Kay Anderson Sieverding BIO
Kay Anderson Sieverding first moved to the East Coast when she went to MIT. She graduated with a bachelor and Master in city planning. She did her thesis on municipal credit analysis and it was published in New York by the Council on Municipal Performance. She lived in New York when she worked at the NYSE Division of Regulation and Surveillance as a senior systems designer.
Sieverding left New York to marry another MIT graduate, David Sieverding. They and their two sons settled in the ski resort of Steamboat Springs, CO, her husband’s hometown. There, they became inadvertently swept up in government corruption when they bought a home across the street from the president of the city council, Kevin Bennett.. He turned out to be a convicted felon but didn’t disclose that when the police reported to him.
The Sieverdings became involved with a boundary dispute with Kevin Bennett. She said that Bennett used government powers to benefit his property at the expense of theirs. This started when he put a fence up on their side of the road and then claimed the 6000 square feet between for his private use. She was threatened when she went behind the fence even though the city owned the land and part of it was paved street. The City of Steamboat wrote a letter that they had no problem with his building improvements on city land. The City gave him permits every 4th of July to set off $10,000 of full size aerial fireworks 75 down hill from her property. Then the City required her and only her to have a gardening permit. The City had never issued a gardening permit or a trimming permit to anyone else but she was criminally prosecuted in municipal court because her gardener trimmed an old willow tree hanging over her drive without a trimming permit. Bennett’s gardener trimmed the same tree the same week but he was not prosecuted. The City threatened her with 6 months in jail, in writing, unless she agreed to a contract with Kevin Bennett that involved giving her rights to use the street, selling him land for $1, and agreeing not to criticize him.
After getting the land in his name, Bennett built two extra buildings with heating and plumbing. These violated the zoning. The local court ruled that even though she was an adjoining property owner, she had no right to expect the zoning to be enforced.
A lawyer advised her that their only practical option was to sell her house and move. But she and her family didn’t want to sell their house, which was really nice and where they had had their mail order business. So she passed out flyers complaining of government corruption. Sieverding said she thought that the Bennetts couldn’t do anything to her for passing out the government corruption flyers.
Jane Bennett, the wife of the convicted felon who was city council president, signed a form that by law can only be used by the police when they witness a crime, a criminal summons form, accusing Sieverding of stalking her. Then she was prosecuted in State of Colorado court without a written criminal complaint or any signatures by any state employee. After 6 months the D.A dismissed the criminal charges but she gave a press interview and said that Severing was guilty but a trial would be too expensive.
The State of Colorado issued a permanent order that Sieverding should stay 30 feet from her neighbor Jane Bennett. There was no statutory basis for such an
order. The 30 feet went inside her house. Jane Bennett followed Sieverding around asking the police to arrest her.
So the Sieverdings put their house up for sale and eventually sold it way below value to their neighbor’s lawyer. Later she got an email from someone who said he was interested in buying her attached building lot but didn’t because Kevin Bennett threatened to shoot his children.
Sieverding sued about these events in federal court in Colorado. There her life got even worse.
Sieverding’s case was assigned to former federal judge Edward “Naughty” Nottingham, the judge who was very involved with prostitutes and strippers and a heavy drinker. Without a trial, Nottingham dismissed her case without writing an opinion. Nottingham ordered that she should pay the defense $100K without writing why or stating his authority to do so. There were no Rule 11(c)(6) orders. Nottingham also ordered that Sieverding could not represent herself in any court in the U.S.
A big reason for the U.S. War of Independence was the crookedness and arbitrariness of the Courts. The Declaration of Independence says that colonists were arrested for vague offenses and detained without formal procedure. The Constitution reserves to Congress the defining of what is a crime.
President George Washington signed The US Judiciary Act in 1789. That law recognized the right of all people to represent themselves in all courts in the U.S. It is now Title 28 section 1654. The Constitution’s approval depended on the population and they would not support it without a right to self –representation in Court. The drafters of the Constitution did not want the right to self-‐ representation because they were mostly lawyers and many of them were slave owners, who didn’t want the slaves to be able to go to Court to get their freedom.
The Supreme Court wrote and the Senate approved the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules include Rule 5, that court clerks must accept and file any piece of paper from anyone. Those rules include Rule 15 (c)(1)(B), that if you once set out or attempt to set out a series of events at any point, even years later, you can come back to the same court and file a motion to amend your complaint to set out a new legal theory as to why you should be able to get a trial. Those rules include Rule 60, that you can appeal a judgment in a non-rendering court as an independent action.
Sieverding filed an independent action in the Federal Court in the District of Columbia to appeal the order to pay $100K and she filed a complaint in DC saying that
the defense counsel in Colorado courts had interfered with her due process and that she had a claim for First Amendment Retaliation that she hadn’t previously labeled as such.
In response to that, the lawyers in Colorado asked Judge Nottingham to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) imprison Sieverding. So Nottingham ordered DOJ to
imprison Sieverding without criminal process. And DOJ complied. With no criminal complaint, no government prosecutor, and no bail hearing Sieverding was detained for 124 days. This violated the 4th Amendment because there was no oath or affirmation that there was probable cause. And the procedure used was entirely unpublished so that violated the Rules Enabling Act. In federal court she was told that she did not have a right to witnesses on her behalf and did not have a right to ask questions of the witnesses against her.
Then Nottingham ordered DOJ to let her go because she agreed to dismiss the DC cases.
But she didn’t dismiss the DC cases. So Nottingham ordered DOJ to arrest her again. In order to affect that arrest, DOJ entered non-existent criminal charges into their Warrant Information Network and the National Crime Information Center database. They claimed that she was charged with criminal bail jumping. But she wasn’t charged with that, which is a felony. DOJ has already admitted that there were no criminal charges against her at all.
Nottingham told Sieverding in Court that if she didn’t file motions in other cases that he dictated to her he would have DOJ summarily imprisoner her on indefinite
detention again There is a copy of this transcript on a Michael Prout corruption report at Lawless America.com, see http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=viewlink&link_id=
1996&Itemid=100. Michael Prout is in charge of internal investigations for the United States Marshals Service. DOJ’s Office of Inspector General has ordered him to
investigate the detentions of Sieverding.
To avoid another indefinite detention, Sieverding filed the motions Nottingham dictated to her. Then, 6 months later, Sieverding filed motions to reconsider and a notice
of appeal. In response, Nottingham ordered DOJ to detain Sieverding for a third time without a criminal charge. She fled to Canada and DOJ called her there and threatened to arrest her if she returned to the U.S. Eventually she did go back to the U.S. and 6 months later, when she had a need to file papers in the D.C. cases, a USMS employee sent an email to her local police claiming that there was a federal warrant to arrest her for bail violation, even though there was no such warrant. She was brought into federal court for a hearing. An assistant U.S. Attorney showed up and said that “the government isn’t a part of this”. But the court clerk who was officiating said that Judge Nottingham wanted her so again DOJ held her without a criminal charge or a bail hearing for another three weeks. Then Nottingham ordered that DOJ should release Sieverding. Before doing so, Nottingham threatened Sieverding with additional DOJ imprisonments if she pursued her lawsuits related to the Steamboat events.
Meanwhile other federal courts ordered that she could not represent herself. This represents a growing trend across the U.S. to create lists of people barred from using federal courts to protect their rights.
Kay Sieverding’s website: