Legal Ethics
Denver Chief U.S. Judge Faces Ethics Probe Over Alleged Links to Prostitutes
Posted Mar 11, 2008, 05:20 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A report at 9News.com says Colorado’s chief federal judge is facing an ethics investigation for alleged links to a Denver prostitution business.
The story alleges that investigators found the name and cell phone number of Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham on a list of clients of the business, known as Denver Players or Denver Sugar. An anonymous driver told the NBC affiliate that he took prostitutes to Nottingham’s condo complex who told him they were seeing a judge whose nickname was “Naughty.”
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is investigating, the story says.
Investigators shut down the prostitution business in July and searched the home of its owner, who has not been charged. Sources told the publication that the business catered to high-profile clients, including judges and lawyers.
Nottingham has faced two other 10th Circuit investigations. One involved allegations that he visited a strip club. The other stems from a Denver lawyer’s complaint that the judge threatened to call authorities when she confronted him about parking in a handicapped space.
A hat tip to How Appealing, which posted the story.
Related Stories
- DA in Cheney-Gonzales Case Shouts at Judge, Who Seeks Higher-Court Backup
Nov 21, 2008, 06:01 pm CST - Deputy Calif. DA is Charged in Alleged Rape of Colleague
Nov 21, 2008, 01:15 pm CST - Lawyer Pleads to Tax Misdemeanors; Feds Say He Didn’t File Since ‘94
Nov 20, 2008, 04:17 pm CST - Police Bribed Judge to Get Search Warrant, Ex-Chicago Cop Testifies
Nov 20, 2008, 03:49 pm CST
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by Kay Sieverding - 8 months, 1 week, 2 days, 21 hours, 2 minutes ago
Judge Nottingham spent the $3,000 at the Golden Cabaret the same weekend that he put me in jail in order to deter my presentment in court. On 9/2/05, Judge Nottingham said: “The Court has asked her whether she will voluntarily dismiss these lawsuits, and she has said would not. Accordingly, upon finding that Kay Sieverding is in contempt of court, the Court will remand her to the custody of the United States Marshal for the District of Colorado to be incarcerated until she purges herself of the contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuits”. Fed D of Colorado 02-1950
We filed a motion in the Supreme Ct in 07-884 for a special prosecutor but the clerks office wrote back ““In reply to your motion for special prosecutor, received March 4, 2008, I regret to inform you that this Court has no authority to institute or conduct investigations.”
So we tried again and filed a Motion under Public Law 97–291(2) “to ensure that the Federal Government does all that is possible within limits of available resources to assist victims and witnesses of crime without
infringing on the constitutional rights of the defendant.” The motion is “To report evidence of § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and the Hobbs Act to the US DOJ Criminal Division.“
I am not a lawyer. Do you see any errors in our Public Law 97–291(2) Motion To Report Evidence?
http://rightscase.com/07-884 sieverdingmotion.pdf
Posted by PeteSmith - 8 months, 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 36 minutes ago
To learn more about this story, visit the legal blog that has been following it for the past year (collecting articles & memoranda) at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Nottingham/Nottingham.htm
Posted by Kay Sieverding - 8 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes ago
What I want to know is what the ABA’s official position on putting pro ses in jail or threatening them with violence in order to deter their presentment in court? Carolyn Lamm, an ABA presidential nominee, seems, by her written pleadings, to approve the idea of putting pro ses in jail without stating an offense or having the rules of criminal procedure apply. I don’t see how that can be legal because the Witness Intimidation Act and the Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law don’t exempt judges from the words “who”. Also, the U.S. Code says that its government can only jail its citizens pursuant to an Act of Congress. And litigation is a government activity and therefore it is a crime to use threats to deter participation in. I personally was jailed by the U.S. government under the authority of Federal Judge Nottingham 3 times, totaling 5 months, and not once was an offense stated. Also, he ordered me to pay the insurance companies $102,000 without stating a statutory basis or having a rule 11 6 order. I filed for relief in the S.C. but even though I stated mandamus and the defense all filed waivers, they didn’t hear my petition for unknown reasons. What should I do if a judge just assumes authority to fine and jail me without citing a law. Even if Judge Nottingham didn’t go to prostitutes and strip clulbs, aren’t we entitled to rely on the written law in the U.S.?
Posted by Kay Sieverding - 8 months, 4 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago
I received an email from the ABA that seems to indicate that its policy is in fact to put pro ses in jail for petitioning courts and to fine them without the necessity to prove fraud if they sue a lawyer. I hope I am misunderstanding the email but i don’t think I am. If you go to court and you are not rich ,the ABA and//or its members, will have you put you in jail. and the ABA itself apparently thinks that is just fine.