Former Judge Samuel Kent has been placed in the position of filing complaints as an inmate in Texas. He is serving 33-months for obstruction of justice after he lied about allegations involving groping and sexual assault of two female court employees. He claims to have been abused as a prisoner due to his status as a former federal judge.
His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, filed the motion in U.S. District Court in Houston asking for resentencing. One of the more troubling allegations — besides verbal and physical abuse — is that Kent has been denied access to a federal substance abuse program that would have allowed him to reduce his sentence by as much as a year. I do not see why he would be denied such access to the program.
The filing states “[t]he Federal Bureau of Prisons has subjected Sam Kent to abusive psychological and physical conditions that have jeopardized his ongoing recovery from severe depression and alcoholism, while arbitrarily prohibiting him from participation in rehabilitative programs.”
Source; AOL
roflmao
Well maybe you are just sexist. I do see in the Rules of Evidence where use of character evidence is limited but I have found that lawyers frequently lapse into name calling when they don’t have a defense on the merits. They couldn’t impeach my testimony. My dollar damage figures check out also. In my 3rd party lawsuit, I supported $400,000 in economic damages mostly to our property, times 9.9999 to be consistent w Gore, plus personal damages for 4 people. That is consistent w the Quigley $10.5 Million jury trial judgment against Anti Defamation League for defamation in Colorado without property damages. Alternately we claimed $5.8 million each, the same as DOJ already paid Dr. Steven Hatfill, who suffered less than we did. DOJ had multiple opportunities to argue that we should get less than Hatfill and never did. You would have thought DOJ would have learned by paying Hatfill. My feeling is that 1.) DOJ has to pay a substantial penalty or no one will get in trouble 2.) We won’t waste the money. So my plan, after we win our appeal and are remanded to district court, is to file for a “judgment on the pleadings”. I’m sure I will find info on that in Federal Procedure Lawyer’s Edition at the U of Wisconsin Law Library. I have relied on and quoted that before.
If we can get back at our 3rd party defendants, there is a lot of money there too. Underwriters at Lloyds London insured one of our Colorado defendants, as shown in the verified attorney bills. They itemize discussion of a proposed No Pro Se motion, which was circulated extensively as shown in the itemized bills, but never filed on the record. Lloyds has a $250 Million bond on file as they reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance. I relied on Proser when I sued the lawyers — his book said to look for the deep pocketed defendants. Our original defendant the city council president / former neighbor / one time drug dealer has a lot of money too according to the real estate assessments. He owns multiple parcels in multiple cities. The bar associations have a lot of money too. The ABA has a rental property in DC that we could lien. Did you know that the Supreme Court in Canada upheld a pro se win against the Quebec Bar Association?
Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36
I know I’m going to regret this
For those only seeking confrontation may I suggest walking into a police station and requesting one … a response is guaranteed.
lol
Buddha,
Not that you have to listen. But no bitch slapping allowed. People who live with tin foil hats, at least in my mind have coverage under the ADA.
Dear “Moar”
I came here for confrontation. So what makes you think I am a “lunatic”?
Mike A.,
“Revenge is the poison I take to get back at you.”
That’s positively Klingon.
I like it.
@kay sieverding:
Just from reading your posts about your “legal difficulties”, I can see that you are a lunatic.
This:
“Then of course, these various entrepreneurs we know will ask for investments and my husband is interested in algae experimentation, which could suck up money fast.”
Will at least insure that you are a poor lunatic, which is better than one that has money. Lunatics with money cause real problems.
I have also heard the phrase, “Revenge is the poison I take to get back at you.” As a long-time friend of Bill W., I believe that treatment for substance abuse ought not be regarded as some sort of reward for good behavior. It ought to be available to all who need it, and I expect that that would include a majority of those incarcerated in this country.
Tootie and Wootsy
Thank you so much for your supportive statements. I will check out those references, too.
In Circuit of District of Columbia, DOJ filed a motion for “summary affirmance”. This was confusing but after filing our opening brief, I found in the Handbook that these motions are not supposed to be used in cases of first impression which ours is. Plus, we are due Strict Scrutiny/ De Novo Analysis because of the First Amendment and because DOJ won summary judgment. So hopefully we will win that motion. I’m thinking that DOJ won’t even file a brief. What are they going to say? So, if all goes well, in 6 months or so we will win our appeal.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.) Does the First Amendment limit restraints against PRO SE speech?
2.) Is there an exemption from the NonDetention Act, 18 USC § 4001, for the detentions and threats that DOJ inflicted on the appellants?
3.) When arrest and detention are accomplished without a criminal charge, and systems of records are used, is there remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act?
4.) If either Mr. or Mrs. Sieverding does not have remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act, is there remedy under 42 USC § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror?
5.) Is DOJ required by the Administrative Procedure Act to make annual reports available to the public?
I think I already stopped jailing to enforce NO PRO SE orders, at least temporarily, by making such a big fuss.
The last question has to do with DOJ’s Data Integrity Board which is supposed to look for complaints and report a complaint log and remedial actions under 5 USC § 552a(u). OMB’s current website discusses these Data Integrity Board reports and how they will be due sometime.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a130_a130appendix_i/
This might be related to my blogging
http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/light/2010/06/orszags-reform-agenda.html
If we win the appeal then we still have to get the money. DOJ did not object to our statements that they agree that if they are liable they should pay my husband and I each the same amount they paid Dr. Steven Hatfill. Also, the lawsuit that DOJ intervened in had a stated demand of $15 Mill and Rule 804 should mean that the defendants can’t dispute it — and they have the money. Of course, if we could get DOJ to prosecute RICO we could go after triple damages (and even hire a lawyer). So on the upside, we could end up with a big pot. Then of course, these various entrepreneurs we know will ask for investments and my husband is interested in algae experimentation, which could suck up money fast.
For a long time I considered using the funds to start a new bar association. I had the name “citizens bar association” but then I thought that maybe someone else would do it if I was out of the picture. But they didn’t. My latest thought on that is that I could pay for initial paperwork to set it up as a franchise.
Also, my husband and I both graduated from MIT. If we had funds, we might be able to talk MIT in setting up a justice center. My pet project would be to have an international computer model for expanded Electronic Case Filing to enable pro se litigants everywhere to sue their oppressors. That plays to MIT’s strengths in systems and Artificial Intelligence. Plus, MIT already has expertise in DNA analysis and pattern recognition. MIT has a great international reputation — about 50% of students are not U.S. citizens. So, MIT could be a great international justice center and could have joint courses with the three nearby law schools as the opportunity presents (Harvard, BU and NorthEastern) and with the Kennedy School of Government. NorthEastern has a criminal justice center too just down Massachusetts Ave. MIT is set up for multi disciplinary majors so if we could get MIT started in that direction, it could really make a difference. I think I could raise funds for a MIT Justice Center, which would be fun for me.
W=c,
I’d say “imagine that”, but we’ve got an illustration.
The Chinese have a proverb. “He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself.” The noted feminist Barbara Deming has said, “Vengeance is not the point; change is. But the trouble is that in most people’s minds the thought of victory and the thought of punishing the enemy coincide.” Although this is a sage observation, Deming’s point comes full circle when coupled with Sun Tzu’s admonishment that “the face of victory changes endlessly.”
If Nelson Mandela, a man wrongly imprisoned for 18 years, had decided to dedicate his newly minted freedom to vengeance rather than change, he’d be known as just another terrorist instead of former President of South Africa and an exemplar in the fight for human rights.
gee Tootie, you missed my point…….
Kay:
I second what Woosty said and pray that you will receive justice.
Lawyers, judges, cops, federal law enforcement, and prosecutors in America are truly the biggest criminals among us and all of us without power are, therefore, at great risk.
I believe most of our enforcement officials want everyone (but themselves, of course) to become a felons so government can take away citizens guns. They hate citizens having guns because they know that they cannot run a despotism if citizens have them. Not all of them are corrupt, but it seems most are.
Most Americans commit a felon each day just going about their normal daily lives and don’t even knowing they are lawbreakers. And members of the justice system seem to want it that way. Prosecutors and cops only wait for the opportunity to line us up in their targets should they so desire to have their way with us.
Government officials thus procure for themselves an endless supply of victims (“criminals”) in order to guarantee themselves a life-long career, a pay-check, and abusive power over others (it is addictive). It’s rigged in their favor and they rig it. They lobby for the laws that guarantee their livelihood. They run an efficient criminal operation thereby.
What they are too stupid or too evil to realize is that, in the long run, every person who is jailed and has a criminal record is less able to earn higher wages in the future. This means former jail-birds pay less taxes over a lifetime which means the tax-eaters (cops, judges, and prosecutors) have less to feed on.
Cops, prosecutors, and judges use the law as a weapon (instead of a shield). It was this great Anglo-Saxon tradition (that you refer to) and the Rights of Englishmen (that you refer to) which we were bequeathed to you and I by our ancestors and our current legal community is intentionally destroying.
They could stop discourage this if they wanted to.
What is really really awful is how that lawyers and judges neglect to tell juries that they have the authority to nullify whatever comes before them in court. In this way Americans could rescue their fellow Americans IN the courtroom if they saw or had the sense that the law (and or the court) was corrupt. But it seems lawyers and judges don’t want Americans informed of this. I guess it would cut into profits. The government doesn’t want Americans informed of their rights. This probably explains why the government has intentionally withheld this information from American school children in our Soviet style schools.
Perhaps you have seen this summary about jury nullification?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/JuryNullification.html
When the compact between government and the people is violated by the government (as it is completely violated by them at this point in history) the people have every moral right, obligation, and duty to resist against them. This is the teaching of John Locke. Our Founders looked to Locke. Why don’t lawyers tell this to Americans? Why don’t government schools teach this? You know the answer.
If you have never read Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, you should. You can google it @ “Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos constitution.org.” or find it in the link at the very bottom of my post.
It might also inspire you to read Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford Rutherford. It, like Vindiciae, details the Christian and moral defense for resisting tyrants and despots (which is what our legal system and our government has become). I mention this in case you are a Christian.
You might want to follow the work of Judge Andrew Napolitano on the internet and at Fox News. He is keenly aware of our legal tradition and how it is being destroyed by those who are supposed to uphold it.
You sound like you are digging deep and so perhaps you already know about the following internet sites which might help you in your quest. At least you will know that you are not alone.
I’d put the links in directly, but this blog is designed to prevent that. I’m not criticizing it at all; that is just the way it is set up.
Break The Matrix @ breakthematrix dot com
10th Amendment Center @ tenthamendmentcenter dot com
Campaign for Liberty @ campaignforliberty dot com
Lew Rockwell has great articles about abuse @lewrockwell dot com
And as goofy as Alex Jones gets, he gets some things very right. One of those things is his recognition of our government’s determination to make America a huge penal colony. Anyway, you might find some resources at prisonplanet dot com.
Maybe YOU can sue someone? See about that at jurisdictionary dot com.
Here is a great resource which the government/academe/media complex probably doesn’t doesn’t want you to know about either:
http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm
Good books:
The Tyranny of Good Intentions (Paul Roberts)
Lost Rights (James Bovard)
I hope you can get some ideas or leads on advancing your cause.
and Kay, October 21, 2008:
STATEMENT ISSUED ON BEHALF OF JUDGE NOTTINGHAM
In a letter to President Bush today, Judge Nottingham has resigned his commission as a United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. He has done so because it is in the best interest of all concerned.
If it’s simple revenge, ask yourself the question….”Who’s the pig?”
Kay, things I have learned; When you dancewith crabs, you get mud….when you sleep with dogs, you get fleas… when you drink poison, it’s not the other guy that gets sick…when it stops raining dirt, that is the best time to take a shower…when the fog clears, everyone can see the truth….
if what you say is true then you have better times ahead and those who have oppressed you will have to pay some piper, whether their behavior was governed by fear or greed or mob mentality they will pay a price. Your choice now is who you dance with….will it be pigs or people? don’t throw away the people because you were forced by a sick society to dance with pigs…..
Dear Wootsy
Well I didn’t just document. I timely filed in Court. After all these years I kept my case legally alive thru Federal 30 day tolling and timely appeals. I got my notice of appeal into the DDC on time, after I supported the record thru post judgment motions. I paid and the check cleared. I got all the documents in the Court of Appeals filed on time and I think they are adequate. Even if I were to lose my current appeal, I could go to another court.
Furthermore, I researched and I wrote. So I have a huge record of having brought up these various points. And I used a MacIntosh computer so I can find the points I brought up years ago. I even used PACER to go into Steven Hatfill’s pleadings so I was able to copy some of his lawyers’ reasoning.
I do care about future generations and justice, the citizens of the past the citizens of the future etc., (and my consciousness was raised by third hand exposure to the Holocaust) but also I really don’t feel like I have a viable alternative to continuing in litigation. My father always says that if you want to win in negotiation you have to give someone an alternative they can live with. I totally believe that the intention of my defendants was to force me to commit suicide. Given a choice between working on my brief and blogging, or stringing a rope from the tree, the computer seems preferable.
Why do Americans have a perverse measure of glee when it comes to those they have contempt for having to go to jail knowing that prisoner will face…well…what can only be considered cruel punishment (i.e. getting raped or tortured)at the hands of other prisoners?
No one, I would think, who supports anything called “justice” would, in my opinion, participate in a system in which they KNOW that prisoners will get raped and tortured. I would call that aiding and abetting the crime. No judge with a shred a decency would allow any prisoner to go to any jail in America knowing what goes on in there because the state allows it to happen.
Yet, big law, big judges, big cops, cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching, and big government continue to put prisoners in jail knowing that this cruel punishment (something forbidden by the Constitution) will likely occur at the hands of fellow prisoners.
Who is criminal then, but the state and everyone who maintains this charade?
Kay, I think that you have every right to do what you are doing…and I don’t think you are alone in your situation. But documenting and filing your position, in this day and these times, as important as that may be….probably will not get you what you think is your due. It may just be an important step to preserving some semblance of freedom for the next generation.If you manage to be part of what it takes to do that then kudos and good for you, it is certainly a selfless and heroic thing that you have undertaken.
The second I navigated to this The Top 12 Reasons To Burn A Quran On 9/11 story I said that this blog’s web visitors totally should act as jury on this link: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-12-Top-Reasons-To-Burn-A-Quran-On-911
P.S. There is a reason why most states have a Right to Remedy recognized in their statutes or their constitutions.\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._State_constitutional_provisions_allowing_self-representation_in_state_courts
The Magna Carta recognized that people shouldn’t be banished or otherwise hurt without a legal basis. “No freeman shall be seized…or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him…. excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land” Magna Charta 39.
But that is what happened to me. I was criminally prosecuted without a written statement of probable cause. The prosecutor did it to advance her husband’s real estate speculation because I complained that my neighbor the city council president, a convicted drug dealer, might be a drug dealer and violated the zoning by building extra buildings that they can’t even put on the property tax rolls because that would require a description, showing they violate the zoning. Prosecutors are not allowed to dismiss a case except in open court, but she did it anyway and then gave a public statement that I was guilty but a trial was too expensive. Based on the baseless criminal prosecution, a restraining order was issued on me and the drug dealer’s wife followed me around town asking the police, who reported to her husband, to arrest me anytime she saw me in public. I moved 1200 miles away but they sent their articles on the Internet to ruin my life where ever I went and then gloated that they thought I could only work for minimum wage and my MIT degree was worthless because they had ruined my reputation. Per the McGee Commission, you can’t get a lawyer to sue a lawyer, so when I filed in federal court, they arranged somehow to have my case transferred to Nottingham who was already hanging out in strip clubs. Their verified attorney bills show they discussed case assignment and then my case was transferred to judge Naughty.