when denver's gannett/9news.com reported the other day that george h.w. bush appointee, chief federal judge edward nottingham, was under investigation by the u.s. court of appeals for the 10th circuit because the judges full name and cell phone number turned up on a list of clients for a denver prostitution business -- it must have given some level of satisfaction to ms. kay sieverding.
ms. sieverding is a wisconsin woman formerly of steamboat springs, colorado who has had an ongoing feud with the judge for many years culminating with her petition for relief from the judge to the united states supreme court. 114 page .pdf (363 kb)
writing to a diary on daily kos, captioned 'judge edward nottingham's victim' ms. sieverding explains:My family used to live in Steamboat Springs CO. We got involved in a boundary dispute with the president of the city council. To gain an advantage, he had the local judge rule that I molested his wife although she said there was no offensive touching, I hadn't been following her, and she could hardly remember interacting with me except one day when I said "just because your husband is the president of the city council doesn't give you a right to break the law". We ended up with over $400,000 in economic damages plus personal and punitive damages. My neighbor even threatened to shoot someone who wanted to buy part of our land.
ms. sieverding sued the steamboat springs newspaper for what she maintains were their defaming articles. the colorado press responded by circling the wagons to cast her as a 'lawsuit-happy woman now in contempt of court' even some colorado bloggers who should know better and should be skeptical of the main stream media spin, dutifully recited the media line such as this post here 'nuts everywhere.'
I decided I could sue them "pro se" since I was a good library researcher. The insurance company lawyers used prejudice against pro ses to extort me and also probably blackmailed the strip club judge Edward Nottingham. They claimed to have an injunction against pro se litigation but skipped Rule 65 completely.
It turns out that Underwriters at Lloyds London and Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda insured the parties that I sued. They didn't file the required broker's reports or the C.R.S. 10-3-1004 Defense of Action by Unauthorized Insurer. Somehow, mid case they arranged for my case, D of Colorado 02-1950, to be transferred to Judge Edward Nottingham. He has recently been in the press for spending big $ at strip clubs and a prostitution ring. I think the insurance companies blackmailed Judge Nottingham.
Judge Nottingham would not hear our summary judgment motions, after the defense asked him not to. He dismissed our case without a statement of reasons as required by rule 52a and he ordered us to pay the defense counsel $102,000 without finding any fraud on our part. There were no rule 11 6 orders. read more
in april 2005, ms. sieverding motioned the tenth circuit court of appeals to 'invite the justice department to investigate...the district court judge' and the tenth circuit in a filing here denied ms. sieverding's motion 'as moot or as frivolous and meritless.' guess who's investigating the judge now - thats right, the very same tenth circuit court of appeals.
website of ms. kay sieverding: www.rightscase.com
