How Kay Sieverding lost her Rights


Judge Edward Nottingham

When I was younger I believed that I had rights.

I knew that not everyone had rights, but I believed that I had rights because I was an American and because I graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I moved to Steamboat Springs, Colorado, my husband’s home town, and bought a beautiful property to raise our children in.  Unfortunately, we moved across the street from the president of the city council.  He fenced off the street adjoining our home so only he could use it.  Then I was criminally charged for gardening without a trimming permit, a permit never issued to anyone.


I was extorted into giving up my rights to the street and selling him land for $1.  Then he built extra buildings on it that violated the zoning.  Since I graduated from MIT with a masters degree in city planning, I thought I could fight city hall.  However, when I complained that they were violating the zoning, I was arrested for complaining.  The police report said that I complained that they were violating the constitution and the zoning.  I thought they were violating the constitution because zoning is supposed to be based on the 14th Amendment.

There was no statement of probable cause.  There was no arraignment.  There was no warrant.  After 6 months, the prosecutor dismissed the charges but she gave a press conference and said that there was probable cause and a victim but a trial would be too expensive.  She was married to a real estate speculator.  On the basis of the criminal charge, a permanent restraining order was issued saying that I could receive 18 months in jail if my neighbor could get within 30 feet of me.  She followed me around asking the police to arrest me. She filed a police report saying that she had been following me trying to take my photo to prove that she was near me but her camera didn’t work so I should be arrested anyway.

I gave up and sold my house to her lawyer.  I thought I could sue in federal court.  I thought this because Thurgood Marshal, a Supreme Court chief justice, wrote “The 1871 Congress intended ¬ß 1 to “throw open the doors of the United States courts” to individuals who were threatened with, or who had suffered, the deprivation of constitutional rights, id. at 376 (remarks of Rep. Lowe), and to provide these individuals immediate access to the federal courts.” see Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982).

Because I thought I was smart, it didn’t sink in that Thurgood Marshall is dead.  I sued in Federal Court in Colorado.  Because I thought I was smart, I thought I could represent myself.  I thought that I had good research skills and that it couldn’t be that hard.  My lawyer, William Hibbard, encouraged me to sue, but he said that he couldn’t represent me because he was worried about retaliation.

I thought that as long as I told the truth I would be safe.  My case was assigned to former federal Judge Edward Nottingham.  The magistrate had recommended that there was res judicata without a hearing on the merits and that prosecutors had immunity for press conferences.  He recommended a finding that all government actors, all their families and contractors, and all lawyers had immunity.  I filed a timely objection, but Judge Edward Nottingham adopted the magistrate’s recommendations.  Judge Edward Nottingham dismissed my case without a trial and he didn’t state any rules or facts of law. 

When I finally met him I asked him why he dismissed my case but he refused to say.  Judge Edward Nottingham ordered that I should have to pay $100,000 to six law firms.  There were no rule 11(c)(6) orders and only one motion claiming it was a rule 11 motion.   That motion used the magistrate as its only legal authority for its premise that all lawyers have immunity.  Two of the law firms didn’t even appear in my action.  However, they took every penny from my bank account and ruined my credit, ultimately ruining our business and causing our home to go into foreclosure.

I tried to file in a different court based on a new cause of action and new damages.  However, Judge Edward Nottingham ordered that the United States Marshal Service should imprison me until I filed motions in other courts that he dictated to me.  I was told in court that I didn’t have a right to an evidentiary hearing.  I was not allowed to question the witnesses. They weren’t sworn.  I was not allowed my own witnesses.  I was held three times for five months.  The Marshals went to my neighbors, called me in Canada threatening to imprison me if I returned to the states, and emailed the local sheriff to say that I was wanted for a felony. 

However, there was never a criminal complaint.  A U.S. Assistant Attorney, Robert Anderson, went to court and said that “the government is not a part of this” but the clerk magistrate said that Judge Edward Nottingham told her he wanted me so I was detained for another three weeks and taken to Colorado in chains.

I sued the federal government and the Department of Justice filed that they had done nothing wrong. The U.S. Marshal Service is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 

This has been going on for over 10 years.  I have filed repeatedly in the 10th Circuit.  They ruled that all I have a right to is notice and an opportunity to object.  They did NOT rule that the judge has to read or hear my objections.  They did NOT rule that a judgment has to comply with Rule 11(c)(6), Rule 52 (a)(1), Rule 54(a), or Rule 65 (d)(1). Rule 54(a) states “A judgment should not include recitals of pleadings, a master’s report, or a record of prior proceedings.”  But all the judgments stated that the magistrate recommended my case be dismissed with prejudice or that other judges had found that I couldn’t represent myself.  I attempted to sue in the District of Minnesota.  They ruled that I was not allowed to represent myself.  I filed two paid appeals in the 8th Circuit.  Both times the party that I sued simply filed a motion asking that my appeal be dismissed because I was not allowed to represent myself, and both times the 8th Circuit granted their motions. 

Judge John D. Bates ruled in 2009 “The Sieverdings originally sued dozens of individuals and entities in 2002 for damages arising out of a property dispute with their neighbors.  See Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 2003 WL 22400218, at *1 (D. Colo. 2003).  The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the Sieverdings’ complaint in full.  See Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1342-43 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Sieverding I”).  In light of what it described as the Sieverdings’ “abusive litigation practices,” the district court also imposed filing restrictions on the Sieverdings.  See Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, No. 02-cv-1950 (D. Colo. filed Oct. 11, 2002) [Docket Entry 788]; see also Sieverding I, 469 F.3d at 1343-45 (affirming filing restrictions in part).  Ms. Sieverding apparently failed to comply with these filing restrictions, and was arrested and jailed for civil contempt several times between 2005 and 2007.  See Sieverding I, 469 F.3d at 1343; Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 244 Fed. Appx. 200, 205 (10th Cir. 2007).”

As of May 13, 2012, I don’t have a criminal record.  My latest motion points out that DOJ published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1999 in Vol. 64, No. 215 page 60836 a ‚ÄúRevised Notice regarding its Prisoner Tracking System‚ÄĚ and in that the government stated that the ‚ÄúCategories of Records in the System‚ÄĚ are ‚ÄúAny and all information necessary to complete administrative processes, safekeeping, health care, and disposition of individual Federal prisoners who are in custody pending criminal proceedings, together with any law enforcement related record generated during such custody.‚ÄĚ At no time did DOJ publish a notice in the Federal Register that the ‚Äúcategories of records to be included in the Prisoner Population Management System / Prisoner Tracking System include records of Federal prisoners who are in custody pending ‚Äėcivil contempt‚Äô proceedings.‚ÄĚ This was violation of 5 U.S.C. ¬ß 552a subsection (e)(4)(I), which requires advance notice in the Federal Register of the ‚Äúcategories of records in the system‚ÄĚ because there is no record of the government‚Äôs intention to include records that were generated in connection with the processing of Federal prisoners who are in custody WITHOUT pending criminal proceedings.

Kay Sieverding is one of over 800 people who will tell their story of judicial corruption for the movie, Lawless America.

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply