Judge's conduct troubles senator

Posted by MarineGrunt on March 28, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Man... bang one hooker and your labeled for life!

Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 28, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does this not violate the "Separation of Powers" in the Constitution? One congressman can not launch against a sitting judge. Salazar is indeed as arrogant as any in the congress.
If Salazar is worried about morality in public servants he should be looking at Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Larry Craig, et.al.

Posted by Ted_in_Vegas on March 28, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No violation of Separation of Powers, pajamas, as the process to determine whether or not to impeach and prosecute the sitting judge must start in Congress. He wouldn't be the first US District Judge to be impeached...

Posted by Scott on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Federal robed prostitutes (judges) can be impeached by the alcoholic philanderers (congress). I'm not sure if it is the same mechanics as impeaching a president, but the process can be done. Therefore, Salazar is not totally out of line. However, I still wouldn't trust him, a lawyer/politician.

Scott

Posted by peteSmith on March 28, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nottingham's peccadilloes should be the least of the concerns. As recently stated in a 3/24/3008 complaint supplement filed (re: Nottingham):

"Nottingham's misconduct is traceable all the way back to 1991 --shortly after he was appointed to the bench-- yet, nothing was done during these nearly twenty years, while he was abusing his office, injuring litigants and attorneys and embarrassing the federal bench. This has led many to conclude that the only reason the judge is only now being investigated is because his conduct has caught the attention of the media and that, if only he had been more careful in his personal life, he would continue to be given safe harbor." (source: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring... )

See also: Alan Prendergast, More "Naughty" stories about Nottingham (Mar. 24, 2008) ( http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/... )

Let's get one thing straight: For those, who may still regard him as honorable and an "intellectual giant," no one's taking cheap shots at Nottingham simply because his "human foibles" have been untimely exposed. He brought this on himself through his own conduct.

Posted by joeblow on March 28, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PajamaPulitzer....Now you don't want to forget Larry 'Wide Stance' Craig, David Vitter, Rep. Foley and those many other 'elephants' in the room. We wouldn't want to be labeled as a bald-faced hypocrite,now would we?
Incidentally, Senator Salazar's doing the right thing in looking into 'No Sin's' Nottingham. We should expect nothing less from a senator in this matter. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with separation between branches. You're actually talking about separation between church and state. Checks and balances is what you're trying to come up with. We're here to help.
Incidentally, you any relation to Roxanne Pulitzer? Wow! Now that's a walking scandal.

Posted by RobinHood on March 28, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken Sleazier wasn't the slightest bit troubled when Nottingham was defying United States Supreme Court precedents. But one incident with a hooker, and all bets are off....

Posted by LOUIE on March 28, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When it was first revealed several months ago, I gave Mr Nottingham the benifit of the doubt. Now, however, it seems it is more than one momentary lapse of judgement, as his name appears with some degree of frequency with the painted girls. Although not illegal to go to stripclubs, it is illegal to engage prostitution or patronize an illegal profession. Thus, by the very office he holds before the people, his conduct has now become an embarrassment to the people. He had a choice: to be a judge of the people, or be a whoremonger; the judge sadly chose the later. Those who appear before him may one day use it as leverage in matters as they appear before him. As a judge of the people, he had to walk a higher road. Stripclubs and his spending 3000.00 in a night at one I can accept because it is not illegal. Appearing as a client on lists kept by various agencies whose primary function is prostitution is another animal altogether. In the early days of organized crime, sexual orientation, as well as sexual misconduct that deviated outside of wedlock, was often used to the advantage of the criminal world in leveraging the legal system. Coincidently, it was first brought to the public's attention imediately following Mr. Nacchio's trial; but please don't draw any improper inference from this unfortunate timing! I have no qualms about his "paying" visits to the girls for his sexual needs; just can't sit on the bench and serve both the criminal world of prostitution and the system that must prosecute such criminal acts as interstate prostitution, money laundering, etc.. Many of these illegal organizations and enterprises fall well within the federal RICO Act, and if significant enough may involve the federal court for which Mr. Nottingham represents. Can him.

Posted by AC on March 28, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pajama: You have it exactly backward. Separation of powers is precisely for other branches to have checks and balances on each other. It is the legislature's job to have oversight of the executive and judicial, and so one. Salazar's JOB is to do this.

Posted by summitsailor on March 28, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Amnesty should look at his own conduct and how he is not following his oath of office to uphold the laws of the land. He is constantly looking for way to impede the inforcement of our immigration laws and provide more Federal benefits to illegals. The CO taxpayers should seriously look at his record when his term is up.

Posted by mebcaux on March 28, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How curious that Sen. Salazar seems more troubled by Judge Nottingham's relatively trivial misconduct, that raises no serious issues concerning his fitness to serve as a federal judge, than by Judge Robert E. Blackburn's factually, legally, intellectually, and constitutionally unfounded grant to the City of Denver of a new trial after 27-year Denver Firefighter Bill Cadorna and his attorney persuaded a jury of 8 that, in terminating Mr. Cadorna for a crime he did not commit, then refusing to reinstate him because of his age, the City violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and owed him reinstatement and $1.22 million in damages. Could it be that, so long as judges render decisions favorable to Sen. Salazar's political and legal cronies, he is quite indifferent to the question of whether, in doing so, they violate not a puritanical moral code, but their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of these United States? What should really be investigated is the degree of hostility recent appointees to the federal bench, including, but not limited to, Nottingham and Blackburn, routinely display toward average citizens who dare to hope to vindicate their federally protected rights in federal court. This is the real scandal, but those who benefit from this double standard of justice, including the major media and the people or entities who control them, are naturally disinclined to see it investigated or corrected. For further insight, see Alan Prendergast's December 13, 2007 Westword article, "The Big Fix".

Posted by davies on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

$3,000 in one night at a strip club; that must have been one helluva lap dance.

Posted by SASQUATCH on March 28, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me, but why isn't cocaine and bimbo exploiter Dem. Gov. of NY, Gov. Paterson, part of this dialogue? And what about a former Dem. president who got himself impeached and disbarred as a result of being a serial woman abuser, ass-grabber, raper and BJ extractor, all while exposing himself and being a dickey shaker? And Ken, did you ever hear of a Senator Ted Kennedy? What do you think of the famous Sen. Ted Kemmedy/Sen. Chris Dodd "Waitress Sandwich" performed at LaBrasserie?

Posted by JohnHKennedy on March 28, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Salazar says that judges "should not be above the law".

Why then does he not call for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be impeached immediately. Their crimes against the US Constitution are far more serious and simply cannot be ignored.

Both Cheney and Bush have been twisting the US Constitution into a pretzel and Salazar avoids the subject. Where is Salazar's demand that the current bill in the US House of Representatives to Impeach Vice President Dick Cheney be supported (H Res 333)?

Given that all Federal impeachments must start in the House, why hasn't he called for the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Conyers to immediately start Impeachment Hearings? Was Bill Clinton's Monica moment impeachable after all? Was Clinton's weakness public business after all? What about Cheney's many moments?

Given that there are more co-sponsors on H Res 333 than there were on any 1970s bill to impeach Nixon, isn't it time Salazar put his Cowboy Hat behind holding immediate public impeachment hearings?

Doesn't the public deserve to know the truth once and for all about whether Cheney violated the Constitution? Or is impeaching Nottingham really a warning from the Telecom industry that judges who rule against their corrupt leaders will get their comeuppance?

The GOP called for Gov. Spitzer to be impeached for his sexual escapade. Does Salazar's puritanical vendetta against Judge Nottingham put him once again in bed with the Republicans.

Liberals have a long memory and Salazar will face re-election.

John H Kennedy, Denver CO,

..

Posted by LOUIE on March 28, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, I kind of like this democrats verses the republicans and vice-versa; which party doesn't lie or embellish? Yes a 3000.00 dollar strip club visit takes days to wash the smell off. You'd think the Virgin Mary would stop her grinnin' and drop the linen for that kind of dough. As far as politicians go, both parties have been selling America out. I would no more go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in Ted Kennedy's car! This next election doesn't look to promising with either party. We have mister youth and inexperence, running against mister hardening of the arteries, and some dame whose family life makes a wonderful presidential soap opera. I no longer vote along party lines, I vote for who I feel is best able to lead this nation. This election is the saddest group of canidates I've seen in years.

Posted by davies on March 28, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh, golly! Somebody has the name John H Kennedy! Why there's some unquestionable credibility for you! A name!

Louie: "...stop her grinnin' and drop her linen" - LOL

Does anybody remember that SNL skit with Jim Carrey where three guys go nightclubbing and the song playing is 'Baby Don't Hurt Me'? I can just picture the judge, the DA and the defense attorney all jumping up in court to take turns 'badgering the witness'...

Posted by superbad on March 28, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"$3,000 in one night at a strip club; that must have been one helluva lap dance."

No kidding, he could have joined the Emperor's Club for that kind of scratch. He should be impeached just for having such a poor grasp of value for money.

Posted by coloradopatrick1 on March 28, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, gee, Salazar's in Nacchio's back pocket... how transparent...

Posted by NotChasB on March 28, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, I have an idea. Let's legalize prostitution, corruption by Federal Judges and other public officials and parking in handicapped parking spaces. Who does this hurt anyway? They are victimless crimes and they are going to do it anyway.

Shame on you Senator Salazar for talking about "Moral" conduct!!

Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 28, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Democrats; It's only about sex, right?

Posted by timeandagain on March 28, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Salazar is just jealous because he is too much of a tool bag to spend any time at the Diamond...

He can take his lame cowboy hat and stuff it.

Bueno?

Posted by Ender on March 28, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Salazar will pursues this if there is political gain. That's all the wishy/washy senator is about.

Posted by KaySieverding on March 28, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is much more dangerous for a judge to engage in blackmail worthy conduct than for a legislator or a governor because a judge has almost unlimited power over the litigants before him. I think Judge Nottingham is involved with organized crime or a RICO. I blogged on various articles accusing Judge Nottingham of witness intimidation because he repeatedly threatened me and my husband for the stated purpose of deterring and delaying our presentment in court (U.S.C. title 18, Part 1 chapter 73 § 1512(2)). This is a 10 year maximum jail sentence and no one has responded that what Judge Nottingham did to us was not a felony under federal and state law. He also engaged in witness retaliation (U.S.C. title 18, Part 1 chapter 73 § 1513b (1)) by ordering us to pay the insurance lawyers $102,000 without stating a basis in law or a reason for sanctions under rule 11 b 6. He knew that the magistrate had engaged in ex parte conference and that the insurance companies did not file the required information under CRS 10-3-1004 Defense of Action by Unauthorized Insurer. I think the reason why the insurance companies did not file the required brokers reports nor provide copies of the policies is that the policies were purchased after I filed the lawsuit and essentially were a "fix it" service. Four facts especially flag the long reach of the organization, which I think is a RICO: 1.) they somehow took all the money out of all of our bank accounts without any garnishment proceedings 2.) my husband was ordered to appear before a "master" but the motion and order were not in the court dockets 3.) I was extradited from WI to Judge N without the request from Governor Ritter to Governor Doyle and statement of treason or crime required by Title 18 Part II ch 209 § 3182. 4.) The person who ordered me sent to Judge N was just a court clerk Theresa Owens not a magistrate and the hearing was not on the court calendar. Judge N had me manhandled for 22 days and then he said "whoops". I think he should be put in jail for this. see http://www.rightscase.com

Posted by arby on March 28, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey lcdjjxant,

You forgot to throw Viet Nam into your rant. You're losing it man.

Posted by windbourne on March 28, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amazing. Salazar is the man SWORN to uphold the constition. He says that Nottingham's conduct similar to Spitzers. Yet, he votes for immunity for the telcos.
That is, he says that even though the telcos who allowed the DOJ to illegally spy on Americans since BEFORE 9/11, should have immunity.
The guy is not only a whack job for not upholding his pledge, but he is a hypocrite.

BTW, the fact that the spying occurred a year prior to 9/11, says one of several things (or perhaps all of them).
1. Since 9/11 occurred, it says that this was not effective.
2. If they were not doing a good job of listening in on terrorists, then exactly what were they listening on? Everything else.
3. Since ppl like W. push this action, it says that restraints MUST be put on future presidents. For those of you who back W's actions, then imagine it being hilary or obama in there.
4. Since so many dems senators were split on this, it says justice will not occur even in the next session, unless the next pres appoints a real DOJ

Posted by theQ on March 28, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its obvious that the divorce has rattled him....give him a break.

Posted by fatdog on March 29, 2008 at 5:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One might wonder how so many repsected leaders in both major parties and in all manner of professions seem to do just fine until found performing one or more of our 'victimless' crimes. Maybe many of our victimless crimes should not be crimes at all, but only something nice people don't do in public. The consquences of making private actions between consenting adults a crime have mostly made more 'criminals' and done little for the general good. jkd

Posted by KaySieverding on March 29, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prostitution and soliciting prostitutes were made crimes because they were so strongly associated with other crimes including assault, kidnapping, drug use, extortion, and blackmail. My husband and I are working on a petition to be declared crime victims under the Justice For All Act of 2004 because a.) Judge Nottingham committed the crimes of victim intimidation and victim retaliation b.) Those crime were directed towards my husband and me and c.) We were injured. The crime of Victim Intimidation is defined on both federal and state law. The USDOJ criminal division already sent me an email saying that it can be pursued by the state AG also. The email is on our web site at /www.rightcase.com/. My preference is that Judge Nottingham be arrested and prosecuted by the feds for Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation.
As far as 11:20, it sounds from the published accounts of the judge's divorce, that the strip clubs and purchases at the web site to women offering sex tonight were the reason for the judge's divorce, not the cause of it. She was probably worried about getting HIV. When she found out about his activities, she probably didn't trust him. Unlike Mrs. Spritzer, they had no children together for her to protect. Judge N was only married to this wife for two years so it's not as if he married her 20 years ago and then she changed. It sounds like Judge N violated both his marriage contract and his implied employment contract (following the judicial canons). One question is how Judge N could have possibly thought that his improper and illegal acts would never become public. Do you think he has first stage Alzheimer's Disease?
On 20/20 last night there was a portrayal of Daniel Baldwin who claims that he was addicted to cocaine but did absolutely no other drugs. To the best of my knowledge, federal judges are not tested for drug use. One possibility that I never ruled out was that Judge N is a cocaine user. According to Brown University student services "Because cocaine gives the user a sense of power and confidence, users frequently think of themselves as functioning far better than they are". Judge N is 6 years older than I am and when I was in college the impression that I got was that a number of wealthy students in that age group were doing cocaine. He had enough money to use cocaine both as a student and as an adult and some people see powdered cocaine to be an acceptable drug per Freud. I met someone who told me that her father is a lawyer in CO and that he sells cocaine to lawyers and judges.

Posted by KaySieverding on March 29, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry for my typo, not enough coffee. There is evidence of Judge Nottingham's acts of Witness Intimidation on a 3,000 word motion at www.rightscase.com

Posted by peteSmith on March 29, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

theQ wrote: "Its obvious that the divorce has rattled him....give him a break."

Sir, it's is THIRD divorce. How much slack do we cut, here? Twenty years of acting like a child is enough.

Also, I didn't want to say anything, but I was wondering when Kay was going to arrive to take over the forums with her rants about whatever. I'm sure everyone's going to jump over to her Web site, rightsCase.com, to read her 3,000 word motion about "evidence of . . . Witness Intimidation."

Someone please define "witness intimidation" for Kay?

Posted by mebcaux on March 29, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In describing Judge Nottingham's alleged misconduct as "relatively trivial", I did not mean to suggest people should regard it with indifference. I am, however, puzzled that a federal judge is exposed to such scrutiny and humiliation only when he engages in alleged sexual misconduct. Such alleged misconduct, which may or may not reflect adversely on his judicial fitness or performance, cannot possibly be of greater concern than the degree to which he or she scrupulously adheres to his sworn duty to uphold federal statutes and the Constitution, and to preserve and protect the sanctity of the jury system as the only sure protection against despotic abuse of corporate or governmental power. Which is the greater offense by a federal judge, having a peculiar weakness for commercial, anomic sexual titillation, or routinely wiping his ass with the First, Fourth, or Seventh Amendments, or with a variety of federal statutes? Yet, neither the press, nor politicians or their corporate or governmental masters who benefit from the status quo, pounce with comparable fervor on these much greater offenses.

Posted by rg on March 29, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Naughty is a hamburger lawyer appointed to the Bench; he is not a Jimmy Carter who only lusts in his heart; Naughty is not the Vatican's chief celibate; Naughty is not a Haggard or Haggard's successor who mounts only his wife and enjoys it and is therefore sinning because the pope says to enjoy sex is to sin. Hey! Jesus Christ hung out with a hooker and made his own spirit out of water. What a joy: Your own private hooker, your own wine: Lord give me Christianity. Let me emulate the transmogrified "jew;" Everyone reading this send me a dollar ($20,000) so I can spend one hour with Katie Couric. Richard Grimes, Deicide. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

Posted by LOUIE on March 29, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If your going to accept the position as a standard bearer of society, and the administration of it laws, you will be required to observe the highest conduct, as to be above reproach in character and judgements. Personally speaking, and having known many judges, it is a very high road they are required to walk. To lower that standard, is to lower the standard of the administration of justice in the eyes of the people who are summoned to submit to it entrusted powers. It's a high standard the people ask of those who hold that trust; I suggest you not ask for this position unless you are willing to abide by the conduct the people you serve will require of you. As a felon, I may not like the judge or his judgements, but the standard he establishes in the execution of his office, I, by the country I love, must have respect for. A judge earns that respect by the decorum he establishes in all matters of character, both on and off the bench. I for one, being a lay person and citizen of this country, can only bow my head and accept the judge's decision of my fate. I require, if I bestow this power, that this person who holds that trust be above reproach in all facets of his character, as long as he holds this unique postion of judgement over his fellow countryman. To serve your country as a judge, is great honor to carry, Mr. Nottingham wishes to lead another life by his actions.

Posted by LutheranWoman on March 29, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Pete Smith
"Section 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings....Although the former law protected witnesses, parties, and informants, it was unclear whether that law reached the intimidation of third parties (for example, the spouse of a witness) for the purpose of intimidating the principal party. Section § 1512 of Title 18 plainly covers such conduct, for it speaks of conduct directed toward "another person."...Section 1512 protects potential as well as actual witnesses. With the addition of the words "any person," it is clear that a witness is "one who knew or was expected to know material facts and was expected to testify to them before pending judicial proceedings."...Section 1512 of Title 18 contains two significant additions to the types of tampering barred by Federal law. First, it forbids "misleading conduct," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. Such conduct was not covered in those circuits that had narrowly construed the omnibus clauses of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505 under the rule of ejusdem generis. See United States v. Metcalf, 435 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1969). see generally, 128 Cong. Rec. H8203 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982). Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 makes intentional harassment a misdemeanor. This offense is intended to reach conduct less egregious than the corrupt, threatening or forceful conduct required for a violation of former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505. Harassing conduct has been defined as that intended to badger, disturb or pester. Wilson, supra." US DOJ Criminal resource manual 1729 Protection of Government Processes http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_...
On /www.rightscase.com/ David and Kay Sieverding quote Judge Nottingham as threatening and harassing them for their potential filings in a civil action. Sounds like Witness Intimidation as defined by this DOJ manual. Sounds like Judge N could get some serious punishment for engaging in Witness Intimidation of the Sieverdings.

Posted by KaySieverding on March 30, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I checked the Internet for Judge Nottingham's lawyer, Stephen Peters, and found that he is a one man firm listing only one category of defense "white collar crimes". Since when is hiring prostitutes a "white collar crime"? Is Peters the kind of lawyer most "johns" would hire? I don't think so. For one thing Attorney Peters looks really expensive given that procuring a prostitute is a misdemeanor isn't it? The FBI web site says that the term "white collar crime" is "synonymous with the full range of frauds committed by business and government professionals".
http://www.fbi.gov/whitecollarcrime.htm/ The FBI writes "Public Corruption is a national priority within the White Collar Crime Program." The other categories of white collar crime listed by the FBI are money laundering, mass marketing fraud, insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, corporate fraud, securities fraud and identify theft. Do you think Judge N is involved with securities fraud, money laundering etc.? If not, then he must have picked Peters as a lawyer because he is anticipating prosecution for 'public corruption'. The FBI says "Public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. Why? Because of its impact on our democracy and national security. Public corruption can affect everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts..."
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/pubcorrupt/...
So since he hired a "white collar crime" specialist as a lawyer, it sounds like Judge Nottingham is anticipating being charged with some form of obstruction of justice doesn't it? I really hope Judge Nottingham is arrested, charged and goes to jail for witness intimidation and deprivation of rights under collar of law.

Posted by jvb on March 31, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps it is time to amend so that federal judges are appointed for ten years and reappointed as as their conduct mandates.

Posted by KaySieverding on March 31, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The idea of life-time appointment was to make judges resistant to political pressure but that goal could be obtained by just paying them, having some sort of guarantee. I wonder if some of the judges might have Early Onset Alzheimer's. Per the Mayo clinic: "It is more common to see someone in their 50s who has the disease.... problems emerging at work or home may be mistakenly ascribed to lack of motivation or diligence, or possible psychiatric problems..." The judge could also be an alcoholic, consistent with his not remembering how he spent $3,000 at the strip club. Or he could be addicted to or withdrawing from anti depressants or pain killers. Maybe he hurt his back skiing in Vail and started taking pain killers like Oxytocin .... I bet there are no public records of his health and that he never had a test for use of illegal or unauthorized drugs.

Posted by JaneDoe on April 1, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's get this straight lcdrjjxant, Judge Nottingham sentenced Benny Baily a fed cop for criminal conduct for being a womanizer and liar and your mad at the judge. Cop Baily didn't lose anything but 3 months in a comfy fed prison camp and the authority to use his position to intimidate white women? You feeling sorry for that fed cop is pathetic. You should feel sorry for cop baily's wife and kids having to deal with his sad and sexually deviant behaviour. At least the judge wasn't married at the time of this very questionable investigation. Get your sad and pathetic life together and stop feeling sorry for a man who doesn't deserve the time of day for his abusive acts.

Posted by rg on April 1, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As mentioned, Icd..., I read your comments; however, JaneDoe, is on the mark. You kind of remind me of Rev. Wright with his g-damn America which is perhaps a sentiment shared by the Native American and Mexico who lost the entire Southwest to Manifest Destiny. Rev. Wright is building a house in excess of $million and you enjoy a generous pension from America; yet, both of you damn America. You are turned down for a small business loan. I am confident you would not pay it back since you are judgment proof. Richard Grimes, deicide. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

Deicide Corner: “We need not take refuge in supernatural gods to explain our saints and sages and heroes and statesmen, as if to explain our disbelief that mere unaided human beings could be that good or wise.” -- A H. Maslow

Posted by KaySieverding on April 1, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/Febr...
says that Benny Bailey, former Deputy U.S. Marshal was convicted of perjury. Perjury was also given as the reason for the recent arrest of the mayor of Detroit, who also lied about his affair.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/...
We don't know whether Judge Nottingham visited prostitutes while he was married but the 9 News Coverage of his divorce reported that in his office in the Federal Court House, Judge Nottingham showed his then wife a paid web site with nude and revealing shots of women linking to local women wanting sex tonight and that while married he spent $3,000 on one occasion in a strip club.
I suspect that Judge Nottingham did not on his own know how to/where to purchase expensive call girls and that his use of prostitutes was facilitated by attorneys appearing before him. I continue to wonder about his possibly using cocaine, but that is just a hunch on my part (but consistent with known facts). I hope the FBI warrant for emails to the brothel produces the lawyers' email addresses and references to services for Judge Nottingham and I hope they subpoena the credit card and expense account records of various lawyers appearing before Judge Nottingham. I totally believe that the threats and violence against me by Judge Edward Nottingham, Christopher Beall, and David Brougham were criminal Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation as defined by the United States Criminal Code sections 1512 and 1513. The web site of the U.S. Department of Justice is clear that any form of harassment designed to deter or delay or retaliate for presentation in civil actions as well as criminal actions is a form of the crime.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_...
I posted using my own name with links to my web site (which has my phone number, address, and email) at
http://www.rightscase.com/
on recent RMN articles about Judge Nottingham accusing him and the defense counsel (Christopher Beall and David Brougham) of criminal acts of Witness Retaliation and Witness Intimidation and have not received any communications from anyone representing them that he or she does not believe that the threats and retaliation by Judge Edward Nottingham, Christopher Beall, David Brougham etc. were not criminal acts.
If the government were to arrest Judge Nottingham for Witness Intimidation and Witness Retaliation of my husband and myself perhaps he will implicate the various lawyers. Since Dickie Scruggs and his associates recently pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a judge (for $40,000) and there are many complaints about the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel procedures, why should we assume that our Denver lawyers are honest?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/14/b...
A more honest court system will benefit readers of the Rocky Mountain News.