This is Kay Sieverding's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kay Sieverding's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Kay Sieverding
Recent Activity
As a pro se litigant, I have had huge problems with being accused of writing documents that are too long. This is partially because I had a fact intensive case to begin with which became more fact intensive because there were all sorts of due process violations so then I had to try to explain what should have happened and what did happen. Since so far I never got as far as discovery, and I am always alleging fraud, I tended to add detail in the pleadings. In Apple's case they probably assume that the judge won't read it; I've never heard of even a pro se litigant filing something that long. My magistrate's report and recommendation was 59 pages and I found that very difficult to follow and use. So my suggestion is that ECF should be set up so that litigants file summary documents and that then these could link to supplemental documents. ECF could create an outline format with section headings that would be easy for everyone to follow. Also, I think that all documents should have page lengths so everyone knows. For complaints it could be based on the number of defendants or the number of claims. I think these should all be separately entered and that the defendants and judge should separately respond to each one.
I wasn't just stopped, I was imprisoned by the feds BECAUSE I filed documents in federal court. I was accused of being a vexatious litigant. I wasn't vexatious at all. I verified all my documents under penalty of perjury and I was not accused of perjury or fraud.
It is well established in medicine that the more knowledgeable patients and their families are about their condition and treatment the better the outcome. The same should be true for legal problems. For this reason I think that modern technology such as fill in the blank forms should be harnessed for all legal issues. This should include the ultimate legal problem -- a need to sue a government. As we all know right now there are many unemployed lawyers. Yet lawyers are not more available to the disenfranchised. Maybe this is because of the cost of e & o insurance. Maybe they are terrified of being blacklisted for being associated with the wrong clients. Maybe they are worried about sanctions against themselves if they take disfavored causes such as wrongful imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Personally, I was imprisoned by the feds without a criminal charge or a bail hearing. Also I was ordered to pay $100,000 to various law firms without any trial, any Rule 11(c)(6) order, any order defining the basis for sanctions, or any finding of my ability to pay, all of which are required by Rule 11 and Rule 54. There weren't even motions supporting most of the award it was all unpublished procedure as was my imprisonment. (I don't have a criminal record and verified my pleadings under penalty of perjury). So I have legal needs but I know that no neighborhood legal services program will help me. feed://
So it seems that the Congressional members are thinking about charging Holder with "criminal contempt" right, meaning that he would receive all the protections of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.....? If there is probable cause, why couldn't Holder just be charged with one of the crimes listed in Title 18? There's so many crimes listed in Title 18, you'd think one of them would be relevant. Is the idea that DOJ prosecutors won't prosecute their boss?
My understanding is that the feds cut way back on corruption prosecutions after 9/11, when they transferred all their resources into preventing terrorism, and that is one reason why there has been such an increase in corruption. I'd like to know more about what happened with Andrew Thomas. He was a d.a. in Maricopa County Arizona and he brought some RICO charges against local government officials. The next thing I hear the officials charged are getting half a million payments. Then there are claims that Andrew Thomas knew the people that he prosecuted and that he had political motivation to do so. It seems to me that all d.a.s know all local government officials. Then the State of Arizona brought in John Gleason, who has been the attorney regulation counsel in Colorado for 30 some years. Now, Andrew Thomas has been disbarred and they are trying to make him pay $554,000 "for discipline". That certainly seems like a criminal punishment to me. I couldn't figure out from reading the articles what exactly Andrew Thomas did that was so wrong or what procedure he received. I feel sorry for him.
In Sieverding v. DOJ # 1, DDC 09-0562, DOJ wrote "Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claims against the USMS involve records related to investigation, arrest, detention, or transportation of Mrs. Sieverding by the USMS and are ALL contained in and transmitted by the USMS’s Warrant Information System (“WIN”), Prisoner Processing and Population Management System (“PPM”), or Prisoner Transportation System (“PTS”). [emphasis supplied] However, USMS also had Joint Automated Booking System records about me. JABS was published in the Federal Register as being a system completely exempt from liability lawsuits but when it was put in the Code of Federal Regulation that was modified to allow liability lawsuits when a person had asserted that they were incorrectly identified or not charged with a federal offense, which I did. When I first wrote to USMS FOIA officer Bordley the return package didn't include a list or description of its contents. In December 2010, I wrote again to Mr. Bordley and got a printout, dated Dec 2010, of JABS records for myself created in Colorado when I was taken into custody on a minute order of former judge Nottingham. I wrote again to Bordley and asked if there were JABS documents for me in Western Wisconsin too and they wrote back this week and said that they would not respond to any more records requests for USMS records about myself. That is NOT TRANSPARENCY Another issue that DOJ has been not forthcoming about has to do with whether warrants for my arrest went through the Warrant Information Network. I think that they did not because they don't have a warrant number and that they were just cut and paste documents designed to obstruct justice and deprive my rights under color of law. Real warrants have numbers. Again USMS doesn't want to answer the question. DOJ also submitted an affidavit from USMS FOIA counsel William Bordley. He may be a good person but he is blind. Bordley's affidavit did not disclose that Bordley is blind and did not identify a person who read the affidavit to him. The affidavit has a date inconsistency which would be obvious if read aloud. The affidavit implied that there were no JABS records. Bordley would have suspected that because in 2005 95% of all USMS arrests went through JABS. I think that another DOJ lawyer, probably David Rybicki, wrote the document and pasted a tiff of Bordley's signature into it. Again NOT TRANSPARENCY. I wrote several times to DOJ's USMS component asking for the 2005 USMS JABS user manual which was referenced in the DOJ Office of Inspector General audit of JABS. USMS didn't even acknowledge that request when sent by mail until I was able to use their new on-line request and also sent it to DOJ's special FOIA office for unknown components. So the new system is potentially better because you can prove what you asked for. One area in which DOJ could improve is to have meetings of its Data Integrity Board. It is required to have the committee by 5 USC 552a (u) but they never meet, or haven't in years. In the meantime, DOJ is getting involved in a lot of arrests that are not related to federal offenses. I even read about the USMS chasing someone who allegedly stole a car. In 2005, OIG found a 3% error rate in a small sample of JABS records. If the DOJ Data Integrity Board actually had meetings, then there would be an opportunity for the public to bring up the rights of the accused and the rights of those like myself who are summarily imprisoned without a published process. Over the years I wrote to DOJ many times complaining about summary imprisonment, creation of records about myself that concerned my third party lawsuits, (which DOJ did not file a motion to intervene in), creation of records without a statutory purpose, release of records of imprisonment without a criminal charge for the purpose of stopping me from getting a hearing on the merits in my claims against the City of Steamboat Springs CO etc. With few exceptions, DOJ will not acknowledge these documents. The Nazi records show that they had detailed records about people they brought to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. We need to handle our records and systems of records so that we can't repeat Auschwitz in this country. As I understand it, one factor in the Holocaust was that the lawyers didn't protect PRO SE rights and then when Jews were not allowed to have law licenses, they had no PRO SE rights to fall back on. Yet in my case, DOJ argues that summary imprisonment is appropriate if a person is PRO SE and a judge orders it. So it seems to me that our government could actually imprison a lot of PRO SES and open concentration camps to keep those who are found in "civil contempt", which is apparently what happened in the Holocaust when Jews resisted signing over their financial assets, as I did. It is BS to say that the US shouldn't build controls into its computer systems to prevent internment of people without a criminal charge. Even if you think that genocide could never happen in the U.S. because we are better than people in Germany, Poland, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia etc. Our Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act have inspired similar laws in other countries. Now, they are watching how we implement them. We need to implement them in a way that will prevent illegal internment, genocide, and harassment of litigants.
Kay Sieverding is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 30, 2011