ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 7 minutes ago

   I am grateful to Mr. Ottinger for establishing this case law. My life quality has been greatly damaged by bloggers. They never ever give their name.  I am also troubled by republications of articles including fraudulent information.  I tried to litigate against that but my actions were dismissed on the grounds that I don’t have a law license.  I am a second class citizen.  The first time I tried to litigate there was no jury trial and no summary judgment hearings.  The dismissal order didn’t comply with Rules 52a or 54a.

   There was a huge blog on the WSJ about law students at Yale who posted all sorts of nasty nasty really nasty things anonymously about two female Yale law students.  A lawsuit was filed about that against only the anonymous bloggers with service by publication.

2. Posted by Kay Sieverding - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes ago

   what do you think about Internet sites that allow disparaging or fraudulent remarks about people, or write articles about them, and then don’t let them respond or delete their comments?  Examples are ColoradoPols and the Steamboat Pilot

3. Posted by Ellessyou - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 49 minutes ago

   "My actions were dismissed on the grounds that I don’t have a law license.”

   I’m not aware of such grounds for dismissal under Rule 12 or other provisions.  Do tell us more.

   From the hits for your name on Google, you appear to be a very active blogger/commenter.

4. Posted by Kay Sieverding - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 12 hours, 53 minutes ago

   Since # 3 requested more info:

   My husband and I filed a complaint in the D of MN against Faegre & Benson 08-cv-01064. Our lack of a law license was the only reason it was dismissed. \We have a pending appeal in 8th Circuit. Our questions on appeal are:  “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?  2.) Can U.S. citizens be legally incarcerated or threatened with a finding of contempt solely for petitioning a court while representing themselves?”. 

   The D of MN ruled:
   “Contrary to Mrs. Sieverding’s contention, 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 in any federal court’” and stated:

   “Plaintiffs’ continued insistence on pursuing these lawsuits pro se, despite Court orders to the contrary, borders on contempt of Court.”

   U.S. C. Title 28 section 1654 recognizes a right to self -representation. That was the norm at the time our country was created. George Washington signed the first judiciary act with that in it. However, a number of U.S. courts are claiming that the right of self-representation in a civil matter is not an absolute right. Which I believe it is for all citizens regardless of their state of residence.  I don’t think that courts can amend the U.S. Judiciary Act thru interpretation or threats.  We tried to narrow the issues and write a shorter brief in the 8th Circuit by relying on Wisconsin law which explicitly recognizes an “absolute right” of self representation. The words “absolute right” are used in the annotated WI constitution and quoted by the WI Supreme Court. Then we reply on Rule 17b(1) -(the capacity to sue is determined by the law of one’s residence)

5. Posted by Mister Completely - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 12 hours, 43 minutes ago

   Please, no encouragement, Ellessyou.

6. Posted by NCLawyer - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes ago

   Ms. Sieverding has posted many comments in different fora regarding her alleged unfair treatment.  Apparently she can’t take no for an answer, and doesn’t understand that once the court has ruled on an issue, you don’t get to continue arguing the same point.  She was actually found to be in contempt and spent some time in jail.  She has a conspiracy theory that her case was dismissed because she was proceeding pro se. 

   It would not surprise me to learn that Ms. Sieverding actually did consult a lawyer (or several) prior to filing her complaint, and that she had to represent herself because every lawyer she consulted advised her that she was not likely to prevail on her claims.  It’s obvious from her garbled recitation of the interaction of common law, federal statutes and state constitutions that she has a limited grasp of federalism and how legal precedent actually works.  (Here’s a hint Ms. Sieverding—when this country started slavery was the norm too. Common law develops over time, which is its particular strength.  I learned this in public school in 9th grade world history.)

   On a different comment thread Ms. Sieverding claimed that she was found in contempt and her case was dismissed only because the brief she submitted was too long. Hence the comment “we tried to file a shorter brief.” I have a feeling that her comments were deleted from the blogs she mentioned because the site administrators were as tired of her brand of crazy as the court was.

   Please Ms. Sieverding, for the love of God, seek psychiatric help and stop posting your diatriabes in every thread that you feel to be tangentially related to your particular case.

7. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 39 minutes ago

   To # 6
   I do understand the principles of res judicata and claims preclusion. They are affirmative defense that requires an answer. The burden of proof is on the party claiming the defense and they need to point to the record as to where the issue was decided.  The decision needs to be “on the merits”. 

   We did file a 40 page brief as instructed.

   The newspaper I mentioned was the Steamboat Pilot and my name was in the title. 

   You imply that I was legitimately found in contempt but that was not the case.  And you claim to know about me, although you are anonymous.  Why don’t you post under your real name and say what you think I did that was either a crime or disruption of a hearing--the only two reasons a U.S. citizen can be jailed by their government.

   As far as whether common law changes or stays the same, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

   “the Founders’ view that common law, when it was received into the new American legal systems, was always subject to legislative amendment.” Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 03/27/1996) Slavery was made illegal by the legislature, self- representation was not. The U.S. code states:
   “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 section 1654

   The subject of this particular blog is anonymous posters like yourself.  Are you implying that I broke a law or committed a crime or that I am mentally ill? If so, that is an example of defamation by an anonymous blogger.  If so, prove it.  If not, retract it.

8. Posted by Dan - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 42 minutes ago

   Let me guess… The court didn’t like your “nom de guerre” argument?  Or that the income tax is illegal?  Or that you’re not subject to the court’s jurisdiction because you’re some kind of “Freeman”?  I’ve heard them all.

   Nice Rehnquist quote taken out of context, by the way.

9. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 22 minutes ago

   my name was not a question, my litigation did not concern income tax, and I was not a criminal defendant.  I was a plaintiff. 

   # 8, Here’s another S.C. quote re federal common law:

   “it is “especially common” for issues involving supervision of litigation to be reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558, n. 1 (1988)…. Nothing about the exercise of diversity jurisdiction alters these functional components of decision-making or otherwise warrants departure from a rule of independent appellate review…. The twin aims of the Erie doctrine—“discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws,” Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 468 (1965)—are components of the goal of doctrinal coherence advanced by independent appellate review… by denying a litigant access to meaningful review of state-law claims, appellate courts that defer to the district courts’ state-law determinations create a dual system of enforcement of state-created rights, in which the substantive rule applied to a dispute may depend on the choice of forum… The rule of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842)] made rights enjoyed under the unwritten ‘general law’ vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state or in the federal court"). Neither of these results, unavoidable in the absence of independent appellate review, can be reconciled with the commands of Erie… the proposition that a district judge is better able to “intuit” the answer to an unsettled question of state law is foreclosed by our holding in Erie. The very essence of the Erie doctrine is that the bases of state law are presumed to be communicable by the parties to a federal judge no less than to a state judge. Almost 35 years ago, Professor Kurland stated: “Certainly, if the law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky over the United States, neither is it a brooding omnipresence in the sky of Vermont, or New York or California.” Kurland, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, the Supreme Court and the Erie Doctrine in Diversity Cases, 67 Yale L. J. 187, 217 (1957). See Southern Pacific Co., 244 U.S., at 222 (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified"). Similarly, the bases of state law are as equally communicable to the appellate judges as they are to the district judge. To the extent that the available state law on a controlling issue is so unsettled as to admit of no reasoned divination, we can see no sense in which a district judge’s prior exposure or non-exposure to the state judiciary can be said to facilitate the rule of reason… The obligation of responsible appellate review and the principles of a cooperative judicial federalism underlying Erie require that courts of appeals review the state-law determinations of district courts de novo.” SALVE REGINA COLLEGE v. SHARON L. RUSSELL, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 499 U.S. 225 (U.S. 03/20/1991)

10. Posted by jodi - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 59 minutes ago

    Not to encourage any more rambling responses from Ms. Sieverding, but ...
    Federal district courts have the power, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and their inherent powers, to issue orders enjoining vexatious litigants from filing any further actions or papers without first obtaining leave of the court.  See, e.g., De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-49 (9th Cir. 1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007); Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). So, actually, yes, the courts can and are obligated to restrict litigants’ access to courts when necessary to “protect and preserve the sound and orderly administration of justice.” In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984).  The courts are reluctant to exercise this power, but they will declare a plaintiff a vexatious litigant when needed “to ensure that judicial resources are not needlessly squandered on repeated attempts by litigants to misuse the courts.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990).  The state courts have the same power, usually by statute.

11. Posted by Dan - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 42 minutes ago

    A quick google search reveals that the Siverdings have filed some half dozen federal court cases in the past few years as well as numerous state claims.  The reason their most recent case was dismissed, as our illustrious poster claims, “lack of a law license” was because they had a standing order prohibiting them, personally, from filing pro se claims, because they had filed numerous claims that were deemed frivolous before.

    What is the horrible injustice that brought about a flurry of litigation?  From reading the decision, it seems that back in 1992, the Sieverding’s neighbors erected a fence which blocked access to a private road that the Sieverdings had been using but that the court found was not theirs.  The federal court says that Mrs. Sieverding had a restraining order granted against her in favor of the neighbors because the battle over this road got quite heated, and has spent since then trying to get it vacated. 

    I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that if a court grants a restraining order against a person because the court finds they are harassing their neighbor, harassing the courts to vacate it is not the best way to go about things.  Just my $.02.

12. Posted by prosecute1966 - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Children, PLEASE!  Your mother and I are trying to have an adult conversation.  Don’t make me pull this car over!  I’ll turn around right now!

    Seriously, these issues of blogs, anonymity, defamation, privacy, etc raise some interesting issues for me.  Is it me or has American society, in general, gotten ultra-sensitive.  Name-calling, insults, innuendo, and the such have always, unfortunately, been a part of our culture.  It seems, though, that we have all become so...I don’t quite have the right word...weak.  The human spirit should be of stronger stuff.  I can’t imagine some law school dean took such offense to some anonymous posting that he went to the trouble to find out who wrote it.  It seems a waste of an attorney’s (not to mention an academic’s) time to pursue vindication of a stupid, if not scurrilous, attack.  How did we get here--where every slight to one’s dignity is to be adjudicated?

13. Posted by anonymous - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 3 hours ago

    Well written, Jodi.  I thought I would mention a case in the 7th Circuit; plaintiff is a femail pro se litigant accusing everyone from the judge, her own lawyer and his staff, and various shopkeepers in town of conspiring against her in her divorce proceedings.  It’s a very entertaining read.  Judge Posner says in the end, it’s a close call (on whether or not to affirm summary judgment, but since she’s pro se, we should let her continue.”
    For a laugh, google and read “Loubser v. Thacker”

14. Posted by anonymous - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 57 minutes ago

    Sorry, I goofed.  Band-Aid on finger.  female is not spelled femail, sorry. 

    Loubser v. Thacker

15. Posted by C Paradies - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

    While nobody likes vexetious litigation (or any litigation even approaching vexetiousness), at least the courts and blogosphere provide a safe and sometimes orderly (in the case of the courts) process for airing ones grievances.  Isn’t this one of the reasons that ‘civil’ courts were instituted: to reduce the incidence of “self help” by force?

16. Posted by Whiner - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 21 minutes ago

    Grow up people!

17. Posted by Ellessyou - 2 months, 3 weeks, 15 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I’ll admit, this fascinates me.  I’m sure this woman feels aggrieved, but this is a classic case of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Kay, since you’re here, would you mind explaining the disconnect between these two passages? 

    http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3466

    “my husband thinks that he and I are both crime victims and that we were denied our equal protection rights in court.  ...

    He thinks that for me to be jailed without the involvement of a government prosecutor and without a trial and without disrupting a hearing and without being accused of a crime was a criminal deprivation of rights.

    I agree with him.”

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4438023,00.html

    “Her husband, David Sieverding, flew from Wisconsin Thursday to appear before Nottingham.

    “Did she tell you why she chose to stay in Wisconsin?” Nottingham asked Sieverding about his wife’s absence.

    “Ah,” said Sieverding. “I think she just said she decided to stay in Wisconsin. I’ve tried to avoid talking about this with her.” ...

    Outside the courtroom, David Sieverding said he has tried to persuade his wife to drop the lawsuits, but said his wife is very stubborn.

    “I just don’t understand that level of stubbornness, to be honest with you,” he said.”

    I am confident you can rationalize all this.  Thanks, and I’ll hang up and listen.

    :popcorn:

18. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 12 minutes ago

    I don’t know exactly what the reporter asked my husband, what exactly he sent, and what he meant.  At that time, RMN was represented by my defense lawyers, Faegre & Benson, as was the Denver Post, which also reported on my being jailed at the request of Faegre.  The Denver Post reported that my dispute with my neighbors involved their building “a garage and a shed” but both buildings had central heating and plumbing and one had a finished kitchen.  I asked them to correct their stories but they didn’t.

    As a business decision, no amount of money would be worth going thru what we went thru at the hands of Faegre & Benson, Hall & Evans etc. The stress I’m sure shortened our lives.

    Our family has always used the word “stubborn” in a joking way as “stubborn Swede” meaning “persistent”. 

    My husband is a co-plaintiff in our current suit against Faegre & Benson, D of MN 08-cv-01064 and its appeal to 8th Circuit 08-2429.  My husband says he believes that democracy is at stake and he encourages me to spend time writing and researching.  He works on the court documents himself and develops strategies himself.

    My husband and I have been married for over 25 years.  He said that I shouldn’t worry about my employability or reputation because he will take care of me.  But I worry about taking care of him.  No one likes to talk about one of us dying before the other. My husband strongly believes that we are both crime victims.

    Our problems started at 750 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs.  I protested our neighbor fencing off the street (6,000 square feet of public land) and converting it to his exclusive use and his building 3 buildings in violation of the zoning.  These buildings are not on the tax rolls in Rout County for 701 Princeton.

    At that time, the house and the yard, and by extension, the neighbors were my responsibility.  My husband was holed up writing a book and seldom walked around our yard. He thinks we would have been better off ignoring the extra buildings and government corruption than protesting it.  I truly never thought I would be criminally prosecuted for protesting government corruption.  If we could do it over again, we would not have bought that property, although the location was beautiful and convenient and it soared in value.  When we bought it, was not listed on mls and I think that the previous owner knew that problems with the neighbor would affect the value.  I heard from someone that rented my neighbor’s house before he bought it, that the guy who previously owned my house objected strongly to my neighbors not having a functioning drive and parking always on the street and using our drive to turn around in.  When I bought the property, I was just there for an hour and I didn’t notice that problem.  People used to drive thru our circular drive.

    When I still lived in Steamboat, people would tell me that if it had been their property they “never would have let” my neighbor get the end of the street.  But no one ever told me how they would have preserved their rights, given that he was president of the city council and basically omnipotent in that time and place. Since we moved, all the owners of our two adjacent properties have been lawyers. Colorado law specifically recognizes the rights of adjoining property owners to rely on the zoning.  But those rights were denied to us.

    Many people think that government corruption is undefeatable as in the old saying “You can’t fight city hall”.  I was more confident than most people. I think the reason for my confidence is that I graduated from MIT.  I found in the past that if I remained calm and was persistent in my efforts, things would eventually turn my way.

19. Posted by kay sieveding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 6 minutes ago

    It wasn’t “a private road”, it was public land that was platted as road and paved.

    There are standards for restraining orders and they involve basically criminal conduct. The judge ruled that I “molested” my neighbor but we were never alone, never had sex, and she said under oath that I hadn’t called her in years and hadn’t been following her around. What I did was pass out flyers alleging government corruption, email to the city council complaining about government corruption, and I told my neighbor while I was standing on the street in the afternoon and she was 30 feet away with 3 men “Just because you are married to the president of the city council doesn’t give you a right to break the law”.  I was not informed that I was charged with “molesting” her.

20. Posted by KaySieverding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 52 minutes ago

    To Jodi

    What do you consider rambling?

    First, the All Writs Act it does not expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Just because for unknown reasons my case was reassigned from Judge Matsch to Judge Nottingham, does not make Judge Nottingham my boss for the rest of my life.  Judge N put me in jail for filing a rule 60b(3) petition –05-01283 in the D of Columbia.  Carolyn Lamm, White & Case, one of the most expensive lawyers in the entire world, who, according to some, has the power and influence to “change the law” was hired.  If my pro se ramblings were so “frivolous”, they could have hired a discount lawyer.

    What Judge N ruled is that I am a bad writer. Certainly my writing would be better if I wasn’t so rushed and emotional and there was a professional proofreader available to me. However, I believe that I accomplished the standard of adequate and timely writing.

    I believe that the ruling that I am a bad writer was in bad faith because 1.) At this time, the legality of legal proof reading services available to those unlicensed to sell legal services to others is questionable.  An internet based service offering legal proof reading and basically, asking probing questions, to unlicensed self represented litigants could probably be a bread and butter business to a stay at home lawyer mom, but she might worry that she would be charged with illicit ghost writing, even though she can legally sell the same services to other lawyers, and even though a web site advertising on the ABA web site involves a non lawyer selling writing services to lawyers.  2.) The defense filed no motions for more definite statement 3.) Mediation services were denied us, there were no rule 26 proceedings, and my motions for summary judgment were “struck” by the magistrate, who under the magistrate’s act was required to make factual findings. We were not allowed any oral hearing in which we were allowed to address questions to the defense. Normally, oral discussions compensate for “bad writing”.

    I will look up those cases when I have more time.  I know that at least one, re Martin-Trigona, involves a prisoner filing in pauperous who used racial and religious name-calling.  He could have appealed up but he didn’t.

    You really need to look at the whole system when you consider prisoner litigation.  In the news today is an article about a prisoner who sent blind because he couldn’t get medical attention for his early stage cataracts. The State will probably end up paying on that.  Just that one award would have been enough to cover judicial resources to look into hundreds of prisoner complaints.  I don’t think that senior federal judges should be reviewing most of those complaints.  I think they should expand the judicial teams to include one judge, three magistrates, part time foreign language specialists etc.

    I was in jail.  I always like to ad that I was illegally held, but that does not change the fact that I was there.  A few years ago a former state judge from Minnesota was in jail for 5 years for embezzlement.  I don’t remember his name but I saw a t.v. interview in which he said that he had sent a lot of people to jail and it was nothing like he thought.  I am in my mid 50’s.  The last time I was arrested I was not expecting it at all. Then I wasn’t charged and so of course, had no idea how long I would be detained and where. I was extremely stressed out.  I got the worst headache I have ever had in my entire life and I vomited for hours.  This was in the middle of the night.  A guard came finally and asked if I was all right. I told him that I had a terrible headache.  He returned with a Tylenol but no nurse. I had a friend who died from an embolism the same symptoms.  Another woman I met was really upset because she had already had “bad” pap smears and she was overdue for another. She could not arrange to get a pap smear. I don’t see what is accomplished by ignoring prisoners’ problems. Starting with the fact that some of them really are innocent and for others the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. What I read is that the feds pay $100 per day to keep federal prisoners but I think the food budget is like $1.50 per day.  So someone is making money and there is motivation to jail more people.  I read an interview with the Chief Justice of Canada and he was worried about the statistical increase in number of jailed people.  He said that most people are not naturally criminal and there is no reason why the statistical incarceration rate should have increased. 

    I guess this does discourse or ramble, but there really are a lot of subjects on this blog.

21. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes ago

    I didn’t get a chance to look up those other cases yet, but I think that the bottom line is that procedure cannot be amended by judicial interpretation, jurisdiction cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation, courts have jurisdiction over cases and controversies not over persons, the Anti Injunction Act applies in federal as well as state courts because of Stare Decisis, outcome independence, and conformity, judges are bound by the criminal code and should not engage in witness intimidation and witness retaliation, Rule 60 allows a variety of options for reopening judgments, the All Writs Act only refers to judgments that are not void because of due process violations, The U.S. Judicial Cannons require that cases be heard, and the equitable powers of the court are to be used for the minimum amount necessary.  In my case there were no rule 11 c. 6 orders.  I tried to file a rule 11 motion (requesting that the proceeds be donated to a prison library), but there was no response or acknowledgment that I even filed it.

    My defendants had the option of filing a motion for summary judgment and attempting to prove res judicata but instead they used violence under color of law. 

    From what I have read, there are very few instances in which litigation is truly “frivolous”.  An example was recently published when a law firm sued the wrong party, which had a similar name.  From what i read, that law firm is still in business.

22. Posted by Kay Sieverding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes ago

    # 11 says “From reading the decision, it seems that back in 1992, the Sieverding’s neighbors erected a fence which blocked access to a private road that the Sieverdings had been using but that the court found was not theirs.” but that was not what happened in our case at all. The road was public and shown on the map as a road.  We were forced to sell it to our neighbor for $1 under a threat of criminal prosecution. That happened in 2000. What happened in 1992 was that they fenced off the 6,000 square feet of public land and their lawyer threatened us if we pursued our rights. And the neiigbors set off city sized aerial fire works reportedly costing over $10,000 75 feet downhill from our yard. The restraining order was issued because I protested their building 3 extra buildings on the land after they got it.

23. Posted by kay - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes ago

    the land was owned by the city of steamboat.  It was 60 feet wide and 100 feet long.  There was a 22 foot wide paved portion that stated about 18 feet from our property line. That basically ended in a steep hill. There was over 20 feet per annum snow so all the roads around there had big public lands for “snow storage” where it would gradually melt.  That area that was converted was supposed to have a culdesac or t ending for traffic to turn around and it was supposed to be there for the plows to pile snow from the streets. But instead a garage with other rooms behind and over it ended up there.  We owned 3/4 acre.  We had access to our house but we had possible home sites for 2 more homes and access to them was an issue.  Also, we just wanted to be able to come and go from our yard because we were landscaping and we had snowmobiles and a tent camper.  And I believe that if we could have walked down the entire publicly owned land that there was the worlds’ most fantastic view there, of two mountain passes.  Public land cannot legally be acquired by “squatting” practices such as putting your dog house and dog on public land, fences, piles of wood, etc. or by making threats as did happen.

24. Posted by Anon Observer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes ago

    Kay,

    Here’s the best advice you’ll get for free.  Drop all this litigation crap and move away somewhere peaceful.  You are just digging a hole that you will not be able to climb out of eventually.  It is hard to accept when you’ve been defeated, but you really are being shown all the signs and still decide to waste time arguing.

    Every wrong sounds like a violation of this or that, but it doesn’t mean you have a strong case in court.  Your reputation has tarnished any chance you have of seeking any judgment in your favor.  Just accept the fact that you have no case and stop annoying everyone already.

    There, no charge, have a nice day.

25. Posted by Melissa - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 12 minutes ago

    Kay,

    You’re not a bad writer like the judge said. You’re a good wordsmith. It’s just that your writing lacks structure and organization sometimes. Many people with artistic mindsets have this issue I think. But if you work hard to organize your writing into a logical flow, your writing will be quite good.

26. Posted by kay sieverding - 2 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 11 minutes ago

    To # 24.  I think I can win in front of a jury.  It’s true that Faegre & Benson’s bills show that they advised their client to publish about me , but at least I have no criminal convictions and no rule 11 c. 6. orders.  The defense has already put me in a position where the option to “move away somewhere peaceful” does not exist.  I honestly believe that the defense strategy is to make me so miserable that I commit suicide. Given a choice between suicide and spreading the word about use of jailing without criminal conviction and baseless fines by Faegre & Benson and Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda in order to avoid facing a jury, I opt to tell as many people as I can that they too are in danger from Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda, which offers insurance for defamation claims to the publishers of defamation throughout North America.

    To Melissa, Thank you. If anyone can help me please email me.