Complaint vs. judge probed
Whether Nottingham tarred office is taken under advisement
By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published March 13, 2008 at 7:53 p.m.
Updated March 14, 2008 at 3:16 p.m.
Photo by Chris Schneider © The Rocky
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham is the focus of a broadening investigation into allegations he "has brought disrepute to the judiciary.
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham, recently linked to a high-priced escort service in Denver, is the focus of a broadening investigation into allegations he "has brought disrepute to the judiciary," the Rocky Mountain News has learned.
In an order made public Thursday, Robert Henry, chief judge of the 10th Circuit, said he is taking under advisement a complaint about a judge's conduct. The order doesn't name the judge, but the person who filed the complaint confirmed that it was Nottingham.
Sean Harrington, who runs a legal technology firm and who represented himself in two cases before Nottingham, provided the Rocky with a copy of his complaint.
Harrington alleged that Nottingham ignored the law when he ruled against him in two civil rights cases and undermined "the dignity of the court" with his personal conduct.
Henry quoted from the complaint in his order, in which he dismissed the first charge.
But Henry's decision to move forward with allegations about Nottingham's conduct is significant because complaints against judges typically are dismissed after a preliminary review.
Between fiscal years 2005 and 2007, fewer than half the complaints filed nationwide moved forward, according to a report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Almost all those complaints were later dismissed.
The inquiry into Nottingham's behavior could lead to a public or private reprimand, a request that Nottingham voluntarily retire, a restricted caseload or other corrective action.
Nottingham's office on Thursday referred calls to his attorney, Stephen Peters.
"We are pleased that the 10th Circuit has dismissed at least a portion of the complaint involving Chief Judge Nottingham, and we look forward to the prompt resolution of the remainder of this matter," Peters said.
He declined to discuss any other complaints, saying the process is confidential.
Nottingham, 60, is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Colorado, one of six states in the 10th Circuit.
His current troubles started last year, when his ex-wife went public with statements Nottingham made during their divorce proceedings.
The judge admitted he had spent $3,000 over two days at the Diamond Cabaret, a topless dance club in downtown Denver, and that he didn't remember everything that happened because he had been drinking.
Nottingham released a statement after his comments were publicized, saying he wouldn't discuss the allegations and calling them "private and personal matters involving human frailties and foibles."
A few months later, a Denver woman who is disabled filed a complaint with the 10th Circuit, saying Nottingham parked in a handicapped spot outside a Denver Walgreens drug store without a handicapped permit.
When the woman, Jeanne Elliott, blocked him from pulling out of the parking spot, Nottingham became angry and threatened to call U.S. marshals to remove her, Elliott said.
In a 911 tape from the incident obtained by the Rocky, Nottingham is heard calling police and asking for an officer to come and get Elliott to move.
In a calm voice, Nottingham admitted he parked illegally.
"I'm in the wrong . . . I'm happy to get a ticket," he said.
Officers gave Nottingham a $100 ticket, which he later paid, Denver police said.
Harrington's complaint, filed in January, cited those two incidents as examples of conduct that has "brought disrepute to the judiciary" and undermined "the dignity of the court."
Last week, 9News reported that Nottingham's name and phone number were on a list of clients seized during a raid on a Denver prostitution ring known as Denver Players or Denver Sugar.
The TV station quoted a man who said he drove prostitutes to encounters with Nottingham. The man signed an affidavit stating that what he said was true, 9News reported.
Nottingham is not charged with a crime.
The U.S. Attorney's Office and Internal Revenue Service are investigating the alleged owner of the prostitution business, Brenda Stewart, for tax fraud, but no charges have been filed.
Denver police declined comment on whether charges may be filed against the alleged prostitutes or customers.
Even if Nottingham were charged, soliciting a prostitute is a misdemeanor in Colorado.
"The likelihood a judge would be removed from office for a violation of prostitution law is small," said Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern University Law School and co-author of Judicial Conduct and Ethics.
An Eagle County native, Nottingham was appointed to the federal bench in 1989. He has presided over several high-profile trials, including that of ex-Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.
Legal experts have said the complaints against Nottingham are unlikely to affect his previous cases.
Judicial discipline:
From fiscal 2005 to 2007, 2,108 complaints against federal judges reached a final disposition.
Of those:
1,205 were dismissed by the chief judge
846 were dismissed by a Judicial Council after a secondary review
36 resulted in corrective action
21 were withdrawn
Impeachments:
13 judges have been impeached by the House of Representatives.
The first — John Pickering, from New Hampshire — was in 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench.
The most recent — Walter Nixon, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi — was in 1989, for perjury before a federal grand jury.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Center
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
March 14, 2008
3:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
gwats writes:
Just another Bush appointee who thinks because he's on the Federal payroll and Anglo- Saxon, that he's above the law. I hope this story continues to be reported in the media.
This guy is like old yogurt. Toss him out!
March 14, 2008
4:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Had he been appointed by someone else ,say Clinton this would not have happened?
How about judging the judge on his behavior and not who appointed him?
This guy sounds like a self centered moron and there are plenty to go around,so get in line if you want.
March 14, 2008
5:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
The really disconcerting part of this story is that the portion of the complaint involving openly felonious behavior committed by Nottingham -- for which serious jail time is warranted, and removal from office is required -- has been dismissed. Federal judges can commit crimes from the bench with utter impunity, because (1) fellow judges are their 'partners-in-crime' and, in the words of Judge John Kane, cover each other's butts and (2) the Bush DoJ won't prosecute as long as they get their quid pro quo.
All I want to see is that Nottingham be judged on the behavior that (a) we know to be true, as it is an indelible part of the public record and (b) should have him removed from office under the "good Behaviour" clause of Article III of the Constitution. Sir Edward Coke listed three grounds for forfeiture (the clause was lifted from English law): abuse of office, nonuse of office, and refusal to exercise an office. Blackstone added that “the oppression and tyrannical partiality of judges, justices, and other magistrates, in the administration and under the colour of their office [could be prosecuted] either by impeachment in parliament, or by infor mation in the court of king's bench.” 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 140-41. Judge Naughty's bizarre sexcapades don't legally qualify as grounds for discipline, but fellow judges have to slap him down for political purposes; he is the sacrificial lamb that permits them to continue committing crimes with utter impunity.
March 14, 2008
5:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Burnett: "Between fiscal years 2005 and 2007, fewer than half the complaints filed nationwide moved forward, according to a report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Almost all those complaints were later dismissed."
-------------------------------
This is actually about 99.9%: Out of nearly 7,500 complaints filed between 1997 and 2006, only nine resulted in any kind of discipline at all. Six involved censure (Nottingham will get a public censure, because his antics are both embarrassing to the judiciary and very public). Only three involved meaningful discipline.
Federal judicial discipline is a Potemkin village, designed more to fool the public into believing that it exists than to have any effect of consequence.
March 14, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
The legal blog is locted at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/News/ne...
At the same site, there is a page regarding the chief judge at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting... and the page containing the complaint and disposition is at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
March 14, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
ham writes:
Hey, GWATS. Do you even read the articles before you post? Or is every article just another excuse to bash George Bush?
If you READ THE ARTICLE, you will see that Naughty Ham was appointed to the bench in 1989.
As far as Naughty Ham goes, he's going to be harder to remove than even the article suggests. He won't step down simply because he's slimy in his private life.
March 14, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Ham: "Hey, GWATS. Do you even read the articles before you post? Or is every article just another excuse to bash George Bush?
If you READ THE ARTICLE, you will see that Naughty Ham was appointed to the bench in 1989."
-------------------------
When George Herbert Walker Bush sat in the oval office.
March 14, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
I'm curious just how many other complaints did the Harrington person file against how many other judges whenever a motion of his was denied. He's most likely one of those tax protesting idiots that thinks the flag with gold fringe is not a U.S. flag and quotes all phases of Admiralty law (much like this Robinhood character posting here) So he dipped his wick, bought a hooker and went to a titty bar. Guys, admit it, maybe not with a call girl but we've all paid for sex, and as I understand it he used his own money to do this, it's not like he was out bangin' some sequestered juror that tax dollars paid for or that they paid for the room to do it in. So he's human, a horny human, but human none the less. So stay out of his bedroom and private finances. Even a public figure, like a Federal Judge, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Once he's charged, it seems to me that any case like that becomes public, but I haven't heard that he's actually been charged with anything, have you?
March 14, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Judge Manzinares stole a court computer and filled it chock full of porno images. Then he shot himself in the head.
Judge Knucklehead Nottingham simply decides for himself which laws are most appropriate for him to follow and which are not.
And if you drive through Cherry Creek in excess of 100 mph, you can find a city attorney that will spring you in exchange for Nuggets tickets (K-Mart).
Is anyone reading this confident that you would get a fair and impartial trial in Denver? Not in front of these judges or the corrupt city attorneys.
WHAT A SHAM!
March 14, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Yeah, I'm sure the Harrington guy is a tax protesting idiot, because I'm sure you took a moment or two to look into his background. Or, maybe, he's a regular Joe, like you, who mistakenly believed that the courts were available for the redress of grievances, rather than settling things like the Wild, Wild West.
If judges have a reasonable expectation of privacy, do you s'pose maybe citizens have a reasonable expectation that judges will read briefs and give everyone his day in court (Due Process & Equal Protection under the Law - read your Bill of Rights) that the law prescribes? Do you s'pose that expection is reasonable in light of the fact that Art. III of the Constitution guarantees this idiot $231K a year for life (but only "during good behaviour")?
If he has time to do one-handed internet surfing from his chambers (according to his wife), do you think he might have time to read your legal briefs, if you one day find it necessary to file a case in court?
March 14, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Anyone else here filed judicial misconduct complaints in federal court? Email them to tipline@knowYourCourts.com for posting. Include in your email whether you want name[s] or other information redacted.
March 14, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
"Cel" is a moron, an attorney, or both.
Salient Facts of Harrington v. Wilson, No. 05-cv-01858-EWN–MJW"
On Sept. 27, 2005, Magistrate Judge Michael Watanabe was directed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C.Colo.LCivR 72.1 to submit a recommendation by March 27, 2006. Doc.-2-at-3. The magistrate filed his recommendation on Sept. 7, 2006 that the matter be dismissed in its entirety. Doc. 73. As such, plaintiff Sean Harrington had until midnight on Sept. 26, 2006 to file his objections, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a fact Judge Nottingham admitted. Doc. 80 at 2.
Despite the fact that Mr. Harrington had four more days to file objections, Judge Nottingham filed an Order on Sept. 21, 2006 accepting the magistrate’s recommendations, proclaiming that he had performed the de novo review required by statute. Doc. 74 at 2. However, Rule 72 requires the district judge to consider timely filed objections; Harrington filed his electronically, in compl i ance with then-existing CM-ECF protocols, the very next day. Doc. 76. It is here where Judge Nottingham became unreasonably obstreperous.
Astonishingly, Judge Nottingham struck Mr. Harrington’s objections in their entirety, display ing a remarkably injudicious temperament:
----------------------
"The motion for reconsideration will be granted, but the objections will be stricken. The case will stand as dismissed with prejudice.
It is hard to imagine a more frivolous, burdensome, prolix, senseless, and harassing filing than the one containing Plaintiff’s objections. The objections themselves are spread over 2,610 pages, and the exhibits occupy an additional sixty pages. The bulk of the filing con sists of an apparently random mixture of copies of cases and exhibits. It is impossible to follow or make sense of this heap, and any attempt to do so would require abandonment of all other cases. The objections to the recommendation are “redundant, immaterial, [and] impertinent,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and will be stricken. The court has once again conducted the requisite de novo review of the issues and the recommendation."
-----------------------
It is hard to imagine how Judge Nottingham could have performed the requisite de novo review if he (a) wasn’t tech-savvy enough to follow Harrington’s fully-hyperlinked brief and (b) couldn’t “make sense of this heap.” But even if Mr. Harrington’s ability to overwhelm the Court with tech nology was in fact the problem, he made every effort to cure it, filing a motion for reconsideration with an alias brief that any competent judge should have been able to follow.
(to be continued)
March 14, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
(continuation)
When a pro se litigant -- who is usually filing pro se because he can't afford an attorney -- files a complaint in Judge Nottingham's court, it is swatted aside to the magistrate, who has standing instructions to dismiss it out of hand. District judges are required by law to review the work of the magistrate and the objections of the litigant, but in this district, they never bother. All they do is sign a boilerplate incantation to the effect that they reviewed his work. Judge Blackburn, however, is the most consistent offender. E.g., Shell v. Devries, No. 06-cv-00318-REB-BNB (D.Colo. Jan. 30, 2007); Gallegos v. ACE Express - Coach USA, No. 06-cv-00408-REB-BNB (D.Colo. Jan. 19, 2007); Automated Lending, Inc. v. Ransom, No. 05-cv-02487-REB-MEH (D.Colo. Nov. 30, 2006); Signer v. Pimkova, No. 05-cv-02039-REB-MJW (D.Colo. Nov. 30, 2006); Baldauf v. Garoutte, No. 03-RB-01104 (D.Colo. Jul. 20, 2006); Williams v. United States Forest Service, No. 05-cv-01277-REB-BNB (D.Colo. Jun. 27, 2006); Martin v. Directors Guild of America, No. 06-cv-00609-REB-MJW (D.Colo. May 16, 2006); Baldauf v. Hyatt, No. 01-cv-01315-REB-CBS (D.Colo. Feb. 08, 2006); Calvert v. Safranek, No. 05-cv-001713-REB-PAC (D.Colo. Jan. 30, 2006); Lawton v. Center Stock Company, LLC, No. 06-cv-01125-REB-MEH (D.Colo. Jan. 19, 2006); Stetzel v. Attorney General of the State of Colorado, No. 04-cv-01531-REB-BNB (D.Colo. Jan. 3, 2006) (all Versuslaw).
This is criminal misconduct on their part, punishable by a year in prison for each count, but the Bush DoJ is too corrupt to prosecute, as long as they get their quid pro quo.
This is the real story -- what Judge Henry is hiding.
March 14, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
alizea303 writes:
This guy is a SCUMBAG!! He clearly should not be in a position to judge people and their lives when he cannot even get a handle on his own life. How he treated that disabled lady was plain wrong. Reminds me of the Devils Advocate. He is not to be trusted in my book.
March 14, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
wilson writes:
I like the hair. Looks like Paulie Walnuts.
March 14, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "So stay out of his bedroom and private finances. Even a public figure, like a Federal Judge, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Once he's charged, it seems to me that any case like that becomes public, but I haven't heard that he's actually been charged with anything, have you?"
----------------------------
No, he has not. However, it is a well-known fact that the system of federal judicial discipline is broken beyond comprehension, and the only way that we can make it work is to put the disinfectant of sunshine on it.
Naughty signed his own epitaph: "If it is perceived that there is one law for the rich and one law for everyone else, the law ultimately falls into disrespect ... The law does not care about your station in life." Judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than the average man; it comes with the $231K salary and obscene retirement package.
March 14, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "He's most likely one of those tax protesting idiots that thinks the flag with gold fringe is not a U.S. flag and quotes all phases of Admiralty law (much like this Robinhood character posting here)"
----------------------
And your egregious ignorance of the law and suck-up attitude pretty much convicts you as an attorney. When a phrase is borrowed from English law, we use English precedent to ascertain its meaning. You did read something other than comic books at CU Law, didn't you?
March 14, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
Thanks, Robinhood.
Potemkin villages were, purportedly, fake settlements erected at the direction of Russian minister Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787. According to this story, Potemkin, who led the Crimean military campaign, had hollow facades of villages constructed along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River in order to impress the monarch and her travel party with the value of her new conquests, thus enhancing his standing in the empress's eyes. Wiki
March 14, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
It seem to me that these poor guys suffered azipper malfunction and should sue there tailors.I hope that they get to know what it feels like for everyone else.If you take the job then live up to the image of being that person for the job.Don't lie steal and cheat on your wives they don't deserve that.For the wives throw his sorry good for nothing butt out of the house and divorce him.If you want to be a judge then behave above reproach.Remember that the next time ou sentence somebody.The rest of us are tired of the lying dirty politicians we get.I do know that the honest judges are tired of this too.
March 14, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
...as I was saying...
March 14, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "...as I was saying..."
-----------------------
As I was saying.... What right does a judge have to NOT do the job we pay him so handsomely to do? If you're his law clerk, part of his posse, or his cocaine dealer, I can see why you'd defend him -- but there's really no defending what he has done.
I don't care so much about the call girls, but I do care about having the courts work the way they are designed.
March 14, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Cel writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
March 14, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
I don't know how much you know about law, Cel, but I've actually read the brief in question, and is generally indistinguishable from many I have seen submitted by experienced attorneys.
A hyperlinked brief contains internal links to attachments, which in that case were considerable -- you are expected to attach copies of unpublished opinions and the like, and that can be cumbersome. If Judge Nottingham, who was in charge of managing the incorporation of technological innovations for the Circuit -- couldn't manage a brief submitted according to his specifications, that should not be held against Harrington.
The simple reality is that he had valid claims that were wrongfully extinguished by a lazy-arse judge who was obviously too busy one-handed surfing to do his job.
March 14, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "just out of curiosity, What part of his job has he not done?"
--------------------------
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), in Harrington's case. And it is neither the first nor the last time he has done it.
For criminal liability to attach, a judge need only deprive his victim of a right "secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States," 18 U.S.C. § 242 (here, the right of access to the courts), while acting under color of law, and do so willfully. In short, if all a judge intended was to do the deed, he would earn a vacation in ‘Club Fed.’ United States v. Lanier, 33 F.3d 639 (6th Cir. 1994).
Should be simple enough for even a lawyer.
March 14, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "I haven't heard that the hand job or titty bar thing took place on work time. I'll agree that he is guilty of a misdemeanor and some really awful judgment,"
---------------------------
Which constitutes a violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. How hard is this?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if YOU are "on the list," Cel.
March 14, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
Is the brief a template that has been used many times before? and are you aware of any other complaints that this person has filed?
Another simple reality is that, from a certain perspective, even admiralty claims are valid. But continuous reading of the same form complaints or motions really isn't necessary and from a reasonable perspective it's just silly.
March 14, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
You're a taxprotestor, aren't you
March 14, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Cel commented that there's been no allegation that the respondent-judge did any of this stuff during work time. According to his ex-wife's testimony, as reported by our local media, he had a porn site (http://adultFriendFinder.com) on his computer in chambers at the Alfred A. Arraj courthouse. Is that a crime? I don't know. Maybe it's against some C.F.R. to use government equipment to view "obscene" content (obscene, defined as appealing solely to one's prurient interests). However, if he has time to view such Web pages from chambers, he sure as hell better make time to review a party's brief, even if it's written poorly.
Whether it's written poorly is debatable (a non-hyperlniked version of the Harrington brief is located at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Pleadin...'s-recommendations.pdf )
Irrespective, "Judges are different from everyone else in a courtroom. They should decipher rambling, irrational, incoherent thoughts. They should unearth the buried argument, comprehend the incomprehensible, clarify the opaque. They shouldn't give up easily on a litigant who sounds like Billy Madison. Judges who act disrespectfully to lawyers and litigants will in turn be treated disrespectfully." —Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Ethical Judicial Writing - Part II, 79 NYSBA Journal 1 (Jan. 2007)
Anyone not familiar with Nottingham's reputation in the legal community as a petty tyrant need only read through the last fifteen years of news articles collected at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...
March 14, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "You're a taxprotestor, aren't you"
------------------
It's just that I know the law in this area, and you don't.
Now, go back to fixing traffic tickets.
March 14, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "Is the brief a template that has been used many times before? and are you aware of any other complaints that this person has filed?"
-------------------------
No, and yes. To the best of my knowledge, this was Sean's first complaint to the Judicial Council.
So what if he filed a dozen? As long as they are meritorious, he has a First Amendment right to file them.
March 14, 2008
12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
You know the law ? It looks more like you've read the law and swallowed the book.
...and you called me a lawyer ?!
now back to your ship !!! (it's in Colorado Springs somewhere, right?)
petesmith -
you're right, I forgot about the porn site stuff. But that's more likely a policy violation, but you could be right
March 14, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "Another simple reality is that, from a certain perspective, even admiralty claims are valid. But continuous reading of the same form complaints or motions really isn't necessary and from a reasonable perspective it's just silly."
--------------------------
What on Earth are you babbling about?
The courts use English precedent to ascertain the scope of terms borrowed from English law, and good behavior tenure was taken from English law. See United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160 (1833) (holding that the scope of the pardon power would be determined by reference to English law, as the pardon power was borrowed from England). As such, what Coke and Blackstone said really matters.
You do know who Coke and Blackstone are, don't you?
March 14, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "You know the law ? It looks more like you've read the law and swallowed the book.
-----------------------------------
Ever read a law review article? What I'm writing here doesn't even come close to the anal-retentiveness you'll find there.
Enlighten us. Where does it say that a judge can disregard his obligations?
March 14, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
I don't believe "it" does. The fact is I don't what "it" you're talking about, but I suppose it's the same "it" that says that a judge must rule on what is before him/her. I wonder if "it" even actually says that the judge must read every scrap of paper or if "it" allows the judge to assign some things to law clerks, deputy court clerks, custodians, etc. Which obligations did he disregard?
March 14, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
Coke and Blackstone, mike and sam linebackers for the Falcons?
March 14, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Cel: "I don't believe "it" does. The fact is I don't what "it" you're talking about, but I suppose it's the same "it" that says that a judge must rule on what is before him/her. I wonder if "it" even actually says that the judge must read every scrap of paper or if "it" allows the judge to assign some things to law clerks, deputy court clerks, custodians, etc. Which obligations did he disregard?
-------------------------------------------
There are certain things a federal judge CAN delegate, and others that he CAN'T; it's "Naughty's" job to know the difference. The obligation of a district judge under Rule 72(b) to perform a de novo review of a recommendation to dismiss and objections filed thereto is non-delegable, according to Tenth Circuit precedent. Naughty admitted that he didn't review the objections -- in fact, he struck them and ostensibly, without cause or justification. A review of the objections shows clearly that they had merit.
But since you're not a lawyer (and as such, denying that you have the requisite legal knowledge to comment) and haven't reviewed the case in any event, you don't have a credible basis upon which to offer an intelligent opinion.
March 14, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Story just went national. Film at 11.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?i...
March 14, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
You've reviewed the case and the law (and seem to regurgitating it word for word), so I humbly defer to your expertise, and to your cut and paste ability, You've made me say 'UNCLE', now you and Doug Bruce can return to the high seas. Don't forget the flowers for your mama, she need to be paid
March 14, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
you and me. we really don't you have anything better to do, do we. That's really sad
March 14, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Harrington is not some nutty tax protester - but is instead a nutty, disgruntled family court litigant who tried to relitigate his defeat in state court in federal court. and appropriately lost. that is why he is unhappy. the allegations against Nottingham have nothing to do with Harrington's underlying case and he knows it. he is just a crazy gadfly who will not go away.
Cel - as you've already determined, "Robinhood" (and a few other logins on here) is most probably Mr. Harrington himself and he is desparately trying to relitigate his case on this comment board. it's curious that he won't reveal the underlying nature and substance of his court case. consider the source - this guy admits his objections spread over 2610 pages. ask yourself - what kind of person is this to burden our already overburdened courts with this never-ending nonsense? and then when he doesn't get his way - he takes advantage of some scandalous allegations made about the Judge - that have nothing to do with his - and he crafts them into a complaint to the 10th Circuit in a pathetic attempt to re-open his case. and it won't work.
March 14, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Yeah, Harrington is just some disgruntled family court litigant who won two-and-a-half appeals in the Colorado Court system (03CA1825, 04CA1161 & 04CA1986) and just can't leave well enough alone. Apparently, his ex-wife, Christy Ryan, fled the state with his daughter, without notice either to him or the court, as required by the court's order, and Harrington is "disgruntled" over it and sued for damages, once he located his ex in Texas.
Man, imagine the nerve of that guy! No wonder our court systems are overloaded with all these petty, frivolous cases.
March 14, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Incidentally, Mojambo, the Harrington brief wasn't 2,610 pages; it was 86 pages (less than what Nacchio's lawyer's pre-sentencing brief). But, of course, we all know that folks like Nacchio and his attorneys are allowed to avail themselves of the federal court system, whereas ordinary Joes, like Harrington, me, you, Robin Hood, et al. are not. No, our cases are frivolous and they are a burden on our courts because of who they are, not what the merits of their case is.
March 14, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
DahmersCookbook writes:
Hey folks your local judge Judy Archuletta has her money in treatment centers around CO, she sends people to them and then will encourage councilors to fail people to add time to their sentence or treatment, thus strengthening her investment. White collar crime is very rampant, strike while the iron is hot, expose these corrupt, self-serving animals.
March 14, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Couple of questions: 1 are robinhood and petesmith screen names for the same person and if so, why the double team? and 2. Are either or both Harrington or personally related by blood or friendship with him? I ask just to try to judge if personal grievances play a role in this postings.
March 14, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Robin Hood and PeteSmith are not one and the same. RobinHood is not Harrington (although I know who RobinHood is, it's up to him or her to disclose identity). And, certainly, I could be Harrington --who knows? But, if I am Harrington, I haven't argued the underlying merits of Harrington's case[s] (except to the limited extent to respond to Mojambo) --all I've argued (see above) is that judges —all judges— are to be bound by the Rule of Law and not by the whim of the gavel. And, when they depart from that standard, there should be meaningful judicial accountability. Hardly the rantings of a depraved, disgruntled lunatic.
Nottingham's conduct for these past twenty years speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitor) in our legal community. He's a petty tyrant, who applies the "because-I-said-so" doctrine as much as any other legal doctrine or precedent. If you're Joe Nacchio or the U.S. Attorney's Office, you're in luck. If you're an unheard-of nobody, the court is off limits.
Finally, identities in this forum are meaningless. Unless you're going to give up your name & address, too, then let the comments stand on their own merit.
March 14, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
ham writes:
Oh, nuts. Here comes Kay Sieverding again. This should be worth 25 or 30 posts. You have the floor, Kay.........
March 14, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
All hail, Kay. I'm outta here . . .
March 14, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
kc02 writes:
Run for your lives, people! The forum is about to be taken over by one bitter, bitter woman....
So, Kay! What's new?
March 14, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
No, I'm not Sean Harrington. But I am familiar with the facts of the case.
Can you prove to us that you aren't "Naughty" Nottingham, Cel? Who we are is not important.
Sure, I cut and pasted from the complaints. Big, fat hairy! It's a lot easier than rewriting things. Proving the case that Naughty has violated his oath is far more important than degenerating into personal attacks like Cel has.
The Bush DoJ is corrupt. The facts speak for themselves.
And I'm out of here. Kay has the floor.
March 14, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Write writes:
mojambo speaks mojumbo!
Sounds to me like mojambo is a disgruntled attorney; since Harrington won the appeal.
:D
March 14, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
Good Looking!!
March 15, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobertGartner writes:
Sean Harrington, who brought this complaint, has done a great work.
I hope this affect those who go before judges who deal with issues of custody for their children. We should all acknowledge the modern day halocaust, the destruction of the child and its parents via family courts, child support collection, child protection agencies, etc.
Every child needs a mother and a father. And should be on an equal basis.
Robert Gartner
Houston, Texas
March 15, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
There is an important distinction here. In reviewing the Harrington case (which, frankly, is not central to the Nottingham issue and the issue of judicial accountability), the case was not about custody whatever, notwithstanding language contained in the 10th Cir. opinion in 06-1418 (rev's in part; aff'd in part). It was a damages case against the mother, who fled the state with the child and concealed the child from Harrington for 2+ years.
.
Although Harrington "alleged" in his original complaint and repeatedly explained in subsequent briefs that the underlying case was not about custody and, although none of the relief he sought in federal court had anything to do with custody, it was far more expedient for the Tenth Circuit judge, Michael McConnell, to mischaracterize it as a custody case, so that it could be dismissed under the so-called "domestic exception to diversity jurisdiction" (recently discussed and re-rejected in the Supreme Court Anna Nicole Smith case, captioned Marshall v. Marshall).
.
The briefs in the underlying case are here: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
.
However, as noted above, what's really at issue here is the disparate treatment that no-name litigants have by judges (like Nottingham) in our two-track federal court system; the public's growing disgust with the lack of judicial accountability (and Sandra Day O'Connor telling us that we all need civic lessons to learn about judicial independence); and the fact that many lifetime-appointed federal judges have grown so out of touch with reality, that they've become a law unto themselves in their own minds. This latter point, of course, seems to explain Nottingham's conduct, in my opinion.
March 15, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Maybe we should tie a Knot-in-the-guys-ham, and cure his ailment!
March 15, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
CBS News interview with Harrington (re: Nottingham) just posted at: http://cbs4denver.com/local/Edward.No... (video on right-hand side of screen).
March 16, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
for the record, Harrington has not won any appeals. Having costs reduced, but not eliminated, is by no means a victory.
March 16, 2008
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Kay, your attempt to "unmask" people's identities in these fora (like a Scooby Doo episode) does nothing to advance your cause. No one wants to read your diatribes about your case. Rather, everyone has tired of how you take over every blog and forum from gardening to law subjects with non-sensical dissertations about your case. Despite the fact that you allegedly graduated from MIT, you've learned nothing about basic legal concepts during the x years that you've been endlessly litigating. It has become quite clear that you are not employed and, instead, spend all day sitting in front of your PC trolling the blogs from coast to coast.
Bar associations are private volunteer organizations that owe no duty of care to you, me, the general public or anyone else other than, perhaps, their members. (Incidentally, this is not legal advice). Moreover, this particular forum is not a discussion about bar associations, insurance company conspiracies or your numerous frivolous, poorly drafted, poorly prosecuted, failed, and dismissed cases.
For example, you filed a complaint against Nottingham. (http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...) Rather than follow the rules and file it with the Circuit Executive, you filed it in your district court case, giving Nottingham the opportunity to deny it (which he did). Perhaps, you believe that he should have informed you of the correct procedure (arguably, dispensing legal advice and advocating for one side)? And, according to your numerous frivolous complaints filed with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (e.g., http://www.knowyourcourts.com/CARC/co...), you believe that opposing counsel was supposed to inform you of the process, rather than be there to represent and advocate for their client?
Kindly, please dry up and go away.
March 16, 2008
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Reply to Mojambo: For the record, Harrington has "won" the following appeals:
_________________
03CA1825, Colorado Court of Appeals, Marriage of Harrington (Reversed in Part, Affirmed in Part, Dismissed in Part, Case Remanded with Instructions), avail. at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
04CA1161, Colorado Court of Appeals, Marriage of Harrington (Order Reversed and Case Remanded with Instructions), avail. at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
04CA1986, Colorado Court of Appeals, Marriage of Harrington (Order vacated and case remanded with instructions) avail. at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
06-1418, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Harrington v. Wilson (Affirmed in Part, Reversed in part, remanded with instructions), avail. at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
Not sure how you, Mojambo, define "Won," but an order or judgement that is "reversed" or "vacated" means won.
Someone above said that you sound like a lawyer, who's sore about it? Maybe Madeline Wilson? http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Wilson/...
March 16, 2008
7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Kay, you missed the part where I mentioned: " . . .this particular forum is not a discussion about bar associations, insurance company conspiracies or your numerous frivolous, poorly drafted, poorly prosecuted, failed, and dismissed cases."
The title of the article is, "Complaint vs. judge probed: Whether Nottingham tarred office is taken under advisement"; not "Insurance companies conspire with attorneys to deprive Steamboat Springs woman of due process."
March 16, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Kay,
Your Supreme Court "motion" isn't a story. It's most likely a petition on the fast track to be denied, along with the other 99.2% of petitions to the Supreme Court (even less for pro se briefs -- see Kevin. H. Smith, Justice for all? The Supreme Court's denial of pro se petitions for certiorari, 63 Albany L. Rev. 381 (1999)).
Because you persist in rambling about insurance company conspiracies, I'm checking out of this discussion, as everyone else did when you made your entrance.
-Pete
March 17, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
RobinHood writes:
Maybe it's just me, Mojambo, but the fact that Harrington won his appeals seems to be prima facie evidence that he is not abusing the system.
March 17, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
So what did you "win?" Certainly not custody of your child.
Hang on to whatever you deem to be the scant "victories" you claim to have attained. It's all you've got left.
March 17, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
What did Harrington win? Not custody? Serves him right, eh!?
But, hold on, Mojambo (or Wilson or Huff) --maybe you're wrong about that, too? See http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring...
It's okay. Don't feel bad too bad. Many attorneys experience difficulty admitting when they're wrong. You're not alone.
-Pete
March 17, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Interesting conversation you're having with yourself.
Like I said, if playing a shell game with costs is a win, more power to you.
Why don't you come out hiding?
March 17, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Mojambo (or should I say Sherlock Holmes, you having believed that you know who everyone is on here and who's a sock-puppet for me or someone else):
Your some piece of work: First defending Edward Nottingham; then taking joy in the fact that a little girl was concealed from and denied access from her father.
You want me to "Come out of hiding?" Let me ask, where are you hiding from there on the TCI network at IP address 198.178.8.81? Surprised? Visit http://whatismyipaddress.com/
March 17, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Sherlock Holmes, I'm not. Simply smart enough to see through the ramblings of a very crazy man.
Not at all surprised. Nor am I surprised that you don't have many hits on your site.
March 17, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Yeah, Okay, then. I'm rubber; you're glue . . .
It's like trying to reason with Kay. Oh wait. Maybe you're Kay?
March 18, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jws3 writes:
“The objections themselves are spread over 2,610 pages, and the exhibits occupy an additional sixty pages.”
2670 pages! The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is about 2700 pages, War and Peace goes to about 1500 and Gone With The Wind is 1037 pages with almost 74,000 words. Yes, I know, smaller print, but also smaller pages.
The decision in the Nacchio case is 74 pages and about 19,000 words, all double spaced. That’s about 250 words per page. So Harrington takes 2670 pages. Assuming it’s all double spaced, that’s 667,500 words – almost exactly 9 times as many as Gone With The Wind. Does he really think the judge has no other cases and has time to read all that?
The appeal is at: http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live....
March 18, 2008
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Dude, it wasn't 2,610 pages (read earlier comments above). It was a 68-page brief, 1.5 line spaced. The "2,610 pages" number comes because the it was filed as a hyperlinked brief (see http://www.answers.com/topic/electron..., which I wrote, in part). This is a legal brief, where all the cases, authorities, exhibits and trial court documents are hyperlinked and self-contained on a CD. The linked information is not counted as part of the page limit.
However, the federal court's ECF system, at that time, didn't (and, perhaps, still doesn't) handle CD-ROM copies of briefs and doesn't allow Acrobat embedded attachments. Consequently, in ECF, you have to attach all the linked material to the back-end of your brief and the links go to whichever page in the material. Those attachments are NOT considered part of the page count. (See § X(C) of ver. 2 of the D.Colo. ECF Procedures)
Moreover, the final digital brief was 22MB. However, the ECF system doesn't take documents >2MB and *requires* the filer to split them up into separate filings, which Harrington did.
Harrington even consulted with the district's ECF project manager, who encouraged him to file the digital brief, noting that not many lawyers had done so and that they'd like to see the technology utilized.
Now, Nottingham, who purportedly had time to surf AdultFriendFinder.com from chambers, which I assume has LOTS of hyperlinks, and Nottingham, who once was the Chairman of the federal court's Committee on Automation and Technology, couldn't seem to figure out how to navigate a digital brief filed in ECF, because he didn't bother. This is the same Nottingham, who has no patience for lawyers or litigants in the courtroom. The same Nottingham, who allegeldy told Jean Elliot to get out of the way or he was going to call the U.S. Marshalls out b/c he's a federal judge. The same Nottingham who refused to read Harrington's brief in derogation of the federal Rule requiring him to do so (72(b)) even after he refiled it as a regular non-hyperlinked brief.
Bottom line is, he's reported to have time to surf porn from chambers, but doesn't have time to read briefs (except Nacchio's attorneys)?
Please, it's okay to have an opinion, but get your facts straight before forming and expressing it.
March 18, 2008
6:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
P.S. --if you're a lawyer, this subject is discussed at length in David Master's book, Acrobat for Lawyers, published by the ABA's Practice Management Section. (http://www.pdfforlawyers.com/2004/12/...). One Colorado company that specializes in providing e-brief services for lawyers is http://attyClientPriv.com
In fact, I shared some tips with Masters, who is an attorney out on the Western Slope, which I expect went in to one of his later editions of the book. Masters, who didn't know about the ability to embed hyperlinked material as hidden attachments, lamented that he filed electronic briefs at the district court level and became frustrated with clerks, who were printing out not only the core brief, but also all the hyperlinked material. Same type of problem.
All Nottingham had to do was read page one of the brief, which contained a concise explaination that he should disregard the appended pages at the back end of the electronic brief. All it took was a mouse click or two and he didn't even have time for that. Imagine if this was your case, your life, your money and this is the level of attention-to-detail you get from a federal judge, now paid at $231K a year and still crying about how poorly they're compensated.
March 18, 2008
10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
No, Kay, I don't. Nottingham's conduct is governed by the hortarory judicial canons, not the Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs attorneys practicing law in this state. Your cut-and-pasting of case law regarding the Rules of Professional Conduct is irrelevant and does nothing to add to the discussion of Nottingham's conduct. Please see the invitation (above) to dry up and go away. Maybe someone on the remote control monster trucks forum would be more interested in your case law compilations.
March 18, 2008
10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Check that prev. comment. I just recalled that [former judge] Grafton Biddle was prosecuted by the OARC under the Rules of Professional Conduct, after he resigned his post. Maybe an attorney with expertise in this area can clarify, are the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to active judges? I seem to think they're not. However, would a complainant be able to file a complaint within the five-year statute of limitations (presumably under the catchall Rule 8.4) if the judge had resigned within that time?
March 19, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
No, Kay, you complained about stuff like opposing counsel not advising you of your rights or preventing purported deprivations of due process. See http://www.knowyourcourts.com/CARC/co... You even threatened one lawyer, if I recall the story correctly, who helped you pro bono. You're ungrateful and, in my view, sorely misguided about these matters. You turn on both friend and foe and either (often unsuccessfully) attempt to expose their identities on blogs or sue them (e.g., as you did with ColoradoPols, recently).