Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Judge on the hot seat

Public should learn if Nottingham is punished

Rocky Mountain News

Published April 2, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

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.

Comments

  • 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

    11:58 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

    12:26 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

    1:56 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

    2:30 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

    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 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

    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

    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.

  • May 7, 2008

    7:42 p.m.

    ConcernedParty writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)