Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 1 of 181

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 vs.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 02CV1950-EWN KAY SIEVERDING, et al., Plaintiffs,

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. _______________________________________________________________ REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT MOTION HEARING _______________________________________________________________ Proceedings before the HONORABLE EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, commencing at 9:36 a.m., on the 4th day of January, 2006, in Courtroom A1001, United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado. APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs KAY SIEVERDING, PRO SE MICHAEL O'MALLEY, ESQ. 1444 Stuart Street Denver, Colorado For the Defendants CHRISTOPHER P. BEALL, ESQ. Faegre & Benson 370 17th Street Denver, Colorado TRACI VAN PELT, ESQ. MICHAEL McCONNELL, ESQ. McConnell Siderius Fleischner 2401 15th Street Denver, Colorado DAVID BROUGHAM, ESQ. Hall & Evans 1125 17th Street Denver, Colorado BRETT HUFF, ESQ. White & Steele 950 17th Street Denver, Colorado THERESE LINDBLOM, Official Reporter 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294 Proceedings Reported by Mechanical Stenography Transcription Produced via Computer

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 2 of 182

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:

P R O C E E D I N G S Case No. 02-cv-1950, Sieverding and others

v. Colorado Bar Association and others. I'll take the appearances, starting with the defendants. MR. BEALL: Your Honor, Christopher Beall, Faegre &

Benson, on behalf of the Steamboat Pilot and Suzanne Schlicht. MS. VAN PELT: Good morning, Your Honor. Tracy Van

Pelt and Mike McConnell here on behalf of Klauzer & Tremaine, Rich Tremaine, Randall Klauzer, James Horner and Jane Bennett. THE COURT: Who are they, generally? Jane Bennett was Ms. Sieverding's

MS. VAN PELT:

neighbor, and those are the lawyers that represented Jane Bennett in the initial dispute. THE COURT: MR. HUFF: Right. Good morning. Brett Huff here on behalf of

the CBA this morning. MR. BROUGHAM: David Brougham on behalf of 25 or 30

Steamboat Springs officials. THE COURT: essentially, right? MR. BROUGHAM: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. And Ms. Sieverding appears. All of the Government officials,

All right.

MS. SIEVERDING:

Yes, I'm Kay Sieverding. And Jane Bennett

No, there weren't 25 or 30 people.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 3 of 183

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was the one who accused me of harassing her because I told her that she wasn't entitled to break the law, the zoning law, because her husband was president of City Council. in the magistrate's report, though. MR. O'MALLEY: I've been hired by David Sieverding to That wasn't

represent him today, Mike O'Malley. THE COURT: All right.

The matter is before the Court on Document No. 704, the motion to enter further relief or new contempt by Kay Sieverding, which was filed on behalf of the defendants that I'm going to call the press or newspaper defendants. So I'll hear that first of all. Now, I know that

there are other motions that are pending, but I'll deal with them later, because this was the impetus for originally setting the motions. First of all, did Mr. Sieverding dismiss the cases as he promised at the hearing in September? MR. BEALL: question. Your Honor, to address your first

According to the Pacer docket report for one of

three cases in the D.C. District Court, Mr. Sieverding filed a withdrawal in Case No. 05-cv-1283 -- excuse me, let me see if I can find it -- on September 8, 2005. THE COURT: assigned to? MR. BEALL: Judge Urbina, Ricardo M. Urbina. All right. Which judge has that been

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 4 of 184

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moment?

THE COURT:

What's the status of the case at the

MR. BEALL:

That case continues, although Judge Urbina

on December 22 granted a motion by various defendants in that case to stay their obligation to respond to the numerous motions filed by Mrs. Sieverding subsequent to their motion to dismiss. No ruling on the motion to dismiss has yet entered. THE COURT: Well, let me digress just a minute and

talk to you about a possible way of dealing with these things. Why couldn't the defendants, including, I guess, your clients and maybe the clients of the other lawyers at the table, file certified copies of this court's order, orders, and the Tenth Circuit's orders and get those things resolved summarily, without much expenditure? Is it just a matter of

docket management, where the Court can't get to things before Ms. Sieverding files her welter of motions we know she does. MR. BEALL: I believe the answer is, Your Honor, we In the situation of the complaints

have attempted to do that.

filed by Mrs. Sieverding in Chicago, we advised the court clerk's office there of both Your Honor's order and the Tenth Circuit order, and the clerk's office in the District of Northern Illinois didn't allow the case to proceed. We did the same with the clerk's office in the D.C. District Court, and the court clerk's office there allowed the case to proceed.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 5 of 185

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

We then filed a motion to dismiss both on personal jurisdiction grounds, but also advising the Court there of Your Honor's order and the Tenth Circuit's affirmance of your order. That's the motion to dismiss that remains pending. been no ruling on that. Certainly Your Honor's suggestion that one mechanism for dealing with these lawsuits, at least less expensively than engaging in motions practice, would be to advise each new court of Your Honor's order and the Tenth Circuit's order, is a mechanism that we have attempted to use in the past, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I think going forward, if the Court were to enter the relief that we've requested in this latest motion, we would then be able to advise each new court that receives a complaint from Mrs. Sieverding, to the extent that that complaint has not either been approved by this court or is filed by an attorney, would be summarily -- would be able to summarily dismiss. THE COURT: Right. It seems to me that the Northern There has

District of Illinois took the approach that is typically taken if somebody does things like this, which is to refuse the filing because it's filed in violation of another federal district court's order. MR. BEALL: THE COURT: Co-equal court, Your Honor, yes. And I'm mystified as to why the District

of Columbia clerk doesn't seem to be following that.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 6 of 186

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mr. Brougham, do you have information on that? MR. BROUGHAM: Yes, Your Honor. When the Washington,

District of Columbia, cases were filed, I contacted the clerk's office there and asked if they had pro se screening for the very purpose you're talking about. And they do, but it only

applies -- as I understand it, the screening is -- takes place in the District of Columbia if there is an in forma pauperis filed. Otherwise, they let it go like a normal lawsuit. THE COURT: If they pay the filing fee, in other And that's

words, it doesn't go through the screening process? common. That's the way we handle it in this court. MR. BROUGHAM: Columbia.

That's what happened in the District of

The Northern District of Illinois has a more efficient way, I guess. But, anyway, the District of Columbia is

allowing this case to proceed as any other one, there is a pending motion to dismiss. THE COURT: I diverted you from your answer, counsel.

You were talking about whether Mr. David Sieverding has complied with his promise to this court in September. MR. BEALL: We are unaware of whether

Mr. Sieverding -- Mr. Sieverding has filed a notice of withdrawal in either of the two other D.C. cases. There is a

third D.C. case we were unaware of, because it was filed after the September 2 hearing. Mr. Sieverding is listed as a

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 7 of 187

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

plaintiff in both of those two other D.C. cases. nothing in the docket that shows a withdrawal.

There is

I understand

based on communications from Mr. O'Malley this week that Mr. Sieverding has this week submitted withdrawals from all pending litigation. THE COURT: I'm mystified as to why you can't answer The District of Columbia is on

my question more directly. electronic filing.

All you have to do is go to Pacer and see

whether he's filed a withdrawal of these things. MR. BEALL: The Pacer docket reflects that he has not,

in connection with 05-cv-1672 and 05-cv-2122. Your Honor, I have copies of the docket reports that I printed out yesterday. Court. But unfortunately, they are long. THE COURT: you tender them. Well, Mr. O'Malley, what's going on? MR. O'MALLEY: I did talk to him, and I believe As typically -- I'm not suggesting that I'd be happy to tender them to the

yesterday was the last withdrawal from one of the D.C. cases. That is my impression, that he has, indeed, got himself disconnected from Mrs. Sieverding -THE COURT: I'm not interested in your impression. I

want to know whether he's withdrawn those cases. MR. O'MALLEY: The only thing I can represent to the

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 8 of 188

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Court, Your Honor, is that he has told me that yesterday was the last case that he had withdrawn. me -THE COURT: sitting right there. MR. O'MALLEY: have the documentation. THE COURT: Why not? Because late yesterday afternoon was We do not at this point, Your Honor, Get the documentation from him. He's And he's represented to

MR. O'MALLEY:

the time we finally made an agreement as to the scope of the representation for me to represent him. And I've talked to him

over the last week, but it was just yesterday afternoon that we made an agreement that I was going to appear here and try to get him out of this mess. And I told him to make sure that he

had filed on the Pacer system withdrawals from every single one of the issues, begin to pull him apart from what his wife was doing. All I can say is he's told me that yesterday he did do -- went onto Pacer and withdrew from the last cases. believe it was one case that he had to withdraw from. I

And

that's -- I haven't been able to confirm it by doing anything, because of the time frame. THE COURT: Does he have electronic filing rights in

the District of Columbia? MR. BEALL: Your Honor, if I may.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 9 of 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

No.

Judge Urbina -Right, they don't allow pro se filers to So it will take some time to process.

THE COURT: file electronically.

But I'm mystified that you would come to court this morning defending a possible contempt citation and not have the documentation. MR. O'MALLEY: still had to show up. THE COURT: evidence. MR. O'MALLEY: THE COURT: I agree. Well, it's better if you show up with I didn't have the time, Your Honor. I

Well, you can prove that in short order, So you file

when -- somewhere he's got to have that material.

it by 5 o'clock this afternoon, or he'll be in here again. MR. O'MALLEY: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor.

You file it with this court, 5 o'clock

this afternoon, the written notice of withdrawal from all of these lawsuits. MR. O'MALLEY: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor.

Everywhere. Yes, Your Honor. So that answers the first

MR. O'MALLEY: THE COURT:

All right.

question the Court had. MR. BEALL: Sure.

Your Honor, the motion before the Court is a motion

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

10 Page 10 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

for further relief.

The motion asks for relief on the basis of The relief being sought is an

a District of Kansas filing.

order from this court requiring that Mrs. Sieverding not be permitted to file anything anywhere in any court as a pro se party without receiving written permission from this court. Obviously, that request would involve the Court in review of the papers that Mrs. Sieverding seeks to file around the country. The motion seeks for the Court to review those

papers that she seeks to file around the country, to determine whether the paper is based or not based on the same series of transactions described in this case. THE COURT: based on anything. I can't tell from what she files what is It's gibberish. It truly is. And I say And I have She

that not to insult her, but it's just gibberish.

better things to do with my time than police this woman. files a dozen papers at a time. MR. BEALL: THE COURT: MR. BEALL: THE COURT: judge. MR. BEALL: THE COURT: you all pay for. MR. BEALL: I understand. Or special master, Your Honor. We see them also, Your Honor. Lengthy ones. We can --

Maybe I can give it to the magistrate

Well, it would be a special master that

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

11 Page 11 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kansas?

THE COURT: MR. BEALL: THE COURT:

Okay. The -What's the story about the District of

This appears from the case number to be Judge

Lundstrom's case. MR. BEALL: The case has not yet been served on the

defendants, and that's the result of the -- as a result, the defendants haven't appeared. THE COURT: What on earth is wrong with the District

of Kansas that they -- why can't you present this kind of an order to the District of Kansas and tell the -- ask the clerk to do the same thing that Northern Illinois did, which was, not file a lawsuit? MR. BEALL: receive a response. We can. We did, and we have yet to

The answer, Your Honor, has been, we're And the

not yet in the case because we haven't been served.

Court will not take steps until we've been served, which is different -- admittedly, it is different from what Chicago did. Chicago didn't wait for us to be served. THE COURT: MR. BEALL: THE COURT: It defeats the very purpose -I agree. -- of what we're trying to do here, which

is to prevent this abusive litigant from causing parties to incur multiple expenses defending and appearing in frivolous lawsuits.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

12 Page 12 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BEALL:

We concur, Your Honor.

To the extent that the Court feels that it cannot, should not -- that it would be a waste of its resources and taxpayers' money to engage in a review of all paper submitted by Mrs. Sieverding, a lesser remedy that the Court may consider is to issue an order today again ratifying the prohibition restriction on Mrs. Sieverding's pro se filing. And we can

take that order to any other court and take both orders and see whether -THE COURT: MR. BEALL: sufficient. THE COURT: So -- I mean, I don't think I brought that I already did, on March 19, 2004. I agree. I don't know why that's not

part of this file, because I'm not strong enough to carry the whole file. But -The relevant portion of the order is in

MR. BEALL:

page 2 of the order, and prohibits Mrs. Sieverding from filing any -- both -- it prohibits all plaintiffs from filing any litigation anywhere without an attorney, where the litigation is, quote, based on a series of transactions described in this case. THE COURT: Maybe the problem is, they have to

determine what is based on the -- what the transactions in this case are. MR. BEALL: Your Honor, that was the issue that caused

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

13 Page 13 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the -- at least the magistrate in the District of Minnesota to conduct a hearing, to determine whether the new case filed against the newspaper defendants and our firm was based on the same transactions. THE COURT: Don't you think that the record in this

case supports the proposition that she is an abusive litigant and therefore should be enjoined from filing any further lawsuits without an attorney, whatever they're based on? MR. BEALL: Yes, I believe the record amply

demonstrates that there are numerous cases around the country in which courts have entered such orders when a litigant has abused -THE COURT: Green's case. MR. BEALL: THE COURT: That's right. All right. Ms. Sieverding. I've done it. The leading case is Clovis

MS. SIEVERDING:

Respectfully, sir, I would like to

know why you think that the case -- the 02-cv-1590 case was frivolous, because the only thing that I heard was that since I had filed the various complaints that I didn't serve and had dismissed under Rule 41 -- which, you know, the Supreme Court in Syntech v. Blacky said that doesn't cause preclusion. That

was the only reason that, for instance, at this '92 hearing where I was thrown in jail that Tracy Van Pelt cited. And I

talked to Mr. O'Malley about it for an hour or so, and he

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

14 Page 14 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

didn't seem to find -- he was talking about the expense of taking witnesses or how much with a jury. find a flaw. And so I'm wondering, since the defendants never disputed my facts in an organized way through the rules of civil procedure, they only filed these motions, but they didn't file a reply, since they didn't provide any evidence or any affidavits, and since I alleged malicious prosecution, and they have no proof that I committed a crime and the cause was dismissed, then they had a conspiracy to defame my reputation, since Mr. Bennett threatened to shoot the guy who wanted to buy my lot, so I had to sell it for less money, since they barricaded the road in front of my house for ten years and they converted it, then they built in violation of the zoning, and that devalued my property, and then when I complained, I was defamed on the internet, I was defamed in the newspaper, and I was subject to malicious prosecution, I'm just wondering why you think that it was frivolous. The magistrate's record said that I had several pages of hornbook claims against Jane and Kevin Bennett, that he didn't want to bother to say what they were. And Mr. Brougham says that all of the government officials have immunity, but the Supreme Court says that if you want to plead immunity, you have to do it with formal reply, with details, where you talk about, you know, did they do this He didn't seem to

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

15 Page 15 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

on purpose or that on purpose. replied.

It has to be a numbered

And I also heard that attorneys have immunity, but I live in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Supreme Court there ruled in Walter Stern that attorneys don't have immunity for intentional tort, and they ruled in Meter that they don't have immunity for conspiracy with their clients. And then there was another case, Badger Cab, that said something similar. I would really appreciate after all I've

been through, if you would tell me why you think my case is frivolous. THE COURT: Ms. Sieverding, once you lose in a court,

you can't go back and litigate the same issues over and over. You have lost in every court that you've been in. MS. SIEVERDING: THE COURT: Well --

Now, you asked me, so you let me answer. I'm sorry. I'm very sorry.

MS. SIEVERDING: THE COURT: Springs.

You lost in the state court in Steamboat

The magistrate judge in this case issued a 60-page

recommendation, carefully explaining to you why your position was frivolous. This court adopted the magistrate judge's

recommendation as the order of this court, 60 pages worth of explanation to you. You appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. You lost again. The Tenth

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

16 Page 16 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Circuit affirmed not only what the magistrate judge had said, what this court did based on the magistrate judge's ruling, but also clearly suggested that this court could prohibit you from filing further lawsuits. You went to the United States Supreme Court to seek further review. You lost.

Now, it may be hard for you to accept the fact that you've lost at every level, but you have. And you cannot go

back and do it over and over again, as you are trying to do. And the reason you can't do that is you are inflicting damage, economic damage on people that shouldn't have that damage inflicted on them. have prevailed. That is to say, they have won, they

And yet you go on all over the country, not

only in this district, where the events occurred, but in Minnesota, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Kansas, and file the same lawsuit over and over and over again, and they have to defend that. And they hire lawyers to defend that. And that, you are not

And those lawyers cost them money. entitled to do.

The issue is not your access to court.

There is no

doubt that a citizen has the right to petition the courts under the United States Constitution, but that right is limited. You

cannot file frivolous lawsuits and then invoke your right to access to the court. Every court that has heard your case has And in this court, your lawsuits

determined that you lose.

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

17 Page 17 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

have been determined to be frivolous. I'm sorry you cannot accept that, but that is a fact. And you are not going to relitigate these things over and over again to the detriment of these other people. Now, sit down. You prepare the order. MR. BEALL: THE COURT: Thank you. The order should reflect that Your motion is granted.

Ms. Sieverding is prohibited from filing any further lawsuits anywhere in this country unless she is represented by a lawyer or unless this court specifically approves her filing of a given lawsuit. Ms. Sieverding, I've heard from you. why you're wrong. I've told you Yes

Do you want to dismiss these lawsuits?

or no, will you dismiss these lawsuits? MS. SIEVERDING: out of jail today? THE COURT: Yes. If you will promise me to dismiss If I dismiss them, will you let me

them within the next 11 days, I will let you out of jail today. MS. SIEVERDING: THE COURT: All right. I'll do it.

Court's in recess.

(Hearing concluded at 10:01 a.m.)

Case 1:02-cv-01950-EWN-OES

Document 884-2

Filed 09/08/2006

18 Page 18 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2006.

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 11th day of January,

______________________________ Therese Lindblom,CSR,RMR,CRR