Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Nottingham on the hot seat

Rocky Mountain News

Published October 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

If U.S. District Chief Judge Edward Nottingham resigns from the bench as expected in order to defuse a sex scandal, it will be a serious punishment in and of itself for the 60-year-old. But Nottingham will nevertheless have gotten off easy if in fact he attempted - as 9News first reported Thursday - to get a former prostitute to lie about their relationship in order to thwart a probe into his conduct by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's hard to think of anything more dangerous to the rule of law than brazen attempts to obstruct justice through cajoling or threatening witnesses into misrepresenting the truth. Like other powerful men before him, Nottingham - if the reports are true and he resigns - will have been a casualty not of the original misconduct so much as the attempted coverup.

It's not that we're suggesting it's just fine for a federal judge to hang out with prostitutes and to pay for sex. The former is unseemly for a person in his position and the latter is illegal. If a judge has a problem obeying a particular law then he shouldn't be a judge. Consorting with prostitutes is especially risky for someone in a judge's position because of the obvious potential for blackmail - and for pressure to be brought to bear for him to rule in a particular way.

Still, paying a prostitute - even for as many times over two years as Nottingham is said to have seen this employee of the escort service Bada Bing Denver - would pale in comparison with any attempt to get her to lie to investigators.

"It just seems ridiculous that someone in his position would ask someone to lie," the former prostitute told 9News. "He's there to uphold the law and he's breaking it."

Back in April, we expressed concern that a complaint pending before the appeals court might result in a sanction against Nottingham that was never made public. That would have been the case if the sanction were a slap on the wrist - or indeed anything short of a referral for impeachment. At that time, the investigation appeared related only to his possible association with prostitutes since his name and cell-phone number, again according to 9News, had appeared on a client list seized during a federal raid of Denver Players, a prostitution ring.

But a wrist slap for asking someone to lie to investigators was never likely - hence, presumably, the likelihood that Nottingham's career as a judge is at an end.

New guidelines for disclosure of sanctions against judges that took effect in April require any complaint that results in a serious penalty - such as a reduction in caseload or a request that a judge retire - be made public. Yet what if the judge in trouble pre-empts any possible penalty by resigning before it is imposed? Will we ever know the full story if Nottingham steps down?

We should. The man is a powerful figure who has tried many high-profile cases and who has vocally insisted, quite properly, that others abide by the law. If investigators concluded that he was simultaneously flouting the law - and then conspired to hide that fact from them - those who appeared in his courtroom deserve to know.

Comments

  • October 18, 2008

    9:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    If what you say is true, Kay, than Colorado needs a few more HANGING judges until these protectors of (out)law and (dis)order get the message.

    Boulder has a few trees and a few judges that we can use to test this theory...8-/...

  • October 18, 2008

    5:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peteSmith writes:

    Problem here is, as you say, the new rules provide for some *limited* public disclosure. But, what about the last twenty years that *other* complaints have been filed --covered up by the Tenth Circuit's shroud of secrecy-- which were indicative of Nottingham's proclivity to abuse power and womanize from the bench? One reporter described it to me as "Keeping the crazy uncle up in the attack." We've collected several of these complaints, including one dating back to 1992, that anchors the conduct way in the past. http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Notting...

    Moreover, remember those Westword articles on him in '94 and '95? We've collected those there, too. Yet, no one raised much a fuss back then because --after all-- he was considered a "brilliant intellectual" on the bench, so eccentric despotic behavior was tolerated.

    We get what we deserve. Twenty years of paying this guy $130K or whatever and now must question the propriety of his judgments going back in time.

    Maybe now's the time to turn our eye towards Blackburn, Daniel and the others on the bench (and the cabal of magistrates) and to convey the message to the newcomers (Brimmer, et al.) that we expect a higher standard of conduct. And we will be watching closely.

  • October 19, 2008

    9:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bouldergeist writes:

    Nothing is said about the quality of Judge N's decisions on the bench, which is nothing short of abysmal. As Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix reportedly confessed:

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

    Pl.’s Mot. For Recusal of Judge Nottingham Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §144 and §455(a) and (b)(1) [Dkt. #59], Phillips v. Pepsi Bottling Group, No. 05-cv-01322-EWN-KLM (filed Nov. 1, 2007) at 2.

    While obstruction of justice is a serious matter, few matters are more serious than a judge refusing to hear a legitimate claim. Chief Justice Marshall described it as “treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 16 U.S. 264, 404 (1821). To be ‘shut out of court’ is to be deprived of every right appurtenant to citizenship, intolerable in a nation that presumes to be governed by the rule of law. See e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    This is the scandal the Rocky won't touch.

  • October 23, 2008

    11:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dikshenari writes:

    Let's not forget that this imperious, hypocritical, indictably criminal, and lecherous swine got his job by being instrumental in George the Greater's successful election campaign on the Western Slope, notwithstanding his mediocre reputation as a "family lawyer." As far as intellect, jurisprudential and otherwise, he doesn't match up to a used tissue from Judge Matsch.