An awful lot of interest in personal life of Judge Nottingham
This letter has not been edited
Mimi Ryun, Northglenn
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I would like to know why the RMNews decided to report on a story about prostitutes being chauffeured around town to different clients and the only name printed was that of Judge Edward Nottingham’s and no others?
Since Joe Nacchio’s name was mentioned in the article one can’t help wonder if, along with the story of the Judge being in a strip club, isn’t an attempt to discredit the Judge so perhaps their conviction could be determined a mis-trial, could it? There seems an awful lot of interest in the personal life of Judge Nottingham.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
March 19, 2008
8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rocco3454 writes:
I think it is a variety of the 'hypocrite syndrome' Mimi - similar to the media's - and the public's prurient interest in Governor Spitzer's downfall. When Nottingham was found to have frequented strip bars he bailed on his own 'human weaknesses and foibles' which is fine and dandy and true but 1) Judges are among those society holds to a higher standard and 2) He's probably tossed hundreds of men and women in jail even though they certainly would like to claim the same weaknesses in their defence. He's known to be a harsh judge with little give or sympathy and known for pompous holier-than-though sermons before sentencing.
March 20, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
Anytime you look at any story people will be there with various related interests. There is only so much you can get into one story. Judge Nottingham's sex related activities became public thru his divorce and the FBI was originally called in because of the involvement of his government computer and government work place.
Unfortunately, my life was derailed when my family's civil lawsuit was assigned to Judge Nottingham. It was the most awful experience you could possibly imagine.
I regularly research Judge Nottingham and related subjects on the InterNet. Recently I saw in several places the idea that the government was retaliating at Nacchio because QWest was alone in resisting some of their warrantless wiretap procedures. I was totally surprised because the first time I read that was very recent. I think it was the WSJ Law Blog or the Washington Post or ABC.
My take on Judge Nottingham is that there might be evidence we don't know. My theory is that behind the scenes insurance companies and law firms have a slush fund for entertainment of this kind.
I saw another Nottingham document labeled "final judgment" on the Internet. It definitely was not a Rule 52a and 54a compatible document. It said these various motions were granted or denied, without stating anything about why, and then there was one paragraph saying the case was dismissed with prejudice but it didn't say why and there is no way to tell what the case was even about. It's filled with references to prior proceedings, and that is not allowed either.
March 20, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Nobody needs "attempt" to discredit this judge. He does that just fine all by himself.
March 20, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Yes, it's true that Kay, "regularly research[es] Judge Nottingham and related subjects on the InterNet." "Regularly" means not daily but *hourly* Apparently, Ms. Sieverding is unemployed and spends literally all day and much of the evening sitting on her duff looking for any forum or blog that might be in any way related to a legal topic, so that she can apostrophize endlessly about her numerous failed cases and perceived (or contrived) conspiracies. Moreover, she babbles on about such topics as finding "another Nottinghma document [that] definitely was not . . . Rule 52a and 54a compatible," as `though any of us would know (or care) what that might mean or what conclusion we should draw therefrom.
March 20, 2008
9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
I don't need to account to " " as to my time or what I sit on. My goals are clear to me and I am working towards them.
What would you think of ECF with fill in the blanks and links that won't work if the various rules are not accommodated? For instance, in order for there to be a rule 11 judgment, there would have to be a rule 11-6 judgment that referenced specific documents and pages and required the filling in of statutes. If a person pled intentional tort, then the ECF computer shouldn't even process a motion to dismiss.
Even if someone wanted to "discredit" Judge Nottingham, they can only do so where he didn't follow the rules. I think it was glaring in both of our cases, how he denied us the right to a defense. I wasn't even criminally accused and he still denied me a defense. What I am wondering is right now if there is someone in jail who shouldn't be there because JN skipped a required step.
March 21, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Kay wrote: "If a person pled intentional tort, then the ECF computer shouldn't even process a motion to dismiss."
Brilliant, Kay. Absolutely brilliant.
This is what Nottingham meant when he described your motions as, "gibberish." This is also an example what opposing counsel meant when they called your motions "incoherent."
I recommend that you buy a basic textbook on Civil Procedure at your local half-price book store there in Wisconsin.
March 21, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
It is always a pleasure to blog with " ". In Wisconsin, where I live now, there is a numbered code for intentional tort. There is also the concept of "prima facie tort" which I understand means the same thing--an intentional hurt.
I like West Law a lot. In 2005 they published a new Hornbook textbook on civil procedure. It discusses misuse of Rule 12 6 b.
As an example of how ECF could control procedure to save time and advance a decision on the merits, consider my case 02-1950. Before my family filed that case, we filed multiple versions of my complaint and didn't serve them. That was because we kept rewriting the complaint trying to make it better in various ways. When my husband and I were simultaneously working on it, it got really really long and then we were trying to shorten it. The defense filed no documents. All that happened is that I paid $150 four times and we used a lot of paper and toner.
The defendants in 02-1950 filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim that stated that our lawsuit should be dismissed as "res judicata". They did not say that "x" was decided by a jury on "date". The Supreme Court said that a rule 41 withdrawal, (starting over by the plaintiff) doesn't cause claims preclusion. (Semtek v. Martin Lockheed 2002). We never had an oral hearing about the res judicata issue. In my related case in D.C., the judge claimed that an unheard motion related to income tax evasion by an insurance company caused res judicata to an unlawful imprisonment claim.
Res judicata is an affirmative defense. The ECF system could be programed so that if a defendant wanted to plead res judicata they would have to enter a case number, attach a judgment, and direct the parties to the page number and the paragraph in which the issues were addressed.
I have no idea what Judge Nottingham meant when he said my motions were gibberish. He never gave an example. Nor was my defense counsel specific in whatever they might have meant by calling my motions "incoherent". They didn't file motions for a more definite statement.
I am sorry that " " thinks I am intellectually inadequate but I do the best I can. At least " " can enjoy himself by demonstrating "his" intellectual capacity.
March 22, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
Kay Sieverding wrote, "I have no idea what Judge Nottingham meant when he said my motions were gibberish."
I provided you with an idea (see prev. comment).
March 23, 2008
12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
peteSmith writes:
New story just posted at http://knowYourCourts.com Apparently, Nottingham's womanizing can be traced all the way back to his first years on the federal bench:
_________________
"Early this afternoon, I tracked down one Colorado attorney, who has some interesting "history" with our jurist sensation, Edward Nottingham. Joe Losavio, now retired in Lenno on beautiful Lake Como in Italy, is currently visiting the States and consented to be quoted for this story.
"Losavio reminisced about several experiences with Nottingham: On a Friday, April 26, 1991, the last day of a trial in Settle v. Centel Electric Corp., a stately tall blonde came into the courtroom. Nottingham stopped the proceedings, scribbled something on a Post-it 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.
"In that same case, Losavio recalled that Nottingham refused to cause the clerk record the jury's $l72,465 verdict, a purely ministerial act. Losavio repeatedly followed-up with the clerk in an effort to get the judgment entered. Losavio's client, Don Settle, filed a judicial misconduct complaint (which, of course, was eventually dismissed). Nottingham issued a written response in which, Losavio claims, he accosted Losavio for his persistence.
"I also spoke with Losavio's client, Don Settle. Settle, who witnessed the passing of the note, says that he lost approximately $50K 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 want to create that particular precedent in at-will employee discharge suits. As a result, the jury's verdict was never entered."
March 24, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
AP has reported "Detroit Mayor Charged with Perjury" see
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/detroit-...
so Judge Nottingham is not the only public official whose extracurricular sex life is under scrutiny
"Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, here in February, was charged with 12 counts, including perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct in office...could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted..."The justice system has been severely mocked and the public trust trampled on. ... This case is about as far from being a private matter as one can get...Perjury is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But for Kilpatrick, a conviction also would mean his immediate expulsion from office. The Detroit City Charter calls for any elected official convicted of a felony while in office to be removed...In court, Kilpatrick and Beatty denied having an intimate relationship, but the text messages reveal that they carried on a flirty, sometimes sexually explicit dialogue about where to meet and how to conceal their trysts."