absence of criminal information was 'meaningless'. I was not accused of breaking a law only of not doing what the judge wanted and there was no document entitled "injunction" nor was there any Rule 65 bond, notice, hearing, or Rule 65d order. The Witness Intimidation Act of 1982 applies to intimidation in civil lawsuits see: /http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_...
  In 2007, Judge N arranged to have me extradited to CO without Governor Ritter sending a statement to Governor Doyle asking him to arrest me for treason or a crime as required by Title 18 Part II, Chapter 208 § 3182. Judge N had me manhandled for 22 days, threatened me again and then said "whoops". I think it was organized crime because in WI I had a hearing before a woman who was only a court clerk, not a magistrate, and it is not on the court calendar in Western Wisconsin on 5/11/07. As additional retaliation, Judge N I told my husband and I to pay the insurance company lawyers $102,000 but didn't say why we would be legally obligated to do so as there was no finding of fraud or misquoting laws on our part. (No Rule 11 6 order) We filed objections but he didn't acknowledge them. If the U.S. Attorney will arrest and prosecute Judge Nottingham, more information about corruption of the judiciary may emerge from their subpoena powers and his testimony or plea bargain. Judge Nottingham could potentially get 10 years for every time he threatened my husband and I with violence, which would put him away for the rest of his life since he made many threats on various days. The same scenario could happen to any one. Then people will be tempted to settle their disputes with old fashioned duels instead of filing a lawsuit. The U.S. Judiciary subcommittee has changed its web site several times. There is now a place to send emails about the judiciary to the entire committee regardless of where you live. It is
  http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

• April 2, 2008

  7:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Sieverding is out of jail and filing again.

• April 2, 2008

  9:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Here's something comical, reported by http://KnowYourCOurts.com:

  Judge Nottingham is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Automation and Technology (since October 1994) and is a past committee chair (October 1997). During an 1998 interview (http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...), he was asked several typical questions, such as "Where does your own interest in automation come from?" Here's more:

  Q: "Do you have a computer in your chambers?"

  A: "Yes, and I've had a home computer for about 12 years."

  Needless to say, his ex-wife, Marcie Jaeger, confirmed that, indeed, he still does have a computer in his chambers and that it is, apparently, subject to heavy use. (See http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...)

  Also, according to the 3/19/1999 Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Committee for Automation and Technology was responsible for implementing several projects and policies, including the following Internet Access Policy:

  "In accordance with Judicial Conference policy (JCUS-SEP 97, pp. 52-53), access to the Internet for any computer connected to the judiciary's data communications network is provided only through national gateway connections approved by the Administrative Office. The national gateways are equipped with software that is capable of blocking access to certain Internet sites. The Committee on Automation and Technology recommended that the Conference authorize the national gateway connections to block access to adult-oriented, pornographic Web sites on the Internet, with access to these sites for individual court employees being provided for official business upon request of any judicial officer. Viewing this as a local matter, the Judicial Conference declined to approve the Committee's recommendation."

  Of course, we now may guess as to the results of failing to adopt the Committee's recommendation.

• April 2, 2008

  10:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RobinHood writes:

  Sunshine is a marvelous disinfectant.

  Both in Colorado and our Tenth Circuit, the judicial disciplinary process is a state secret -- and as Judge John Kane admitted to the Washington Post, behind these closed doors, they have been "covering one another's butts." Ronald D. Rotunda, “The Courts Need This Watchdog,” Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2006 at A-29. Light is now being shined on this black-robed nest of cockroaches at http://www.knowyourcourts.com/FedJD/F... and http://www.knowyourcourts.com/JDC/JDC....

• April 2, 2008

  10:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rg writes:

  I suppose having the fox guard the henhouse is equivalent to having priests who rape altar boys ascend to Bishop, Cardinal, Pope status and stand guard over their henhouse. Richard Grimes, deicide, in Naughty's corner as He favored rg in his litigation before His Honor by reversing bankruptcy judge brooks who violates the rule to find rg in contempt who has never filed for bankruptcy: Thank you Jesus.

  Deicide Corner: “When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up everything with it. The truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it.” -- Emile Zola

  I, rg, embrace: "It is impossible to exaggerate the evil theology has done in this world," as my truth.

• April 2, 2008

  11:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Re: Secrecy (the topic of the article and far more interesting than Kay Sieverding):

  We've got the same problem here in Colorado (state judiciary). See Ivan Moreno, Judges' conduct: A veil of secrecy: Critics say public deserves access to complaint process, Rocky Mountain News, June 18, 2007 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...); see also op-ed Secrecy and judges: Shine light on misconduct, Rocky Mountain News, June 24, 2007 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...).

  Does anyone here (other than me) remember Tony Koveleski's 12/20/2002 perjury exposè about the two (or more) Judges Admit to Signing Inaccurate Affidavits (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/...) ?? What happened to either of the two judges?

  Apparently nothing. Frank Martinez retired shortly thereafter. Similarly, Norman Arends appears to have quietly disappeared from the bench at about the same time. Yet, both are still listed as having active bar licenses "in good standing" with the Colorado Supreme Court.

  Conversely, some average Joe named Sandford Schupper got charged with not one but three offenses for falsifying financial information on an application for a public defender. See People v. Schupper, Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 04CA1224, decided May 18, 2006 (http://www.knowyourcourts.com/DA/docs...(ColoApp).pdf).

  Is it just me or is there something wrong here?

• April 2, 2008

  11:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  I think the above comments are quite offensive. A friend of my father's accidentally killed his 9 year old daughter and I am afraid of guns. I didn't flee from Colorado to avoid Judge Nottingham, I was at home in Wisconsin. I had no obligation to show up for a civil hearing in a dismissed case for which I was not subpoenaed. The U.S. Congress enacted Title 18 Part II, Chapter 208 § 3182 and the other laws that Judge Nottingham and the defense counsel chose to ignore including: "Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S....Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges,... who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs....Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both." http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights... My lawsuit that Judge Nottingham dismissed without factual findings or a jury trial on the basis that it was "prolix, disorganized, and legally twisted" is posted on my web site at http://www.rightscase.com. The defense counsel had multiple chances to contest the statements of fact but they didn't. If you want to claim that I filed a "frivolous" lawsuit, then you should say why you think it was 'frivolous" or shut up.

• April 2, 2008

  11:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  PS I didn't see the comment by "Pete Smith" before I posted the above. He's right, I am not particularly interesting. However, I have a statutory right to be recognized as a crime victim, just like a boring rape victim. If you went to court and were deprived the statutory procedure and then jailed without being found to have broken a criminal statute, you would be a crime victim too. Probably most crime victims are boring.

• April 2, 2008

  11:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Kay, I agree with Nottingham that your pleadings (and your forum posts) are "prolix, disorganized, and legally twisted." In fact, I think that is an eloquent, succinct and accurate description, condensed into a mere five-word phrase.

• April 2, 2008

  12:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  P.S.

  Kay wrote, "If you want to claim that I filed a "frivolous" lawsuit, then you should say why you think it was 'frivolous" or shut up."

  My response: This article and related forum is about the public's right to know about the outcome of the Nottingham misconduct investigation and the nature of judicial misconduct proceedings, in general. Is IS NOT about Kay Sieverding's failed lawsuits. The article IS NOT entitled, "Ex Steamboat Springs Woman Victim of Conspiracy by American Bar Association, Colorado Bar Association, Federal Judge, Denver Lawyers and Lloyds of London."

  In light of that, I think I'm speaking for everyone here in this forum (and the other ninety-two forums you have posted on) in stating that we're all disgusted and tired of you taking over all the legal-related posts to whine endlessly about your personal miseries. Please dry up and go away or --as you put it-- shut up, already.

• April 2, 2008

  12:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Forget the smell test: Her bizarre bleatings don't pass the straight-face test.

  She lost her S.C.o.t.U.S. "petition for Mandamus." Best I can tell, it's over. Beat it. Go away. Scram.

• April 2, 2008

  12:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  Pete, Sean and "bropous", I may be a bad writer, by your standards, but I am also a victim of felony witness intimidation, witness retaliation, and other crimes by Judge Nottingham and various others as defined by the U.S. code. Since "bropous" is dishing it out, please explain how I "deserved" witness intimidation and jailing without being found guilty of an offense defined in the U.S. code by my "stupidity, obsessive compulsion, or self-absorption." Of course, he probably thinks that people who are 'stupid, obsessive or self absorbed deserved' to be robbed, raped, or simply grabbed by men with guns and chains. Does he think that only "perfect" people, as "bropous" defines them, are entitled to Rule of Law? Don't the judicial canons that Judge Nottingham agreed to abide by require that all people in court should be treated 'courteously' and that "A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law* even if they write in a prolix and disorganized fashion and are 'stupid, obsessive, and/or self absorbed'. If I can get the U.S. Attorney to arrest Judge Nottingham for the crimes that the self authenticating court records show he and others did, then the criminal defense lawyer that Judge N has already hired, Stephen Peters, can tell the jury that if Judge N ordered them to do what he wants and then put them in jail for not doing what he said they would be treated fairly and Judge N's jail sentence would match the sentencing guidelines but that if an inferior person is a victim of the same crimes, the perp should be let go. The rapist of a beauty should be sentenced, but the rapist of an ordinary woman, an ugly woman, or a big mouthed woman should walk, right?

• April 2, 2008

  12:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Bropous, here's the problem: You (and I) make the fatal mistake of attacking Kay. Not unlike agreeing with Kay, what this does is invite further drivel and diatribes, the only difference being that attacks result in demands of you to explain, elaborate, debate and dissect her non-sense.

  Honestly, I wish that the moderator would simply Delete all posts on here from and about Kay (including mine and yours) and leave the remaining posts, that have something to do with the article.

  I note that some other pro se guy wrote a 16,000 word incoherent stream-of-consciousness post on here earlier this morning and, thankfully, the moderator removed it.

• April 2, 2008

  1:34 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  To "Pete Smith" how could any one write 16,000 words here when the size of the posts are limited? Since Judge N and the 10th Circuit failed to state any reason why my case was 'frivolous', why don't we assume it was not and the lawyers were financially motivated when they engaged in Witness Intimidation instead of trying to persuade a jury why they should not award the damages we requested based on our estimates of damages? To "bropous", I have no idea why Judge N ordered me to pay the insurance companies $102,000. Maybe it was to reimburse them for prostitutes or other expenses they made on his behalf. My jailers repeatedly compared me to Rosa Parks and that helped me to hold out. How did where Rosa Parks sat on the bus justify her going to jail and the hatred that was visited on her family for standing up for her rights? What do you think will be the result to society if people who file in court without a lawyer find their cases dismissed without a Rule 52a and Rule 54a compliant judgment and if they attempt to go to another court, the first judge orders them grabbed at gunpoint and thrown in the dungeon? Is that going to be good for the citizens of Colorado? Do you think that if a judge skips the law and orders citizens grabbed at gunpoint and thrown in the dungeon that he should be criminally prosecuted under the existing laws or should we decide to ignore the Color of Law laws specifically designed to protect citizens from judges who get so drunk they can't even remember what they were doing at the strip club or who perhaps accept a bribe to put someone in jail without their being found guilty of a crime?

• April 2, 2008

  1:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  My point (in my prev. post) was just proven!

  Even if I was inclined, how could I possibly refute (or agree with) a diatribe about "the Color of Law laws?" I mean, since we're talking about Rosa Parks, I guess we could be talking about the Jim Crow "color" laws or, perhaps, we could be talking about 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("under the color of law"). If we're talking about Kay Sieverding's lawsuits, we're certainly not talking about "colorable" claims. And, I imagine that, just now, she's seeing the color of red in reading this!

• April 2, 2008

  2:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  psu96 writes:

  somebody's off their meds again.

• April 2, 2008

  2:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  Maybe Judge Nottingham has a shady side, who doesn't? But
  a) The Diamond Cabaret is a legitimate business operating under the laws of the State of Colorado. If Nottingham spent $3000 of his own money there getting drunk, who cares? Maybe their drinks and food are over-priced. Did he harm anyone? Did he commit any unlawful acts? Did he fail to perform judicial duties? So far, no. His only "crime" is he spent lots of money on a place Paula Woodward and Vincent Carroll disapprove of. Vincent Carroll writes all the time that how people spend their own money is their own business. I guess that doesn't apply to the Diamond Cabaret.
  b) So 9News has learned Judge Nottingham's name was "on a client list" of a prostitution service. "List" implies more than one name. Why is 9News and the RMN only interested in Nottingham? Who else is on that list? Why are 9News and RMN concerned with the other clients' privacy but not Nottingham's? Does anyone seriously believe that the only person of public interest on that list is one federal judge?
  In other words, Judge Nottingham may not be fit to be the deacon at your local church, and the 10th Circuit is looking into his conduct, but I think KUSA and RMN have a grudge against the judge, and I wonder what they're really up to.

• April 2, 2008

  2:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Response to Peterpi:

  I disagree.

  First, he's obviously violated the "Good Behaviour Provision" of Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

  Violations of “good behavior” tenure at common law included “abuse of office, nonuse of office, and refusal to exercise an office.” See Prakash & Smith, How to Remove a Federal Judge, 116 Yale L.J. 72, 90 (2006) (quoting Lord Coke’s Institutes). "Oppression and tyrannical partiality of judges, justices, and other magistrates, in the administration and under the colour of their office, [which could be prosecuted] by information in the court of king's bench." 4 Blackstone, Commentaries at 140-41.

  Second, he violated Sec. 636(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code each time that he refused to acknowledge (i.e., read) objections to a magstrate's recommendations, as required of him under Rule 72(b) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. (see, e.g., Harrington v. Wilson, D.Colo.).

  Third, he violated his oath of office (28 U.S.C. § 453) each time that he failed to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

  Fourth, he has a license to practice law in Colorado (atty. reg. no. 4498). “All members of the Bar of Colorado, having taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws of this state and of the United States, are charged with obedience to those laws at all times.” Rule 251.1 (a).

  So, if he paid for sex (yes, I know, presumed innocent until proven otherwise), he was obviously in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically, Rule 8.4, offense of "moral turpitude").

  Preamble No. 5 to the Rules provides, in pertinent part, that “A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs.”

  Comment 5 to Rule 8.4 provides that “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.” And, unless I'm mistaken (I may be), I believe that, until very recently, he held a position on the Colorado Supreme Court's Standing Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct.

  Do we need to go on?

• April 2, 2008

  2:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  Dear "Pete Smith"

  You say that my claims were not "colorable" but you don't say why you think that. A judge has statutory responsibilities and restrictions that don't apply to "Pete Smith", "Peterpi", or other people who are not judges. The "Color of Law" federal criminal statutes and the federal Witness Intimidation Act apply regardless of the race of the victim.

• April 2, 2008

  2:30 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Peterpi, let me point out some other details, recently reported by KnowYourCOurts.com (all claims supported with evidentiary documents at the site). After reading it, ask yourself if you want this judge judging you:
  ----------------------------------

  Nottingham's womanizing from the bench goes all the way back to his first years as a federal judge:

  I tracked down one Colorado attorney, who has some interesting recollections of our jurist sensation, Edward Nottingham. Joe Losavio –now retired in Lenno on beautiful Lake Como in Italy– was visiting the States and consented to be cited for this story.

  Losavio recalls that, on a Friday, April 26, 1991, the last day of a trial in Settle v. Centel Electric, a stately tall blonde entered the courtroom gallery. Nottingham immediately took notice, stopped the proceedings, scribbled something on a Post-itTM note, handed the note to the bailiff with instructions to give it to Centel's attorney, Bill Mattoon. The note inquired as to who was the blonde. When Mattoon informed him that it was Losavio's wife, the disappointed judge resumed the proceedings, Losavio said.

  In that same case, Losavio recalled that Nottingham refused to cause the clerk record the jury's $l72,465 verdict, which should have been a purely ministerial act. Losavio repeatedly followed-up with the clerk in an effort to get the judgment entered. Losavio's client, Don Settle, eventually filed a judicial misconduct complaint. Nottingham issued a written response in which, Losavio recalls, he accosted Losavio for his persistence.

  I also spoke with Losavio's client, Don Settle. Settle, who also witnessed the passing of the note, says that he lost approximately fifty-thousand dollars as a result of Nottingham's refusal to enter the jury's judgment. Settle says Nottingham justified his usurpation of the jury's verdict because "he didn't like the precedent" that might be established for at-will employee discharge cases and, as a result, the jury's verdict was never honored.

  I am persuaded by Mr. Settle's account. Just this past November, Magistrate Judge Kristin Mix was quoted as saying:

  "The biggest problem with your case is that Judge Nottingham hates employment cases and there’s nothing you can do about it, it’s random. Now don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine judge, but he just hates employment cases. That’s why he will try to find any way in the summary judgment briefs to say there’s no material issues and grant summary judgment, and if he doesn’t, he will make it tough at trial, and you won’t win . . . Mr. Phillips, I’m going to look you right in the eye and tell you that you’re gonna lose."

  This is an example of what's called exercising will, rather than judgment.

  This is, without question, the real reason why Judge Nottingham is not fit to serve on the bench (not his patronage of the Diamond Cabaret).

• April 2, 2008

  2:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  peteSmith, 9News and the RMN don't bother with minor details like whether he judges impartially over the rich and the poor, or whether he skims lightly over issues of law he doesn't want to judge properly, or whether he arbitrarily rules from the bench. No, their focus is on Nottingham and sex and alcohol. It's much easier to sell column inches, time slots and ad megabytes that way.
  Judge Nottingham presides over a case where the defendant is Joe Nacchio, and all of a sudden two media outlets portray him as a free-spending lecherous drunk. Hmmm ...

• April 2, 2008

  2:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  I agree with "Pete Smith" that Judge Nottingham's failure to follow the statutory procedures in civil and criminal law suits is more important than where he puts his "organ". That's why solicitation of prostitution is a misdemeanor and U.S.C. Title 18 § 1512. "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" (a 2) is punished by "(B) in the case of— (i) an attempt to murder; or (ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and (C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 10 years." Judge Nottingham did the crime of Witness Intimidation towards my husband and myself and now he should "do the time for his crime".
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/...

• April 2, 2008

  3:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Reply to Peterpi's 2:50 post:

  I agree with you to the extent that sex/scandal sells out over more substantive issues (like disparate treatment, two-track system of justice, etc.). But, mind you, the press aggrondized Nottingham endlessly prior to, during and after the Nacchio trial. See: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...

  The sex-scandal occured later. And, it was only because Nottingham held himself so far above everyone else (gavelitis) that he drew the appropros ire of the media. He was "ripe" for the pickings, so-to-speak. Nottingham, with his penchant for crisp suits, pink shirts, bright blue judicial robes and cuff-links should take a cue from his equally-imperial colleague, Blackburn, and stay low-key (and laughable with his dorky bow-ties).

  Frankly, I think this issue is timely, because we have three (perhaps four) vacancies on the federal bench and we need to be looking at: (1) how and who our reps nominate to for lifetime tenure; and (2) how ineffective and illusory our federal judicial discipline policy & procedure is. See http://knowyourcourts.com/FedJD/FedJD... (collecting articles and treatises on the topic).

• April 2, 2008

  7:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Acemon writes:

  People, let's stay on-track here and ignore Kay Sieverding's attempt at hijacking this forum. Peterpi is correct that the judge's visit to Diamond Cabaret is immaterial to the charges since it is a legal establishment and apparently no crimes were committed there. Being drunk and stupid is not a criminal act unless he drove home, and since the Rocky has not trumpeted that, we must assume it didn't happen.

  Those who continually cry that the Rocky Mountain News is a liberally-biased publication would do well to take note of it's prudish, conservative bent when it comes to anything related to sex. Since sex is so evil, and prostitution is a crime, when will the Rocky publish the other names on the phone list seized from an alleged prostitution ring? Could it be the Rocky is trying to protect one of their own?

• April 2, 2008

  9:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  How is my demand that Judge Nottingham be criminally prosecuted for the crimes of Witness Intimidation, Witness Retaliation, and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law "inappropriate" to this article? As far as Acemon's comment, Judge Nottingham has not yet, to the best of my knowledge, been criminally charged with anything although he is apparently expecting to be charged with a "white collar crime" and therefore hired a defense lawyer who only defends that. As far as the Golden Cabaret, we have no way to assume that "no crimes were committed there". Maybe the Golden Cabaret is where Judge Nottingham was bribed or blackmailed or maybe he met someone there who bribed or blackmailed him later. "Pete Smith" and others do not get to choose which crimes Judge Nottingham did or did not do and which ones he should be charged with. Judge Nottingham should be charged with all the crimes he did including threatening me and my husband. The fact that criminally charging Judge Nottingham with "Witness Intimidation" (1512) and "Witness Retaliation" (1513) may lead to other people being charged with the same crime is not a legitimate reason to protect him. His criminal defense lawyer didn't post here saying that it is legal to threaten or put pro ses or "pushy women" in jail in order to deter or delay their presentment in court. Nor did his lawyer say that it was legal to impose financial sanctions for truthful presentation in court. My address, phone and email at Kay@rightscase.com is all over the Internet and Judge Nottingham's criminal defense counsel did not email me, call me or write to me so assert that Judge Nottingham was innocent of the crimes of Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation. The evidence that Judge N committed the crimes defined in U.S.C. title 18 sections 1512(2) and 1513 is irrefutable and there is no way that his lawyer can plead not guilty for him. These are serious crimes with sentences similar to rape and facing that much time, Judge N will be motivated to "snitch" on others for reduced sentence. Please notice that various anonymous bloggers said today that my 02-1950 complaint which Judge N refused to adjudicate was "frivolous" but refused to say why and that inside the complaint various felonies are charged including perjury and subordination of perjury. Those crimes were committed in Sept 2000 and the federal statutes of limitations expired in 5 years. So by paying or bribing or otherwise convincing Judge N not to order a reply with stipulations to fact or "case management" in his court or any other court, the persons who committed the crimes of perjury and subordination of perjury in 2000 reduced their probability of criminal prosecution.

• April 3, 2008

  6:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  How `bout that, folks. Despite the fact that Kay's "address, phone and email . . . is all over the Internet . . . Judge Nottingham's criminal defense counsel did not email [her], call [her] or write [her] to assert that Judge Nottingham was innocent of the crimes of Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation."

  What kind of lame defense lawyer must he or she be, not to patrol all 92 blogs and forums where Kay posts these outrageous claims, not to refute each one publicly, as if Kay, herself, was the prosecutor and as if Internet forums were a courtroom?

  Anyone read what I wrote in a prev. comment (above)? If you attack or even mention Kay tangentially, she'll respond with another 450+ word diatribe (as above), which invariably begins with a question inviting you to debate her. This is her method of hi-jacking the forums and you fell right into the trap (as did I, because she will respond to this post with yet another 450+ word diatribe).

  Sorry, Kay. This article is not about you. Your cases are dead. The Supreme Court denied your mandamus petition (see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/...). It does not appear that you're going to collect the "$30 million in undisputed claims" you've been hoping for to start up your "citizens' bar association." See http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary... Your fifteen minutes of fame (i.e., newspaper stories about you being jailed) are long since past (2+ years ago) and nobody cares or wants to read any more of your drivel.

  The sad commentary is that you're proof positive to many that Nottingham, can make sound decisions on occasion. So your posting all over the Internet is actually improving his image. Way to go, Kay!

  (Now watch her next diatribe start with, "Please explain exactly how my posting on the Internet about Judge Nottingham's Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation is helping Judge Nottingham. How is my posting about insurance companies possibly bribing or blackmailing him at the 'Golden Cabaret' going to improve his image?")

• April 3, 2008

  12:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  Judge Nottingham held me in violation of “Title 18, Part III, Chapter 301, § 4001 (a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” He did not cite an Act of Congress. I was under no obligation to do what he wanted in another court anymore than I would be under an obligation to have sex with him although I guess some people could argue that anytime you don't do what Judge N wants you are in "contempt of court". (i.e. move your wheelchair). There was no criminal complaint and no indictment. There was no arraignment per Fed R Crim Proc Rule 10. I did not plead guilty nor was there a trial. Whatever I did I did in Wisconsin and the asst U.S. Attorney in WI Robert Anderson said in court that the government was not a party. Fed Crim Rule 40 says "Arrest for failure to appear. If a person is arrested on a warrant in a district other than that in which the warrant was issued, and the warrant was issued because of the failure of the person named therein to appear as required pursuant to a subpoena or the terms of that person's release..." but I was not subpoenaed and there was no obligation to appear as a condition of release. Rule 41b4 allows the seizure only of a person for whose arrest there is probable cause or who is unlawfully restrained (i.e. kidnapped). Judge N used summary procedure but did not comply with Rule 42a "if the judge certifies that the judge saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court." (i.e. he couldn't accuse me of behaving badly in court because I was very polite.)

  Right now one of my major goals is to have Judge Nottingham and various other people arrested for Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation and/or Extortion and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. Part of my strategy is service by publication.

  Based on your suggestion "Pete Smith", I will also write to Judge Nottingham's criminal defense lawyer.

• April 3, 2008

  12:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  P.S. What "life lesson" was I supposed to learn--that the Federal District of Colorado is corrupt and one cannot rely on the written law? That the U.S. Courts are classist and no one who is not represented by Big Law should expect a 'decision on the merits'?
  Bob Marley was supposed to be street wise and is respected by many people. He says "Get up, stand up! Stand up for your rights! Get up, stand up! Don't give up the fight!"
  http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+marl...
  I sincerely hope that the corruption I experienced in the Federal D of Colorado can be addressed and redressed for everyone's benefit.

• April 3, 2008

  11:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  corockymtn writes:

  Kay and the person at knowyourcourts is wasting their time filing court cases. Why. Because the system is broken and no matter how strong of a legal argument you have the judges will just make up their own rules and laws to fit their own agenda and the appeals judges will support these actions.

  I'm not knocking Kay since everyone has their own way of dealing with situations and who are we to judge her methods. With that said Kay needs to make her own system and she can do that with the internet as is evident with knowyourcourts. Seeing as Kay is very persistent, she should start her own web site like removenaughty.com or something like that. She then could start promoting her web site by sending out flyers to all of Naughty's neighbors as I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing he visits prostitutes. Since Naughty is a frequent visitor of the Diamond, she could wait for him to come out of their tanked and then call the cops to report a drunk driver. There's many legal methods she could use to get Naughty bumped from the bench.

• April 4, 2008

  6:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  There are 4 ways to deal with bad troubles such as have been caused to my family by our defendants and their lawyers: 1.) suicide 2.) murder 3.) give up and 4.) write. I personally cannot engage in violence. Giving up is worse to me than writing. If I can get Judge N arrested for Witness Intimidation then I will be officially a "crime victim" giving me statutory rights. Then I can try various ways to improve my situation. At this time if you google my name one of the first things that comes up is that a judge in D.C., to whom I could not effectively present my case because Judge Nottingham put me in jail for trying, said that I have "challenged the Bennett v. Sieverding" restraining order and that it was res judicata etc. This and the ColoradoPols link to the Steamboat Pilot was read by people I went to college with. In fact, the People v. Sieverding criminal charges brought by Jane Bennett were dismissed in 2001 after I pled not guilty. And according to an article published by the Colorado Bar Association "Understanding Protective Orders" http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/0/s... "Who can get a protective order: (Source TCFV) "Adults who are related to the abuser by blood or marriage. This includes a spouse, parent, sibling, parent-in-law. Ex-spouses. Persons currently living with an abusive partner or who have lived together in the past or who have a child together. Persons who have been involved in “an intimate relationship.” I never had a sexual relationship with Jane Bennett and I never had physical contact with her. We were never alone. What was described as "molestation" was my sending emails to the Steamboat city council complaining that she and her husband Kevin Bennett were building in violation of local law. In fact, if you look at 701 Princeton Ave, adjoining my previous property at 750 Princeton Ave. in Steamboat, you will see 4 buildings on the property. On the Routt County assessor records, it says there is only one building built in 1952. I have a masters degree in city planning and complained about the buildings by comparing the building plans to the laws. Bennett's lawyer subpoenaed the former "planning services director" who swore that Bennetts' buildings were "totally complaint" with local laws. She also said, while on the stand, that she was a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. The AICP wrote they never had a member with her name. Most people would object to their neighbor fencing off the street and building extra buildings over the zoning. The newspaper implied that I was guilty but a trial was too expensive. My neighbors called the police whenever they saw me gardening, shopping, etc. until I sold my property to their lawyer (below value).

• April 4, 2008

  6:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  ps the lawyer who subpoenaed the planning director and claimed that sending emails was molestation was a different lawyer, but both were employed by my former neighbor. The second one threatened our business when we complained about Bennett putting a fence up 60 feet away from his property line on our side of the street and taking over the street. Judge Nottingham refused to allow any facts on these matters to be admitted on the record. When we filed for summary judgment he refused to hear our motion after Magistrate Schlatter ordered that he would not consider any document not entitled "objection".

• April 4, 2008

  6:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Kay, what are you wearing right now?

• April 4, 2008

  8:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  jeans, loafers and a sweat shirt. I am one hour later time zone, how about you?

• April 4, 2008

  10:12 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peteSmith writes:

  Careful, Gene: If you can't keep it up --to Kay's satisfaction-- she might sue you under a contractual "non-performance" theory.

• April 4, 2008

  2:39 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuckyMe writes:

  I see Kay is still ranting and raving on this post. Kay, wouldn't your opinions better serve you if you were to take this up with someone that can actually help your situation rather than wasting your breath on this thread? I'm just trying to ease your obvious rage against a broken machine. The judge is/was wrong on many levels and no amount of word vomit is going to fix it. Protest in a more appropriate forum.

• April 4, 2008

  10:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  "Pete Smith" What are you talking about?
  To "Lucky Me" -- I am looking to every forum that I can attempting to get Judge Nottingham and the other people who violated my rights Under Color of Law and engaged in Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation arrested. Federal Witness Intimidation has no statute of limitations. Sean Harrington inspired me to write to Judge Nottingham's white collar criminal defense lawyer, Stephen C. Peters. I summarized the evidence that Judge Nottingham engaged in Witness Retaliation by ordering me to pay the insurance companies $102,000 without citing a law or a Rule 11 6 order, Witness Intimidation on at least 5 different dates by threatening my husband and/or myself for the stated purpose of deterring our presentation in an official hearing, and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law for putting me in jail without following the procedures required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure and I faxed him 4 pages last night. I asked Mr. Peters:
  "I would greatly appreciate it if, assuming that my quotations of Judge Nottingham from the transcripts and record are accurate, you would respond if you think that there is any possibility that Judge Nottingham is innocent of criminal conduct towards me and explain why you think so as I think that what Judge Nottingham said, wrote, and used his authority to do match these crime statutes perfectly. Most of these crimes have pretty long possible sentences and my perception is that they were pretty severe crimes, worse than rape." It has been over 24 hours and there has been no response from Judge N's lawyer. I'll post here a summary of whatever Judge N's criminal defense lawyer says about his conduct towards my family.

• April 9, 2008

  4:49 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  I faxed to Judge Nottingham's criminal defense lawyer, Stephen Peters, on 4/3 and again on 4/7 and I mailed to him. I gave him my email address, telephone number and address. I have heard nothing back from Judge Nottingham's criminal defense lawyer in response to my 4 page letter asking him to respond "would respond if you think that there is any possibility that Judge Nottingham is innocent of criminal conduct towards me". I realize that asking a criminal defense lawyer to respond to an un- filed criminal charge is not a standard procedure. However, I am in a very difficult situation because I am the victim of multiple felonies, which as of yet the government has not pressed charges for. I understand that the natural inclination of a U.S. attorney or state district attorney is not to press charges on a federal judge. However, that does not change the situation that I was the victim of multiple criminal acts by Judge Nottingham most of which have possible jail sentences of 10 or 20 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes. These crimes by Judge Nottingham and others hurt me a great deal and I am in great pain because of them. Also, without any criminal prosecution for the use of Witness Intimidation, Witness Retaliation, and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, those crimes are likely to be repeated.

• May 7, 2008

  7:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ConcernedParty writes:

  Is this the same Kay Sieverding that is married to David Siverding here in Verona, WI and who run a 35mm slide producing company from the web site: www.slides.com? I thought these people have been running this company here in WI since the early '90's. Or do I have the wrong couple?