“Absent a specific statutory provision authorizing or precluding judicial review, a contention that the Attorney General was maintaining or disseminating criminal records in violation of law would be cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. (APA), in a suit brought by a person aggrieved by the alleged violation.”
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2007/0responses/2007-0072.resp.html

My draft questions on appeal are:

1.) Does the First Amendment limit restraints against PRO SE speech?
2.) Is there an exemption from the NonDetention Act, 18 USC § 4001, for the detentions and threats that the United States Department of Justice inflicted on the appellants?
3.) When arrest and detention is accomplished without a criminal charge, and systems of records are used, is there remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act?
4.) If either Mr. or Mrs. Sieverding does not have remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act, is there remedy under 42 USC § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror?
5.) Is DOJ required by the Administrative Procedure Act to make annual reports to OMB and the public?

I found these really great 1st Amendment arguments in recent S.C. decisions:

Since its enactment, the First Amendment has permitted restrictions on a few historic categories of speech—including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct—that “have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572. …. The Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, distinguished. Pp. 5–9. US. v. Stevens No. 08-769 (U.S. 04/20/2010)

Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy — it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people — political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion…. (1) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 (U.S. 01/21/2010)

Content-based restrictions on speech are “presumptively invalid” and subject to strict scrutiny.” Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U. S. 177, ___. Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 129 S.Ct. 1093 (U.S. 02/24/2009).

The NO PRO SE order DOJ used jail to uphold was content based so it was subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Strict scrutiny arises in two basic contexts: when a “fundamental” constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a “suspect classification” such as race or, sometimes, national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

In 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the right “to maintain actions in the courts of the state” is a fundamental right and cannot be overridden by judicial decision:

“It is not necessary to fully enumerate the privileges and immunities
secured against hostile discrimination by the constitutional provision in
question. All agree that among such privileges and immunities are those
which, under our institutions, are fundamental in their nature… Among the
particular privileges and immunities which are clearly to be deemed
fundamental, the court in that case specifies the right ‘to institute and
maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state.’… in Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418-430, 20 L. ed. 449-452, the court, after referring to Corfield v. Coryell, above cited, and speaking by Mr. Justice Clifford, stated that the right ‘to maintain actions in the courts of the state’ was fundamental…The final judgment in this case therefore denies a
fundamental right inherent in citizenship, and protected by 2 of article 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it would not be supreme if any right given by it could be overridden either by state enactment or by judicial decision.” CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE &
O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907)

There are two other factual developments in my case. One is that the original person I sued, my former neighbor Kevin Bennett, president of the city council of steamboat springs CO admitted that he pled guilty to conspiracy to sell has but didn’t disclose it when he was in office and the police reported to him. This is relevant because the NO PRO SE recommendation was made on the basis that I had suggested in 2003 he was involved with drug dealing. The attorney bills show discussion with the city attorney about Bennett’s NCIC records in 2003 so they knew I was right about that.
http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/

Another itemization in the attorney bills is “confer with CBA and attorney general regarding NCIC records on Bennett”. The Attorney General of Colorado at the time was Ken Salazar. There are a lot of references in the attorney bills to conferring with the attorney general. I had sued a state of Colorado employee in capacity but instead of a state employee defending her, she was defended by Bennett’s attorney who was billing Lloyds of London and Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency. I had filed an open records request for CIRSA’s claims handling policies which are required annually to be filed with the state division of insurance. See CRS CRS 24-10-115.5 (5) “The commissioner of insurance, or any person authorized by him, shall conduct an insurance examination at least once a year to determine that proper underwriting techniques and sound funding, loss reserves, and claims procedures are being followed.” The state said it didn’t have the reports and the attorney bills itemize discussions with the State of Colorado insurance commissioner and with Salazar. So my experience is related to the Gulf Oil Spill since Salazar ignored regulations when he was State of CO Attorney General and this is itemized in the verified attorney bills on file in the 10th Circuit as well as the District of CO 02-cv-1950 document 465.

In my original lawsuit, I believed that I had standing against the bar associations because over 100 lawyers knew that I had been extorted but did nothing. http://www.rightscase.com/02-1950%20effective%20pleading.pdf The bar associations must have believed that too and that’s why they wouldn’t let the underlying events be acknowledged.

Anyway, I filed a lawsuit for damages under the Privacy Act 5 USC section 552a against USDOJ because USMS used its prisoner tracking records to imprison me without a use they acknowledged to Congress. To Congress they claim that the PTS system is used to detain people accused of or convicted of federal offenses, not random people that judges don’t like, or people that try to get a hearing in a different court.

I probably should have just left my case when I filed for summary judgment so there would be less for Judge Bates to read. However, I found out that USDOJ never filed the reports with OMB required by 5 USC section 552a(u). I do want to engage in other pro se litigation and I am afraid that USMS will harass me if I do. So I filed a motion to get a copy of the required reports. USDOJ opposed that motion. The reports that are required are supposed to include complaints that USDOJ used its computer records in unauthorized ways and what USDOJ did when receiving such complaints. These reports are supposed to be by a Data Integrity Board including policy makers from different branches of USDOJ and of course the Data Integrity Board would be subject to the Public Meetings and Open Records requirements. Really there is nothing similar in other laws that I could find. So I used my “standing” and did a good deed, I hope.

“there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally
or by counsel . . .”) WINKELMAN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS
AND LEGAL GUARDIANS, WINKELMAN ET UX., ET AL. v.
PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

and they withdrew their denial and said it was issued in error. So we are waiting for their new ruling.

In the meantime, I contributed to Wikipedia’s “pro se” article (name may be changed to self-represented litigation). Wikipedia wouldn’t let me quote the Supreme Court directly so I went to the law library and I found a 1998 book by the AJS on pro se litigation. That book relied on Supreme Court decisions from the 19th century and also quoted Faretta, which has a history of the right. Also, it has an appendix that cites constitutional articles and statutes supporting the right in all the states. I personally typed that entire appendix into wikipedia and someone else converted it into a table. The state citations are very strong and specific.

If you are interested in the subject of self-representation, I urge you to contribute to the Wikipedia article.

There is also a Wikipedia article on Judge Edward Nottingham that anyone can contribute to (based on verifiable sources). It is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Nottingham

The panel dismissal conflicts with the U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 1654 and § 2074 b, the 1st and 14th Amendments, four U.S. Supreme Court decisions, (JONES V. BOCK, NAACP v. BUTTON, SHELLEY V. KRAEMER and VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH), the Wisconsin and Minnesota remedies clause, and two 8th Circuit decisions (Jaramillo v. Burkhart, and Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.) and reversal is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions with its and the Supreme Court’s previous decisions.
THE ISSUE ON APPEAL IS:
“Must petitions presented by Wisconsin free citizens in the District of Minnesota be adjudicated without delay and in full conformance to law, even when the litigants are self-represented?”

DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN NAACP v. BUTTON:

In a landmark civil rights Access to Courts decision, NAACP v. BUTTON, the Supreme Court ruled, that the First Amendment protects “advocacy”, such as the Sieverdings’ petitions, in court.

“Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion…. a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights… Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain… Although petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner’s activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed.” NAACP v. BUTTON 371 U.S. 415 (1963) U.S. Supreme Ct.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also acknowledged:

“We are not unaware or unconcerned that persons identified with unpopular causes may find it difficult to enlist the counsel of their choice”. SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 1 (1952) U.S. Supreme Ct.

In this case, the Sieverdings sued lawyers for “Damages based on 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights”. Thus, by definition, their claim was for “vindication of constitutional rights”. At the same time, their claim is identified with an “unpopular cause”. The order against self-representation acts to obstruct and prevent the Sieverdings’ presentation to a jury of their peers.
Because lawyers are expensive, and suing lawyers is unpopular, and their claims involve federal crimes, self-representation may be the Sieverdings’ only viable method to effectively exercise their First Amendment rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Because Congress is not authorized to make laws prohibiting the petitioning for a redress of grievances, the Courts are also limited as to how they can interpret laws. The court’s authority cannot be extended to prohibit or abridge the petitioning of the government thru the court. To be consistent with the First Amendment, a Court cannot prohibit or abridge First Amendment Rights, it can only recognize First Amendment Rights.
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE RULES ENABLING ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN JONES v. BOCK:
The Supreme Court recognizes that the courts cannot erect barriers to

adjudication of unpopular claims thru judicial interpretation and ruled:

“We once again reiterate, however, as we did unanimously in Leatherman, Swierkiewicz, and Hill, that adopting different and more onerous pleading rules to deal with particular categories of cases should be done through established rulemaking procedures, and not on a case-by-case basis by the courts.” JONES v. BOCK U.S. 549 01/22/07 No. 05–7058 U.S. Supreme Ct.

Thus, a requirement that the author of pleadings be licensed to sell legal services to others is a violation of established rulemaking practices and conflicts with the S.C. decision in JONES V. BOCK.
Also, the Judiciary Act requires Congressional approval to modify the rules of evidence, which is part of an order against self representation:
“(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress”
U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 2074 b

The district court order that:

“counsel fully handles the case, including preparing all court documents and handling all filing and communication with the Court and the opposing parties” (Appendix 5 page 2)

modifies the evidentiary privileges but was not approved by Congress.

DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS IN SHELLEY V. KRAEMER and VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH:
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment must be observed in litigation in state courts and the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652, means that the 14th Amendment must be observed in litigation in federal courts. Thus, it protects individuals against discrimination including that shown by the district court’s boycott of the Sieverdings’ complaint.
“The actions of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities are actions of the states within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights.” SHELLEY V. KRAEMER 334 U.S. 1 (1948) U.S. Supreme Ct.

“Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441(1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster City, 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Per Curiam VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH No. 98–1288 U.S. Supreme Ct., 2000.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment

If not overruled, the precedent of Sieverding v. Faegre & Benson may require that other citizens be excluded from civil court unless they have adequate financial resources to afford a lawyer “to handle all matters”. The net effect may be to exclude injured parties from use of the federal courts for civil matters unless they retain substantial financial resources after injury.
Excluding citizens from court conflicts with

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel

DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 8TH CIRCUIT IN JARAMILLO v. BURKHART:
The order that remedy must be delayed until a lawyer is contracted and that expenses be increased to pay for a lawyer contradicts the MN and WI remedies clause. The district court decision that the Sieverdings do not have an absolute right of self-representation is contrary to Wisconsin case law as published by the State of Wisconsin, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 17b(1), and the 8th Circuit’s deferral to Wisconsin law as decided in Jaramillo v. Burkhart recognizing Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1),
“In diversity cases the state law regarding real party in interest applies.” Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241, 1246 (8th Cir. 1993)

“the capacity to sue is determined …for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1)

The State of Wisconsin Annotated Constitution proclaims:
“Rights of suitors. § 21. [As amended April 1977]
(2) In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor’s choice. [1975 J.R. 13, 1977 J.R. 7, vote April 1977] Every person has an absolute right to appear pro se. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. 174 Wis. 2d 381, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993). A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally.” Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. Wisconsin Supreme Court 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997)” [emphasis supplied]

The District of Minnesota Court ruled:
“Should Plaintiffs wish to press their claims, they must secure the assistance of an attorney prior to filing any lawsuit relating in any way to the events described in the above orders (Appendix 2)

“Plaintiffs are not being forced to surrender any rights. Moreover, the Wisconsin Constitution does not guarantee Mrs. Sieverding the “absolute right to [proceed] pro se”(denial reconsideration appendix 4)”

In Minnesota and Wisconsin:
“Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minnesota Constitution Article 1 § 8/ Wisconsin Constitution Article 1 § 9 Remedy for Wrongs
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 8TH CIRCUIT IN COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.:
“Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Mixed questions of law and fact that require the consideration of legal concepts and the exercise of judgment about the values underlying legal principles are also reviewed de novo.” Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 1995)
Because the dismissal for lack of a law license conflicts with Supreme Court and 8th Circuit cases, a “de novo” review was required.
CONCLUSION:
Excluding citizens from petitioning for redress of grievances because of their financial limitations or lack of a license to sell services deprives them of basic common law rights recognized in all civilized societies.

Another case I think is comparable is the case of the McDonalds’ teenager who got $4.6 million for unlawful imprisonment. I was held much longer. Even though I am older, I was also physically traumatized and my body privacy was invaded.

I am aware of the point of view that being hurt by a rich organization should not me a good thing. Years ago I worked for a city and I was advised, when driving a city vehicle, that some people would try to get an an accident with a marked city vehicle because they figured the city was insured. When I first looked into suing in Colorado, I was told the max I could collect was $250,000 and therefore no lawyer would take it because a percentage would be too small. Colorado Judge Garrecht also advised me that I would never be able to get a lawyer because there was not much money in suing the city of Steamboat Springs. Then I calculated $400,000 of economic damages plus personal damages to 4 people. Then I gave an interview with the Steamboat Pilot http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2003/feb/03/judge_tells_former/
and they reported “she is seeking more than $16 million, $10 million of which she wants use to establish a nonprofit organization to ‘regulate attorney ethics in Colorado.” That didn’t go over very well with the Colorado Bar Association, which is a private organization run for the benefit of its membership and management.

The week that I was told to refile it was the week the Supreme Court ruled on the Gore v. BMW that punitive damages were max 10 times actual damages so I used that ratio. I found out that punitive damages are taxable as ordinary income so with state and federal that is almost 50%. I came to the conclusion that my defendants were bad and rich and need to pay in order to learn a lesson and that once the money is away from them, spending it will not be an issue. I cannot control either how my family would use their shares. For myself, I did spread sheets of how I would spend my share with a combination of do good, taxes, and retirement. I registered the name “citizens’ bar association” and spent some money on that.

Now, I really need a lawyer just to have a way to support myself, the ability to work and pay for food and shelter. Also, my husband needs medical care an d my children need college. In order to get a lawyer i have to have claims on parties with collectible dollars so that a lawyer can recover time and expenses. I did file against Faegre & Benson, a law firm with 500 _+ lawyers and they did not file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. That claim is in Minnesota which is not a tort limit state and my claim involves presumed damages. I don’t think a jury will go for the idea of BErmuda insurance companies putting pro se litigants in jail to avoid a decision on the merits. To me, FAegre & Benson looks like it has real collectible assets.

Thank you for masterfully avoiding the point about the money-making nature of your suit — and thereby conclusively confirming it. Good luck on your quest, it’s Pizarro-esque..

I am “absorbed by my cause” partially because my family has a lot riding on it and partially because if insurance companies can win cases by putting people in jail there is a big risk for citizens of the future. When I was younger, I had a boyfriend whose father spent 5 years in Auschwitz and that made an impression on me of the importance of everyone standing up for one’s rights. All of our rights basically rely on other people standing up for their rights. I personally believe that if I hadn’t stood up to the witness intimidation and then pursued it, that hundreds of other people would have been threatened with jail in the last few years in order to stop them from presenting in court. In the past everything I did that was worthwhile took about 5 years to accomplish.”

I don’t see any references to “yippee”. I think that if I can get before A jury that i can win a substantial amount in punitive damages to stop unauthorized insurance companies from threatening to put pro ses in jail so that they can’t go to a jury on their claims. If the insurance companies could just get away with that threats of violence will become the norm in U.S. and world courts.

I guess you don’t dispute the quoted language. To do your spading work for you, try re-reading your March 17 & March 20 postings. One goes into exquisite detail about the coverage available to one of the defendants with Lloyds of London ($250 million–yippee!). The other expresses your hopes for “financial” success “for your family” of which you are one I suppose. Not exactly textbook altruism.

As a matter of fact, I did sue for injunctive relief relative to publications that are defamatory as well as release from an invalid judgment that I molested my neighbor Jane Bennett. I find that to be a defamatory judgment. As a matter of court record, I was not accused of molesting Jane Bennett by Jane Bennett or by any statement of probable cause or district attorney. Jane Bennett herself testified under oath that there was no offensive touching and that she avoided interacting with me and that I hadn’t been following her around town and hadn’t called her in years. The time I called her had to do with a package left by our house by mistake. Her witness, who worked at her house for 100 + days, testified under oath that he never saw me doing anything unusual just normal coming and going. The only day that her lawyer Randall Klauzxer said was in question, 8/29/00, we were 30 feet apart and she was with her husband and two construction workers. I am not and was never at all attracted to Jane Bennett as any sort of friend or lover and we were never alone. I have never ever had sex with a woman nor have i ever cheated on my husband by having sex with anyone else. Jane Bennett is much older than I am and to the best of my knowledge we have nothing in common. I never made any sexual advances towards her nor did she claim that I did.

My filings were motivated by more than one reason. One is defense of my United Nations and U.S. Constitutional rights. Another is my personal reputation and privacy. As far as the money, my position is that the defendants are bad and don’t deserve it. Once there is a judgment in my favor, I will have various goals in spending it related to my family, my personal safety, and public policy goals.

I already had a lawyer who was familiar with the underlying facts and knows Jane and Kevin Bennett, William C. Hibbard, who reviewed my underlying complaint and found no problems with it. As far as my allegations that I was sanctioned by Colorado Judge James Garrecht in retaliation because I complained about my former neighbor Keven Bennett building in violation of the local development and zoning ordinances, that is supported by the facts that 1.) Although there are 4 buildings at 701 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs CO there is only one building, built in 1952 and in 1971 condition, listed on the assessor’s report in Routt County CO for 701 Princeton Ave. 2) Although the 9/6/00 transcript Jane Bennett v. Kay Sieverding downlodeable from Pacer in District of Kansas 05-cv-2510 shows Wendy Shculenburg as claiming to be a member of the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), when queried by email they have no record of her ever being a member. Furthermore, I offered to pay the City of Steamboat $450 to compare Bennett’s construction, in volume, to the city ordinances but they refused to do so. Also, the Colorado Bar Association publishes an article “understanding protective orders” that states that in Colorado a restraining order can only be issued and maintained under an ongoing criminal matter, an employment relationship, or a domestic or sexual relationship. None of those exist. Jane Bennett never employed me nor did I her. There was no affidavit of probable cause that I committed a crime and I was not convicted or a crime, nor did I confess. Jane Bennett and I are not related and we never had sex nor were we ever alone together. I simply complained that she and her husband fenced off and converted the road in front of my home and that they extorted me and built in a volume and location not allowed by law, thereby invading my privacy as an adjoining neighbor and devaluing my former property.

I guess you didn’t read Kay’ posts but she explicitly said she sued because she wanted the money. Here’s one of two quotes: “It does matter who I sue because there is no value in suing a party who can’t pay….” I ‘ll let you find the other one in a sort of “Where’s Waldo” exercise more in tune with your writing style.

I don’t mind criticism of what I write but could you at least read it all before you leap to the ramparts. By the way, there is also a line of thought in literature which holds that you should not say in 200 words what you could have said in 50. Maybe that merits your attention as well.

Finally, I do agree with one point you made. Argument is much older than the English language and I am sure that some creature somewhere took issue with another using an unintelligible grunting sound to express his side. Perhaps that is the style you are trying to resurrect here.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/02/judge-on-the-hot-seat/

I am still planning to update http://www.rightscase.com but haven’t had time yet.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/28/salazar-troubled-judge-nottingham-conduct/#comments

I read that when under stress, intellectuals intellectualize. It’s not as if these parties have stopped harassing me and stopped defaming me. So I am under stress. It reduces my stress to work for a solution. In the past I was able to turn events in my favor. I have a strategy.

Thank you for your good luck wish.

I applaud your tenacity but you may, at some point, heed the words of Albert Einstein who cautioned against “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If your cause is just, good luck. If not, quitting is the honorable thing to do.

The original case in Steamboat started as a boundary dispute, involving fences built where they aren’t legally allowed, threats, and extra buildings in the wrong places. Because I resisted that there I was criminally prosecuted without a basis in law. When I tried to right that thru the court system, (not shooting anyone), it got worse and worse thru the court system, Judge Nottingham etc.

I am open to suggestions and participation by lawyers. I am not generally anti lawyer. My old boyfriend was in law school when we were dating and at various times my husband and I purchased legal services for various reasons including patent and securities. When I was in Steamboat I hired more than one lawyer. One lawyer that I employed there also used to work for and is a personal friend of a lawyer that I sued for unjust enrichment. The community is only 10,000 and there are a lot of potential conflicts in such a small place especially when the local government is involved. I do recognize the problem with the factual intensity of my case.

I was trying to use fact pleading. The good news from an evidence point of view is that there have been no factual disputes of anything. Way back in 2000 I knew about the rules of evidence and was planning a law suit. Now, I have a store house of evidence that would be very difficult to dispute.

I realize that there is more than one route to success. What I know is that “quitting” leads to failure. I don’t see any reason to fail when I can succeed. I want to succeed in more than one way, both financially for my family, and also to “make a difference”.

Thank you for your interest and suggestions. I will try to improve the rightscase.com web site.

Amen to that!

Somewhere in China there is a centuries old stairway that ascends thousands of feet upward, along the sheer slope of a rock escarpment. That stairway is built of bamboo and reed and lashed together, and is repaired daily in similar fashion by modern-day inhabitants. Although those inhabitants prove that a complete ascent is possible, only the foolhardy will follow, shuddering at the thought of ascending, and hanging precariously in howling winds over a sure death below.

Throughout the internet, you have left an incredibly long trail of commentary.

To the best of my understanding, your original zoning complaint escalated into a nightmarish eight years of adversarial proceedings. On several occasions periods of imprisonment.

Most of your critics cajole you due to your insistence on a pro se defense. However it appears at this point in time that you have obtained several attorneys, and that your original zoning case has been superceded by a need to demonstrate how you have been incarcerated wrongly, maligned viciously, and damaged financially.

Is Rightscase.com the best location for a complete understanding of how, when, where, and why your ongoing battle is progressing?

My most recent visit there showed me no timeline of past proceedings, only a snippet of information. For example, please visit the website of the convicted British murderer, Jeremy Bamber [http://www.jeremybamber.com] to see how a person can better present his case.

I am new to your plight (having discovered it only five days ago due to the news stories surrounding Spitzer and Nottingham) and have little to offer.

In this brief period though, you have convinced me that you are doggedly persistent, an excellent writer, quite capable of erudite debate; and yet unfortunately as immovable as a China rock escarpment. On many occasions, advice has been given by your readers to prepare your assault more formally in the standard brevity and legalese of our judicial system, or perhaps more professionally as a trained attorney, or at the least through the presentation of an advocate who is NOT as close to the argument as you.

If you want us to ascend a treacherous stairway, then you must remember that we are a society of engineers with solid building materials, and that a shaky bamboo structure will surely scare the hell out of even the best of us.

When I asked Bill Hibbard in 2001 about suing Klauzer & Tremaine for damages, he didn’t say that K&T had ‘lawyer’s immunity’. Hibbard said that suing lawyers would hurt his law practice and therefore he wouldn’t sue them on my behalf. This was in the complaint that Hibbard reviewed while he was vacationing at the lake and found no problem with according to his letter. Since then we have emailed and talked and never once has he pointed out an error in my complaint.

Kevin Bennett did build extra volume and buildings not allowed on their property and he did reportedly threaten to shoot someone who wanted to buy our property and Jane Bennett wrote to the city planning board that I might force myself upon her at any time but on their own without a gun and without Klauzer & Tremaine, they could not have caused the severe damages to my family that were inflicted upon us.

Regardless of the ABA’s position as to its potential liability, it’s counsel was bound by their own ABA Guide to Litigation Conduct to protest Judge Nottingham’s putting me in jail without an offense being charged, dismissing my case even though I filed Hornbook Torts, and ordering me to pay Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda $102,000 without a statutory basis or a rule 11 6 order. I don’t understand why the ABA puts as its logo that it is defending liberty and pursuing justice when the ABA turns tail as soon as its inconvenient. The ABA filed in court that it agrees with Magistrate Schlatter that it does not have a duty to the general public. All the ABA seems to care about are maximizing their dues income and the benefits its employees receive from the Old Boy’s network.

Did you know that the U.S. government pays the ABA to spread U.S. style law around the world? So now the plan apparently is to use witness intimidation and criminal and administrative sanctions to gain advantages in boundary and land disputes in third world countries. Is this why our soldiers died and our dying, to allow crooked lawyers to represent the powerful so they can break the law with impunity?

The problem is that your shotgun approach leaves you open to charges of harassment. If you have a claim, it matters little if you sue one, two or all of the conspirators since each is liable to you for the full amount of your damage. Suing the Bar Association for failure to protect you from allegedly predatory attorneys is tenuous at best. The issue is one of overkill, and the appearance (false though it may be) that you went looking for deep pockets instead of justice. I think any lawyer you talked this case over with would tell you the same thing. If there is merit in what you say I hope you win, but you do yourself no favors by a “me against the world” approach, as past decisions by the Courts have borne out.

I don’t understand the problem at all. Many conspiracies complaints have more defendants than mine. The complaint summarized that my family and I were damaged personally as well as financially by conspirators with the president of the city council over a boundary dispute. Real estate is how a big proportion of personal controversies and even wars start. I turned in summary judgment motions for every single defendant. It would have been a lot better for me if we could have had our jury trial back in 2003.

Right now I am really glad that the 2003 complaint specified “an insurance company” because Lloyds of London is the insurer for two of them and Lloyds sent an affidavit that they have over $250 million in U.S. funds to the Col Division of Insurance. Their lawyer sent an email confirming that Lloyds insured it. So that should make collection a lot easier because Lloyds didn’t apparently didn’t invest in mortgage backed securities.

I am “absorbed by my cause” partially because my family has a lot riding on it and partially because if insurance companies can win cases by putting people in jail there is a big risk for citizens of the future. When I was younger, I had a boyfriend whose father spent 5 years in Auschwitz and that made an impression on me of the importance of everyone standing up for one’s rights. All of our rights basically rely on other people standing up for their rights. I personally believe that if I hadn’t stood up to the witness intimidation and then pursued it, that hundreds of other people would have been threatened with jail in the last few years in order to stop them from presenting in court. In the past everything I did that was worthwhile took about 5 years to accomplish.

By the way compulsive/obsessive simply means that you are absorbed by your cause. It does not imply mental illness of any kind, nor would I ever make such an assumption. I leave that to the Senator Frist’s of the world who can diagnose without knowing the person.

I stand corrected. It was only one newspaper and one publisher and one town and most of the town council, and two district attorneys, one chief of police, one public works director, and two bar Associations and maybe a partridge in a pear tree. In all the hubbub, I lost count but I did notice that most every defendant had their insurance company sued as well. Here is the caption from one of your appeals of the real estate dispute. Let the readers decide if this the work of oppressed citizens just vindicating their rights or something else:

KAY SIEVERDING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

DAVID SIEVERDING; ED SIEVERDING; TOM SIEVERDING,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, and their insurance company (true

name unknown); CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO, a municipality (hereinafter the CITY); AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, and their insurance company (true name unknown); JANE BENNETT, private citizen acting in conspiracy with CITY policy makers; KEN

BRENNER, individually and in his capacity as a CITY Council

Member; JAMES ENGLEKEN, individually and in his capacity as

CITY Council Member; ART FIEBING, individually and as

employed as CITY assistant chief of police; SANDY FIEBING,

individually and as the CITY code enforcement officer; DANIEL FOOTE, Attorney, individually and in his capacity as Assistant CITY attorney; J. D. HAYS, individually and in capacity as CITY director of public safety; JAMES “SANDY” HORNER, individually and as an attorney working for KLAUZER & TREMAINE and his insurance company; CHARLES LANCE,

Attorney, individually and in capacity as former district attorney and his insurance; ANTHONY LETTUNICH, individually and in capacity as CITY attorney and his insurance; PAUL R.

MCLIMANS, individually and in capacity as a district attorney and his insurance company; WENDIE SCHULENBURG, also known as Wendie Rooney, individually and in capacity as CITY planning services director; and her insurance; MELINDA SHERMAN, individually and former Assistant CITY attorney,

and in capacity, and their insurance; KERRY ST. JAMES, individually and in capacity as deputy or assistant district attorney; and his insurance; ARIANTHE STETTNER, individually

and in capacity as CITY council member; PAUL STRONG,

individually and in capacity as CITY Council Member; and his insurance company; RICHARD TREMAINE, individually and in capacity as an attorney; and his insurance company; JAMES WEBER, individually and in capacity as CITY public works

director; and his insurance company; P. ELIZABETH WITTEMYER,

individually and in capacity as Deputy District attorney; and her insurance; JAMES B.F. OLIPHANT, Bennett’s attorney and purchaser of plaintiff’s home; KEVIN BENNETT,

individually and in capacity as CITY Council member; DAVID BROUGHAM, individually and in capacity as apparent CITY insurance agent (for CIRSA); CIRSA, insurance for the CITY; INSURANCE AGENT, other than Brougham and decision makers for CIRSA (true name unknown); KATHY CONNELL, individually and as employed as CITY Council Member; DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLC; JAMES GARRECHT, in capacity as district court judge; (for injunctive relief only since he is immune from suit for

damages); HALL & EVANS, LLC, and their insurance; PAUL HUGHES, individually and in capacity as CITY manager; KLAUZER & TREMAINE, a law firm, and insurance (true name

unknown); RANDALL KLAUZER, individually and in capacity as

an attorney and his insurance company; SUZANNE SCHLICHT,

individually and in capacity as newspaper publisher and her

insurance; STEAMBOAT PILOT & TODAY NEWSPAPER, (WORLDWEST LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) and insurance (true name unknown),

Defendants-Appellees.

I ended up posting my 2003 complaint so that you can read it before you report on it. See http://www.rightscase.com

I didn’t sue two newspapers. I sued one newspaper The Steamboat Pilot and its owners (AKA The World Company).I didn’t name any reporter, only one publisher who the reporter told me edited his stories. It makes perfect sense to file a conspiracy complaint involving misuse of a city government powers against the members of the city council, key department heads, and the wife and lawyers of the city council president. All the city employees apparently covered by two insurance policies sold by the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing “Agency”, (not a State of Colorado agency they say). One policy was for loosely defined employee crime the other for “Public officials errors and omissions insurance”. As far as my being “obsessive compulsive”, no one ever called me that before. I did at one point get an evaluation by a court licensed psychologist and his opinion was that I was normal, but not a quitter. It would be really stupid for me to quit when I am winning.
To anyone that is listening: I do think that the facts in my case show a Hobbs Act Violation and that is by definition “organized crime”. The term organized crime can apply to Conspiracy to Deprive Rights Under Color of Law and does not require actually touching machine guns or knives. The definition of Hobbs Act is
“Hobbs Act — Extortion By Force, Violence, or Fear. In order to prove a
violation of Hobbs Act extortion by the wrongful use of actual or threatened
force, violence, or fear, the following questions must be answered
affirmatively: 1.) Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to
give up property or property rights? 2.) Did the defendant use or attempt to
use the victim’s reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order
to induce the victim’s consent to give up property? 3.) Did the defendant’s
conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree? 4.) Was the defendant’s actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful?”
U.S. Department of Justice criminal resource manual 2403″
As you can see, a threat is enough to commit the crime and in this case there were overt threats by parties paid by the insurance companies.

Funny thing, George Fox is a real person and a friend and law school classmate of mine. He knows Spitzer and his name was unwittingly used. He had to release a press statement to clear the thing up. So one offense has many victims.

“Mespo, let me guess you are a lawyer and you are offended that Ms. Sieverding would dare tarnish your “profession”. Guess what, no attorneys will take on a case against the Neo-Mafia…”

******************

Well it appears you have bought into the conspiracy theories that abound. There is no evidence of a concerted effort by the federal judiciary to confound or corrupt the law. This is pure fantasy by someone predisposed to the notion. Sorry but quoting “see no evil” Ashcroft won’t cut it especially since he along with Tom Delay wanted to impeach Judges for holding contrary views. Bottom line is that you have not read the drivel this lady filed against every member of her town council, two newspapers and their reporters, and just about anyone else who she and her husband could think of. Read it for yourself and then come back to me and argue that this claim is valid and that somehow the buggaboo lawyers got together to deprive this woman of her rights. In my opinion, she is another compulsive/obsessive litigant trying to use the law to punish those who oppose her. By the way, lawyers have been taking on tougher crowds than the “neo-mafia” you describe for centuries, and fear of the judiciary or politicians just doesn’t matter. May I remind you that the persons who brought down Nixon, Spitzer, and who now complain about Judge Nottingham all have an Esq. after their name. What corruption have you opposed today?

Our own U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said: “We can only detect, investigate and prosecute a small percentage of those officials who are corrupt. The challenge for us within the law enforcement and justice sectors to keep our own houses clean.” Organized Crime, the Neo-Mafia of law firms and hedge funds, knows when Judges and Prosecutors use their illegal services and use that leverage to continue their criminal endeavors such as in Bankruptcy Rings, the Asbestos Rings. Prostitution Rings are merely a small component of the Neo-Mafia. Unfortunately, the corruption of our officials in the Judiciary and Law Enforcement is deep and wide, as there exists a de facto immunity for their involvement in organized crime. There is no particular law, it is just that brethren of the bar protect each other, they are all above the law. What was different about Spitzer that (some of?) his dealings with organized crime were exposed? Who are the brave and just U.S. Attorneys who would not allow Spitzers’ criminal family go undisturbed?

With all due respect, I have read the Court’s opinion in your avalanche of pro se lawsuits (and 3 appeals therefrom) brought against your neighbors, the Colorado and American Bar Associations, numerous City Councilmen, various insurance companies, and countless other entities and individuals whom you and your husband allege conspired to thwart your rights. One (of many)complaint was 106 pages of rambling,obtuse, and dense prose that was, to put it kindly, incomprehensible. You filed over 100 motions and wasted countless hours of judicial and legal time on cases that were basically frivolous or barred by res juicata. On balance you appear to have fallen into the trap so eloquently stated as “he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” The cases you brought were found to be harassment and after looking at them most would probably agree. I am sorry you got a poor judge who was ethically challenged but next time hire a lawyer.

My family and I filed for relief from judgment in another court. Judge Nottingham put me in jail for seeking a decision on the merits from another judge. Judge Nottingham said: “The Court has asked her whether she will voluntarily dismiss these lawsuits and she has said that she would not. Accordingly, upon finding that Kay Sieverding is in contempt of court, the Court will remand her to the custody of the United States Marshal for the District of Colorado to be incarcerated until she purges herself of the contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuits”.

I think either part of the $102,000 went to pay for strip clubs and prostitutes or Judge Nottingham was blackmailed because of the prostitutes and strip clubs. He knows there were foreign insurance companies that were not authorized in the State of Colorado and that they didn’t comply with C.R.S. 10-3-1004 Defense of Action by Unauthorized Insurer but he thinks that is OK– maybe Lloyds London and Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda pick up the tab at the brothel.

Nice grab on the quote.

Seems a fitting epitaph.