D.C. Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission Issues Determination on Superior Court Judge

The D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure determined last week that D.C. Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. violated the code of judicial conduct when he ordered a Public Defender Service attorney to be shackled and detained after an argument.

Transcripts from a criminal hearing on Aug. 29, 2007 reveal that the incident began when PDS attorney Liyah Brown attempted to tell Bayly that her client was “a homeless man.” Bayly, however, said he wasn’t so sure: “I don’t know that he is.”

The two began arguing until Bayly told Brown to “be quiet” and have a seat. He said he would “call the case later,” and warned if she continued, she was “going to be in contempt in a minute.”

When Brown failed to stop, Bayly called on a U.S. marshal to “[s]tep her back, please. Step her back.” Brown was then handcuffed, subjected to a pat down search, and held in a cell with misdemeanor defendants for about 45 minutes.

The following week, PDS attorneys started a silent protest by wearing red armbands around the courthouse. They said their intention was to show solidarity with Brown.

The commission’s determination and undertaking was issued last week and signed by Bayly on March 11. The determination said his actions were “grossly disproportionate” to Brown’s conduct. It also said Bayly violated the code of conduct that says a “judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.”

According to the commission, Bayly has accepted the commission’s conclusion and recognized his violation. He also wrote a note to Brown apologizing for his actions.

The commission said in view of Bayly's more than 18-year record on the bench, no further sanctions were necessary.

Comments

[kay sieverding]

As additional "proof" that Judge Nottingham committed felony Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law against me, I refer you to the current docket of D of Colorado 02-1950. My husband filed motions to either produce Rule 11 c. 6 orders or admit that there are none and Judge Nottingham denied them all. He maintains that he can issue a rule 11 fee shifting order without supporting Rule 11 c. 6 orders. I also refer you to D of Western WI 3:06-mj-00019. That is entitled "criminal docket" but there are no crimes listed. Next to initiating charges,pending charges, and terminated charges all that is written is "none". I filed a motion to be told the court's authority for ordering me detained and extradited and they just ignored it. There is a transcript there with court clerk Theresa Owens. On the transcript assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson says "the government is not a party to this". Theresa Owens says that she talked to Judge Nottingham on the phone and he wants me detained and sent to him.

[Kay Sieverding]

Whether or not Toby thinks my arguments are "precise", Federal Procedure Lawyer's Edition says that there is no obligation to obey an illegal injunction. One cannot be required to choose between constitutional rights. Access to Court is the Right from which all other rights flow. Self representation in civil matters is a right under state constitutions, a right by statute in the U.S. code since George Washington signed the first judiciary act, and a recognized common law right. Self representation is a right guaranteed by the U.N. Covenant. Use of force to deter presentment in court is a 20 year potential jail time under the Federal Witness Intimidation Act U.S.C.Title 18 section 1512. Judge Nottingham threatened my husband and/or myself on 5 different occasions. He hired a criminal white collar defense attorney, Stephen Peters. I wrote to him and asked him if he knew any reason why what Judge Nottingham wrote and said in our case were not criminal acts, Witness Intimidation, Witness Retaliation, and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, but so far have heard nothing back.

[Toby Ornott]

Mrs. Sieverding,

You wrote: "Just because a judge orders a person to do something does not mean they have a legal obligation to comply."

Yes it does.

If you have a problem otherwise, then you must address that problem through legal channels.

Prior to January 30, 2003, the State of Colorado was tolerant with your naivete. The more you attempt to litigate the finding of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the more expensive it will become.

Whether or not you have a case against the insurance underwriters who were involved in your appeal is open to debate.

The subject matter of this thread began with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr.'s violation of the code of judicial conduct. In my opinion, 10th Circuit Court Judge Edward Nottingham (in your case) was not.

I have no intention of debating your arguments on other matters unless you can show that your arguments are concise, brief, and to the point; and lastly, relevant to the issue at hand.

If you wish to debate any of those arguments, you would be better served by posting an arugment on Court TV's Bulletin Board where many respondants are tolerant, highly opinionated, and quite capable of furthering good debate.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/index.php?s=0ac566818fc70c1b4e27e23d63db35dc

[Kay Sieverding]

To Toby. I am sorry for the delay in answering but I did not see your post until today.
What if Judge Nottingham ordered me to have sex with him or give him something? Just because a judge orders a person to do something does not mean they have a legal obligation to comply. That is the opinion of Federal Procedure Lawyers Edition. In Col, the state rules of indirect contempt require a finding of clear and present duty to comply (Marshall v. Marshall). That includes a revisiting of the validity of the injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Troy v. Cochran is also clear that a restrained party can assert their rights in a contempt proceeding. The Supreme Court specifically ordered in YOUNG v. UNITED STATES EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A. ET AL., 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 05/26/1987) that an interested party could not be appointed as a prosecutor in a contempt proceeding in which they or their client could benefit. Judge Nottingham did so anyway, even after I pointed out the case to him.
In this case, there was no injunction. There was no bond, no motion, no hearing, nothing complying with Rule 65d and nothing labeled injunction. The Supreme Court of Colorado in Stull v. District Court in 1954 ruled that an injunction that was issued without Rule 65 procedure is void.
What Judge Nottingham did to me matches the descriptions of WI, CO, and US felony witness intimidation and one of my goals is to have him put in jail, as a deterrent for other judges. The law does not except judges. The Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law statutes do not except judges either.
The United States Code does not have a general civil contempt statue. The Limits to Detention (section 4001) are clear that a citizen cannot be held by U.S. government except pursuant to an Act of Congress and none was cited. All the forms have places to insert the offense and those were all blank.
The last time Judge Nottingham put me in jail he had me extradited across state lines without a statement that I committed an offense and without a letter from Colorado Governor Ritter or a notice to Wisconsin Governor Doyle as required. The stated reason was to have me attend a hearing that was not requested in a document that stated a law or a rule and for which I was not subpoenaed. The hearing was held before a court clerk who said that she could not judge the validity of a warrant. That was on 5/11/07 with Theresa Owens and it is not even on the court calendar for the Federal Court District of Western Wisconsin.
Judge Nottingham did not have a legal basis to interfere with my other lawsuits and was prohibited from doing so by the Anti Injunction Act. That applies in federal court in diversity actions because of outcome independence and common law; because there was established Anti Injunction common law.
The lawyers for the insurance companies also did not file the required forms under the CRS 10-3-1004 Defense of Action by Unauthorized Insurer.
As a pro se litigant I was supposed to be able to go to court and research the rules as I went along. I was supposed to be able to trust the "officers of the court" and the judge to follow the written procedures.

[TobyOrnott]

Kay Sieverding,

It is my belief that Judge Edward Nottingham found you in contempt of court. He asked several times if you would consider withdrawing your outstanding lawsuits. He explained that there was a previous magistrate's ruling ordering you to withdraw. He suggested that you had exhausted your avenues for appeal and that he intended if you persisted to hold you in contempt . You, on the other hand, willfully refused his offer to comply. Your action then led to your incarceration. Simply put, it is my understanding that Nottingham tried twice or three times to avoid the inevitable, but that you elected to jump headstrong into jail. Perhaps your interpretation of Contempt of Court is different than mine?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c118.htm

Under those circumstances, I do not believe that your situation is similar to the confrontation between PDS attorney Liyah Brown and D.C. Superior Court Judge John Bayly. The commission does not suggest that Brown was NOT a contemnor; it says only that Bayly's actions violated the code of conduct i.e "a judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous".

The key to understanding your predicament is that you WILLFULLY elected to ignore the lower court's order to withdraw from all your outstanding lawsuits.

[Kay Sieverding]

I got 5 months from federal Judge Edward Nottingham without even arguing with him, and without an offense charged, just for not filing in other courts what he wanted me to. see
http://www.rightscase.com/ I petitioned to the Supreme Court for mandamus and the parties all filed waivers but the S.C. denied our petition so I guess that means that it is OK for judges to just put people in jail without charging an offense or having an evidentiary hearing. Or maybe it is only OK to do so if the person doesn't have a law license. Do we need to get a law license so that we only get 45 minutes instead of 5 months in jail for doing legal things the judge doesn't like?