While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is dealing with a criminal investigation into his alleged use of a high-priced call girl service, a similar investigation is being conducted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit into the alleged use of prostitutes by Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham. It is not the first alleged misconduct by the jurist.
Nottingham is alleged to have been a customer of a business called Denver Players or Denver Sugar that is alleged to have been a brothel before it was shut down.
The investigation includes records and eye-witnesses. It details how the judge was known as “Naughty” and paid roughly $300 per visit. This is considerably better than Spitzer who used the name of “George Fox” and paid as much as $5400.
Nottingham raised some eyebrows in testimony during his divorce when he admitted that he had spent more than $3,000 at a Denver strip club over two days. He explained that he was “too drunk to remember” how he’d spent the money.
For the full story, click here.
43 thoughts on “Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham Tied to Prostitution Ring In Denver”
What happened in the 8th Circuit En Banc is that the en banc court denied my petition for rehearing without explanation. Then we filed a second petition for rehearing quoting the Supreme Court
“there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally
or by counsel . . .”) WINKELMAN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS
AND LEGAL GUARDIANS, WINKELMAN ET UX., ET AL. v.
PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
and they withdrew their denial and said it was issued in error. So we are waiting for their new ruling.
In the meantime, I contributed to Wikipedia’s “pro se” article (name may be changed to self-represented litigation). Wikipedia wouldn’t let me quote the Supreme Court directly so I went to the law library and I found a 1998 book by the AJS on pro se litigation. That book relied on Supreme Court decisions from the 19th century and also quoted Faretta, which has a history of the right. Also, it has an appendix that cites constitutional articles and statutes supporting the right in all the states. I personally typed that entire appendix into wikipedia and someone else converted it into a table. The state citations are very strong and specific.
If you are interested in the subject of self-representation, I urge you to contribute to the Wikipedia article.
There is also a Wikipedia article on Judge Edward Nottingham that anyone can contribute to (based on verifiable sources). It is
My situation keeps getting worse. I was just taunted by someone reprinting fraudulent statements about me. Recently I filed in D of MN to sue Faegre & Benson for Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights. That was dismissed on the basis that I didn’t have a law license. No other reason was advance by Faegre nor acknowledged by the court. I appealed timely appealed that to the 8th Circuit and paid. That was dismissed without a reason being stated. On 8/22/08 we did file a petition for rehearing en banc which I would like to quote here:
The panel dismissal conflicts with the U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 1654 and § 2074 b, the 1st and 14th Amendments, four U.S. Supreme Court decisions, (JONES V. BOCK, NAACP v. BUTTON, SHELLEY V. KRAEMER and VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH), the Wisconsin and Minnesota remedies clause, and two 8th Circuit decisions (Jaramillo v. Burkhart, and Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.) and reversal is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions with its and the Supreme Court’s previous decisions.
THE ISSUE ON APPEAL IS:
“Must petitions presented by Wisconsin free citizens in the District of Minnesota be adjudicated without delay and in full conformance to law, even when the litigants are self-represented?”
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN NAACP v. BUTTON:
In a landmark civil rights Access to Courts decision, NAACP v. BUTTON, the Supreme Court ruled, that the First Amendment protects “advocacy”, such as the Sieverdings’ petitions, in court.
“Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion…. a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights… Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain… Although petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner’s activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed.” NAACP v. BUTTON 371 U.S. 415 (1963) U.S. Supreme Ct.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also acknowledged:
“We are not unaware or unconcerned that persons identified with unpopular causes may find it difficult to enlist the counsel of their choice”. SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 1 (1952) U.S. Supreme Ct.
In this case, the Sieverdings sued lawyers for “Damages based on 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights”. Thus, by definition, their claim was for “vindication of constitutional rights”. At the same time, their claim is identified with an “unpopular cause”. The order against self-representation acts to obstruct and prevent the Sieverdings’ presentation to a jury of their peers.
Because lawyers are expensive, and suing lawyers is unpopular, and their claims involve federal crimes, self-representation may be the Sieverdings’ only viable method to effectively exercise their First Amendment rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Because Congress is not authorized to make laws prohibiting the petitioning for a redress of grievances, the Courts are also limited as to how they can interpret laws. The court’s authority cannot be extended to prohibit or abridge the petitioning of the government thru the court. To be consistent with the First Amendment, a Court cannot prohibit or abridge First Amendment Rights, it can only recognize First Amendment Rights.
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE RULES ENABLING ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN JONES v. BOCK:
The Supreme Court recognizes that the courts cannot erect barriers to
adjudication of unpopular claims thru judicial interpretation and ruled:
“We once again reiterate, however, as we did unanimously in Leatherman, Swierkiewicz, and Hill, that adopting different and more onerous pleading rules to deal with particular categories of cases should be done through established rulemaking procedures, and not on a case-by-case basis by the courts.” JONES v. BOCK U.S. 549 01/22/07 No. 05–7058 U.S. Supreme Ct.
Thus, a requirement that the author of pleadings be licensed to sell legal services to others is a violation of established rulemaking practices and conflicts with the S.C. decision in JONES V. BOCK.
Also, the Judiciary Act requires Congressional approval to modify the rules of evidence, which is part of an order against self representation:
“(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress”
U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 2074 b
The district court order that:
“counsel fully handles the case, including preparing all court documents and handling all filing and communication with the Court and the opposing parties” (Appendix 5 page 2)
modifies the evidentiary privileges but was not approved by Congress.
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS IN SHELLEY V. KRAEMER and VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH:
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment must be observed in litigation in state courts and the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652, means that the 14th Amendment must be observed in litigation in federal courts. Thus, it protects individuals against discrimination including that shown by the district court’s boycott of the Sieverdings’ complaint.
“The actions of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities are actions of the states within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights.” SHELLEY V. KRAEMER 334 U.S. 1 (1948) U.S. Supreme Ct.
“Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441(1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster City, 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Per Curiam VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH No. 98–1288 U.S. Supreme Ct., 2000.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment
If not overruled, the precedent of Sieverding v. Faegre & Benson may require that other citizens be excluded from civil court unless they have adequate financial resources to afford a lawyer “to handle all matters”. The net effect may be to exclude injured parties from use of the federal courts for civil matters unless they retain substantial financial resources after injury.
Excluding citizens from court conflicts with
“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 8TH CIRCUIT IN JARAMILLO v. BURKHART:
The order that remedy must be delayed until a lawyer is contracted and that expenses be increased to pay for a lawyer contradicts the MN and WI remedies clause. The district court decision that the Sieverdings do not have an absolute right of self-representation is contrary to Wisconsin case law as published by the State of Wisconsin, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 17b(1), and the 8th Circuit’s deferral to Wisconsin law as decided in Jaramillo v. Burkhart recognizing Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1),
“In diversity cases the state law regarding real party in interest applies.” Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241, 1246 (8th Cir. 1993)
“the capacity to sue is determined …for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1)
The State of Wisconsin Annotated Constitution proclaims:
“Rights of suitors. § 21. [As amended April 1977]
(2) In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor’s choice. [1975 J.R. 13, 1977 J.R. 7, vote April 1977] Every person has an absolute right to appear pro se. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. 174 Wis. 2d 381, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993). A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally.” Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. Wisconsin Supreme Court 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997)” [emphasis supplied]
The District of Minnesota Court ruled:
“Should Plaintiffs wish to press their claims, they must secure the assistance of an attorney prior to filing any lawsuit relating in any way to the events described in the above orders (Appendix 2)
“Plaintiffs are not being forced to surrender any rights. Moreover, the Wisconsin Constitution does not guarantee Mrs. Sieverding the “absolute right to [proceed] pro se”(denial reconsideration appendix 4)”
In Minnesota and Wisconsin:
“Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minnesota Constitution Article 1 § 8/ Wisconsin Constitution Article 1 § 9 Remedy for Wrongs
DISMISSAL CONFLICTS WITH THE 8TH CIRCUIT IN COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.:
“Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Mixed questions of law and fact that require the consideration of legal concepts and the exercise of judgment about the values underlying legal principles are also reviewed de novo.” Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 1995)
Because the dismissal for lack of a law license conflicts with Supreme Court and 8th Circuit cases, a “de novo” review was required.
Excluding citizens from petitioning for redress of grievances because of their financial limitations or lack of a license to sell services deprives them of basic common law rights recognized in all civilized societies.
I also have jury awards I can compare my damages too. One jury award was more than $10 million in Quigley v. Rosenthal. That defamation case was lost by one of the same law firm right before they avoided going to a jury on my earlier claims.
Another case I think is comparable is the case of the McDonalds’ teenager who got $4.6 million for unlawful imprisonment. I was held much longer. Even though I am older, I was also physically traumatized and my body privacy was invaded.
I am aware of the point of view that being hurt by a rich organization should not me a good thing. Years ago I worked for a city and I was advised, when driving a city vehicle, that some people would try to get an an accident with a marked city vehicle because they figured the city was insured. When I first looked into suing in Colorado, I was told the max I could collect was $250,000 and therefore no lawyer would take it because a percentage would be too small. Colorado Judge Garrecht also advised me that I would never be able to get a lawyer because there was not much money in suing the city of Steamboat Springs. Then I calculated $400,000 of economic damages plus personal damages to 4 people. Then I gave an interview with the Steamboat Pilot http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2003/feb/03/judge_tells_former/
and they reported “she is seeking more than $16 million, $10 million of which she wants use to establish a nonprofit organization to ‘regulate attorney ethics in Colorado.” That didn’t go over very well with the Colorado Bar Association, which is a private organization run for the benefit of its membership and management.
The week that I was told to refile it was the week the Supreme Court ruled on the Gore v. BMW that punitive damages were max 10 times actual damages so I used that ratio. I found out that punitive damages are taxable as ordinary income so with state and federal that is almost 50%. I came to the conclusion that my defendants were bad and rich and need to pay in order to learn a lesson and that once the money is away from them, spending it will not be an issue. I cannot control either how my family would use their shares. For myself, I did spread sheets of how I would spend my share with a combination of do good, taxes, and retirement. I registered the name “citizens’ bar association” and spent some money on that.
Now, I really need a lawyer just to have a way to support myself, the ability to work and pay for food and shelter. Also, my husband needs medical care an d my children need college. In order to get a lawyer i have to have claims on parties with collectible dollars so that a lawyer can recover time and expenses. I did file against Faegre & Benson, a law firm with 500 _+ lawyers and they did not file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. That claim is in Minnesota which is not a tort limit state and my claim involves presumed damages. I don’t think a jury will go for the idea of BErmuda insurance companies putting pro se litigants in jail to avoid a decision on the merits. To me, FAegre & Benson looks like it has real collectible assets.
Thank you for masterfully avoiding the point about the money-making nature of your suit — and thereby conclusively confirming it. Good luck on your quest, it’s Pizarro-esque..
What I see is this:
I am “absorbed by my cause” partially because my family has a lot riding on it and partially because if insurance companies can win cases by putting people in jail there is a big risk for citizens of the future. When I was younger, I had a boyfriend whose father spent 5 years in Auschwitz and that made an impression on me of the importance of everyone standing up for one’s rights. All of our rights basically rely on other people standing up for their rights. I personally believe that if I hadn’t stood up to the witness intimidation and then pursued it, that hundreds of other people would have been threatened with jail in the last few years in order to stop them from presenting in court. In the past everything I did that was worthwhile took about 5 years to accomplish.”
I don’t see any references to “yippee”. I think that if I can get before A jury that i can win a substantial amount in punitive damages to stop unauthorized insurance companies from threatening to put pro ses in jail so that they can’t go to a jury on their claims. If the insurance companies could just get away with that threats of violence will become the norm in U.S. and world courts.
I guess you don’t dispute the quoted language. To do your spading work for you, try re-reading your March 17 & March 20 postings. One goes into exquisite detail about the coverage available to one of the defendants with Lloyds of London ($250 million–yippee!). The other expresses your hopes for “financial” success “for your family” of which you are one I suppose. Not exactly textbook altruism.
You claim to have posts about me that you paraphrase but don’t cite. What is the “mystery citation”?
As a matter of fact, I did sue for injunctive relief relative to publications that are defamatory as well as release from an invalid judgment that I molested my neighbor Jane Bennett. I find that to be a defamatory judgment. As a matter of court record, I was not accused of molesting Jane Bennett by Jane Bennett or by any statement of probable cause or district attorney. Jane Bennett herself testified under oath that there was no offensive touching and that she avoided interacting with me and that I hadn’t been following her around town and hadn’t called her in years. The time I called her had to do with a package left by our house by mistake. Her witness, who worked at her house for 100 + days, testified under oath that he never saw me doing anything unusual just normal coming and going. The only day that her lawyer Randall Klauzxer said was in question, 8/29/00, we were 30 feet apart and she was with her husband and two construction workers. I am not and was never at all attracted to Jane Bennett as any sort of friend or lover and we were never alone. I have never ever had sex with a woman nor have i ever cheated on my husband by having sex with anyone else. Jane Bennett is much older than I am and to the best of my knowledge we have nothing in common. I never made any sexual advances towards her nor did she claim that I did.
My filings were motivated by more than one reason. One is defense of my United Nations and U.S. Constitutional rights. Another is my personal reputation and privacy. As far as the money, my position is that the defendants are bad and don’t deserve it. Once there is a judgment in my favor, I will have various goals in spending it related to my family, my personal safety, and public policy goals.
I already had a lawyer who was familiar with the underlying facts and knows Jane and Kevin Bennett, William C. Hibbard, who reviewed my underlying complaint and found no problems with it. As far as my allegations that I was sanctioned by Colorado Judge James Garrecht in retaliation because I complained about my former neighbor Keven Bennett building in violation of the local development and zoning ordinances, that is supported by the facts that 1.) Although there are 4 buildings at 701 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs CO there is only one building, built in 1952 and in 1971 condition, listed on the assessor’s report in Routt County CO for 701 Princeton Ave. 2) Although the 9/6/00 transcript Jane Bennett v. Kay Sieverding downlodeable from Pacer in District of Kansas 05-cv-2510 shows Wendy Shculenburg as claiming to be a member of the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), when queried by email they have no record of her ever being a member. Furthermore, I offered to pay the City of Steamboat $450 to compare Bennett’s construction, in volume, to the city ordinances but they refused to do so. Also, the Colorado Bar Association publishes an article “understanding protective orders” that states that in Colorado a restraining order can only be issued and maintained under an ongoing criminal matter, an employment relationship, or a domestic or sexual relationship. None of those exist. Jane Bennett never employed me nor did I her. There was no affidavit of probable cause that I committed a crime and I was not convicted or a crime, nor did I confess. Jane Bennett and I are not related and we never had sex nor were we ever alone together. I simply complained that she and her husband fenced off and converted the road in front of my home and that they extorted me and built in a volume and location not allowed by law, thereby invading my privacy as an adjoining neighbor and devaluing my former property.
I guess you didn’t read Kay’ posts but she explicitly said she sued because she wanted the money. Here’s one of two quotes: “It does matter who I sue because there is no value in suing a party who can’t pay….” I ‘ll let you find the other one in a sort of “Where’s Waldo” exercise more in tune with your writing style.
I don’t mind criticism of what I write but could you at least read it all before you leap to the ramparts. By the way, there is also a line of thought in literature which holds that you should not say in 200 words what you could have said in 50. Maybe that merits your attention as well.
Finally, I do agree with one point you made. Argument is much older than the English language and I am sure that some creature somewhere took issue with another using an unintelligible grunting sound to express his side. Perhaps that is the style you are trying to resurrect here.
Mespo – your criticism of Kay Sieverding taking a shotgun approach as being a “deep pockets” ploy is absurd. Are we to believe that Mr. Sieverding represented herself pro se before (allegedly) corrupt judges , money interests, and associated counsel in order to ensare and entrap them in their corruption so that she could subsequently sue for damages? Unbelievable, inconceivable. What she is doing is fighting for her rights. As to the criticism that her all or some of her pleadings have been “pro se”, too complex, too simple, too long, insufficient why not address her issues? Argument is much older than the English language. Such criticism is akin to attempts to prevail against Sieverding without addressing the merits. There is a significant collection of English Literature that describes fictionalized stories of a corrupt legal profession and the judiciary committing all sorts of egregious acts, theft, fraud, etc. against an unwitting public. The golden rule is that he who makes the rules gets the gold. The legal profession loves to deny pro se attempts that point out the Emperor Is Naked in order to protect their own Golden Goose. Other lawyers don’t rat out the corruption for several reasons: Extortion, Prostitution Ring entrapment and blackmail (read The Firm), Death Threats, and the most common place professional isolation and career ending retribution. I lawyer A rats on BigLaw firm B, then BigLaw firms C through Z attack lawyer A in every case they go up against. Even if only 20% of Biglaw was corrupt, it is more than enough to support a multi-billion dollar industry of organized crime by these BigLaw firms against the general public, and many businesses. Sure, in some cases an honest Biglaw firm will stand up to the crooked lawyers, but only for a multi-million dollar fee. Guess what : all lawyers profit from corrupt law! Same with ambulance chaser/personal injury fraud law – for every dollar one for a client $10 is made by ten “honest” firms reviewing contracts, insurance, setting up trusts, corporate structures, empolyee policies, etc. The entire industry makes money because of the few instances of corruption. Look at hurricanes, Insurance companies make money from hurricanes. If there weren’t hurricanes, people would not spend the huge premiums every year for the insurance. Insurance is very similar to extortion, except that the bad acts are from mother nature so we accept it. But a huge portion of legal mishaps involve a corrupt client/lawyer and often judge. The bulk of the legal industry MONOPOLY is built upon extortion and fraud. There are numerous examples of clear cut cases of attorney misconduct and fraud on the court by lawyers but the self-regulating and self-policing nature of the profession gets them covered up. Sure, if a lawyer is a sole-practitioner who gets caught, he can get nailed for doing something bad criminally, civil, and before the bar. There are almost no cases of BigLaw lawyers getting punished, even when they are caught. eToys, Worldcom, Aureal, Leslie Fay, SONICblue, John Depp, and on and on. And there is a lot more conduct that is never caught. Kay’s story is one of many where individuals are using the internet to keep from being silenced by a corrupt Judiciary, corrupt bar associations, and most of all a corrupt DOJ employing many lawyers whose most important daily “job function” is to manuever their way into the highest paid, highest bonus million dollar partnership at the very same BigLaw law firms which they are purportedly regulating, investigating, and (ho ho ho) prosecuting. And what of our Legislators? Name a half dozen which aren’t also attorneys?
Here is another current Rocky Mountain News blog on Judge Nottingham on which I posted extensively.
I am still planning to update http://www.rightscase.com but haven’t had time yet.
This is an interesting current blog on a web site of a big Denver newspaper regarding Judge Nottingham. See my posts there:
In the congressional notes right after The Civil War it talks about the need for there to be access to court because a controversy sufficient to get to court will seek another outlet and it talks about downstream confrontation. I just can’t bring myself to buy a gun; aversion to guns is just too deep within me. I think my chance for redress in court within the next year is almost 100%. It won’t be the same redress as if we had had a trial on the merits in 2003 but it is definitely better than the alternative. “Quitting” in this case would be very very bad because 1.) it would leave case law encouraging jailing of pro ses and other malicious defense tactics by bully law firms and sneaky insurance companies 2.) it would leave my husband and children in a bad financial position and 3.) the rest of my life would be adversely affected.
I read that when under stress, intellectuals intellectualize. It’s not as if these parties have stopped harassing me and stopped defaming me. So I am under stress. It reduces my stress to work for a solution. In the past I was able to turn events in my favor. I have a strategy.
Thank you for your good luck wish.
I applaud your tenacity but you may, at some point, heed the words of Albert Einstein who cautioned against “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If your cause is just, good luck. If not, quitting is the honorable thing to do.
Thank you for your suggestions re www://rightscase.com. I should probably put in a summary. Yes I do have a need to show how I and my family have been wronged. Because I want to make them right and take case of my family and stop this abuse from happening to anyone else.
The original case in Steamboat started as a boundary dispute, involving fences built where they aren’t legally allowed, threats, and extra buildings in the wrong places. Because I resisted that there I was criminally prosecuted without a basis in law. When I tried to right that thru the court system, (not shooting anyone), it got worse and worse thru the court system, Judge Nottingham etc.
I am open to suggestions and participation by lawyers. I am not generally anti lawyer. My old boyfriend was in law school when we were dating and at various times my husband and I purchased legal services for various reasons including patent and securities. When I was in Steamboat I hired more than one lawyer. One lawyer that I employed there also used to work for and is a personal friend of a lawyer that I sued for unjust enrichment. The community is only 10,000 and there are a lot of potential conflicts in such a small place especially when the local government is involved. I do recognize the problem with the factual intensity of my case.
I was trying to use fact pleading. The good news from an evidence point of view is that there have been no factual disputes of anything. Way back in 2000 I knew about the rules of evidence and was planning a law suit. Now, I have a store house of evidence that would be very difficult to dispute.
I realize that there is more than one route to success. What I know is that “quitting” leads to failure. I don’t see any reason to fail when I can succeed. I want to succeed in more than one way, both financially for my family, and also to “make a difference”.
Thank you for your interest and suggestions. I will try to improve the rightscase.com web site.
Amen to that!
Somewhere in China there is a centuries old stairway that ascends thousands of feet upward, along the sheer slope of a rock escarpment. That stairway is built of bamboo and reed and lashed together, and is repaired daily in similar fashion by modern-day inhabitants. Although those inhabitants prove that a complete ascent is possible, only the foolhardy will follow, shuddering at the thought of ascending, and hanging precariously in howling winds over a sure death below.
Throughout the internet, you have left an incredibly long trail of commentary.
To the best of my understanding, your original zoning complaint escalated into a nightmarish eight years of adversarial proceedings. On several occasions periods of imprisonment.
Most of your critics cajole you due to your insistence on a pro se defense. However it appears at this point in time that you have obtained several attorneys, and that your original zoning case has been superceded by a need to demonstrate how you have been incarcerated wrongly, maligned viciously, and damaged financially.
Is Rightscase.com the best location for a complete understanding of how, when, where, and why your ongoing battle is progressing?
My most recent visit there showed me no timeline of past proceedings, only a snippet of information. For example, please visit the website of the convicted British murderer, Jeremy Bamber [http://www.jeremybamber.com] to see how a person can better present his case.
I am new to your plight (having discovered it only five days ago due to the news stories surrounding Spitzer and Nottingham) and have little to offer.
In this brief period though, you have convinced me that you are doggedly persistent, an excellent writer, quite capable of erudite debate; and yet unfortunately as immovable as a China rock escarpment. On many occasions, advice has been given by your readers to prepare your assault more formally in the standard brevity and legalese of our judicial system, or perhaps more professionally as a trained attorney, or at the least through the presentation of an advocate who is NOT as close to the argument as you.
If you want us to ascend a treacherous stairway, then you must remember that we are a society of engineers with solid building materials, and that a shaky bamboo structure will surely scare the hell out of even the best of us.
These related facts are really upsetting my husband and me. I have been married since 1982 and I have never ever seen my husband so upset. This, of course, is related to the Supreme Court’s denying our unopposed petition for mandamus on the basis of criminal obstruction of justice. Maybe we were too “humble” or inadequately “humble”. You cannot believe until you have experienced it, (not wishing you bad luck) what it is like to have some unknown undefined entity out there saying that you 1.) Can be imprisoned for dong something legal 2. ) Can be fined twice the annual gross income for doing something legal. My old boyfriends parents were held in Poland without charges but I never ever thought that I would be held without charges in the U.S.A. I don’t understand what is happening to our government and it is terrifying to me. When I was a young woman, I loved a man whose father was in Auschwitz. Over the years the meaning of that has taken a while to settle in before, I always thought that organized genocide would never happen in the U.S A. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has apparently ruled that U.S. citizens can be jailed and subjected to guns and invasion of personal rights, such as strip-searching at gunpoint without a stated offense, I am totally freaking out. Do you think this is because I was a bad writer? That seems hard to believe, that I could have ruined the common law rights of citizens of the future by being a bad writer or that citizens of the U.S.A. can now be jailed for being a bad writer. I am totally “freaking out”. Even of O a, a bad writer, is that a jail-able offense. I emailed to the ABA and asked them their policy regarding putting citizens in jail for petitioning the courts, and unless I am dense, that does seem to be the ABA position–if you are too poor to have a lawyer and say something unpopular, we will put you in jail. I am so upset; I always thought until recently, that in the U.S.A. written law protected citizens.
It does matter who I sue because there is no value in suing a party who can’t pay nor one who will say that another party did the tortious act. Jane and Kevin Bennett would have probably blamed the Klauzer & Tremaine law firm for advising them to build in violation of the local laws and using baseless criminal and administrative sanctions to gain an advantage in a civil matter. Klauzer & Tremaine did claim immunity for intentional torts. In fact, the ABA’s written position as I understood it was that Klauzer & Tremaine could not be surd for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation or other intentional torts because the sole remedy was from the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel. If the ABA did not mean that, they should clarify their filing. When I wrote my complaint, I read Prosser & Keeton on torts and it said to look for parties that can afford to pay damages. That was a Hornbook Textbook and I merely followed the directions. I did send my complaint to a lawyer familiar with the facts, William Hibbard, and he did not find fault with my complaint. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already ruled that attorneys can be found in civil conspiracy and held liable for acts directed at people they never met. I filed for summary judgment against the bar associations but they refused to answer the motion and asked judge Nottingham to skip summary judgment procedure. Our motion was very specific also, in that the recommendations of the McGee Report were not followed in my case when we complained in 2001 to the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel or in the time and location. There were supposed to be brochures warning of attorney misconduct in the Steamboat Springs library and at the courthouse but there were none, nor any general warnings I saw on the Internet in 1999-2001. I am not looking for a “me against the world” approach, simply for the written law to be followed. Why should I be systematically deprived of the benefit of written laws and rules just because I complained that the ABA and CBA knowingly put me at risk? Negligence is a matter for a jury anyway and I also stated a claim under U.S.C. Code 42 section 1981 for interference with my right to sue by the publications of the ABA and CBA publications implying that lawyers cannot be sued in tort. If the ABA and CABA wanted to defend their actions and how they affected the climate in which I lived they could of done so without having me put in jail or asking Judge Nottingham not to hear my summary judgment motion. I think the ABA retaliated against me for questioning their conduct by depriving me of a decision on the merits related to my other claims by having me put in jail without a finding of an offense known in law, and by fixing things behind the scenes with Judge Nottingham and the 10th Circuit so that my family and I would be stressed out by being told to pay the insurance companies #102,000 without a statutory basis or a Rule 11-6 finding. I also hold the CBA and ABA responsible for the fact that the Steamboat Pilot is continuing to publish that I was accused of a crime without acknowledging that the charges were dismissed, there was no warrant, no police officer claimed they saw me commit a crime, and the district attorney refused to say what the probable cause was, or that a d.A. was assigned to the matter whose husband was a real estate developer with business before the husband of the complaining party. There was nothing to stop Judge Nottingham from dismissing my claims against the private bar associations on the basis that they had some unspecified statute less immunity while leaving the other claims to go to a jury. If they waned res judicata they should have got a ruling that they weren’t responsible for their various acs and omissions because of XYZ but they did not.
When I asked Bill Hibbard in 2001 about suing Klauzer & Tremaine for damages, he didn’t say that K&T had ‘lawyer’s immunity’. Hibbard said that suing lawyers would hurt his law practice and therefore he wouldn’t sue them on my behalf. This was in the complaint that Hibbard reviewed while he was vacationing at the lake and found no problem with according to his letter. Since then we have emailed and talked and never once has he pointed out an error in my complaint.
Kevin Bennett did build extra volume and buildings not allowed on their property and he did reportedly threaten to shoot someone who wanted to buy our property and Jane Bennett wrote to the city planning board that I might force myself upon her at any time but on their own without a gun and without Klauzer & Tremaine, they could not have caused the severe damages to my family that were inflicted upon us.
Regardless of the ABA’s position as to its potential liability, it’s counsel was bound by their own ABA Guide to Litigation Conduct to protest Judge Nottingham’s putting me in jail without an offense being charged, dismissing my case even though I filed Hornbook Torts, and ordering me to pay Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda $102,000 without a statutory basis or a rule 11 6 order. I don’t understand why the ABA puts as its logo that it is defending liberty and pursuing justice when the ABA turns tail as soon as its inconvenient. The ABA filed in court that it agrees with Magistrate Schlatter that it does not have a duty to the general public. All the ABA seems to care about are maximizing their dues income and the benefits its employees receive from the Old Boy’s network.
Did you know that the U.S. government pays the ABA to spread U.S. style law around the world? So now the plan apparently is to use witness intimidation and criminal and administrative sanctions to gain advantages in boundary and land disputes in third world countries. Is this why our soldiers died and our dying, to allow crooked lawyers to represent the powerful so they can break the law with impunity?
The problem is that your shotgun approach leaves you open to charges of harassment. If you have a claim, it matters little if you sue one, two or all of the conspirators since each is liable to you for the full amount of your damage. Suing the Bar Association for failure to protect you from allegedly predatory attorneys is tenuous at best. The issue is one of overkill, and the appearance (false though it may be) that you went looking for deep pockets instead of justice. I think any lawyer you talked this case over with would tell you the same thing. If there is merit in what you say I hope you win, but you do yourself no favors by a “me against the world” approach, as past decisions by the Courts have borne out.
Comments are closed.