Graham: “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared to confirm this week one of the greatest fears for civil libertarians in the aftermath of the burning of the Qu’ran (Koran) by Rev. Terry Jones. With Muslims murdering innocent people as a protest to the book burning, Senator Graham has called for Congress to go hold people accountable for such acts. The message is clear and predictable: if someone’s exercise of free speech has caused problems, limit the free speech.

In the video above, Graham states “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable.” He stresses “[f]ree speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, neither he nor his colleagues ever bothered to declare war. Likewise, Obama did not even consult with Congress before going to war in Libya.

Fortunately, the Constitution still exists to bar such impulses against free speech. Notably, however, China is arresting people who are viewed as destabilizing the country with their art and ideas. Now some members of Congress want to join countries in a type of criminal blasphemy law — an idea that Obama appeared to accept in supporting a resolution under pressure from Arab allies on protecting religion from critics.

Free speech is designed to protect us against our own leaders — like Sen. Graham. It is not enjoyed at the whim of the U.S. Senate. And, by the way, the diaper genie is a “great idea.” Free speech is what defines us as a people.

Jonathan Turley

303 thoughts on “Graham: “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.”

  1. Intelligent life forms is not a requirement to be elected to office…Proof in pudding…..

  2. An Anti-Blasphemy Measure Laid to Rest

    A long-term campaign by the U.N.’s large Muslim bloc to impose worldwide blasphemy strictures — like those in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran — was given a quiet burial last week in the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s main human-rights body

    Good news.

  3. I love it when Lindsey wraps himself in the flag to justify his position against free speech.

    Jingoistic hypocritical chickenhawk that he is.

  4. Anonymously Yours:

    “Intelligent life forms is not a requirement to be elected to office…Proof in pudding…..”

    Nice way thing to call a gay guy. When are you going to quit being a homophobic bigot?

  5. There is no correlation between sexual orientation and intelligence. Closet-case Graham can be as gay as he wants. He’d still be a moron. One has nothing to do with the other. Alan Turing was gay and he was smarter than everybody here combined. To be clear, AY was insulting the Senator’s intelligence or lack thereof.

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

  6. One aspect of Free Speech is access to courts. A lawsuit is a type of free speech. One should not be imprisoned for filing a lawsuit unless one commits a crime in the lawsuit such as perjury. I verified my lawsuit under penalty of perjury. It was for retaliatory criminal prosecution exactly as described in Hartman v. Moore and for First Amendment Retaliation based on events in Steamboat Springs CO where I had complained that my next door neighbor, a convicted drug dealer who was president of the city council — Kevin Bennett — built extra buildings that violated the zoning and today are not on the Routt County property tax rolls. Because of this the USMS imprisoned me for 5 months without a bail hearing and without a criminal charge. The USMS acted alone without the state U.S. attorneys having a file on me.

    I sued DOJ under the Privacy Act. It prohibits the government from having records of your First Amendment Activities without statutory authorization. In response, DOJ wrote:

    “this Court held that PTS records concerning Mrs. Sieverding are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)” “The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7).” “On one occasion, the Sieverdings mention the USMS’s “Automated Booking System” [sic], which is also exempt from Subsection (e)(7).”

    Two subsections of the Privacy Act refer to possible exemptions from the Act that agencies can establish. These are subsection (j) and subsection (k). Subsection (j) reads

    (j) General exemptions The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section EXCEPT subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) if the system of records ….” (Emphasis added.)
    Subsection j does not allow exemption of (e)(7). It uses the word “except”.
    And subsection (k) reads
    “(k) Specific exemptions The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of this section if the system of records is—“

    Per 5 U.S.C. § 552a, subsection (e)(7) is not included as a possible exemption under subsection (k).

  7. Actually kay, freedom of speech and access to the courts are separate and distinct Constitutional rights.

    Speech is covered by the 1st Amendment, the Right to Speedy Trial and to Confront Witnesses in criminal cases by the 6th Amendment and the Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases by the 7th Amendment.

  8. So now Graham should be prosecuted and killed because he is gay? What kind of a site is this?

    “Turing’s homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952 because homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time, and he accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison. He died in 1954, several weeks before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning.”

  9. Rum Wrangler sez: “So now Graham should be prosecuted and killed because he is gay? What kind of a site is this?”

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

    RW, I don’t know where you got that idea. Nowhere in this story or the following thread do I see anything remotely sounding like what you allege. We do have an occasional false flag bombthrower come into these discussions, but trolls are usually ridiculed, with some simply ignored.

  10. ” if someone’s exercise of free speech has caused problems, limit the free speech.”

    That wasn’t the out come in the Westboro decision or was it ?

  11. “In the video above, Graham states “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable.” He stresses “[f]ree speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, neither he nor his colleagues ever bothered to declare war. Likewise, Obama did not even consult with Congress before going to war in Libya.” (JT)

    Graham should return to his nap

  12. Of course we should limit free speech at a time of war. These are extraordinary times. The US has never been involved a war before. Oh wait, perhaps it’s that we’ve never had a war and had this radically new idea of allowing free speech at the same time before. No wait, that can’t be right. It’s apparent neither the Senator nor I know what the Senator is talking about.

  13. Sheesh you guys are easy! ‘Ol rumpy up there dropped two of the stupidest bits of troll bait ever and you want to treat it as serious.

    My guess is that rumpy has a man crush of the closeted Graham and wants to prove his worth to the Senator so he madly rushes in to prove that all liberals (Liberal being defined as it is by Rush, FAUX News and their ilk as “anything of which I do not approve”) are anti-gay.

  14. A good way to reduce the violence against American soldiers in Afghanistan is to remove them from Afghanistan. We were there for the sole purpose of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden left Afghanistan in December, 2001. Our stupid fear of the terms “losing the war”, “cut and run”, or “the President who lost the war” has kept us in Afghanistan for ten more years, with no excuse for being there other than some insane macho posturing that has killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden could have hoped to do. Our current presence in Iraq is even more stupid. There was never any reason to be there other than the muddled ideas of George W. Bush and the venality of Dick Cheney. The Koran burning fool is only a distraction from the real problem we face, which is the bankrupting of our country by the Military-Industrial-Politician complex. And a gutless President without the courage to end the insanity.

  15. I think Senator Graham should teach by example … Particularly in light of the fact that he really has no idea of what comes out of the gaping hole in the middle of his face.

  16. Henman – to quote the late, much needed now, George Carlin: “PULL OUT? I don’t know Bill, it doesn’t sound manly to me.”

    Totally ignored by the geniuses that led us into this catastrophe (or just cheer-led – in a manly way of course – from the sidelines) is one simple fact; 10 years ago Iran was held in check by hostile regimes on both its East and West borders. The US has kindly removed both those obstacles to their dominance of the Middle East. Another giant flustercuck from Boy Blunder and His Super Friends.

  17. @Buddha

    Actually Bill, lawsuits are recognized as First Amendment acts. I didn’t make this up. For the purpose of suing the government under the Privacy Act’s subsection (e)(7) that has already been decided and is on DOJ’s own website in its case law entitled “OVERVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, 2010 EDITION”. It’s on a http://www.justice.gov website. That is a long document about the Privacy Act, which is a long law with 24 subsections all with many clauses. In DOJ’s case law report there is a long section about e (7), which concerns unauthorized government possession of First Amendment records. It says

    Krieger v. DOJ, 529 F. Supp. 2d 29, 51-52(D.D.C. 2008) (finding that documents announcing speeches to be given by plaintiff and complaints filed by plaintiff against his former law firm described how plaintiff exercises First Amendment rights)

    A 5 USC § 552a (e) (7) claim doesn’t require that the lawsuit records be in a system of records either. All it has to be is unauthorized possession of the records.

    I am not a lawyer, but I have by now read the Privacy Act many times, plus the DOJ case-law report is really useful in understanding the law.

  18. My question is….Is there anybody in our government that believes in our constitution? I would never know it by the words and actions of our elected officials…from the top down.

    OH! and Rump Wrangler As a out gay man I think your an idiot and shouldn’t speak unless you know what your talking about..

  19. kay,

    I said they are distinct rights in and of themselves. I then referred you to the appropriate sections of the Constitution. What you are referring to is evidentiary and procedural, not the fundamental source of the rights proper. The difference being I cited primary authority and not secondary authority. You should really quit pretending you’re a legal expert when by your own admission you are not. If you were, you’d know the difference between primary and secondary authority. I recall that it was thinking that you are a legal expert that got you in trouble in the first place.

  20. AY,

    “I wonder if the same can be said when the good Senator spits…”

    Lol … I don’t even think I want to know!

  21. @ Buddha

    What difference does it make whether The Privacy Act is a primary authority or a secondary authority? DOJ claims it has immunity for claims under 42 USC 1985(2) and immunity for First Amendment Retaliation Bivens claims. However, there is statutory authority to sue them under The Privacy Act and if they want they can join 42 USC 1985(2) defendants.

    What “got me into trouble” was former judge Edward Nottingham who did not issue a memorandum opinion when he dismissed my case and who claimed an injunction without a Rule 65 motion and who claimed Rule 11 sanctions without a Rule 11 c. 6 order or an order to show cause. According to an affidavit discussed on 9 News of Denver, when he was in charge of my case he was getting a quantity discount on prostitution services. And according to the 10th Circuit he was calling prostitutes on his court cell phone. And according to articles all over the mainstream media his wife found one and only one receipt for the Diamond Cabaret and for porno but no receipts for prostitution or other visits to the Diamond Cabaret where AP already reported that the manager, a Mr. Frankell, recognized him as a a repeat customer. USCourts published his financial disclosures which show him as having no investment income. His after tax income must have been about 100K so how could he afford prostitutes? The U.S. Attorney in Colorado is currently prosecuting a Brenda Stewart for income tax evasion for managing the Denver Players brothel. According to 9 News they served a search warrant on Microsoft to get the email records of the Denver Players and they got Nottingham’s cell phone number, he was a customer, and the credit cards of various lawyers.

    The other problem that I had was naming my tort — First Amendment Retaliatory Criminal Prosecution. That was recognized by the Supreme Court in Hartman v. Moore in 2006, three years AFTER I filed my complaint. In 2007, the 10th Circuit recognized the tort of First Amendment Retaliation in a NonEmployment Context. The only caselaw they cited besides Hartman was a very old prisoner rights case. By 2005 I did use the term First Amendment Retaliation. I relied on The Law of Torts by Dan Dobbs, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, and Causes of Action journal when I wrote my original complaint. None of those used the succinct term “First Amendment Retaliation”.

    Quoting a legal authority is not at all the same as “pretending to be a legal authority”. Look at all the lawyers who quote authorities about finance and medicine. Are they pretending to be financial authorities or medical authorities? I am standing up for my rights the best I can.

    I saw a law firm website that specializes in the cases of people who were imprisoned for crimes they didn’t commit. They only take a few cases from around the country. Obviously there are a lot of people with that problem and that claim that they don’t take. Are those people to get no remedy?

  22. Graham’s nonsense is yet another example of the fact that many, if not most of our Congress has little idea of what the Constitution stands for and that this ignorance includes our Executive & Judicial Branches. Do they even care for that matter? They are in the D.C. bubble which deems itself made up of “serious” and “knowing” people, with more information than the rest of us innocent, simpletons.

    The macabre joke is that inside that self congratulatory bubble, they lack any rational idea of the world that surrounds them. I think most of them are decidedly not Machiavellian (a much misunderstood political philosopher), but simply ignorantly drunk on power and their own ridiculous suppositions.

    As for the war’s necessity part of the equation, George Orwell was again prescient, though he got the dates wrong as to 1984 (on the other hand Reagan was in power), in that totalitarianism maintains control if it creates a permanent state of “war” and
    xenophobia to justify its excesses and keep its people in a
    permanent state of fear.

  23. A wee bit OT but I thought it kinda relevant … and pretty damned funny …

    Tuesday, Apr 5, 2011 08:30 ET

    War Room The right just doesn’t get journalism
    By Alex Pareene

    Oh, good, Karl Rove started his own WikiLeaks. A conservative WikiLeaks. This WikiLeaks is about “transparency” and exposing malfeasance by the Obama administration. It’s also not about “leaks,” at all: It is made up of documents obtained via FOIA requests, that citizen journalists (vetted by Rove’s Crossroads GPS group, obviously) will sift through and analyze. It is called “Wikicountability.”

    And it’s gonna bring down this corrupt administration with bombshells like these:

    The site is clearly a work in progress: while it publishes new articles each day, they come from only a few contributors. It began with some documents that set the tone: a list of union leaders who were met in 2009 by the secretary of labor, Hilda Solis, and the production costs for an advertisement for Medicare featuring Andy Griffith ($404,000).

    The Labor secretary met with labor leaders? Stop the electronic presses!

    So many professional conservatives don’t really understand how journalism works, when it works. They really only “get” its cousin, propaganda.

    I am always in favor of more document dumps and FOIA requests and damning information about our government, but the obvious purpose of Wikicountability is to foment misleading talking points.

    Well, actually, the point of Wikicountability is to allow Rove’s nonprofit “educational” 501(c)(4) to maintain its nonprofit status by pretending to be doing something nonpolitical with 50 percent of the money they’ve raised from secret donors. And, yes, it is painfully ironic that a Rove’s anonymously funded independent shadow-RNC is now launching a make-believe “transparency” campaign.

    It’s a half-baked idea that will either fizzle out entirely (filing FOIA requests is boring work, especially for non-professional journalists) or simply exist as yet another source of the memes and myths that make up the fever-swamp that is the alternate conservative media. If a Wikicountability piece ends up forming the basis of some overhyped pseudo-scandal that Megyn Kelly can sneer about for a week before dropping it entirely once it’s outlived its usefulness, then: Mission Accomplished.

    I’m not looking for noble goals from political hacks dabbling in journalism (or scare-quotes “journalism,” no one is entirely sure of the difference anymore). But I do detect a fundamental difference between the way (most) liberals and (most) conservatives play the entire rigged game: For way too many conservative outlets, the attempt to figure out the truth about a situation takes a decided back seat to the real goal, which is “point-scoring.”

    This is epitomized, of course, by Andrew Breitbart, who publishes an astounding amount of poorly written garbage on his various sites while railing about the poor standards of the dreaded MSM. But even the “respectable” right-wing sites — National Review, cough cough — regularly publish patent nonsense about creeping sharia law and the New Black Panther Party.

    The problem is that right-wingers — especially campaign hacks like Rove and true believers like Breitbart — have internalized the “liberal media” attack line. In their imaginings, simple bias has mutated into active malice. So when right-wingers form their own media, they use the model that they imagine the MSM works under. Advance your cause by any means necessary.

    It is such a classic right-wing hack response to seeing the successes of a site like WikiLeaks to think to yourself, “What we need is a ‘conservative version’ of that that exists to manipulate FOIA documents into compelling attacks against Barack Obama.'”

    And that name! Wikicountability. Finally, a Wiki devoted to … counting things. A database of user-generated information about Count von Count. Restoring “icountability” to the White House. You get the idea.

    Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More: Alex Pareene

    http://www.salon.com/news/karl_rove/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/04/05/rove_wikileaks_journalism

  24. Dear Kay,

    I read this site every day. I learn quite a bit from the discussions here, but I rarely post as I am here to learn. I may just be speaking for myself here, but I doubt it, when I ask you to quit rehashing your case over and over every chance you get. I do not find it productive that you seem to take Mr. Turley’s very interesting blog and make it all about you. It’s BORING. Stop it. Thank you.

    M.S.Huiner

  25. Dear M.S.Huiner

    I am sorry that you think it is “boring” that I was imprisoned by our government for exercising rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    Maybe you will be thankful that I engaged in this boring work if it protects you.

    I am the ONLY person on this blog who has been studying and referencing The Privacy Act. It is the ONLY mechanism to stop the federal government from unauthorized possession of our First Amendment Records — whether they are lawsuits, letters, or picketing.

    To be perfectly honest, I think it is boring too but I feel that it is so important that I have to pursue it even though it is boring.

  26. DECLARATION OF STEPHEN D. WALLISCH
    I, Stephen D. Wallisch, declare as follows:
    1. I am employed by the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) as a Deputy U.S. Marshal for the District of Colorado, in Denver, Colorado. I have been employed as a Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal for the District of Colorado for 6 years and was employed as a Deputy U.S. Marshal for 11.5 years prior to that. My primary responsibilities are to oversee prisoner and court operations in the District of Colorado.
    2. The information set forth in this declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and information obtained in the course of my employment. In the event that I am called as a witness, I could competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration.
    3. On September 25, 2006, Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Kay Sieverding for contempt of court.
    4. The USMS is responsible for the execution of all lawful orders of the federal courts, including bench warrants. In this case, Deputy U.S. Marshal Roberto Rodriquez was assigned apprehension responsibilities for the bench warrant and the initiated the arrest of Ms. Sieverding
    for the District of Colorado. In accordance with USMS policy, the bench warrant was entered into the USMS Warrant Information Network system of records and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) records.
    5. Plaintiff sued the Colorado Bar Association (D. Colo., Civil Action No.02-CV-1950- EWN). She was taken into custody by order of Judge Nottingham on September 2, 2005, under a civil contempt violation until “she purges herself of the contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily to dismiss the lawsuits.” She also had lawsuits in the District of Columbia and in the City and County of Denver.
    6. Plaintiff spent her time in custody at Clear Creek County Jail, a local jail under contract to the USMS to house federal prisoners, from September 2, 2005, until January 4, 2006, a period of 124 days. On January 4, 2006, Judge Nottingham ordered her released that day after she agreed to the conditions of dropping her lawsuits.
    7. Plaintiff was also arrested and released on February 8, 2006, when she turned herself in to the USMS in Madison, Wisconsin, for further contempt violations ordered by Judge Nottingham.
    8. Plaintiff was arrested again on May 10, 2007, on further contempt violations ordered by Judge Nottingham. The USMS transported her back by commercial airline on May 31, 2007.
    On June 1, 2007, she appeared before Judge Nottingham and was then released.
    9. Relevant and necessary records regarding Ms. Sieverding were prepared and maintained in the USMS Warrant Information Network (WIN) and Prisoner Population Management/Prisoner Tracking Systems (PTS) of records.
    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
    and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    Dated: May 29, 2009 /s/ Stephen D. Wallisch
    STEPHEN D. WALLISCH
    Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal

    District of Columbia Federal Court case 09-cv-0562
    document 8-4 available on PACER

  27. kay,

    “What difference does it make whether The Privacy Act is a primary authority or a secondary authority?”

    Again, demonstrating that you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the law. To be clear, by excerpts you yourself posted, you were jailed for contempt of court, not for exercising your free speech. A right that you regularly abuse here by trying to turn every thread’s subject into you and your case.

  28. Graham should read the writings of Sayd Qutb; he would perhaps then understand that from the viewpoint of the radical Islamists, no criticism of the religion, no denial of the Prophet or the truth of his Revelation, is tolerable. Cartoons of Muhammad, burning the Koran, attempting to convert a Muslim to Christianity, Judaism or atheism – it’s all the same thing. Be assured of this, then: if the West yields on Koran burning, it won’t satisfy the radical Islamists. They’ll riot over cartoons, or The Satanic Verses, or women’s schooling.

    They don’t get to decide what is permissible free speech in our country. I don’t approve of what the nutty pastor did, but I will defend the right of Americans to burn any book they want (so long as they own the copy they burn), or the flag.

  29. @ Buddah

    The feds will not pay damages for constitutional violations except thru Bivens. According to the Cornell Legal Institute caselaw on federal immunity is contradictory and confusing. DOJ pled “immunity” to my claims under 42 USC 1985(2). The statutory way to get damages from the government is The Privacy Act. And the good thing about the Privacy Act is that it addresses the way the government works. Whether you consider the Privacy Act to be a primary or secondary authority it was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    As said by the USMS, former Judge Nottingham held me in contempt of court for filing a lawsuit in a different court. The lawsuit was a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, whether you agree with it or not. That was already decided by the District of Columbia in a case involving DOJ and The Privacy Act and posted by DOJ on its own website.

    Using the same principle, a judge could hold a party in contempt for filing a lawsuit related to an election.

    Congress regulates the power of contempt. U.S. judges don’t have authority to willy nilly hold people in contempt. In fact, DOJ published in the Federal Register that it doesn’t even jail people for contempt, that that is obsolete and people are only jailed for criminal acts. I can go find the Federal Register citation for you and you can read it for yourself since you choose to believe that anything I write is incorrect.

    See Federal Rules Criminal Procedure Rule 42

  30. Kay,

    You miss the premise…the judge jailed you for not doing something he under lawful command had the authority….if you do not like his order/ruling…your only avenue is to appeal…period…if you do not appeal the ruling….you are stuck with the order….period…no amount of whining is going to change the outcome…you were in fact held in contempt…for not either doing something the judge commanded or to not do…and because you did not do it…you went to jail…does that make sense? It is your action of not appealing it that resulted in your actual incarceration…how much plainer is it than that….You did not get a stay from enforcing the judges order right? So what are you complaining about…your own lack of action…right?

  31. That is how the Holocaust started. Contempt of court.

    The prisons are run by the Attorney General not the courts. The USMS is a DOJ agency not a court agency.

    What if Judge Nottingham had ordered me to sign over the deed to my house to him. He had no more authority to order me to go to jail for pursuing a lawsuit in another court than he had authority to order me to go to jail for not giving him my house.

    The Supreme Court ruled in Tory v.Cochran that a court order can be tested in court through contempt. That was before Nottingham ordered me to go to jail for refusing to do what he wanted in other courts. I quoted that in court too or tried to but he cut me off in the middle saying that my 5 minutes was up.

    Did you ever hear of the AntiInjunction Act?

    Nottingham actually dictated to me what I should file and told me that I would be reimprisoned if I didn’t write what he told me when he told me and file it in the other court. He could just have easily ordered me to plead guilty to money laundering or counterfeiting or being a terrorist.

    Did you ever hear of the Limitations to Detention Act?

    a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.(b)(1) The control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions, except military or naval institutions, shall be vested in the Attorney General, who shall promulgate rules for the government thereof, and appoint all necessary officers and
    employees in accordance with the civil-service laws, the Classification Act, as amended, and the applicable regulations.
    (2) The Attorney General may establish and conduct industries, farms, and other activities and classify the inmates; and provide for their proper government, discipline, treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation. 18 USC section 4001

  32. Still had to do what was requested….Think of it like having a fight with a spouse and they are the chief wage earner… Do you pick a fight and then expect something…

  33. kay,

    Considering you got yourself thrown in jail for contempt, pardon me if I don’t just jump all over your legal analysis like it was manna from Heaven.

    As AY points out and I’ve said before, your wound is self-inflicted. I for one am sick to the point of vomiting over your constant whining about it. The constant mischaracterizations, like it was free speech and not contempt that got you jailed and that contempt of court was how the Holocaust started, are kinda funny. Just not funny ha-ha.

    Southern woman have an expression they use when dealing with someone like you. It sounds nice on the surface, just like a lot of that faux courtesy the South tries to pass off as gentility: “Well bless her heart!” If you speak the colloquial vernacular or notice that this phrase is often followed by all kinds of semi-polite invective or salacious gossip, then you know it’s just verbal longhand for “dumbass”.

  34. Furthermore in my case there was no motion for an injunction, no bond injunction, no injunction hearing and nothing complying with Rule 65(d). There is no law that allows any court to prohibit anyone from representing themselves whether it is a criminal or a civil action. Even people who are convicted of crimes of fraud can represent themselves in court. If their testimony is impeached, then they can still get witnesses and use documents as evidence. However, there was no motion to impeach my testimony. I verified every single sentence of every page under penalty of perjury and was not charged with perjury. There were no rule 11 motion hearings and no rule 11 c. 6 orders. There was no motion to show cause why I should not be subjected to a Rule 11 motion either.

  35. No Bil I did not “self inflict” my wound. It was inflicted by the USMS guards, probably the ones that were accompanying former judge Nottingham to brothels and strip clubs, and Judge Nottingham and the lawyers who conspired with him.

    I had a right to sue. I had a cause of action recognized by the Supreme Court (after I sued)and I had a right to rely on the U.S. Code.

    Your definition of a self inflicted wound negates the First Amendment. By definition, anyone who is harassed, tortured or imprisoned for their speech whether it is written or oral whether it is filed in court or passed out in flyers, made the speech themselves.

    Do you think that only lawyers can quote the law and only lawyers have First Amendment rights in court?

  36. Contempt of court was how the Holocaust started. Jewish lawyers didn’t defend pro se rights. Then Jews were not allowed to be lawyers and because they didn’t defend pro se rights they had no rights in court at all. The courts ordered the Jews to sign over their property and if they didn’t they were found in civil contempt of court. That is why the German constitution does not recognize civil contempt and why the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights insists that nations cannot jail people for what is not recognized as a crime in international law.

  37. These quotations from Federal Procedure Lawyer’s Edition I looked up and read in court before I was summarily imprisoned:

    Access to Court is a constitutional guarantee. A federal suit is not barred merely because the holding in such a case may be res judicata.

    The duty to comply with an injunction assumes the existence of a valid and operative order. And disobedience may subject the violator to contempt unless the order requires an irretrievable surrender of constitutional guarantees.

    An injunction must describe in reasonable detail not by reference to the complaint or any other document the act or acts sought to be restrained. This requirement is to be strictly construed, if by reason of not complying with Rule 65(d)a ruling issued by the District Court is not an injunction. It places the defendant under no obligation. 47.30

    The Anti injunction Act is controlled by federal law. The Act is to be strictly construed and may not be enlarged by loose statutory construction or whittled away by judicial improvisation.

    The government cannot force the defendant to choose between two constitutional rights.

  38. Kay….

    Let’s make this clear…did the judge call the case number? Was it the correct case number? Were the parties identified? Did the Judge “Sua Sponte” on his own motion….say for you to do something….did you do it? If so, you would not be here….if not…thats why you were held in contempt……. it is like farting in court…you hope you just don’t get caught….

  39. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property.

    It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.

    Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

    The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment)

    The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

    I didn’t make the above up either. I copied it from the FBI’s web site.

  40. kay,

    For me to care about your opinion – and there are quite a few regulars, lawyer and layman alike, whose opinions I do value – is something one earns. All you’ve earned is, wait for it . . . contempt. By your endless self-centered blathering about something every lawyer here knows you did to your own damn self though your arrogance that you were competent to represent yourself. As to dignified? I completely and utterly don’t care what you think of me.

  41. NO its not like farting in court. I didn’t fart in court.

    Farting in court is covered by Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 42

    (b) Summary Disposition.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies;

    That didn’t happen. Nottingham didn’t even claim that it did. Rule 42 uses the word “criminal” to describe the judge hearing a fart. Furthermore, the USMS files annual reports and in their report for 2005 they stated that there was no disruption in any court in the entire U.S.A. What Nottingham objected to was what I filed in other courts. And you can look up my docket in the District of Colorado 02-cv-1950. Download it and save it as a pdf. Search for opinion and you will find that Judge Nottingham never wrote an “opinion” in my case.

    My belief is that Nottingham was bribed to dismiss my case.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled that a cause of action is a form of property. My belief is that Nottingham extorted me to get my property.

  42. Bil you may have “contempt”for me and judges may have “contempt” for me too but that doesn’t give you a right to kidnap me and that doesn’t give a judge a right to order incarceration without published criminal procedure.

    Furthermore, the jails are under the control of the AG not the courts. The courts don’t have any jails at all. And the AG is bound by the Administrative Procedure Act. And that says

    “Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register.” 5 U.S.C. § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

  43. My belief is that you did something stupid to piss him off one too many times, he ordered you to drop the pro se litigation because of your demonstrated incompetence and wasting of the court’s time, and then he held you in contempt when you ignored that direct order.

    That and you’re bitter and like to bitch about it.

  44. kay,

    To be clear, you waste our time with your self-absorbed bullshit. You are every bit as bad as the trolls. No. Worse than the trolls. They are getting paid to advance a political agenda. You’re merely selfish and stupid.

  45. Before Nottingham sent me to jail I never met him. He never held a single hearing. He never found that I misquoted a single law or case.

    Sure I am bitter. Really really bitter. And really really angry.

    Nottingham deprived my rights under color of law. He made statements that exactly fit the definition of Federal Witness Intimidation.

    I’ve checked with the District of Columbia clerks. Two cases have not been dismissed – have not been dismissed at all, with or without prejudice …. Are the defendants suggesting that the plaintiff be jailed until she purges herself of contempt or are they suggesting that I give her an additional period of time to accomplish this dismissal? …. I now have access to the database in Kansas and the District of Columbia. And I will check out and make sure that you have dismissed all of those cases…. So you’ll stay out of jail if all of these cases are dismissed in time for me to vacate the hearing. Otherwise the next time you show up, you pack your toothbrush, because you’re going to jail.”

    “She knows that she is not to pursue those lawsuits. And for her to suggest that I told her to dismiss those lawsuits, and that does not cover her appeals from those lawsuits is silly…she might dismiss everything before those marshals get to her…once she’s in custody she will not get out of custody until those are actually dismissed…She was told in unequivocal terms to dismiss both those lawsuits…What has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless…She is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration or anything else …what has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless, and she is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration, or anything else… she faces a real possibility of incarceration as she knows because it’s happened before”

    Now are you going to say that those statements didn’t violate my First Amendment Rights? Or are you going to say that my First Amendment Rights aren’t important to you because you have “contempt” for me?

  46. Bil

    If you think that I am so stupid, why don’t you look at my writings and find something I misquoted?

    And why would it be “selfish” and “stupid” for me to defend my Constitutional rights?

  47. I’m going to say you’re an idiot with a self-inflicted injury who is using someone else’s blog to promote her vendetta.

  48. Stupid is as stupid does, kay. I don’t have to proofread your slop for you any more than I have to (or would) represent you. You have a track record around here of quoting things completely out of context and without proper knowledge of the legally operative concepts behind the words. Even 1L’s and paralegals know not to represent themselves. Why? Because it’s generally known in the legal profession as a bad idea even for professionals. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.

    They also know that pimping their lost cause on someone else’s blog is merely selfish.

    Because it is.

  49. This is a blog about the First Amendment. I had a First Amendment right to pursue my lawsuits.

    Would you think this would be different if I was Moslem and was pursuing a lawsuit related to the rights of Islam?

    I didn’t put myself in jail. I didn’t point guns at myself.

    I figured my lawsuit was worth over $10 Million, similar to the jury award to the Quigleys. I think I am the victim of felony criminal extortion.

  50. You figured? Well you’re not a legal expert by your own admission, kay. And look how well you figuring worked out for you in court.

    I saw a brain surgeon on TV once. I can read a medical text book. That does not mean I am competent to conduct brain surgery on myself.

  51. President George Washington signed the law that made self representation a right. The Supreme Court wrote that it is a constitutional right.

    “This Court’s past recognition of the right of self-representation, the federal court authority holding the right to be of constitutional dimension,and the state constitutions pointing to the right’s fundamental nature form a consensus not easily ignored.” Faretta v. California 422U.S.806(1975 )

    My cause is not lost. I am filing again against DOJ under the Privacy Act including a claim for unauthorized possession of my First Amendment records, which is the subject of this blog. I have statutory tolling under 5 USC 552a g (5) because of DOJ misrepresentations.

    Here are two U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment quotes for you:

    “Nor does the text of the First Amendment speak in terms of successful petitioning — it speaks simply of “the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even unsuccessful but reasonably based suits advance some First Amendment interests. Like successful suits, unsuccessful suits allow the “`public airing of disputed facts,’ ” Bill Johnson’s, supra, at 743 (quoting Balmer, Sham Litigation and the Antitrust Law, 29 Buffalo L. Rev. 39, 60 (1980)), and raise matters of public concern. They also promote the evolution of the law by supporting the development of legal theories that may not gain acceptance the first time around….Finally, while baseless suits can be seen as analogous to false statements, that analogy does not directly extend to suits that are unsuccessful but reasonably based. For even if a suit could be seen as a kind of provable statement, the fact that it loses does not mean it is false. At most it means the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving its truth. That does not mean the defendant has proved — or could prove — the contrary.” BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board 536 U.S. 516 (2002)

    “But we cannot endorse the proposition that a lawsuit, as such, is an evil. Over the course of centuries, our society has settled upon civil litigation as a means for redressing grievances, resolving disputes, and vindicating rights when other means fail. There is no cause for consternation when a person who believes in good faith and on the basis of accurate information regarding his legal rights that he has suffered a legally cognizable injury turns to the courts for a remedy: “we cannot accept the notion that it is always better for a person to suffer a wrong silently than to redress it by legal action.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S., at 376. That our citizens have access to their civil courts is not an evil to be regretted; rather,it is an attribute of our system of justice in which we ought to take pride.” Zauderer v. Office Disciplinary Counsel, Supreme Court Ohio 105 S. Ct.2265, 471U.S.626

  52. What’s that you say? You like the trampoline angle, but something barking while on a trampoline would be even more relevant to the discussion of an idiotic comment by Sen. Graham?

  53. Yes, I based the value of my lawsuit on research on other cases. I also added up my economic damages and, since there were four of us, on personal damages allowed in Colorado.

    And I was entitled to a jury trial, which was stolen from me by witness intimidation, deprivation of rights under color of law and extortion. Which the USMS implemented by detaining me without a bail hearing or a criminal charge. Which the Denver deputy marshal, Stephen D. Wallish, already stated that they did because I had a suit in the state court and a suit in the District of Columbia. He said that under penalty of perjury.

  54. Again, kay, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.

    Do you know why there is a truism that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?

    Because even for a professional, self-representation is a bad idea. You are too close to the subject matter to handle it dispassionately and objectively. Unless it’s something simple like a parking ticket? Even if you’re an expert in the type of litigation at bar? You are best served hiring an attorney to do the work. Why? As the injured party, your professional judgment is compromised by your personal involvement.

    For laymen? Add that to the fact that you simply aren’t competent as a general rule to conduct complex litigation. You lack both the training and the experience necessary to do so. The training and experience that would perhaps allow you to avoid situations where you are held in contempt of court.

  55. Gyges,

    Boxers are good dogs. I love that he’s most often barking at the trampoline. That is soooooo like a politician. “Why these Washington insiders!” Boing! “They just want to steal your money!” Boing! “But I’m different!” Boing! “Woof!”

  56. So since Bil thinks he is so smart why doesn’t he come up with a statutory basis that would have allowed me to be imprisoned based on Mr. Wallish’s official description?

    First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” …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… The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining
    or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties,
    have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

    “The First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political. “Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones. And the rights of free speech and a free press are
    not confined to any field of human interest.” MINE WORKERS V.ILLINOIS BAR ASSN.,389U.S.217(1967)

    “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Constitution demands that content-based
    restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and that the Government bears the burden of showing their constitutionality. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 322 F.3d 240

  57. kay,

    What is “Because I have already previously cited the statutory authority for holding you in contempt of court, you self-absorbed nitwit?”

    I’ll take “Even Idiots Can Use the Internet” for $500, Alex.

  58. Probably I would have had a better experience in court if I had had a lawyer. I tried to get William Hibbard in Steamboat Springs to represent me but he said he was concerned about retaliation against his law firm if he did. I put that in my complaint as filed and I sent it to him with a check and he wrote back:

    I did have a chance to read through the voluminous pleadings while I was up at the cabin. Interesting theories especially against the ABA and the Colorado Bar
    Association.

    I put a copy of that letter in PACER
    Case 1:05-cv-01283-RMU Document 30 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 27 of 35

  59. Bill

    You write “What is “Because I have already previously cited the statutory authority for holding you in contempt of court, you self-absorbed nitwit?”

    No I didn’t see that–what is the statutory authority you are referring to?

    None of the documents had a statutory authority listed.

  60. Yes. I did. About four months ago. That you could not understand it or imposed selective memory is par for the course. And I only did it then because I was already sick of your repetitive self-absorbed tripe even then.

  61. Bill

    Since you remember thinking that you stated a statutory basis for imprisoning me for pursuing a civil lawsuit in federal court without an associated criminal case, why don’t you state it now? Was it in Title 18?… Title 28?
    Title 42?

  62. Bill, I’ll pay you $50 to post on this blog the statutory basis for imprisoning a pro se litigant for pursuing a lawsuit other than a crime like perjury, threatening a witness or a juror, bribery, threatening a judge etc. none of which I was even accused of. I was held for over 4 months by the USMS in the District of Colorado but I got an FOIA letter from DOJ yesterday saying that the U.S. Attorney in Colorado has no record of me.

    kaysieverding@aol.com

  63. First, I don’t work for you. I would never work for you. Because you’re what’s known in the business as “a pain in the ass”.

    Second, if I do tell you what the statutory authority for contempt is, will you finally and permanently shut up your selfish bitching and spamming about it here?

    Because is you will?

    I’ll tell you again.

  64. I don’t have all night.

    Do you want to know the statutory basis for the power of the court to hold you in contempt or is whining about it more important?

  65. I’m not asking for 18 USC 401 which refers to “lawful” order. I’m asking for a “law” behind a “lawful order” meaning a statute allowing an injunction against fee paid pro se litigation something similar to the copyright law, the patent law, laws about dumping chemicals, laws about discriminatory housing, and laws related to fraudulent tax returns. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act only applies to prisoners and only applies to fee waivers.

    Sure, find a statute that says that a judge can order that a free citizen can’t represent themselves in a federal court if they pay a filing fee and I won’t blog here again.

    It’s not the All Writs Act — I already have case law for that.

  66. Although the [All Writs ] Act empowers federal courts to fashion extraordinary remedies when the need arises, it does not authorize them to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate. Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v.
    United States Marshals Service. 474 US 34

  67. In the attorney bills discussing a proposed No Pro Se order they were passing around but never filed, they mentioned the All Writs Act as a possible justification. But they never filed that in court in the form of a motion and Nottingham didn’t cite it either.

    (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
    (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court, which has jurisdiction. 28 USC § 1651. Writs

  68. Well tough shit, Kay, because . . . again, it’s indeed 18 U.S.C. § 401 that gives the court the power to hold you in contempt whether you like it or not.

    “18 U.S.C. § 401

    A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as –
    (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near
    thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
    (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official
    transactions;
    (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process,
    order, rule, decree, or command.”

    For a complete list of sanctions the court may impose, I suggest “Section 20.15 – Sanctions” from The Manual for Complex Litigation, 1995 ed., which can be found here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit12.htm

    It states in part (note the bolded section):

    “20.15 Sanctions
    .151 General Principles
    .152 Sources of Authority
    .153 Considerations in Imposing
    .154 Types

    20.151 General Principles

    The rules and principles governing the are the same in complex as in other litigation, but the potential of sanctions requires careful attention in complex litigation because misconduct may have more severe consequences. Because the litigation will generally be conducted under close judicial oversight and control, there should be fewer opportunities for sanctionable conduct to occur.

    If the court’s management program is clear, specific, and reasonable – having been developed with the participation of counsel – the parties will know what is expected of them and should have little difficulty complying. The occasions for sanctionable conduct will therefore be reduced. Indeed, the need to resort to sanctions may reflect a breakdown of case management. On the other hand, the stakes involved in and the pressures generated by complex litigation may lead some parties to violate the rules.

    Although as a general matter sanctions should not be a means of management, the court needs to make clear its willingness to resort to sanctions, sua sponte if necessary, to assure compliance with the management program. -fn.19

    The design of the case management program should anticipate compliance problems and include prophylactic procedures, such as requiring parties to meet and confer promptly in the event of disputes and providing ready access to the court if they cannot resolve them. In addition, the court should inform counsel at the outset of the litigation of the court’s expectations about cooperation and professionalism. Perceptions of the limits of legitimate advocacy differ; advance guidance from the court can reduce the need for sanctions later. Though at times unavoidable, sanctions should be considered a last resort.

    The court should exercise its discretion with care and explain on the record or in an order the basis for its action and the purpose to be achieved. Sanctions may be imposed for general or specific deterrence, to punish, or to remedy the consequences of misconduct. Sanctions proceedings can be disruptive, costly, and may create personal antagonism inimical to an atmosphere of cooperation. Counsel should therefore avoid moving for sanctions unless all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.

    20.152 Sources of Authority

    The primary codified sources of authority to impose sanctions in civil litigation are 28 U.S.C. 1927 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 16, 41, and 56(g). -fn.20 Sanctions relating to discovery are authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 30, 32(d), 33(b)(3)-(4), 34(b), 35(b)(1), 36(a), and, most prominently, Rule 37. -fn.21 Under limited circumstances sanctions may also be imposed under local rules. -fn.22

    Sanctions may also be imposed through the exercise of the court’s inherent powers. -fn.23 The court may resort to this power even where the conduct at issue could be sanctioned under a statute or rule; the court should, however, avoid resort to its inherent power if the statute or rule is directly applicable and adequate to support the intended sanction. -fn.24

    The court may assess attorneys’ fees pursuant to its inherent power, but when sitting in diversity should avoid doing so in contravention of applicable state law embodying a substantive policy, such as a statute permitting prevailing parties to recover fees in certain classes of litigation. -Fn.25

    Because the applicable standards and procedures and the available sanctions will vary depending on the authority under which the court proceeds, it needs to decide on the choice of the authority on which it will rely and make that choice clear in its order. For example, 28 U.S.C. 1927 authorizes the assessment of costs and fees against an attorney only – it therefore cannot provide authority to impose sanctions on a party.

    20.153 Considerations in Imposing

    In considering the imposition of sanctions, the judge should take these factors into account:

    * the nature and consequences of the dereliction or misconduct;
    * the person(s) responsible;
    * the court’s discretion under the applicable source of authority to impose sanctions and to choose which sanctions to impose;
    * the purposes to be served by imposing sanctions, and what is the least severe sanction that will achieve the intended purpose; and
    * the appropriate time for conducting sanctions proceedings.

    With respect to the consideration of the nature and consequences of the dereliction or misconduct, the court should take these factors into account:

    * whether the act or omission was willful or negligent;
    * whether it directly violated a court order or a federal or local rule;
    * its effect on the litigation and the trial participants;
    * whether it was isolated or part of a course of misconduct or dereliction; -fn.26 and
    * the existence of any extenuating circumstances.

    Rule 11 substantially limits the authority of the court to impose monetary sanctions, but they may still be available in unusual cases or under other rules or powers.

    If monetary sanctions are warranted, they should generally be imposed only on the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; if assessed against counsel, they should be accompanied by a direction not to pass the cost on to the client.

    It may be appropriate to sanction the client or the client and attorney jointly. If the proper allocation of responsibility between counsel and client is unclear, its determination may raise problems; by pitting the attorney against the attorney’s client, it can create a conflict of interest. -fn.27 In addition, it may require inquiry into potentially privileged communications. -Fn.28 The court should seek the least disruptive alternative, which may be to impose joint and several liability on both counsel and client, -fn.29 or to defer the matter of sanctions until the end of the litigation. -Fn.30

    Some types of nonmonetary sanction, such as dismissal, default, or preclusion of a claim or evidence, will or may affect the outcome. They should be imposed only in egregious circumstances and only after consideration of the following factors:

    * the policy favoring trial on the merits;
    * whether the sanction will further the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action;
    * the degree to which the sanctioned party acted deliberately and knew or should have known of the possible consequences;
    * the degree of responsibility of the affected client;
    * the merits and importance of the claim(s) affected;
    * the impact on other parties or the public interest; and
    * the availability of less severe sanctions to accomplish the intended purpose.

    20.154 Types

    In imposing the least severe sanction adequate to accomplish the intended purpose, the court can select from a broad range of options. -Fn.31 These include the following:

    * Reprimand. For most minor violations, particularly a first infraction, an oral reprimand will suffice. In more serious cases, a written reprimand may be appropriate.

    * Cost shifting. The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is deterrence rather than compensation; the rule therefore permits cost shifting only in “unusual circumstances.” -fn.32 In contrast, many of the discovery rules (primarily Rules 26(g) and 37) and Rule 16(f) (dealing with pretrial conferences) require or permit cost shifting in specified situations. Under 28 U.S.C. 1927, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) (depositions), and its inherent power, the court may order cost-shifting sanctions for actions taken in bad faith.

    * Denial of fees or expenses. The court may decline to award otherwise recoverable attorneys’ fees and expenses, or order counsel not to charge them to their client, when incurred through dilatory or otherwise improper conduct, or in proceedings brought on by such conduct.

    * Remedial action. Counsel and parties may be required to remedy a negligent or wrongful act at their own expense, as by reconstructing materials improperly destroyed or erased.

    * Grant/denial of time. Improper delay may justify awarding opposing parties additional time for discovery or other matters, -fn.33 or denying otherwise proper requests for extension of time.

    More serious sanctions, reserved for egregious circumstances, include the following:

    * Demotion/removal of counsel. An attorney may be removed from a position as lead, liaison, or class counsel, or (in an extreme case) from further participation in the case entirely. Such a sanction, however, is likely to disrupt the litigation, may cause significant harm to the client’s case and the reputation of the attorney or law firm, and can conflict with a party’s right to counsel of its choosing.

    * Removal of party as class representative. Before imposing this sanction, the court should consider ordering that notice be given to the class under Rule 23(d)(2) to enable them to express their views concerning their representation or intervene in the action. -fn.34

    * Enjoining party from commencing other litigation. While there is a strong policy against denying access to the courts, a party may be enjoined from commencing other actions until it has complied with all orders in the current action, or from bringing, without court approval, other actions involving the same or similar facts or claims.

    * Preclusion/waiver/striking. Failure to timely make required disclosures or production, raise objections, or file motions may be grounds to preclude the introduction of related evidence, deem certain facts admitted and objections waived, strike claims or defenses, or deny the motions, including those seeking to amend pleadings or join parties. -fn.35

    * Dismissal. This severe sanction should generally not be imposed until the affected party has been warned and given a chance to take remedial action, and then only when lesser sanctions, such as dismissal without prejudice and assessment of costs, would be ineffective.

    * Vacation of judgment. The court may vacate a judgment it has rendered if procured by fraud. -fn.36

    * Suspension/disbarment. The court may initiate proceedings to suspend an attorney from practice in the court for a period of time or for disbarment. -fn.37

    * Fine. The court may assess monetary sanctions apart from or in addition to cost shifting, even without a finding of contempt. The amount should be the minimum necessary to achieve the deterrent or punitive goal, considering the resources of the person or entity fined. – fn.38

    * Contempt. The court may issue a contempt order under its inherent authority, -fn.39 statute, -fn.40 or rule. -fn.41 The order should indicate clearly whether the contempt is civil or criminal. The procedure and possible penalties will depend on that determination and the nature and timing of the contemptuous act. -fn.42

    * Referral for possible criminal prosecution. Where the misconduct rises to the level of a criminal offense, -fn.43 the matter may be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

    Now . . . I’ve answered your inane question twice.

    The court has the authority to both jail you for contempt (18 U.S.C. § 401) and to bar you from litigation for egregious violations of court orders and procedures (Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132-33 (1991), which states “a primary aspect” of court’s discretion to invoke inherent sanction power “is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction” for abuse of judicial process).

    So there’s a precedent, if not a statute, that allows you to be barred from litigation for contempt. You abused the process because of your layman’s incompetence. You got smacked down pretty hard for it but the court has the power to do what the court did as a matter of statutory authority viewed in the light of precedent.

    I now expect you to live up to your word and never blog here again.

  69. Bil: That is a great exposition of the Rule. As you know, like Kay, I am not a lawyer such as you are, but that is as clear as a sunny day in the mountainous to me. You do not file a lawsuit in another court if you do not like the way it is going in the first courtroom. To do such an idiotic thing would never even occur to me. I have worked in enough jails and prisons to know they are interesting to visit but I do not want to live there. For one thing, I do not care for the food or sleeping accommodations.

    Kay never got the memo that the first rule of litigation is: Don’t do stuff that pisses off the judge.

    Rule number two: See Rule #1.

    Ksy’s obsessing on this, ad nauseum, makes it abundantly clear why she was declared a, “Vexatious Litigant.”

  70. Sorry Bill none of those apply to me

    As we discussed Nottingham objected to what I did when I wasn’t in his court room.

    And I am not an officer of the court.

    And there was no law for a “lawful writ”. A writ isn’t lawful just because it is from a judge. As we discussed it needs a statute

    28 U.S.C. 1927 applies only to lawyers

    rule 11 allows only monetary sanctions

    I think the discovery sanctions result in dismissal. In any case, they weren’t cited w me, we didn’t get as far as discovery.

    If there was something about enjoining parties from bringing other litigation, then that would apply to the cause of action whether there was a lawyer or not. In my case they said it was only pro se litigation based on related series of events.

    Can you be more specific please — I’m looking for a statute.

  71. I didn’t file the lawsuit in the second court until it was dismissed in the first court. It wasn’t simultaneous. In fact I filed a Rule 60b(3) motion.

    There wasn’t a jury trial.

    The term vexatious litigant doesn’t appear in the U.S. code nor in the Code of Federal Regulations. And I have a letter from the USMS saying they don’t have any record of vexatious litigation.

    I was NOT declared a vexatious litigant in court.

    The only state that has a vexatious litigant statute is California,

    Australia declared a man vexatious for suing tobacco companies.

  72. It was impossible for me to P.O. Nottingham because I didn’t meet him, no hearings at all until he set a Contempt of Court hearing. The only possible explanation I know of for what he did was that he was bribed in one way or another and I suspect it had to do with a credit card at the Denver Players.

    I suppose it is possible that I have PO judges in general by complaining about Nottingham but Nottingham has not accused me of defamation. I have the same address and telephone number as I have since 2002, listed on PACER, and have not heard from him. I wrote to Nottingham’s attorney Stephen Peters a couple of times and asked him why what Nottingham did to me wasn’t a crime and he never wrote back.

    You know that it would be easy for judges to decide that they don’t want to extend rights to certain races, people with certain sexual orientations etc.

  73. Listen verrrrry carefully.

    The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 401

    A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as –
    (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near
    thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
    (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official
    transactions;
    (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process,
    order, rule, decree, or command.”

    That bolded part? Officer of the Court or not? This means you.

    As to a statute and statutory authority? There it is. 18 U.S.C. § 401. Disbelieve it all you like.

    As to the sanctions barring you from future litigation and the courts ability to fashion appropriate sanctions? That’s found in CASE LAW, not STATUTES. Not all law is statutory and you’d know this if you were a lawyer.

    I provided a relevant cite to case law with is Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132-33 (1991), which states “a primary aspect” of court’s discretion to invoke inherent sanction power “is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction” for abuse of judicial process.

    This includes sanctions barring you from future litigation on the issue at bar. You are looking for something that does not exist in the form you wish it to exist in. Law is not practiced based upon wishful thinking.

    However, I did prove that there is legal foundation for what the judge did.

    That you don’t like that it’s not codified into statute is irrelevant.

    I still expect you to live up to your word – AS PROOF WITH CITES HAS BEEN PROVIDED – and never blog here again.

  74. Dismissal. This severe sanction should generally not be imposed until the affected party has been warned and given a chance to take remedial action, and then only when lesser sanctions, such as dismissal without prejudice and assessment of costs, would be ineffective.

    Also, that didn’t happen.

  75. The deal was statute not judicial interpretation

    I didn’t “abuse the judicial process” either. I didn’t file any fraudulent statements. I didn’t fail to comply with discovery orders. I didn’t fail to disclose insurance companies.

  76. Kay you have answered the question for me….sometime a court will condition a dismissal upon the understanding that if it is refiled you will be responsible for costs associated with the original filing…if you refiled the same action in another venue….without paying the costs that you so vehemently proclaim are not payable…then guess what…you made your own reservations for incarceration….can’t you see that…it is called forum shopping….the court can dismiss it and if the same basic issues are refiled…its still forum shopping….

    And yes…once you filed the paperwork…you became an officer of the court…this is because you acted as your own attorney…. that is plain to me…

  77. Another piece of the pie Kay…The court can dismiss it with prejudice and it is not supposed to be refiled…same basic issues, same parties…different court….yep…sounds like grounds for contempt…

  78. such a rule would arguably violate the jurisdictional limitation of the Rules Enabling Act: that the Rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b). Cf. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 842 (1999)

    See also Goddard, 14 Cal. 2d, at 54, 92 P.2d, at 808 (stating that a dismissal “with prejudice” evinces “[t]he intention of the court to make [the dismissal] on the merits”). The primary meaning of “dismissal without prejudice,” we think, is dismissal without barring the defendant from returning later, to the same court, with the same underlying claim. That will also ordinarily (though not always) have the consequence of not barring the claim from other courts, but its primary meaning relates to the dismissing court itself. Thus, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) defines “dismissed without prejudice” as “removed from the court’s docket in such a way that the plaintiff may refile the same suit on the same claim,” id., at 482, and defines “dismissal without prejudice” as “[a] dismissal that does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the lawsuit within the applicable limitations period,” ibid.

    We think, then, that the effect of the “adjudication upon the merits” default provision of Rule 41(b)–and, presumably, of the explicit order in the present case that used the language of that default provision–is simply that, unlike a dismissal “without prejudice,” the dismissal in the present case barred refiling of the same claim in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. That is undoubtedly a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one, for claim-preclusive effect in other courts.

    opinion SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (99-1551) 531 U.S. 497 (2001)

  79. BIL: With all the citations of statues KS bandies about, never once does she refer to case law that I have seen. Of course, I have not read all her verbal diarrhea. I have to wonder if she does not know case law exists or if she simply does not know how case law works. And I would bet you the price of a bowl of etouffee that she does not have a clue as how to Shepardize an issue. Would she recognize Shepard’s Citations if it ran up and bit her on the derriere.

  80. I wasn’t forum shopping. I would have tried my case in front of Nottingham if he had let me. The only reason I went to DDC is because he said I couldn’t try it in the District of Colorado.

  81. First, don’t plead your appeal to me. Because I don’t care.

    Second, the “deal” was you wanted proof in the form of a statute – in this case the equivalent of asking me to prove a negative because no such statute exists ergo no such statute is the basis for the judge’s authority other than the general grant of authority to sanction you or hold you in contempt as found in 18 U.S.C. § 401.

    You can’t always get what you want. Even in law.

    In light of the fact that there is no statute that says what you want it to say?

    I found the next best thing: a SCOTUS ruling that says what the law is absent said statute.

    The law is that the judge has the power to fashion appropriate sanctions to the misconduct. Absent a spot on statute or citing the Constitution itself? Something doesn’t get more law than SCOTUS precedent.

    The law is the law and if you want to quibble because it’s not in the form you wished it was in as opposed to the form it actually exists in?

    Suck it up, buttercup.

    And if you don’t want to live up to your word?

    It’s not the first time I’ve dealt with delusional liars.

  82. The only fees were filing fees which I paid since I was the plaintiff and one transcript fee which I paid. There weren’t any witness expenses because there weren’t any witnesses. There weren’t any discovery expenses because there wasn’t any case management plan. No subpoenas were issued from the case.

  83. OS,

    You are correct. She has never cited case law to my knowledge either. But let’s be honest about Shepard’s though. It can bite even the most experienced attorney on the ass! Especially if you are doing it old school with the books and inevitably cannot find the one edition that you need because some student or other lawyer has run off with it. That’s one job that Westlaw and Lexis sure makes easy.

  84. Like you said Bill ” in this case the equivalent of asking me to prove a negative because no such statute exists ergo no such statute is the basis for the judge’s authority other than the general grant of authority to sanction you or hold you in contempt as found in 18 U.S.C. § 401″

    Congress limits the contempt authority of the court.

    When there is imprisonment then there is DOJ because the AG supervises the jails and that means there must be published procedure as quoted above.

  85. Kay, there is a tangible reason no lawyer would touch your case, or you, with a pole of any length. There is not enough money in the PowerBall lottery for you to come up with a retainer large enough to get a reputable, or sane, lawyer to take your case. Did you ever stop your obsessive ans self-righteous navel gazing long enough to wonder why?

  86. Kay,

    Asking someone to prove a negative is a formal logical fallacy, specifically in this instance an error known as denying the antecedent.

    If P, then Q.
    Not P.
    Therefore, not Q.

    If a statute, then it’s law.
    Not a statute.
    Therefore, not law.

    This is an invalid form of argument as law comes from many sources other than statute, including case law.

  87. BIL, I never have to use Shepard’s myself, thanks to Lexus and Westlaw. Besides, I usually tell the lawyer I work with what I need and let them to the legal research for me. I have my own areas where I am the expert, but I leave the law to experts on the law. Unlike the character in that Dirty Harry movie, I know my own limitations. Some other folks we could name apparently did not take Dirty Harry’s advice.

  88. Kay, your hubris is breathtaking. Some of the best legal experts in the country write on this blog, and you are arguing you know more about the law than they do? Amazing. I can just see it now. You lecture a Federal Circuit Judge on what the law is and will not follow the Court’s instructions or shut up when told. A perfect recipe for an extended visit to the crowbar hotel.

  89. Maybe but I don’t have a choice other than suicide which I don’t want. They left me with no acceptable option but to continue. With the baseless attorney fee shifting judgment (which they are not attempting to collect through the federal courts) they ruined my credit rating and my business and by stating that I couldn’t represent myself and putting that on the Internet they severely affected my ability to support myself. So I have no choice but to attempt to represent myself in court unless some lawyer wants to get the attorney fees available from the Privacy Act or the court appoints a lawyer.

    I don’t hate lawyers in general and there is no reason for lawyers to hate me.

  90. I didn’t lecture a federal circuit judge on what the law is. When I filed in the court of appeals I was not allowed an oral hearing. In fact, most federal courts of appeals don’t allow pro se litigants oral hearings.

  91. I always did obey procedural directions too. The only time I got one I objected to was when there was an order to show cause as to why I should be able to file a motion for summary judgment. Then I went to the U.S. Law library and looked up Moore’s Federal Procedure and quoted that.

  92. Kay, no one wants you to off yourself. You have been, and continue to be, your own worst enemy. If you would just accept the fact you lost your case and go on with your life, you would be happier. I do know one thing, and I do not even know you personally, if you keep this up, you are going to find yourself in even more trouble.

    As my granddaughter says when she is annoyed with someone, “Get a life.” I interpret that as letting go of a problem and moving on with one’s life.

  93. Kay,

    Now is the basis of your suit Attorney Fees? What was the underlying case you had filed that sanctioned you attorney fees….Ok…answer this…thats all….

    Next, You filed a new suit based upon the attorney fee award? You have to be fucking kidding me….

    Last, Do you understand why they do not let Pro Se Litigants the opportunity to Orate Arguments….It has taken me nearly a year to finally get you to say what the suit was about….

  94. I am convinced that my defendants in Steamboat thought they could get me to commit suicide.

    I didn’t lose my case, I was denied a judgment on the merits.

    My original case was for retaliatory acts that adversely affected my ability to earn an income. I didn’t get an airing of disputed facts so not only did I not get any cash judgment I didn’t get any chance to prove that I wasn’t imaging buildings that didn’t exist. Buildings that can actually be touched and seen from the street.

    The attorney fee judgment which is over $100 K is a huge problem for fee and isn’t going away on its own.

    What kind of more trouble do you think I will be in? Will they sent a hired killer?

  95. The magistrate’s report and recommendation is on PACER
    Case 1:05-cv-01283-RMU Document 27-3 Filed 09/08/2005 Page 1 of 26

    He said that sua sponte he had the authority to order me to pay photo copying. Then he said that he was ordering me to pay all attorney fees no matter what for. He ordered me to pay a lawfirm that wasn’t even formed during my lawsuit for the bills, which were not itemized, of a lawyer who filed that he was pro se. He ordered me to pay 12K to Lettunich & Vanderbloemen. They did not file a notice of appearance in the case. David Brougham of Hall & Evans said in a court hearing that Anthony Lettunich has never appeared in a federal court in his entire life. Brougham filed some bills from Lettunich in D of Colorado 02 1050 as part of document 465. I only have a few pages. I asked for a copy and the court clerk said all three copies are missing from the court files. They didn’t include them in their 10th Circuit appendix. But they filed them in Dane County court and claim they are a lien on my deed.

  96. Hall and Evans filed in Dane County Court and claims I owe them money but they didn’t file a rule 11 motion. They filed in Dane County that I was their customer.

    Faegre & Benson didn’t file a Rule 11 motion but they also filed a foreign judgment in Dane County Court

  97. Kay,

    File Bankruptcy….ok…case closed…You are pissed…but get over it…if your credit is ruined…generally 10 years later you are clean…should be 7 but hey…the Credit Bureaus have there own god…Believe this or not you are a much better credit risk after you have filed than before…it will take you 7 to 8 years to be able to file again…get it?

  98. Kay,

    What OS said.

    You need to let this go and get a life.

    Living in the past is a recipe for pain and future failure.

  99. McConnell Siderious claims I owe them over 30 K. They represented Jane Bennett, the woman who signed a criminal complaint in capacity as a police officer, even though she wasn’t a police officer, because the police wouldn’t sign a criminal complaint and they represented her lawyer too.

    They said I should be subject to attorney fee shifting because the magistrate said that all attorneys have immunity in their role as advocate.

    Her attorney Randall Klauzer got a sua sponte ruling from Routt County judge Garrecht that I molested her by complaining that she violated the zoning. He says I molested her from 30 feet away while she was with three men. She said under oath that there was no offensive touching, that I hadn’t followed her around, and that the only time I called her was once years earlier. I called her because UPS left a package for her at our house.

    Klauzer told Judge Garrecht that he should issue a permanent restraining order against me because there were criminal charges. The only person who signed the criminal charges was Jane Bennett. There was no written statement of probable cause. I was not arraigned. The prosecutor, who was married to a real estate developer, dismissed the criminal charge out of court, which violated Colorado criminal procedure. My lawyer Bill Hibbard filed a motion for an oral hearing but she was opposed to that. Judge Garrecht wrote that he had not received any information about probable cause.

    Those attorney bills were not itemized. I provided 27 pages of case law as to why attorneys don’t have general immunity.

  100. Can’t get out of attorney fees with bankruptcy. Legal sanctions are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Plus I have no job, I am self employed and so bankruptcy would destroy my ONLY source of income.

  101. raff, I would give my next ten years income to be able to sit with my grandson tonight. We buried him this afternoon to the skirling of the bagpipes. His sgian dubh, the knife a Scotsman carries in his kilt hose (sock), was buried with him.

  102. Kay,

    The only time Attorney fees are not discharged are when, there are exceptions…but they have to be for what…look into that and do it…at least a 13 gives you the ability to pay…a portion…the garnishment statutes in Colorado are good for creditors…so do something and quite bitching…

  103. The magistrate’s report said that he was recommending attorney fees because I showed malice in an objection I didn’t publish by saying that Kevin Bennett might be a drug dealer. When I lived there I heard from a number of sources that he was a drug dealer or former dealer. I put those names in the objection. They could have called them for testimony but they didn’t. Then in 2009 he ran for office again and all the candidates were asked if they had any felonies. He said that he had pled guilty to conspiracy to sell THC and I guess moved it. That is on the Steamboat Pilot web site or at least was the last time I looked.

    The magistrate’s report said that I showed malice by claiming that there might be government corruption in Steamboat Springs. Bennett’s property tax rolls, 701 Princeton Ave, for Routt County PIN 222800001 don’t match the building permits or what you can see from the street. On the property tax rolls it says he has a 1.5 car garage built in 1975. In real life he has a two story detached building built in 2000 that parks two cars and has rooms behind and over it which on the building permit that he signed as owner builder is listed as having over 2000 square feet and has heating and plumbing. # S-00-106. The accessor Gary Peterson emailed me last month that there aren’t any square feet listed on the building application. On the tax rolls it says he has a guest house built in 1950, it was built in 2000. The city minutes show that when he was supervising as city council president he told them all he built was a garage.

    The former Routt County assessor Mike Kerrigan told the Steamboat Pilot that there are many illegal buildings in STeamboat Springs and enforcement of the regulations is lax. That was after a man died in a home that was legally a garage but was rented for 10 years and was a block from the building department, on ground floor and painted purple. David Engle. There are also supposedly $5 Million in missing developer taxes and the city refuses to have an audit.

    I have a masters degree in city planning from MIT and I published a book on municipal finance. I don’t want to work scrubbing toilets. I want meaningful work.

  104. I did look into it.

    I don’t have any other substantial debts that are dischargeable in bankruptcy and if I were to file bankruptcy it would be pro se and that is a miserable experience and not worth it.

    I would never ever agree that I was the customer of these lawfirms or that the fee shifting was legal.

    As I said I am self employed as is my husband. It’s not like declaring bankruptcy when you are employed and get a paycheck the next week.

  105. Kay sez: “Don’t have an option to “get a life”. Must win in court. No other choice.”

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

    Kay, you do have choices. Talk to a credit counselor or bankruptcy attorney. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that you will NOT win in court. The operant words here are NOT WIN. As for your creditors collecting the fees, you cannot get blood out of a turnip. Keep in mind that if you had not persisted as you did, you would not be in this pickle in the first place, but this is not the time to assign blame. It has shifted from a rescue effort to damage control.

    You are NOT GOING TO WIN. Try damage control instead. You are going to be out some money and your ego will be in tatters, but it is not the end of the world. But, and this is a very big “but,” it is imperative that you follow the advice of the credit counselor or bankruptcy lawyer. Do not argue the merits of your case with them. YOU WILL NOT WIN so quit trying. You could end up having the credit counselor or bankruptcy lawyer firing you as a client if you keep trying to argue your case, because YOU WILL NOT WIN.

  106. That’s crazy talk, kay.

    You’ll run the risk of even more sanctions is what you’ll do.

    Don’t fool yourself.

    The only person you are making miserable is yourself.

    And possibly your husband.

  107. The battle over health care will probably help me. People will go to court to enforce insurance contracts. Many of them will be pro se. Are the courts going to deny them all discovery, grant motions to dismiss with prejudice, etc. and then throw them in jail because they don’t have lawyers?

    Look at the pro se guides in federal court. None of them say that people will be put on lists of people who can’t represent themselves or that they will be imprisoned for filing a lawsuit without a lawyer. Are they going to start disclosing that?

  108. Here Kay,

    Intentional Torts: Debts resulting from a willful or malicious act may not be discharged. Debts resulting from intentional torts and debts incurred by fraud are presumably dischargeable. In this type of situation, the creditor must file a request with the court to have the debt declared nondischargeable.

    Now find you one and do it…Bankruptcy Attorney’s have no shame…They will do it and are set by fee what they can charge by the court…customary fees…period…anything outside the norm is recoverable…by the court for the estate…

  109. And just what sanctions are you talking about?

    DOJ did not file a motion to impeach my testimony.

    DOJ did not file a Rule 11 motion.

    No DOJ claimed that DOJ and or its systems are exempt from 5 USC 552a (e)(7). Not just once but three times in their last motion.

  110. They didn’t file a counter claim. The idea of a Rule 11 judgment is that there was intent. I had a claim of First Amendment Retaliation as recognized by the Supreme Court 3 years after I filed.

    Bankruptcy wouldn’t be worth it. Suicide would be better.

  111. kay,

    The sanctions to which I refer are at the discretion of whichever judge you piss off next. Given the way you behave, that you will eventually piss off another judge is almost a certainty as long as you insist on representing yourself. Read that list from The Manual for Complex Litigation to get an idea of what’s possible.

  112. Kay, an attorney friend of mine has a large framed needlepoint sign behind his desk that his wife made for him. It is positioned so that all clients sitting in front of him can see it over his shoulder. The lettering is in Old English. The needlepoint sign says:

    “The Truth Will Make You Mad.”

    Kay, the truth makes you angry and frustrated, but after all the dust settles, it is still the truth. It makes you angry and frustrated, but there is an old adage that says when you are in a hole, stop digging. It is time to throw away your shovel and ask someone for a ladder to get you out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

  113. “Outside the public employment context, plaintiffs must prove the following elements to establish a retaliation claim: (1) that the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) that the defendant’s adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff’s exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.” http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-6106.pdf

    “Kay kept yelling that her husband just can’t break the law because he’s council president.” “Kay called her husband an asshole.” “Kay kept shouting phrases you’re breaking the law, obey the constitution and you can’t build that thing.” “Matt said she yelled something about violating building codes and the U.S. Constitution”. S

    In County Court under oath Jane Bennett said “I say Mrs. Sieverding … she started jumping up and down and screaming in the scariest voice ‘Just because you are the wife of the city council president doesn’t mean you can break the law’.

    In County Court, ‘witnesses said Sieverding allegedly stood in the street in front of the Bennett home and ‘screamed at the top of her lungs’ that the Bennetts were violating her constitutional rights and breaking the law.”

  114. What you are saying as truth is

    I will always lose in court regardless of the law because I am on a list of people that are to be disliked by judges because I tried to stick up for myself in a legal manner.

    I would rather have my life mean something than mean nothing.

  115. Raff, your comment did not cause me any pain. You are a good man for worrying about that. And they say lawyers are not sensitive! No, I am just sad today and keep thinking what might have been if it were not for that damnable cancer.

  116. The truth is that I had a case for First Amendment Retaliation, I didn’t get a trial, I didn’t get a memorandum opinion, I didn’t get an injunction, and I didn’t get a rule 11 c 6 order. I got my life ruined because I sued a drug dealer and then the USMS decided to throw me in the dungeon because I tried to get a hearing before another judge.

  117. My house is in foreclosure now. I had a chance to get a new mortgage but it fell though because of the attorney fee shifting judgments. Wells Fargo sent a motion for them to declare their interest in my house and only one of them signed a waiver. So they wouldn’t let me out in bankruptcy anyway. That is one reason why I must win a lawsuit.

  118. Kay, beat a retreat while you still can. Your life is not defined by what other people think of you. When you do that, you give them unlimited power over you. Give others power over yourself and you have nothing.

    You have lost the battle. Any West Point graduate will tell you that when you lose a battle, you do not keep throwing troops into a losing situation. All you do is waste resources needlessly. You lost. They won. End of story. Keep on as you are doing and you will end up in contempt again and back in the slammer. If that is what you want for yourself, keep digging. You have done immense damage to your life, your family and your finances. Stop throwing precious resources into a legal meat grinder.

    Based on some of the things you have said, I want to modify my earlier suggestion. In addition to getting credit or bankruptcy assistance, you need to talk to a mental health professional. Talk to a competent psychologist or psychiatrist. Any time someone sees suicide as a viable option, or as the only alternative option, it is a gigantic red flag. Get help. Now.

  119. Thank you Kay. He was only seventeen, eleven years less than your friend had. Sometimes life yield bitter fruit.

  120. Kay-

    When you are up against the Sheriff of Nottingham, don’t bother the Buddha- send your appeal directly to Robin Hood. He isn’t into legal niceties- he’s more likely to use the precursors of Second Amendment remedies. You know- the right to keep and bear longbows.

  121. Guys – why are you wasting bits & bytes responding to Kay? This has gone past the point of reasonableness. I quit reading Kay’s screeds the second they drift off to “The Events” (truthfully when not on “The Events” I find some of them worth reading).

    I am not a lawyer & never played on on TV either but I was shocked when I first read “The Events”. But the screeds got old very quickly as they had nothing to do with the topic. Then I realized what the actual cause of “The Events” was. Thanks for all the detail BIL but it was obvious some time ago that Kay has no interest in this silly little reality business you insist on bringing up.

    Kay’s “The Event” screeds go with Tooties pointless bullshit into my DNR pile. Just skip past them as if they do not exist. They add nothing of value, you can not bring reason, reality or light to their darkened minds and it only clogs the threads with (152 at my last count for this one) pointless crosstalk.

  122. Sorry to discuss DOJ ‘s obligations under 5 USC 522a e(7).

    No one seems to have much to say about burning religious materials. But basically the same scenario could have started if I was accused of molesting a woman by burning religious materials.

    Another example of DOJ possession of First Amendment Records came up recently with Ed Slavin. He was a lawyer who criticized the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Therefore he was disbarred and ordered to go to jail for 10 days. He moved to St. Augustine Florida and there he criticized the city attorney. It looks like the city attorney called the USMS and they came and arrested him for criticizing the Tennessee Supreme Court. But they let him go.

    The Joint Automated Booking System as described in the Code of Federal Regulations is only supposed to be used when there is a criminal prosecution.

    Anyway, based on this blog my plan is to get the federal court to rule that DOJ is exempt from 5 USC 552a e(7) and can possess First Amendment Records of whomever they feel like for any reason they want. That DOJ and the Courts can interpret 5 USC 552a e(7) and change that clause.

  123. Kay,

    Have you not gotten a hint yet? I thought it was just I…or does not what others have to say really matter?

  124. “Contempt of court was how the Holocaust started. Jewish lawyers didn’t defend pro se rights.”

    Kay,

    This is bizarre. Do you really think the NAZI courts would have recognized any Jewish filings. Do you believe that the Concentration Camp Death trains could have been stopped via injunction? If you do then you are delusional when it comes to this subject.

  125. Yes, I think that if German courts were better that the oppression of Jews, Homosexuals etc. would have stopped at the taking of property stage before the extermination stage.

    There is a movie about that called Judgment at Nuremberg. I haven’t seen it.

    I do know that the German constitution does not allow prosecutions for civil contempt.

    Also, I read the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was written after WWII with the input of many attorneys and countries. That has language with rights I wasn’t allowed. I saw a notice in the United Nations that the US has not fully adapted the Covenant.

    The Covenant has language about expanding the opportunity for government funded lawyers to represent people in civil proceedings. The US does not recognize that language.

    If the U.S. passed a law today saying that all Moslems should turn over their property to Christians, what would U.S. courts do?

  126. The United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

    Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. — I didn’t get this right

    It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment. — I didn’t get this right – – no bail hearings

    Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. — I didn’t this right and these anonymous bloggers think I shouldn’t have it.

    Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons; — I didn’t get this right

    No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country — I didn’t get this right. I went to Canada. The USMS called me and said I would be arrested if I returned to the U.S. without filing motions to dismiss my third party civil lawsuits.

    In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. _ I didn’t get this right. I was told in court by the private prosecutor that I didn’t have a right to an evidentiary hearing. The witnesses against me were not sworn and I was not allowed to cross examine them. Nottingham said I could only make a 5 minute presentation and in court vowed that he would not listen.

  127. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
    To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
    To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

    No criminal complaint was filed. There was no document entitled injunction. There was no memorandum opinion.

    I was told in court that I did not have a right to a lawyer. Then I was sent to jail. The federal public defender wrote to me in jail that he couldn’t represent me.

  128. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

    Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

    To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

    — I didn’t get these rights. I was supposed to confess to filing a lawsuit that was not allowed by Judge Nottingham as a condition of release.

  129. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. — I didn’t get this right

    Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. — I don’t have this right.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. — I don’t have this right.

    Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — I don’t have this right.

  130. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
    Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
    The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
    For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

    I don’t have these rights

  131. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

    I don’t have this right

  132. Kay,

    You really shouldn’t comment on things about which you admittedly do not know. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is about Nazi war crimes trials at the Hague. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055031/

    As to civil contempt in German courts, they do have that power – along with criminal contempt – under the section 176 of the Judiciary Act of January 27, 1877, which reads “The presiding judge is charged with maintaining order in the session.” The way contempt charges are exercised and appealed is different than in the U.S. version, but the function is essentially the same.

    You also won’t get far arguing U.N. treaties in American courts, especially when the treaties in question were signed and ratified with exceptions which defer to the U.S. Constitution on matters involving equal protection. This is the case with the treaty in question which the U.S. made the following reservations to:

    “United States of America

    Reservations:
    “(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
    “(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.
    “(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
    “(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15.
    “(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant’s provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18.”

    Understandings:
    “(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, proerty, birth or any other status – as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 – to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based `solely’ on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.
    “(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law.
    “(3) That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances’ in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual’s overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system.
    “(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant’s counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause.
    “(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.”

    Declarations:
    “(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.
    “(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations.
    “(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law.”

    http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec

    Also, to reiterate the very wise advice of Otteray Scribe, it is becoming manifestly clear that you need to seek professional mental help.

    I strongly urge you to do so.

  133. I was already evaluated by a court licensed psychologist and he found that I was “normal”. Please identify the mental illness you are implying that I have.

    On 9/2/05, when USMS first took me into custody without a criminal charge or a bail hearing, I showed up when I was supposed to, nicely dressed, stood up and sat down when and where I was supposed to, used normal tone of voice no screaming, didn’t bring a cell phone, and stopped speaking when Nottingham said my 5 minutes were up.
    So his use of contempt had nothing to do with keeping order.

    On 9/22/06, I didn’t show up. DOJ filed to the effect that I was convicted in my absence of civil contempt. And then Nottingham sent the USMS after me. So that use of contempt had nothing to do with keeping order.

    Thank you for your other info. I am going through it. The first statement is

    That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.


    So how do you rationalize USCourts and USMS deciding that this law should be ignored?:

    28 USC § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel

    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.

  134. 1) Depression with suicidal thoughts
    2) Delusional non-acceptance of the facts of past events/denial
    3) Obsession, possibly even obsessive-compulsive disorder

    All three of which are demonstrated in this thread alone.

    But then again, I’m not that kind of doctor, kay. Mine is the opinion of a layman on that matter. However, that being said, you need to see a doctor who isn’t evaluating you for the purposes of going to court, but rather for your interests in your own mental health. Legally competent to stand trial, “normal” in that context, and medically sane are not the same thing. That just meant you know right from wrong. It doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem.

    It’s obvious that you do have a problem. And it’s not just legal in nature.

    Get help.

    Soon.

    The sooner the better.

  135. “That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law.
“

    I didn’t get this right. I’m going to put it in my new complaint.

    That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances’ in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual’s overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons.

    I didn’t get this right. I was held by USMS with several women who had been convicted of violent crimes and had received sentences of over 20 years.

  136. But first, you really need to contact a mental health professional, kay.

    You are setting yourself up for a big, big fall if you don’t.

  137. Delusional non-acceptance of the facts of past events/denial

    I accept the fact that I was a victim of federal felonies including 18 USC 1512, 1513, 241, and 242.

    Accept it in the same way as a victim of rape.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t want the perps criminally prosecuted.

    I accept the fact that DOJ systems allow the incarceration of people without a criminal charge.

    I am trying to change that and have probably been somewhat effective as to the best of my knowledge DOJ has not incarcerated any other pro se litigant without a criminal charge and with Ed Slavin they let him go right away.

  138. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is currently classified as an anxiety disorder marked by the recurrence of intrusive or disturbing thoughts, impulses, images or ideas (obsessions) accompanied by repeated attempts to suppress these thoughts through the performance of certain irrational and ritualistic behaviors or mental acts (compulsions).

    I definitely don’t have that. If my petitions to the courts were so irrational, then DOJ counsel wouldn’t have felt a need to lie about the existence of the Joint Automated Booking System records, the location of my First Amendment records, and to misrepresent that DOJ is exempt from 5 USC 552a (e)(7).

  139. You are delusional about your chances of winning pro se, kay.

    Unless you have staggering proof of the crimes you allege, you are also delusional about getting a prosecutor to file charges – which is your only option to pursue justice since all you can do is file a complaint. Prosecution is at the discretion of the prosecutor.

    kay, I cannot say this strongly enough: seek professional help before your obsession destroys you.

    It has done considerable damage already.

  140. Depression

    While it’s normal to feel down sometimes—about the loss of a loved one or over the loss of a job, for instance—to consistently feel the symptoms of depression for a period of two weeks or longer may be indicative of depressive illness.

    People with depression often report an inability to imagine a happy future or to see the positive in their present circumstances. Often they don’t realize they are suffering from a treatable mental illness. Emotions and physical pain can seem unbearable and the challenges of daily living insurmountable.

    I don’t have those symptoms at all. I hope to win my Privacy Act lawsuit in a big amount and use part of the proceeds to fund state referendums to make attorney regulators an elected office. I want to fund model attorney regulation software.

    I deal with customers, solicit sales, etc. cook, clean, have regular sex, exercise, sleep at normal hours etc.

  141. @BIL:

    “Judgment at Nuremberg” is about Nazi war crimes trials at the Hague.

    Nitpick warning.

    “Judgment at Nuremberg” is a fictionalized retelling (or rather a ‘fiction based on’) of the 3rd Nuremberg Trial 1947, the so called ‘Judges’ Trial.’

    The Nuremberg Trial was held, as the name suggests, in Nuremberg, not the Hague.

  142. Berliner,

    You are correct, sir. I blame an insufficient coffee intake for the error and thank you for your correction. :mrgreen:

  143. I do have staggering proof of the crimes against me.

    I have multiple statements threatening me if I file documents in a federal civil proceeding. These threats were made in federal court hearings and I have transcripts. They were made in motions posted on PACER.

    I have a pile of letters from DOJ.

    I have itemized attorney bills from two law firms showing them calling each other about a plan to get a no pro se order which then resulted in a no pro se order without a motion or hearing. These attorney bills were verified under penalty of perjury and filed in PACER.

    So were billings to insurance companies that were not licensed in the states. The bills have a claim number. I have search results from the state insurance regulators showing lack of documents about these insurance companies and I have letters from state insurance regulators admitting their lack of documents.

    Now that the GPO as a super automated search facility of the Code of Federal Regulations I can actually prove what is not in the Code.

  144. kay,

    Anosognosia is also a symptom of the mental problems I mentioned.

    I don’t care if you want to defend your mental health to me or not.

    You asked what I thought was wrong with you and I answered.

    That you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.

    Seek help.

    Soon.

    Because it doesn’t take a professional to realize your elevator isn’t stopping at all the floors.

  145. I looked up Anosognosia on Wikipedia. I didn’t have a head injury.

    “A patient with Wernicke’s aphasia cannot correct his own phonetic errors and shows “anger and disappointment with the person with whom he is speaking because that person fails to understand him.” I didn’t show anger towards you, BIL

    “Anosognosia is thought to be related to unilateral neglect, a condition often found after damage to the non-dominant (usually the right[4]) hemisphere of the cerebral cortex in which sufferers seem unable to attend to, or sometimes comprehend, anything on a certain side of their body.” Both sides of my body work fine. As you can see, I can type.

    “Anosognosia may occur as part of Wernicke’s aphasia, a language disorder that causes poor comprehension of speech and the production of fluent but incomprehensible sentences.” While some people seem to disagree that people have a statutory right to represent themselves in court, that the Joint Automated Booking System was published in the Code of Federal Regulations as ONLY being used when there is a criminal charge, that The Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies from possession of any “record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity”, that the US Code requires a bail hearing within 24 hours of incarceration and a speedy trial notice, and other statements of law I have quoted, in court the ONLY time anyone filed a motion for a more clear statement, in 2003, they failed to respond to my reply.

    I cut and paste accurately.

  146. blah blah blah

    Again.

    Go ahead and let your incompetence to act as your own legal counsel get you in further trouble. See if I care. I long ago learned a lesson about self-destructive people the hard way. Say your piece about the error of their ways in hope the remedy their actions and then get the Hell out of their way.

    It was true then.

    It’s true now.

    And seek professional mental health.

    Your problems will only get worse until you properly address them.

    I just ask that you quit displaying your decent into madness here as if we were a court of appeals. We’re not and the more, we don’t care. You’ve been told repeatedly and by multiple parties that you need professional legal help and that if you cannot get it, there is a good reason. Your persistent insistence that you have the abilities of a legal expert is as annoying as a child insisting to a physicist that they do indeed know how to build a perpetual motion machine. Your persistent thread-jacking is a trollish, childish and obsessive nuisance. If you want to be a fool, that is your right. Conversely, it is our right not to suffer fools gladly.

    Carry on.

  147. Anosognosia is generally a condition that prevents a person from knowing something is wrong with them.

    And as a technical matter, head injury is not the only way to sustain brain damage.

    You wanted my opinion as to what is wrong with you and I have it to you. You are simply nuts, kay. Deny it to us and to yourself all you want.

    The proof is in the eating of the pudding.

  148. A statement by an anonymous blogger that someone is “simply nuts” is not an indication of mental illness of other people.

    What I don’t understand is how you can assert that the contempt power of federal judges overrides the Limits on Detention Act.

  149. A statement by a fruit loop that they are not a fruit loop does not mean they are not a fruit loop.

  150. AY,

    “Bankruptcy Attorney’s have no shame”

    Hey! I’m a bankruptcy paralegal and I have lots of shame!! :D

  151. SL,

    You are the backbone, ears, feet, nose, all the appendages of a human body….but aren’t you glad when the Asshole goes to court….

    Sorry…couldn’t resist…

  152. @ BIL

    In re Troutt, 460 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 08/21/2006)
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wood, Circuit Judge.

    “If it is criminal contempt, punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 401, certain consequences will follow;”…” this proceeding was (or should have been, as we shall see) governed both by § 401 and FED. R. CRIM. P. 42″ See they don’t recognize 18 USC § 401 as a basis for civil contempt incarcerations.

    “[s]section 401 recognizes two types of contempt: direct and indirect. Direct contempt is contumacious conduct committed in the actual presence of the court, . . . and may be punished summarily.” 741 F.2d at 135 (internal citation omitted). See also United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 316 (1975). All other contempt must be treated as indirect contempt. Bearing in mind the principle that only “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed should be used in
    contempt cases,” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821), the Supreme Court said in Wilson that “[w]here time is not of the essence, . . . the provisions of [FED. R. CRIM. P.] 42(b) may be more appropriate to deal with contumacious conduct. 421 U.S. at 319. Other factors distinguishing direct from indirect contempt include whether the act was committed in the presence of the judge and whether extrinsic evidence will be needed to prove the contempt.”

    “It is worth underscoring, in this regard, that criminal contempt is a crime, like all other crimes. See Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). It is for that reason that the Supreme Court has held that a person accused of criminal contempt enjoys the normal range of procedural rights. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826-27 (1994) (referring to In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50
    (1943) (double jeopardy); Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925) (rights to notice of charges, assistance of counsel, summary process, and to present a defense); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911) (privilege against self-incrimination and right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt);”

    “Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure implements these principles. Rule 42(a), in effect, addresses indirect contempts, while Rule 42(b) recognizes the power of the court to take summary action against “a person who commits criminal contempt
    in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies.”

    “Time was not of the essence. No trial was being disrupted by a failure to comply with a court order,
    compare Wilson, 421 U.S. at 316, nor was any other immediate function of the court threatened by Troutt’s conduct”

    “Rule 42(a) sets forth three basic requirements: adequate notice; the appointment of a prosecutor; and trial and disposition. …. The requirement in Rule 42(a)(2) to appoint a prosecutor is spelled out in mandatory language: “The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires
    the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” (Emphasis added) The record does not reflect the appointment of any prosecutor filing an appearance for the November 12, 2004, hearing.”

    “If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless
    the defendant consents.”

    “In a situation like this, right at the borderline between direct and indirect contempt, the
    judge should err on the side of providing the procedural safeguards assured by Rule 42(a). Only if he concluded that time was of the essence, or that failure to act would leave the contempt unpunished, or that some other equally powerful reason compelled
    the use of Rule 42(b) summary procedures, should he act summarily.”

    “We read § 401 to permit either a fine, or imprisonment, or both, as a penalty for criminal contempt, but not to permit any other penalty.”

    Thus the 7th Circuit interpreted 28 USC § 401 differently than you presented it last night when you said it allows incarceration without a criminal charge or a finding of contempt in the presence of the court that disrupts a trial.

    Judge Diane Wood is supposed to be on a short list as a potential S.C. Justice.

  153. 1) I really and truly do not care about your personal legal problem, 2) that case does not help you – if you were competent, you’d know why (hint: what are the only two courts in the land that can overrule circuit court judgments?), and last but not least 3) you’re a self-destructive fool.

    Seek professional mental health help is the only advice I am going to give you.

  154. OT but …

    Huckabee Hearts Secrecy
    Melissa Lyttle/ZumaThe enduring mystery surrounding the former Arkansas governor’s M.I.A. records.

    — By Siddhartha Mahanta

    Fri Apr. 1, 2011 11:35 AM PDT
    There’s a Mike Huckabee mystery that won’t go away.

    Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.

    In 2007, during Huckabee’s campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

    Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee’s governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas’ political scene—including one of Huckabee’s former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

    In February, Mother Jones wrote to the office of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe seeking access to a variety of records concerning his predecessor’s tenure, including Huckabee’s travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails. Beebe’s chief legal counsel, Tim Gauger, replied in a letter that “former Governor Huckabee did not leave behind any hard-copies of the types of documents you seek. Moreover, at that time, all of the computers used by former Governor Huckabee and his staff had already been removed from the office and, as we understand it, the hard-drives in those computers had already been ‘cleaned’ and physically destroyed.”

    He added, “In short, our office does not possess, does not have access to, and is not the custodian of any of the records you seek.”

    “Huckabee just absolutely doesn’t trust anybody,” says one former high-ranking Arkansas Republican. “In my experience, if you don’t trust people, it’s because you’re not trustworthy.”The person who may know the most about Huckabee’s records—or lack of them—is Jim Parsons. A self-described gadfly, Parsons is a former Green Beret turned good-government crusader who has filed dozens of Freedom of Information requests targeting Arkansas politicos on both sides of the aisle, including the Clintons. Shortly after Huckabee left office, Parsons went to battle with the state over his records.

    In January 2007, Parsons requested “a copy of all information” on the Huckabee administration’s computers the day he left office. Beebe’s office provided Parsons with a January 9 memo addressed to Huckabee from the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, reporting that all of the gubernatorial hard drives had been “crushed under the supervision of a designee of [Huckabee’s] office.” That is, a Huckabee aide had made sure all this information was destroyed.

    The memo included another tantalizing piece of information: The information stored on the drives had been saved on a backup, which was handed over to Huckabee’s then-chief of staff, Brenda Turner. The history of the Huckabee administration, then, was locked away, under the watchful eye of a former aide. What did she do with this information? Where is it now? Turner, who now runs the PR shop for a Arkansas-based purveyor of Christian-themed greeting cards, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. (Contacted via his political action committee, Huckabee didn’t respond to questions about his records.)

    Parsons requested the backups and eventually filed a lawsuit against Huckabee and Beebe, alleging that the new governor had siphoned taxpayer money from an emergency fund to pay to replace the destroyed hard drives. Altogether, the new equipment cost over $335,000. Huckabee countered that the information on the hard drives included private details, such as social security numbers, that shouldn’t be released to the public. In the end, Parsons’ suit was dismissed—largely because he didn’t name Turner, who apparently possessed the records, as a plaintiff.

    What do the Huckabee files hold? The records could provide details on any number of unsettled controversies involving a governor that faced at least 15 ethics complaints concerning, among other things: his failure to report gifts and outside income, his alleged use of state funds and resources for political and personal purposes, and the pardon of a convicted murderer and rapist who went on to kill again once released.

    A former high-ranking Arkansas Republican who was once close to Huckabee and who requested anonymity told Mother Jones that the destruction of the hard drives puzzled him. “I don’t know what that was about, if they had things to hide or not,” he says. But, he adds, the episode fits with Huckabee’s general reticence when it comes to public disclosure. “Huckabee just absolutely doesn’t trust anybody. In my experience, if you don’t trust people, it’s because you’re not trustworthy. We see the world through our own eyes.”

    Huckabee’s aversion to public disclosure extends beyond his gubernatorial papers. He and his handlers have also taken steps to block access to videotapes of his sermons, spanning his 12 years as a Southern Baptist minister before he entered politics. During the 2008 campaign, Mother Jones reported that Huckabee’s campaign had refused to make the sermons public—and that, according to an official at one of the churches he’d led, much of the archival material relating to Huckabee’s tenure had been destroyed.

    Despite the opacity surrounding Huckabee’s political and pastoral record, he has at times fashioned himself as a staunch advocate of government transparency. Running for president in 2007, Huckabee put forth a bold open-government proposal. “There’s an old rule that says that when the sun shines, the germs disappear,” he said in one video clip (watch it below). “Well you know, frankly, there are a lot of germs in government.” So he proposed disclosing every federal government expenditure online within 24 hours. “You could find out exactly where every dollar of the federal budget goes, down to what it cost to mow the courthouse lawn in your hometown at a federal courthouse,” he said. Discussing this plan at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (better known as CPAC) in February 2008, he said, “We should demand transparency and accountability from our government.”

    Yet Huckabee’s calls for transparency did not extend to his own records. “There were twelve years of information there, of dealings of the executive branch,” marvels Jim Parsons, referring to the hard drives. “And that bit of history is just lost. I thought it was wrong, physically and financially and historically and educationally wrong to just destroy them.” He adds, “I probably would vote for him. It’s just that he did a bad thing there.”

    Some of Huckabee’s gubernatorial papers do still exist, records that were selected by his office and handed over to his alma mater, Ouachita Baptist University. Due to funding hang-ups and other delays, a spokeswoman for the university says the records won’t be accessible to the public for another two years. That is, after the conclusion of the 2012 presidential contest.

    Siddhartha Mahanta is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. Got story ideas? Email him at smahanta (at) motherjones (dot) com. For more of his stories, click here. Get Siddhartha Mahanta’s RSS feed.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/huckabee-arkansas-destroyed-records

  155. BIL

    If I were a self destructive fool then I would claim that the attorney fee shifting judgments were valid and give up my assets by declaring bankruptcy and I would admit to being a vexatious litigant. I am not a self destructive fool so I will NOT affirm attorney fee shifting judgments that were made without a Rule 11 c 6 order or an order to show cause; and since I had a valid cause of action that can be proven by government records I will not refute that.

    The 7th Circuit ruling would give me grounds to file a motion for en banc rehearing or Supreme Court hearing if DOJ were to assert that 28 USC 401 allows summary incarceration for documents written outside of court and filed in a different court.

    If I were unable to get a hearing from the S.C. or the Circuit Court if the D of Columbia rules in the case that I haven’t yet filed that 28 USC 401 allows summary incarceration for documents written outside of court then I will do my best to publicize that.

  156. See, kay, but that’s where you are wrong.

    You are a self-destructive fool for not coming to grips with the fact that the attorney fee shifting judgments were valid, for not declaring bankruptcy and you would realize that you are indeed a vexatious litigant. Almost everyone who loses in court thinks they deserved to win. That’s not how it works.

    Learn when to walk away and rebuild.

    Until you do, your obsession is going to work to destroy what you have left and can possibly retain. How long do you think this obsession is going to go on before it takes a toll on your marriage? Even Job had a limit to his patience. And since you’ve expressed suicidal tendencies, your loses could include your life if (and when) you lose in court again. Seek professional help. To be clear, I mean professional mental health help.

  157. “Yes, I think that if German courts were better that the oppression of Jews, Homosexuals etc. would have stopped at the taking of property stage before the extermination stage.”

    Kay,

    That statement is unbelievable in what it says for your lack of historical knowledge. Hitler’s Germany was a dictatorship. Jews had no rights before the law. Judges who didn’t comply with NAZI policy (and a few didn’t)were
    arrested by the Gestapo, killed and/or sent to concentration camps. That’s like saying if soviet courts were better they wouldn’t have allowed Stalin to kill 10 million of his own people. Meaningless drivel on your part and an indication of your self-centered obsessions.

  158. AY,

    “SL,

    You are the backbone, ears, feet, nose, all the appendages of a human body….

    Lol – sorry, you can’t suck up now, the damage has been done!

    “but aren’t you glad when the Asshole goes to court….”

    Yes! In fact, the asshole’s in court now … but at least he’s a nice asshole :D

  159. @ Mike

    Can you find a reference indicating that the Courts in Germany or Russia tried to prevent mass incarcerations and genocide?

    @ Bil

    I have come to grips with the fact that Judge Nottingham did not use published court procedure in my case. He used contempt powers for facts outside the court room without a criminal charge. He deprived me of my right to confrontation, my right to a defense lawyer, my right to a written statement of charges, and my right to an evidentiary hearing. Nottingham deprived me of my right to a memorandum opinion and he burdened me with judgments that were not based on any published procedure. He didn’t do that because I irritated him because prior to that I never met him. The best explanation I know is that he was bribed or maybe he has some irrational hatred of pro se litigants. Do you know another reason?

    As far as I am concerned, what happened to me is similar to rape. It is common for rape victims to continue resentment especially when the perp is unpunished.

    There is absolutely no way that I would ever “accept” what Nottingham and his associates did to me.

  160. @ Bil

    You actually really helped me in pushing me to find the Diane Wood judgment “We read § 401 to permit either a fine, or imprisonment, or both, as a penalty for criminal contempt, but not to permit any other penalty.” which I have just pasted into my new draft complaint.

    Thank you for that.

  161. b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
    (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
    (2) cause or induce any person to—
    (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
    (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
    (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
    (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    TWENTY YEARS! That shows that it is a significant crime.

  162. Kay,

    I am curious, because I do like to watch train wrecks and other peoples drama….I don’t do too well with my own drama….but why did the judge ask for you to be mentally evaluated?

  163. “Can you find a reference indicating that the Courts in Germany or Russia tried to prevent mass incarcerations and genocide?”

    no I can’t and that was the point of my comments. Expecting the German courts under Hitler, or the Soviet Courts under Stalin to stand up to genocide is simply silly.

  164. @ Anonymously

    The judge didn’t ask for me to be mentally evaluated. My lawyer suggested that I get a written evaluation to deflect character assassination. That was good advice from my lawyer who was at that time Sandra Gardner. She is now a judge in Moffat County Colorado.

    @ Mike

    Which is why it is important that judges stand up for public rights now before they are afraid that they will be killed for standing up against a totalitarian society.

    First They came… – Pastor Martin Niemoller
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    ——

    And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a pro se litigant …..

  165. SO Kay,

    You did have an attorney….right? When did this one come into being…How can you be Pro Se if you have an attorney? I love train wrecks….I really do….don’t you?

  166. O.k. I tried animals on trampolines, that didn’t work. So, in an effort to return this conversation to something a bit closer to the original topic,I’ve got no choice but to pull out the big guns.

    That’s right, video game themes played on tuned Tesla Coils.

  167. Kay,

    Wow, that’s offensive. Tell you what, when you and everyone that shares your faith and genetic material get enslaved, tortured, and killed. THEN you get to use holocaust imagery.

    Anyway, back on topic…

  168. I had an attorney when I lived in Steamboat Springs Colorado. Then I moved to Wisconsin and didn’t find another one. On the advice of my lawyer in Steamboat Springs I sued the Kevin Bennett and associates in federal court in Colorado. I could have done that from Steamboat but after there was a bullet hole through our window we were afraid to stay there.

    Suing in federal court in Colorado from Wisconsin made it more difficult to find a lawyer. I really needed one in Denver. There actually aren’t very many federal court plaintiffs attorneys in Denver. I made some calls but didn’t find one. Maybe I could have if I had tried harder. I eventually met someone who said he would have taken my case but by then it was too late.

    I was worried about the costs of a lawyer. A David Criste sued the City of Steamboat Springs and reportedly his legal bills were well over $100K before he got past a most to dismiss. He told me that he had a deposition that a city council member said that their plan was to bankrupt him with legal bills.

    I had actually been doing legal research for money off and one since I was in college. (Not for individuals) I got a scholarship to graduate school based on research I did on local government land banking. I took a course in urban law and my professor recommended me. I had privileges at the Harvard Law library. I did my thesis on municipal disclosure which was pretty technical. I didn’t know the risks I was facing and I thought that pro se litigation couldn’t be that difficult. I went into the case too with open records responses I had collected from Steamboat while I still lived there. I also had tape recordings of city officials that I got by carrying a tape recorder in my purse when meeting with them.

    I had a subscription to Case Clerk.com I started with the Supreme Court decisions and copied everything that seemed relevant. I found this quotation from Justice Marshall and I believed it:

    The 1871 Congress intended § 1 to “throw open the doors of the United States courts” to individuals who were threatened with, or who had suffered, the deprivation of constitutional rights, id. at 376 (remarks of Rep. Lowe), and to provide these individuals immediate access to the federal courts. Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982)

    As part of my city planning education, I studied the case law supporting zoning, Euclid etc., and that is why I believed that it was based on the 14th Amendment and that the City’s decision to sometimes aggressively enforce the zoning but to order that city laws were to be ignored on Princeton Ave was a violation of the constitution.

    When I was in college I had a lover whose father was in Auschwitz for 5 years and that caused me to feel more strongly about the rule of law. His father insisted he go to law school.

  169. Gyges, Stamford Liberal, Frank, Bruce in Jersey, Mike Spindell, rcampbell, Blouise, Buddha, Otteray Scribe, et al-

    Remember a couple of years ago when we were having an interesting discussion about Sen. Lindsey Graham and Freedom of Speech? Does anyone remember how that all came out? Seems like it was only yesterday…..

  170. kay sieverding 1, April 6, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Delusional non-acceptance of the facts of past events/denial

    I accept the fact that I was a victim of federal felonies including 18 USC 1512, 1513, 241, and 242.

    Accept it in the same way as a victim of rape.
    —————————————————-
    Kay,

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

    You are asking the fox to reimburse you for the eggs he stole and ate.

    Why play with cheaters and make yourself sick?

    Can’t you find another way?

  171. On the advice of my lawyer in Steamboat Springs I sued the Kevin Bennett and associates in federal court in Colorado.~Kay S
    ——————————
    …and did you report their sorry butts to the bar and what happened about that?

  172. Well I guess you could say that about anyone who sues a state or federal government.

    I don’t know another way out of my situation. I am already 57 so the idea that I would go bankrupt and then embark on a second career, burdened with the civil contempt conviction and the on-line defamation, isn’t really practical.

    The benefits for me of winning against the government are huge. If I can base a judgment on the face value of the lawsuits that the USMS intervened in I will get enough money to retire + enough money to set up family businesses + enough money to pursue some sort of justice program. And I would feel that I had personally changed the course of history and established rights. I already feel that way to some extent since they have stopped incarcerating pro se litigants as a method of winning lawsuits.

  173. HenMan,

    I’m of the opinion that both Kay and Tootie are bots programed by an incredibly intelligent Dadaist, who is having a German Soprano, and Italian Tenor read our responses to them out-loud in Sprechstimme, while he records them. He’s splicing the recordings randomly into 5 different tracks, and playing them all simultaneously at visitors who are standing in front of a picture of a three hole punch.

    So our discussion on Free Speech got turned into part of a piece showing the absurdity of all human existence.

  174. artwerk notwithstanding….Kay, write a book, call Oprah….get an Attorney who is not a dried up testicle…what you are doing now is just alienating anyone who may try to listen…you obviously have a case, people don’t exhibit your type of anger without good reason. Most people don’t get that the whole system is currently corrupted because people like yourself have 1.) been actively hurt by it and 2.) subsequently and deliberately shut out by it from any recourse and /or resolution.

    Your position, unfortunately, means that the system is not what it says it is….and in the absence of anyone willing to NOT be a pawn of the system, you are a potential threat. To judges, to lawyers, to politicians, to the kind of people who don’t think lying and worse are any big deal. You are gambling the rest of your life against winning against people who are that weak….for what?

    $$$ – ???
    don’t you know that there are people who see what’s going on?

  175. Buddha,

    This reminds me of college when I simultaneously started the Apathetic Dadist Party (daP) and the Anti-dadist Apathetic Party (Adap).

    Life is absurd, but who cares?

  176. Kevin Bennett isn’t a lawyer. I did report his lawyer, Randall Klauzer, the one who got a restraining order on me so that Bennett could keep the buildings that violated the zoning, which violated Rule 4.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. I complained that he got the restraining order without a statutory basis or statutory procedure and that he got the judge to sua sponte rule that I molested Jane Bennett. If I had molested her, that would have been a crime requiring normal criminal procedure. In court he kept talking to Judge Garrecht about going fishing.

    I reported Elizabeth Wittemyer, the prosecutor who prosecuted me in Routt County without a written statement of probable cause or an arraignment, violated statutes by dismissing it out of court, and then told the press that Jane Bennett was my victim but a trial would be too expensive. I complained that she didn’t follow the rules of criminal procedure and that she was biased because her husband was a real estate developer and suggested that Kevin Bennett helped him get a permit for a new ski area at Stagecoach that he tried to sell in the Wall Street Journal for $20 Million or $75 K per acre for vacant land they paid about $ 10 K for. Before Jane Bennett signed the criminal summons in capacity as police officer another police officer Kirby Blackmun came to warn me that the DA was “in on it”. I complained to the D.A. about that, a big mistake, and then Kirby lost his job.

    I also reported the lawyers who asked Nottingham to put me in jail without a criminal charge. Chris Beall, David Brougham, Brett Huff, Tracy Van Pelt.

    I reported Danielle Moore, a lawyer who worked for the State AG and appeared against me and then went to work for Hall & Evans and appeared against me. I emailed with her boss at the AG and she confirmed they had not given permission for that.

    I reported Edward Nottingham for making threatening statements — witness intimidation.

    I reported Cari Hermacinski, a lawyer who owns my old house and is currently president of Steamboat’s city council, for adding on a two story hot tub porch that goes into the setback about 8 by 12 feet without getting a variance.

    I reported Anthony Lettunich the city attorney for working simultaneously for the city as for real estate developers without having a contract with the city or informing them about his other clients. I also reported him for billing the City of Steamboat Springs for a three way long distance ex parte with David Brougham and Magistrate Schlatter, with no notice to us until years later.

    I reported Christopher Beall for representing Mutual Insurance of Bermuda even though it didn’t have a NAIC number and he didn’t file a Rule 26 disclosure and he didn’t disclose that to the 10th Circuit as required by local rules and not disclosing the insurance company to the 10th Circuit as required by local rules.

    I reported David Brougham for representing Underwriters at Lloyds London even though it is only authorized to sell insurance to individuals in Illinois and Kentucky and not disclosing Lloyds to the 10th Circuit as required by local rules. I also reported the 20 + itemizations on his attorney bills for calls to and from the federal court house to discuss future events such as how and when the court would rule.

    KNOWYOURCOURTS web site had many of these complaints on line for a while.

    All my complaints to Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel were assigned to Matt Samuelson. Every time Samuelson ruled that the behavior was acceptable for an advocate and that the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel would not investigate. And then he called me and said that they won’t “accept any more complaints” from me.

  177. Buddha,

    My antics with the daP actually got me interrogated by the campus police. Apparently making a smiley face out of tacks on somebody’s pretentious senior recital poster constitutes a threat. Or rather, doing that when you’re friends with somebody he hit on, and rejected him, and also happen to friends with somebody who was competing against him in a concerto competition.

    My response to the guy who got stuck talking to me was “sorry I made your job harder, I was just being a dumb college student.” His response was “Yeah, me too.”

  178. well Kay….they look like the best sort of people to leave behind. why keep wallowing in their detritus?

    you will end up smelling really nasty….

  179. Yeah people have been trying to get me to write a book. It could actually be a movie with the visuals of skiing, not just talking heads.

    But first I am going to sue the government again. And this time I am going to use the Judge Wood 28 USC 401 citation that Buddha is Laughing got me to dig up.

    One thing that is really weird is that Steamboat’s latest city manager Jon Roberts recently ended up with three broken ribs, a broken eye socket and a dislocated shoulder with no explanation as to how it happened. He was skiing on an open run that he was familiar with, See Me, a run I skied many times, and was just found there.

  180. Gyges-

    I would have joined both parties, but I probably would have slept through the meetings unless they were held at a nearby tavern. Contrary to all medical research, beer was the only thing that kept me awake during my college years.

  181. Wootsy

    They made me look really bad 5 to 10 years ago. David Brougham gave an interview to the Denver Post and said it was impossible to understand anything I wrote. etc. etc.

    I figured the only way it would get worse is if they murdered me. And that blogging was a way to protect against that.

  182. Henman,

    No, each party only had one member (my friend and I), that’s the only way you can claim to be a member of a “counter culture” if it’s got more than one member, it’s simply a culture.

    Never underestimate the amount of BS two bored musicians can spew.

  183. Gyges,

    Campus cops.

    When you’re just too good a cop to be a mall cop.

    Sometime offline, remind me to tell you my mall cop story from high school. It is the very portrait of a man with a little power gone completely mad. And me and a real cop having a really good laugh at his expense.

  184. Gyges-

    Today if you have an organization of two people, you have a website and sell T-shirts. You will soon have more members though- one from the FBI, one from the CIA, one from the NSA, one from the FBI to watch the CIA guy, one from the CIA to watch the NSA guy, etc.,etc.,etc. Soon you will have enough to form a “Movement”.

  185. I just remembered that what OARC said about my Daniel Moore complaint was that permission to appear in related matters after being a government employee could be valid without a written record. That rule apparently is now being interpreted to mean that permission requires a written record.

    The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are on-line. All the states have similar wording or did when I looked but even a word like “written” permission can make a big difference. You have to really study it. One of the ways they make it confusing is they mix things lawyers must or must not do with things that are nice to do.

    I think that there are presumptions in evidence and that one of them is that legal events involving permissions are written, that it doesn’t have to be explicit in the regulation every time.

    I know that a lot of my bad legal experience had to do with changes in presumptions.

  186. What might help with the religious retaliation issues is an on-line social network for religious professionals of different religions.

    They could get to know each other without spending any money and then they might be able to get together at conferences on housing, food, education, clean water etc. or for something relaxing like fishing or golf. They could have links to music and on-line language translation assistance. Then ministers of different religions could “friend” each other and that could help to defuse potentially violent situations and promote productive solutions and mutual respect.

  187. Kevin Bennett 1, April 6, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Kay,

    We have found you. Are you still living in the same old hangout?
    ———————————-
    see Kay, there are assholes everywhere…truth is, they aren’t as smart as you and they know it. They NEED to make you look bad because they are pervs and they get off on that sort of thing…and because people probably don’t like them in general and you are probably well liked and intelligent. Stop being their toy.

  188. Dear Wootsy

    “Stop being their toy” is easier said than done.

    I really don’t think that was the real Kevin Bennett, or the same Kevin Bennett, there are actually a number of people with the same name.

    I once read a science fiction novel that said that when intellectuals are under stress, they intellectualize. That really is true. Maybe it would be easier if my first response was to jog. I’d be skinnier at least.

    When I was growing up, my father was in the Dale Carnegie program and he used to come home and talk about positive thinking all the time. Which really is less stressful in the long term.

  189. “‘Stop being their toy’ is easier said than done.”

    That’s why people get help with their obsessions, kay.

    Or don’t.

  190. BIL

    For reasons I don’t know you are some how opposed to my getting an airing of disputed facts or a decision on the merits in a court of law.

    My interactions with Bennett et al are not voluntary on my part. Even if I were totally psycho my seeing a psychologist would not stop Bennett et al from hurting me.

  191. Except you’re not going to get an airing of the disputed facts by your endless thread-jacking here, kay.

    You’re just annoying people who, while they wish you no ill will, really wish you’d shut up about your personal problem or save it for YOUR blog.

    Most people come here – although the specifics vary – for the wide breadth of discussion of issues mostly related to our legal system and Constitution although sometimes not. Not to hear about your personal issues ad nauseum.

    The bottom line is if you’re trying to get a hearing to (re)state your case? No one with the power to grant such a hearing gives a flying rats ass about what you do here. No prosecutor is going to wake up tomorrow, read this thread, and rush to the office to start a case against the people who wronged you. No Senator is going to read it and launch an investigation out of righteous outrage. No one with the power to do something is going to do anything because of what you say here.

    You are, in short, wasting not only your time, but ours as well. While I don’t care if you waste your own time? I do mind when you waste my time and the time of others not interested nor empowered to do anything about your personal problem.

    You asked what I though was wrong with you and one of the issues I responded with was obsession (possibly OCD). I responded that way because your attendant compulsion seems to be blogging about your personal problem here. More accurately, the form of obsession you suffer from is probably a form of monomania. Wiki describes monomania as “a single pathological preoccupation in an otherwise sound mind. Emotional monomania is that in which the patient is obsessed with only one emotion or several related to it; intellectual monomania is that which is related to only one kind of delirious idea or ideas.” While monomania is not a proper DSM diagnosis these days, the condition still exists but it is called different names by psychological professionals depending upon the specifics of manifestation.

    Get help with your obsession, kay. Cause of action or not? It’s pretty obvious you are not well. Untreated mental illness usually only gets worse when left untreated.

    I’m not being snarky. I’m not being mean. When you talk about suicide and show obvious signs of obsession, I tell you to seek help for your own good and the good of those who do care about you.

  192. BIL

    My legal situation is not “my personal problem” only. The fact that the government broke the law and violated the First Amendment is a matter of public interest to some people if not to you.

    I have gained a lot by discussing my legal situation on blogs. It was a form of “service by publication” as a substitute for a court hearing, which I was denied. I think it has protected me from additional witness retaliation.

    If you are only interested in religious retaliation, why don’t you respond to my suggestion of religious proessionals service network.

    You really helped me with the complaint I am trying to draft right now. You led me to the Diane Woods quotation that 18 USC section 401 is limited to criminal contempt.

    And, I just followed the link you posted and found this at LectLaw Imposition of Federal Litigation Sanctions:

    Unless the sanction is minor and the misconduct obvious, the court should memorialize its findings and reasons on the record or by written order. – fn.51 The findings should identify the objectionable conduct clearly, state the factual and legal reasons for the court’s action, including the need for the particular sanction imposed and the inadequacy of less severe measures, and the authority relied on. Making such a record will facilitate appellate review and help the appellate court understand the basis for the court’s exercise of its discretion. –

    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2)(B) & advisory committee’s note. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(C)(3).

    In my case against Kevin Bennett et al. D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 there is no such record.

  193. “My legal situation is not ‘my personal problem’ only.”

    Yeah, kay. See? That’s where you are flat wrong.

    Believe it or not, it is your personal problem. None of us are impacted by it nor can we do anything to assist you substantively to get that hearing you so desire. Your case is not some staggeringly important 1st Amendment issue. And believe it or not, a large part of the negative outcome you suffered is caused by you representing yourself. Your arrogance and incompetence to litigate are as much to blame for your situation as the original cause of action is.

    I’m also adding paranoia to what I think is wrong with you too if you think your actions here somehow protect you from additional witness retaliation. If these people really wanted you dead? Car accidents are quite staggeringly easy to arrange. 115 people a day die in car accidents. These people don’t want you dead or you’d be dead, kay. These people are sitting back and laughing at you if they are thinking about you at all.

    Get help.

    Quit wasting our time.

  194. I am really interested in using the power of technology to secure due process.

    The Privacy Act allows claims when USMS knowingly and intentionally arrests and damages a person using the Joint Automated Booking System who is not criminally charged and the officers know that there is no criminal information. DOJ is required to

    (9) establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development, operation, or maintenance of any system of records, or in maintaining any record, and instruct each such person with respect to such rules and the requirements of this section, including any other rules and procedures adopted pursuant to this section and the penalties for noncompliance;

    (10) establish appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained;

    (11) at least 30 days prior to publication of information under paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection, publish in the Federal Register notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency;

  195. kay,

    Again, I don’t care about your monomaniacal ramblings.

    Seek help.

    Quit wasting our time.

  196. BIL

    You already did substantially help me just by debate. And if you are not interested then don’t make posts directed in my direction.

    I don’t think it is possible to measure the importance of DOJ knowingly incarcerating someone because and only because of their First Amendment Records.

    I read about a case involving perjury per se. That case was supposed to have really important legal significance to the entire legal system. It involved a barn that was over a sceptic field. In seller documents the owner signed that it was not over a sceptic field. I guess it was legally significant because it was a yes no issue, the owner knowingly misrepresented the facts, and the sceptic field made the barn dangerous for livestock because of methane fumes. The point of the article is that even though it was just a barn on a small field, the precedent would affect many legal cases.

    I think that the future of procedural due process in general will be affected substantially by land use regulation decisions, something that many attorneys think is boring or don’t understand. In my case, much of the evidence is incontrovertible because it involves government documents and buildings whose existence can be physically verified even if they aren’t on the tax rolls.

    The fact that there was no government purpose, no national security issues also simplifies the issues.

    Suspected terrorists aren’t going to have more rights than a middle aged citizen with no criminal record and no guns.

  197. To be clear, crazy woman:

    I don’t care about your personal problem.

    I do care about you wasting our time with it.

    Again, I don’t care about your monomaniacal ramblings.

    Seek help.

    Quit wasting our time.

  198. This is so sad.

    Kay, BIL has given you great legal advice – FOR FREE!! and you refuse to listen. There are several other lawyers on this thread & if they have not agreed and reinforced what BIL has told you they have remained silent which, to my tiny mind at least, would indicate they don’t disagree. But you refuse to listen to that. Do you honestly believe you know the law better than trained lawyers?

    If you do or if you refuse to take the advice offered and at least consider it you need to listen to BIL’s other advice – GET MENTAL HEALTH CARE!. Seriously, these seem like decent people who actually care about you but you refuse to listen.

    If a doctor told you you had an illness and needed help and they told you this every time you told them you knew better and kept getting sicker and sicker don’t you think at some point you might actually shut the fuck up and listen to people who know more about it than you do?

    Lets pretend you are right. You have not convinced a single person here. You have ‘lost’ you case before every judge (and lets limit this to only those who are members of the bar if that makes you happy) if you can not convince a relatively friendly crown here how are you going to convince a judge anywhere? You may be right but you can not win, there is no shame in admitting defeat, particularly when refusal to do so is going to cause more damage than quietly giving up.

    How about this? Say you ‘win’, what are you going to gain? Say you lose, what will it cost you? Forget for a moment that your odds of winning are so near zero as to not matter. There is no win that would come close to what you have already lost. It no longer matters if you are right or wrong (and the HUGE majority say you are wrong) you will not be better off.

    Give it up, you have already lost even if a miracle happened & the court ruled in you favor (which IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN). Spend the money you save on this death spiral on mental health care.

  199. @ Frank

    I appreciate your sincere concern for my mental health.

    It’s true that I have already lost even if a miracle happened & the court ruled in my favor — I will never be young again, never get that time back etc etc.

    However, I would be in a much better place than not winning. And I truly think that Access to Court is the Foundation of Democracy —

    Really if I could win that would be super great. My father is in his mid 80’s and he is super sharp. I could have a really great new career as a promotor of justice.

    Why exactly do you think it is impossible for me to win?
    a.) everyone hates me
    b.) I am incompetent
    c.) statute of limitations
    d.) res judicata
    e.) immunity
    f.) federal register publications
    h.) other

  200. Kay, you will not win because you do not have a case. It is not a winnable case. You are tilting at windmills. There is an old psychologist joke that says the definition of a psychosis is to keep trying the same thing over and over, but failing every time, yet fully expecting a different outcome each time.

    You have managed to make one judge mad enough at you to put you in jail, but you are rationalizing the reason. Rationalization is not solving a problem. You have gotten several thousand dollars worth of legal and mental health advice so far, but insist on plowing ahead with your near-delusional pursuits anyway. That is the same approach to a problem used by the late unlamented General Ambrose Burnside, who managed–repeatedly–to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Burnside had retreated when he lost, he would not have gone down in history as, arguably, one of the worst generals of all time. Worse even than General George Pickett. Please do not pull a Burnside and keep throwing resources into a bottomless pit. Stop looking backward at what might have been and look the other way to what can be done to improve the quality of the rest of your life.

  201. BIL, we have given Kay our best shot. She seems to be coming around, based on her response to Frank, but still clearly grasping at straws. I am genuinely worried for her mental health–this legal stuff has defined her life for so long, that if she gives it up she may feel there is little worth living for. Psychological myopia is a dangerous thing.

  202. OS,

    Hopefully she is coming around. On another thread, she even admitted she might be obsessive. As we both know, the first step to rectifying a problem is to recognize you’ve got one. If she wants to help promote justice though, and not dwell on her own loses past, I think she should consider a way to redirect her energy – perhaps starting off by volunteering for a pro-justice group like the ACLU or Amnesty International or something along those lines that would allow her to promote justice in a more universally applicable way that is unconnected to the specifics of her past problems. From there, maybe she can work it into a full time position where she can help others not getting justice. Those kind of organizations always need extra hands.

  203. BIL, that is excellent advice. Channel anger and frustration into something where you can actually do some good for others. Nothing heals the soul like giving to others selflessly.

  204. It is 11 p.m. so I will write back tomorrow. In the meantime, more specific criticism would be really appreciated.

    I’m not looking for general advice right now. I am looking for specific issues related to winning the lawsuit the complaint for which is my current writing project.

    No Bil

    I did NOT use the word obsessive to describe myself.

    ob·ses·sive   
    [uhb-ses-iv] Show IPA
    –adjective
    1.
    being, pertaining to, or resembling an obsession: an obsessive fear of illness.
    2.
    causing an obsession.
    3.
    excessive, especially extremely so.
    –noun
    4.
    someone who has an obsession or obsessions; a person who thinks or behaves in an obsessive manner.
    Use obsessive in a Sentence
    Origin:
    1910–15; obsess(ion) + -ive

    —Related forms
    ob·ses·sive·ly, adverb
    ob·ses·sive·ness, noun
    non·ob·ses·sive, adjective
    non·ob·ses·sive·ly, adverb
    non·ob·ses·sive·ness, noun

    I joked that I felt that I had to look up the definition of what the lawyer was criminally charged with because I wanted to understand the law. Sorry for joking.

    It is important to me AND I think I can win if I optimize my strategy. So please address the reasons in law

    Thank you for your time.

  205. PS

    If you could phrase it like an outline for an Answer or a Motion for Summary Judgment or a Motion to Dismiss that would be great. Say start with the premise that we lost two distinct lawsuits based on damages from non over lapping time periods because USMS intentionally had records of them without authorization and that that is a claim cognizable under 5 USC 552a (e)(7).

    Thanks again so much for the opportunity to discuss our claims.

  206. Kay, you have milked that cow dry. I doubt any of the lawyers here will give you a detailed exposition of why you do not have a case. It is always a bad idea to try to practice law by long distance without going over the entire file. That is not going to happen. None of us can speak except in general terms, that would apply only to generic situations–something like giving case examples in a classroom lecture. Based on what you have revealed, and keeping in mind that we have only seen your version of events, and further keeping in mind that every lawsuit or prosecution has TWO sides, we are hamstrung on the specifics.

    Based simply on what you have said so far, you are in a losing proposition. Cut your losses. And as for obsessive, it is not just a dictionary definition. It is a complex diagnosis, and I do not do long distance diagnosis. You have reported here some of the symptoms of that disorder, but I am not about to diagnose you over the internet. I have my suspicions and that is as far as I am willing to go. Someone can have obsessive traits without rising to the level of a clinical diagnosis.

    All of us are sympathetic to your plight, but please, stop digging.

  207. pete,

    You are quite correct.

    kay,

    You have zero, I repeat, zero chance of winning no matter how you refine your “strategy”. The court had every right to hold you in contempt, jail you and impose sanctions. If you stood a chance of victory at one time, it has been reduced to . . . precisely and exactly zero. Driven by your insane antics at playing like you are a legal expert when you are manifestly and demonstrably not I might add.

    I will not outline a goddamn thing for you. I will not and have not worked for you in any way, shape or form. You are a disaster and you are heading for even more disaster. The only advice I give you is this: Seek professional psychological counseling.

  208. All I was asking for was an analysis of using civil contempt imprisonment instead of criminal contempt imprisonment and doing so for the purpose of affecting a third party lawsuit for which the government held records was a claim under 5 USC 552a e(7).

    You have not stated any reason in law, simply that you don’t like the idea of a persistent pro se litigant trying again with a finding from a three party federal appellate court headed by Diane Woods that the contempt powers of federal judges is limited to criminal contempt.

    So your anonymous legal advice is not sound.

    There probably is some legal significance in your perception, however, that pro se litigants will always lose even when they have a cause of action.

  209. kay,

    “All I was asking for was an analysis of using civil contempt imprisonment instead of criminal contempt imprisonment and doing so for the purpose of affecting a third party lawsuit for which the government held records was a claim under 5 USC 552a e(7).

    You have not stated any reason in law, simply that you don’t like the idea of a persistent pro se litigant trying again with a finding from a three party federal appellate court headed by Diane Woods that the contempt powers of federal judges is limited to criminal contempt.”

    I told you that I do not and would not work for you.

    Repeatedly.

    “So your anonymous legal advice is not sound.”

    The only thing not sound here is your mind. Hint: what are the only two courts in the land that can overrule circuit court judgments? What court decided Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132-33 (1991)? What case has not be overruled but sustained?

    So why don’t you just go screw yourself further and see if I care, you parasitic psycho.

  210. Please don’t call names

    I think that Chambers v. Nasco referred to the inherent authority of the court being used outside of contempt prosecutions and within the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I remember Nasco, it had to do with actions in two courts simultaneously. That was not a factor in my litigation. When Nottingham commenced contempt proceedings against me, he had lost jurisdiction by dismissing my case two years earlier.

  211. kay,

    I’ll call you what you are, parasite. And spare me your “legal analysis”. It’s crap.

  212. Kay, I cannot believe you just asked BIL or one of us to write a legal brief for you. As was said earlier, that is not going to happen. BIL is right. You have magically transformed yourself from someone we were beginning to feel sorry for into a full-blown parasite. BIL is right on that point.

    My dear, get a life. Drop it. You lost. The courts have told you what you can do with your case and you still persist. That is the very definition of a vexatious litigant. Keep it up and you not only will be further in the hole financially, you will get room and board at the crowbar hotel once again.

    I am done. Pete said (above) that this was like watching a slow motion train wreck. It is a wreck of your own making. You need psychological help. Get it–there is absolutely nothing else anyone here can, or will, do for you. If you post more stuff about your non-existent “case,” you will be talking to yourself.

  213. I didn’t ask you to write a legal brief. Some anonymous bloggers who might not even be lawyers made legal comments and I discussed them.

    Hopefully the Court will agree that the contempt powers of the court are limited to criminal contempt and that DOJ is bound by the Privacy Act exactly how it is written.

    Sorry about your grandson.

  214. Kay,

    You don’t even have to be an attorney to read this….now to understand the underlying issues….it might take a mind clearly you have lost yours….

    But here…just for you…civil contempt…can be for actions directed towards a party…not just the court….were you still maligning the previous person that was the subject of the lawsuit that was dismissed….. Think long and hard before you answer….

    Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority. Often referred to simply as “contempt,” such as a person “held in contempt,” it is the judge’s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court’s normal process.
    A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
    In civil cases involving disputes between private citizens, the behaviour resulting in the ruling is often directed at one of the parties involved rather than at the court directly.
    A person found in contempt of court is called a “contemnor.” To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
    Existence of a lawful order
    The contemnor’s knowledge of the order
    The contemnor’s ability to comply
    The contemnor’s failure to comply

  215. In the U.S. Federal court, judges are bound by 28 USC section 401 and the Rules Enabling Act. U.S. prisoners are turned over to the authority of the Attorney General and the AG is bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires published procedure and includes The Privacy Act.

    There is an opinion somewhere to the effect that federal judges can’t see laws in the sky, that there is no federal common law. They can’t make decisions based on “Lect-Law”.

  216. kay,

    Once again proving you don’t know what you are talking about. If you had gone to law school and gotten the requisite training, you’d know that the “opinion somewhere” you are referring to is Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). It said that there is no general Federal common law, the key word being “general”, not that there was no Federal common law at all.

    There are two basic categories of existent Federal common law:

    1) areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law – like appropriate sanctions for contempt, and

    2) areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests – like maintaining order and process in Federal courts.

    Federal common law of these types exists to the point where Congress decides to repeal it or modify it by by legislation.

    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) further stated that there is a test for the validity of court created federal common law rule due to significantly important federal interest (like 18 U.S.C. § 401 establishes a significantly important Federal interest in maintaining order in the court and ensuring compliance with process).

    That test is:

    1) Is there a federal competence to create law in this area—i.e. would Congress be able to adopt a law in such an area?
    2) If there is federal competence, should state or federal law govern?
    3) If federal law governs, should courts borrow state law or create a new federal rule?

    Under this test and in the absence of legislation to the contrary, the court defined parameters of judicial discretion in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. in assigning appropriate sanctions for contempt in general has the hallmarks of Federal competence, appropriateness of forum as 18 U.S.C. § 401 is a statute governing Federal courts, and the third test is shown in that the courts opted to adopt various standards from state and Federal case law instead of creating a new rule as is their rightful and legal option in the absence of Congressional action to nullify this standing bit of permissible Federal common law.

  217. UScourts web site right now publishes

    § 2071. Rule-making power generally
    (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
    (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
    (c)(1) A rule of a district court prescribed under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the judicial council of the relevant circuit.
    (2) Any other rule prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the Judicial Conference.
    (d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public. (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment. (f) No rule may be prescribed by a district court other than under this section.

  218. @ BIL

    BIL are you able to point to published notice and comments supporting creation of a list of people who are not allowed to represent themselves in federal court and procedure for incarceration without a criminal charge of people such as myself who file documents in one federal court after being told by another federal court that they are on a list of people who are not allowed to file in other federal courts?

    Or do you believe that that procedure can be implemented without prior public notice and opportunity for comment?

    Do you believe that DOJ can incarcerate people without using published procedure?

  219. kay,

    I don’t work for you, parasite.

    I was just pointing out how utterly full of shit you are when it comes to the law.

  220. Fool….If thats the worst you’ve been called based upon what you have said here…call yourself lucky…

  221. Go for it, what is the worst you can say?

    You call me a liar but you aren’t specific

    What else, that I am a vexatious litigant in federal court– a term not defined in federal law but which it would be difficult to do without committing perjury unless you are simply referring to being stubborn about Access to Courts Rights and Rights to published procedure.

    I hope you aren’t drinking… I went to the party but it was short…. maybe it is a bad idea to blog late at night.

  222. Boo….Don’t Drink and Blawg…Ok, Kay….How can I be more specific about you lying…You lied and you know it…so stop the gaming…Your credibility is shot…Ask anyone here….They may feel the same….I pointed out your lies to you…

  223. No, kay. I was both name calling – accurately I might add – and pointing out how utterly full of shit you are when it comes to the law. The activities are not mutually exclusive, parasite. Pardon me! Delusional parasite. I do love me some accuracy.

  224. Is the only statement that you consider a “lie” then that I told Judge Nottingham that I would dismiss the third party case if he let me out of jail?

    Anything else or only that?

  225. No Kay,

    The lie that is most unforgettable is that you stated that you had never filed anything in this Judges court…and you states that Nottingham dismissed a case 2 years earlier…before you commenced the present action…. Can’t you see that your problems stem from the first action…if dismissed under the appropriate FRCP it is dismissed….

    (b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect.
    If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits.

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

    What part of this don’t you understand…even if you dismissed it..the court could condition it with sanctions it deems appropriate.. such as attorney fees…and lots of the…

  226. Back in a 70’s erich Berne, M.D. wrote a best selling psychology book called “The Games People Play.”Even though it was a popular non-fiction work, rather than a scientific treatice, it had many wonderful insights that helped me to see myself and the world around me with greater clarity. He identified various common “games” that many people use. What he made clear was that many people “playing” a given game, aren’t aware they are playing it, but derive emotional gratification from it.

    One of the most common games he identified was “The Yes..
    ..But Game.” When I describe it many people here will recognize this as a game they have encountered in their own lives, which after the playing left them frustrated.

    The YB game begins when someone, possibly a friend, acquaintance, or even someone commenting on a blog comes
    to someone (perhaps you) with a “problem” and the implicit request that they would like advice on how to solve it. You (or perhaps someone like you) being a person of caring begin to offer solutions for the “problem,” Each and every solution offered is responded to with a variant of “Yes…but that won’t work because of……” Often, new facts will be added to the yes…but, which will seemingly show why your solution isn’t workable. The end result according to Berne (and me in my experience as a caring person) is that the solution giver(s) wind up frustrated and angry, but somewhat uncertain as to what this seemingly confused/needy individual was doing that pisses you (someone) off to the degree it does.

    When you (someone) finally runs out of answers and then even becomes hostile to the person in need the game is over and the person in need feels satisfaction, in the sense that their problem was so insoluable that even the smartest (you…someone)people couldn’t provide help.
    Berne emphacizes that the person initiating that game most times isn’t even aware consciously that they are doing it, but nevertheless feels somehow satisfied by the knowledge that those trying to help are unable to and so are lacking. This game has many variations but the results are the same. Berne advises that when faced with the game the best way to neutralize it is to tell the person “you’ve really got a problem there, I wish I could help you solve it, but I have no ideas for you.”
    (that was a paraphrase.

    Now on what this thread has become, I’m just saying…..

  227. I do wish that in my impatience to write and comment that I would remember to proofread. Too late now.

  228. Tell the professor we want an edit function

    @ Old Jim

    So what is the point? I had problems writing my complaint because I didn’t call it First Amendment Retaliation, a term then not used very much. Halfway through my appeal I found the name of the tort and used it, although I was using employment cases as samples. I used the phrase First Amendment Retaliation when I refiled and the very next year the Supreme Court ruled in Hartman v. Moore and described my situation exactly.

    “The lie that is most unforgettable is that you stated that you had never filed anything in this Judges court”

    yes I can’t remember writing that and it makes no sense. Where is the quote? If you are going to quote people, make it accurate. Save the download as a pdf and use the word search.

    What I said is that in my case before Nottingham he didn’t have any hearings before he dismissed my case and before he scheduled a contempt of court hearing, I had never met him.

  229. Mike Spindell

    I get something out of keeping up w current news and having an opportunity to be on-line looking possibly like I am not totally retarded.

    Since earlier today, I did read a 2010 speech by Colorado Federal Judge Kane and he claimed that 25% of the litigants there are now pro se. He estimated the initial cost of an attorney for a lawsuit at $100 K. And he said that many pro ses who seem knowledgeable in their writings have problems questioning witnesses and can’t complete the whole process.

  230. Kay,

    Unfortunately we all feel your pain…its hard to see a inevitable wreck occur…You will not take anyones advice to either drop the matter or seek assistance an attorney…

  231. Free speech is designed to protect us against our own leaders…. Free speech is what defines us as a people.

    That sounds good to me.

  232. Mike Spindell 1, April 9, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Kay,

    I feel your pain.

    Kay, I’ll second that. I was gonna post this earlier today before family activities began. I don’t have the complete thought i had and I am happily under the influence at the moment.

    Kay you may have been completely wronged and if you were I am sincerely sorry for you. I hope and pray that I never find myself wearing an orange jumpsuit standing in front of someone who controls my freedom. Obviously you feel strongly about what has happened to you. Through history we’ve seen time and time again that people who refuse to give up sometimes become vindicated. With all the things that have transpired in this thread, one thing for sure, you one tough cookie.

    I hope that one day you will reach a point where you may find peace within yourself. Hope it all works out.

  233. “If you should go skating
    On the thin ice of modern life
    Dragging behind you the silent reproach
    Of a million tear-stained eyes
    Don’t be surprised when a crack in the ice
    Appears under your feet.
    You slip out of your depth and out of your mind
    With your fear flowing out behind you
    As you claw the thin ice.” – Pink Floyd, The Thin Ice

  234. Bil

    I get email from a few lawyers. One of them emailed this to me this morning.

    THINKING LIKE A LAWYER
    by Judge John Kane
    THINKING LIKE A LAWYER
    By
    John L. Kane
    United States Senior District Judge
    Commencement Address
    University of Colorado School of Law
    May 7, 2004

    “you will have the power to destroy with a complaint or a motion or a letter what it took someone a lifetime or even generations to build. You will obtain information in transactions that if divulged improperly could result in disaster – not only for your client, but for you, your associates and the public as well. Do no harm!

    you will take an oath that will bind you for life. Included in that oath is the provision that you will abstain from all offensive personality. That obligates you to practice civility with respect to other lawyers, to opposing parties and to your clients. I suggest that practicing civility in all of your relationships will also contribute mightily to your personal success and the advancement of your professional career. Another provision of that oath is the promise that you will advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which you are charged.”

  235. Yeah bil….DO NO HARM….Geeze what did they teach you in that K-9 Class….not much is apparent… Did you take the Hippo Oath per chance? To Crush Your Opponents wherever they may be found?

  236. kay,

    The day I let you lecture me about how I should behave is the day Hell freezes solid. You’re one of the most offensive people I’ve ever seen on the Internet or anywhere else for that matter. If you don’t like that I’m offensive? Too bad, honey.

    Go screw yourself.

    It is, after all, what you are best at.

  237. Mike S., In reading your first comment, any errors went unnoticed by this reader. The content is what jumped off the page. All good points…

    Kay, I echo the sentiment about feeling your pain.

  238. Things could always be worse — the “justice” system is rife with corruption, as many know. A case in point:

    Op-Ed Contributor
    The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t

    By JOHN THOMPSON
    April 9, 2011

    I SPENT 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. I’ve been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date. Those prosecutors were never punished. Last month, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to overturn a case I’d won against them and the district attorney who oversaw my case, ruling that they were not liable for the failure to turn over that evidence — which included proof that blood at the robbery scene wasn’t mine.

    Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today.

    (…it continues and ends with the following)

    I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.

    Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.

    If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.

    A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.

    John Thompson is the director of Resurrection After Exoneration, a support group for exonerated inmates.

  239. re John Thompson quotation

    When I was growing up my father said quite a lot about the power of positive thinking.

    A lot of problems that once seemed insurmountable have been solved.

    Prosecutors could be asked to sign a statement before every trial under penalty of perjury that they have complied with various obligations such as turning over all evidence.

    Congress could pass a special bill about the duties of prosecutors with an extended statute of limitations.

    I’d like to see the Feds prosecute 18 USC section 242 more broadly. The FBI website says that judges and “law enforcement officials” can be prosecuted under 242.

    It looks like what happened with the John Thompson case is that the criminal statute or limitations expired. Most of the federal crimes must be prosecuted within 5 years.

    The statute of limitations for federal criminal prosecution of the people who hurt me has not yet expired. I would just love to see at least some of them criminally prosecuted.

  240. On 08/10/2006, Christopher Beall, a lawyer then employed by Faegre & Benson LLP under a Mutual Insurance of Bermuda insurance policy, filed a motion to Judge Nottingham in a civil docket, 02-cv-1950, in Colorado that included:

    “In light of Mrs. Sieverding’s renewed efforts to litigate pro se civil actions that this Court has already found to violate its filing restrictions, Mrs. Sieverding should be ordered to appear before the Court and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court and committed to the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service until such time as she fully complies with this Court’s order to terminate all litigation that violates the Court’s filing restrictions.

    “Wherefore, the Newspaper Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an order setting a show cause hearing and direct that Mrs. Sieverding appear personally at such hearing and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. See D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 Document 862 Filed 08/10/06 page 4.”

    On 9/08/06, Christopher Beall filed:

    “The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless…the remedy that the Newspaper Defendants seek, coercive incarceration will end as soon as Mrs. Sieverding establishes compliance with this Court’s orders to withdraw the Kansas and D.C. cases…no statement of probable cause, under oath or otherwise, is required… The Court has made it clear to Mrs. Sieverding that she is required to terminate all litigation against all of the defendants, including the Newspaper defendants, when such litigation is filed pro se…Rule 65 has no bearing on this matter…the Anti-Injunction Act only prohibits a federal court from order a stay of a state court proceeding and neither the D.C. nor Kansas litigation is in state court … The Court’s instruction to Mrs. Sieverding to “dismiss’ or “withdraw” the D.C. and Kansas litigation necessarily included a prohibition against…filing motions or any other paper besides of notice of dismissal …she may effect her release from incarceration under such a contempt citation by actually “withdrawing” the Kansas and D.C. litigation.” 9/8/06 District of Colorado 02-1950 document 883 Christopher P. Beall

    On 9/22/06, Christopher Beall said:

    “She filed motions for reconsideration in the District of Columbia cases 0501283, 0501672 and 0052122. She has also now filed, Your Honor—before the hearing I checked Pacer half an hour ago, and she has filed something called a motion for clarification as to the status of her actions….in D.C., in all three D.C. cases…we would ask the Court to in its issuance of a bench warrant in this matter”. 9/22/06 transcript Christopher P. Beall

    “She knows that she is not to pursue those lawsuits. And for her to suggest that I told her to dismiss those lawsuits, and that does not cover her appeals from those lawsuits is silly…she might dismiss everything before those marshals get to her…once she’s in custody she will not get out of custody until those are actually dismissed…She was told in unequivocal terms to dismiss both those lawsuits…What has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless…She is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration or anything else …what has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless, and she is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration, or anything else… she faces a real possibility of incarceration as she knows because it’s happened before” 9/22/06 transcript Judge Edward Nottingham.

  241. § 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, including grand jury proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1). In addition, the section provides extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses created therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g); 128 Cong. Rec. H8469 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980); H. R. Rep. No. 1369, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 20-22 (1980).

    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.” United States v. DiSalvo, 631 F.Supp. 1398 (E.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d, 826 F.2d 1054 (3d Cir. 1987). Under § 1512, an individual retains his/her status as a witness even after testifying. United States v. Wilson, 796 F.2d 55 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1039 (1987) (protection of witness under § 1512 continues throughout the trial); United States v. Patton, 721 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1983) (witness retains status while defendant’s motion for a new trial is pending); United States v. Chandler, 604 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1979) (witness retains status while case is pending on direct appeal). Cf. United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986) (party was a witness after asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege and being dismissed from the stand since he could be recalled at any time). 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.

    “Congress limits the coverage of § 1512 to official proceedings. 18 U.S.C. 515(a)(1) defines “official proceeding” as [including] a proceeding before a judge or
    court of the United States or…. a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce.”

    “This definition is in large part, a restatement of the judicial interpretation of the word “proceeding” in §§ 1503 and 1505. However the case law interpreting these provisions also required that the proceeding had to be pending. (See US Attorneys Manual at 1722 and 1727) 18 U.S.C. § 1512 does away with the pending proceeding requirement for judicial matters and matters within the jurisdiction of Congress and Federal agencies. In the words of § 1512, “an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(e)(1). See United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1984). See also United States v. Shively, 927 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1991).See
    U.S. Attorneys Manual 1730 Protection of Government Processes—”Official Proceeding” Requirement—18 U.S.C. § 1512” US Attorney Criminal Resource Manual

    Sections 1512(a) and 1512(b) require, in addition to general intent, a specific intent, for example, the intent to influence testimony in an official proceeding. These requirements of specific intent are self-explanatory. In contrast, § 1512(c) does not require specific intent but specific results, for example, preventing a witness from testifying at an official proceeding. However, this distinction is probably without a difference, and the specific results should be read as forms of specific intent. Section 1512(d) codifies existing case law that holds that influencing a witness is not a strict liability offense. See United States v. Johnson, 585 F.2d 119, 128 (5th Cir. 1978). One may influence a witness to tell the truth. See id. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d), the burden of proving this benign intent, which is an affirmative defense, is on the defendant. A preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof.

    Section 1512(f) of Title 18 contains an important qualification of the mens rea required under the statute: it obviates the need to prove that the defendant was aware of the official nature of the proceedings or investigation with which he/she interfered. A reference to congressional proceedings, however, is omitted from the proceedings enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(f).
    Section 1512(a) proscribes conduct intentionally undertaken, section 1512(b) proscribes conduct “knowingly” undertaken, and section 1512(c) proscribes conduct “intentionally” undertaken. A state of mind commonly referred to as “general intent” was prescribed by the use of the terms “knowingly” and “intentionally.” General intent means that the person is aware of the nature of his/her conduct and those circumstances incident to his/her conduct that make the conduct criminal. Beyond this, the mental states referred to in §§ 1512(a), 1512(b), and 1512(c) differ slightly.
    Section 1513 of Title 18 embraces two types of conduct heretofore beyond the purview of Federal law. First, the statute reaches threats of retaliation. Second, it reaches attempts to retaliate. Section 1513 complements 18 U.S.C. § 1512 by proscribing conduct amounting to retaliation for participation in Federal legislative, administrative, or judicial proceedings or for the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. With the exception of the omnibus clauses of §§ 1503 and 1505, the express prohibitions against retaliating against witnesses, parties, and informants contained in former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1510 are now in 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a) and (b).
    1731 Protection of Government Processes—State of Mind — 18 U.S.C. § 1512US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1731

  242. Further evidence you were forum shopping and violating both court procedures and valid orders.

    Further evidence that your wound is self-inflicted.

    Further evidence you are a selfish and annoying parasite.

  243. Its such as you learn my thoughts! You appear to understand a lot approximately this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I think that you just can do with some percent to power the message house a bit, however instead of that, this is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be back.

Comments are closed.