President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

60%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 11, 2007 03:40 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 111 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

You waited all weekend for this moment.

Tweet
Share

Comments

111 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. The U.S. Congresswoman who was handed a seat in Congress only to alienate so many of her constituents and base of support  that she was given notice to find a reason to retire by the NRCC?  Because of Congresswoman Musgrave’s inability to focus on issues of importance (versus aligning herself with Bush for favors or pretending to carry the Mantle for the Right) and her great ability to alienate her base, her poll numbers have caused the NRCC to drop her like a hot potato.

    Anyone for a little mashed Musgrave?

    1. Not sure how she was handed a seat in Congress considering she had a primary but your assumptions that the NRCC is not behind her are without reason.  It is slightly humorous that you posted this the same day that there was a diary about the NRCC being 100% behind Musgrave.  It’s almost as if you did not know what you were talking about.

      http://www.coloradop…

  2. Why is Lloyds of London selling insurance to Colorado state employees even though they are not registered as an insurance company in Coilorado?

    Why did Dave Brougham of Hall and Evans bill Lloyds to discuss case assignment issues and then why was my case d of CO 02-1950  transferred from Judge Masch to Judge Nottingham?

    Does Lloyds have so much influence that it can influence which judge is assigned and why doesn’t the Colorado insurance commissioner do something about their selling insurance in CO without their being registered?

  3. Why is Lloyds selling insurance in CO without being registered with DORA?

    Why isn’t the attorney general and the insurance commissioner doing anything about Lloyds selling insurance to CO state employees?

    Can Lloyds influence which judge gets assigned to which case, as it seems from David Brougham’s bills?  (He billed them for case assignment issues and then my case was transferrred from Judge Masch to Judge Nottingham)

    Why is Lloyds paying for ex parte conferences?

  4. Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call the insurance commissioner yourself?  Call the Post, call 9News Investigates…heck, call Tom Martino – you never know what that guy will do for ya.  Otherwise, I guess venting on Pols is free…

    1. The Denver Post is running an article about me right now and when I posted corrections on it they were deleted.  Yesterday, they ran an article that is all over the world about Google violating people’s privacy.  I posted on that and said that Google shouldn’t even list publications like the Denver Post and the Steamboat Pilot that won’t correct and/or delete articles about people and not only did the Post delete my comment, they deleted the google privacy article.  The Denver Post uses the same lawyer, Christopher Beall, who said that the Steamboat Pilot can print anything they want about me and I can’t stop them.  The same lawyers who had me put in jail for doing something legal.  You would be emotional about this too if you were me.

      I had reported the CIRSA complaints to the Colorado Insurance Commission but I will try again with the Lloyds info.  I’ll post a summary of their response.

      I had reported most of what I posted here to the CO Attorney Regulation Counsel.  Lloyds lawyer David Brougham wrote that the CO Attorney Regulatoin Counsel had said it was OK to bill for ex parte conferences.  How can you bill for something that is illegal?

        1. I was criminally charged by Jane Bennett.  There was no warrant and no police oficer reported a crime.  After I pled not guilty, the criminal charges were dismissed.  However, the Steamboat Pilot continues to print an article that i am scheduled for trial.  I posted on the article and they deleted my comments and fixed the article so that no more comments could be posted.  They listed my name as some sort of key word so that the article came up on google.  My neighbors in Wisconsin saw it and when I said hello to my neighbor, she literally ran away, a woman who never jogs. 

          The Denver Post is currently running an article about me called “Lawsuit Filer Wins Appeal”.  There are no comments posted on the article,  But that is not because I didn’t post comments.

          The article says: Tony Lettunich, city attorney for Steamboat Springs and a defendant. “Hundreds and hundreds of documents, literally thousands of pages, have been filed by this woman. Most of the language in these filings is gobbledygook, stream of consciousness stuff and wild allegations.”.

          If the complaint  or motions for summary judgment were “wild allegations’ then they were supposed to write a reply to the effect that “statement number ___is incorrect because….”. But they didn’t do that.  Instead they got the Magistrate to say that what happened wasn’t what happened and they did that by having ex parte conferences with him, which the same Anthony Lettunich billed for, which is one of the comments that the Denver Post deleted:  Lettunich’s bills say:

          On 2/12/03,“Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane Bennett and many city defendants. Telephone call to Dave Brougham—discussed pleadings from Wisconsin court and Sieverding letter.  Conference call to Magistrate Schlatter.  Further discussion with Brougham on notice letter to Sieverding.”  (Lettunich bill)

          2/28/03 “Telephone call from David Brougham regarding new pleading from Sieverding and review pleading with Brougham as to most significant allegations.  Telephone call with….and Clerk’s office” (Lettunich bill) (Note, he uses the word ‘significant’ not ‘wild’, later his bills show that he told the City of Steamboat Springs to stop investigating the allegations.)

          6/23/03 confer with Van Pelt regarding reply issues. Telephone call to Court regarding need for same”.  (Brougham bill)

          6/24/03 “Telephone call from Dave Brougham (defense attorney for government defendants) advising me that the Clerk for Magistrate Schlatter advised that no Reply would be necessary”. (Lettunich bill)

          So they didn’t reply to my complaint and when I filed for summary judgment they didn’t reply to those motions either. There was no case management as required through a formal process, no depositions etc. and they wouldn’t respond to my interragatories. There was no jury trial and when I asked Judge Nottingham why he dismissed the case the only answer he gave contradicted the Supreme Court. 

          The Denver Post is not impartial in its reporting apparently because it uses the same defamation insurance provider, Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, and also the same lawyers.  Earlier they had published other articles about me and when I challenged what they wrote they also refused to correct those articles.  They quoted David Brougham as saying that I had complained about my former neighbors building a garage and a shed but in fact the so called “garage” had central heating, a 3/4 bath, was over 2000 square feet and was two floors and the so called “shed” had a bathroom and a kitchen.

          I never would have complained about my former neighbors converting the road to private use and building extra dwelling units in their front yard if I had known that I would end up being put in jail for complaining about it. But most people would think that citizens can rely on the written laws and our former residence was our most signficiant financial asset and the center of our lives.

          When you stick up for your rights, you also stick up for someone else’s rights and vice versa.  Because I have a degree in city planning, I probably felt more strongly than other people about being able to rely on city ordinances.  Because I knew someone who spent 5 years in Auschwitz, I probably felt more strongly about the constitution.  Also, I had turned down a job at HUD in 1978 which involved developing structural ways to improve local government performance and it seemed ironic to me that if I had takenn that job maybe I could have prevented what happened to me in Steamboat. So when all the bad stuff started happening to me I thought I could change the future of the world by documenting it and pursuing it.  I really do believe that if local government officials aren’t allowed to violate the zoning, they won’t get to genocide and that insuring effective pro se access to courts will reduce misery in the U.S. and wars in other countries.

          1. Triggered another tirade, I see. 

            Do you think anyone is going to read it?

            I’ve concluded that despite a high IQ and postgrad degree, you are socially clueless.

              1. I’d say 90% of your screeds are ill-received, with 10% (or less)finding some tolerance.

                I think – here’s my projection again – that at best, you might find a Polster (other than rio and tilter) saying, “She might have a point.”  But to pick up your lance?  Nah. Don’t waster your – and our – time here.  This just isn’t a forum where you will fina allies, Kate.

                1. I’ve always said that I don’t know if Kay has a point or not, because I don’t know the specifics of her case[s].  I’ve asked her to submit her documents for review and posting on KnowYourCOURTS.com, which is the best way (in my view) to underwrite otherwise-scandalous claims. She has not yet taken us up on the offer.  Until then, I feel badly for Kay and her misfortunte but, can’t vouch for all of what’s she saying.  Fair enough?

                2. I caught on a while ago and post stuff that I think might be read-worthy in the diaries section.  Some earn comments; some don’t.  Even the ones that don’t, I know folks are reading and giving thought to it (if for no other reason that they’re clicking on the links and exploring the docs).

                  As I’ve oft said before, my mission isn’t to bluster, bloviate, bitch, complaint or annoy but, to get inform.  Unless you’ve gone through this (and I sure as hell hope you don’t), folks just don’t know that this is happening.  If they don’t know it’s happening, then they’re not going to change it through their votes and collective complaints.  When and if it does finally happen to them, you find that they’ll be the loudest complainers  –only when it’s too late.

            2. she gives some reason for her predicament here (she sued her neighbors for building a house that they apparently aren’t allowed to build on their property, calling it a “shed”) so we’re starting to get somewhere.

              1. is important.  It is a mark of someone who hasn’t figured out how the world works to charge an elephant, no matter how justified.  Reminds me of my nutjob roommate who would rise to great volume and anger over the most inconsequential points of life or debate.  Being right was far more important than civility or not appearing the fool.  Oh yes, well educated, too.

                  1. They are not just a way to make money but a way to broaden yourself to accept a range of ideas and people in society and to participate in the creation of our current society

                2. When I filed my lawsuit I alleged and itemized, and the defendants did not dispute, $400,000 in economic loss, which is a lot of money to most people.  Only a claim of $75,000 is required to be in federal court. We also had extreme personal damages as my son testifed in court.  The defamatory articles affect both my husband and my current earning capacity as well as our happiness.  Historically, defense of reputatoin was a reason for lawsuits as well as duels.  It is ridiculous to think that defamation should be tolerated.  Because of their illegitimate litigation conduct, the matter was not resolved as it should have been in 2003 before a jury.  Now, I face the problem of being taken by force from my home, transported in chains across state lines, and being held at gunpoint as I was from 5/10/07 to 6/1/07  So that seems pretty seriouis to me. I feel that I was effectively kidnapped and that the invasions of my body were like rape.

          2. They don’t need to do anything to “fix it” so your name appears on a google search. Google will find any site where your name has been published.

            (I’m betting that here at pols, since you’re “kay_sieverding” rather than “Kay Sieverding” you’re probably invisible to a google search. At least until now, since I’m posting your name properly spelled.)

            1. I don’t know exactly how it works but sometimes the Steamboat Pilot articles come up on google when I search on “sieverding” or “Kay Sieverding” and sometimes they only come up on the newspaper web sites.

            1. I had peace and prosperity before my rights were invaded by Kevin and Jane Bennett and their coherts.  If they had followed the written laws, not blockaded and converted the street, and not built in violation of the zoning, I think we would still be living in on same house on the corner of Princeton and Pahwintah in Steamboat Springs and at least saying a polite hello when we saw our neighbors.  They started it and continued it. I did not perceive that we were having a two sided “feud” and didn’t want one.

              1. Prompted by your post about Google results, I found this:

                Outside the courtroom, David Sieverding said he has tried to persuade his wife to drop the lawsuits, but said his wife is very stubborn.

                “I just don’t understand that level of stubbornness, to be honest with you,” he said.

                http://www.rockymoun…

                By the way, your surname alone is about 95% Katherine, a photographer.  Your full name gets 33 hits, most of them either your blogs or various sources reporting your release from jail.

                1. says he was misquoted.  I wasn’t there.  It was really really hard for him having me gone.  They tried to make it as stressful for him as possible and he was really scared of them.  Still is.

      2. When Elizabeth Starrs, President of the Colorado Bar Assocition posted her April 26th editorial “Protect habeas corpus” on DenverPost.com, it was met with an avalanche of comments. A few days later the editorial remained but the comments had been removed as the Denver Post is obviously very political in it’s so-called journalism, even in it’s editorial section.

        1. wait just a minute – are you alleging that newspaper is using its EDITORIAL section to be political?

          Well sir I must say that I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling going on in here

  5. Ken Connor observes (from Townhall.com):

    Success in politics depends on the ability of a candidate or a party to forge and maintain coalitions. One of the most successful coalitions in modern political history has been the “Reagan Coalition”, which brought together economic and social conservatives under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Preserving that coalition brought the Republicans great success, including occupancy of the White House and twelve years of control over the House of Representatives. The coalition that Reagan fashioned is fraying, however, and is on the verge of unraveling. The causes are many, but the coup de grace is likely to be the current controversy over immigration. …

    After years of failing to secure our borders and casting a blind eye to the practices of businesses’ hiring of illegal immigrants, the problem of illegal immigration has become a problem of gargantuan proportions—so much so that there are no solutions that are not painful. While there are obvious national security issues inherent in the problem, it is the social and economic dimensions that threaten to end the Reagan coalition. The Republican base sees the solutions being offered by Mr. Bush and the Republicans as the final “sell out” of the party to big money interests. Blue collar workers have felt the pinch caused by illegal immigration perhaps more than anyone else. Cheap labor provided by illegals has artificially suppressed wages and deprived American workers of jobs in the marketplace. Meanwhile, businesses that hire illegals have flourished as a result of low labor costs. Lax law enforcement against businesses which violate the immigration laws have convinced domestic workers that the government is on the side of business. Already bending under the strain of low wages, these workers resent the additional taxes they have to pay because of the additional demand illegal immigrants are placing on the infrastructure of their communities—schools, day care centers and hospitals.

    http://www.townhall….

    I would submit that the Republican Party as we know it is poised to fall apart, and the Democrats could construct an unbeatable coalition if it had the sense to take advantage of it.  Conversely, the Republican Party could obliterate the Democratic base if it jettisoned the blue-bloods, and appealed to the blue-collar workers so beset by this flood of illegal immigrants.

    This will be the defining issue of 2008.

      1. Let’s face it: corporate money is laid on both sides of the table, as it is just a cost of doing business.  What the Rs would lose in blue-blood support would be offset by those who want to ride with a winner.

        1. Current accounting and legal procedures are perfectly adequate to deter and eliminate bribery when they are accompanied by actual access to court based on the court really following the written procedures.

    2. Years ago the economies of Mexico and the U.S. were almost the same. Theirs was held back by very busienss and substantial government corruption just as ours will be because of recent increases in business and government corruption. The easiest and cheapest way to reduce government and business corruption is to facilitate and ensure fair and effective pro se litigation. With the current computer bases and computer systems technology this is a relatively easy task.  The reason, I think, why it is not being done, is that the people in power in the U.S. are afraid of lawsuits by both middle and lower class U.S. citizens and by non citizems. They aren’t afraid of the legal expenses, which are minimized by telling the truth right away, but of the jury awards.  They’re worried about legitimate lawsuits not frivilous lawsuits. I think that upper class Americans are better off having less money if that is the price of having an open and democratic society and that they can enjoy themselves thru music, art, and exercise, like Aristotle did, while not needing armed guards to fend off the starving masses that will appear if the current tide of corruption is not reversed.

      The European Union currently will not accept for membership any nation that allows judicial and lawyer immunity but these are issues we still wrestle with in this country.  Magistrate Schlatter dismissed my case on the basis of attorney immunicyt. The U.S. government currently pays the ABA about $16 million per annum to spread a form of civil procedure that assumes attorney immunity in tort.  With the $100 laptops MIT is currently developing, a citizen in the Sudan or Mexico can access Cornell Univeristy Legal Institute and other legal databases and sue for damages for rape, torture, theft, deprivation of rights under color of law etc.  That makes effective nonviolence a real option and gets away from the idea that the only redress is through Congress.  In the past, reforms in Congress always followed tort lawsuits which were the cutting edge in reform and the only way for an individual to get redress for their grievances.

      1. Never.

        In my admittedly limited experience and observations, most corruption has nothing to do with the courts. It’s at the street level or a notch above.  The big corruptions of who controls what is not dissimiliar to the US, money passing hands at the presidential, legislative, and police levels. Maybe the courts are also on the take, but it’s a fait accompli. 

        1. Lesley Stahl aired an expose of a New York court where a shill was soliciting that he would fix child custody disputes for $9,000.  The woman went to the D.A. and the D.A. put a hidden camera in the judge’s court room and recorded his counting the cash.  This was aired on national television.

          There was a case in federal court in Colorado in the fall of 2005 where a pro se litigant sued for patent violations after he had already spent $400,000 on legal fees.  As I read the case in the Rocky Mountain News, while I was in Georgetown jail, there was no real dispute that his patents were valid or had been violated.  The judge, as I remember, however instructed the jury not to award damages on lost royalites–a percentage of the sales of the goods manufactured in violation of his patents–but to pay on the assumption that he would have a pooly managed company with little profits.  In the past, my husband and I had made a fair amount of money on patent licenses but when I read that I told my husband we should think harder before we invested in any more patents.

    3. What you are suggesting – and I’m not disagreeing – is a rehash of The Southern Strategy that Nixon started.  Mop up all those lower demographic Dems and make them Republicans. 

      1968 or 2008, both are based on racism. 

      The Dems, as of this time, are quite schizophrenic on immigration, legal and illegal.  I’m including talk show hosts and commentators.  Extremely intelligent and credentialed Dems/Progs like Thom Hartmann and Paul Krugman are saying, “Enough’s enough.” Others, too many to name, want to open the borders. 

      1. I think it is established that where people have property and an ability to work  productively they will concentrate on bettering their lives by work.  How can you seriously think that people would risk death and leave their families to come to Colorado if they could stay home and have a decent life?  The immigration waves from Europe followed starvation and repression.  The privileged didn’t leave Europe and the people who are coming illegally to the U.S. are not the rich and privileged, they are the desperate.  We have the technical ability and  the opportunity to help them not be so desperate at home simply be spreading effective and inexpensive litigation procedures.  These can rely on computer filings comparing statements of fact and evidence and establish a factual record without the need for a judge’s personal attention until the latter stages. Then if there is a jury trial, it will be much shorter if there is little left to decide because most of the facts were established through ECF motion practice.

        1. until you said:

          We have the technical ability and  the opportunity to help them not be so desperate at home simply be spreading effective and inexpensive litigation procedures.

          Wha…? Lawsuits are supposed to solve poverty abroad? Talk about a non sequitur!

            1. For instance, in my lawsuit David Brougham argued that government immunity  precluded my lawsuit for reasons he declined to enumerate.  Brougham did not claim that the acts and omissions of the city of Steamboat were unintentional and I offered proof that they were knowing and intentional deprivations of my rights.  The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no government immunity defense available for municipalities.  Thus, ECF can be programmed with deliminators and if-then statements simply not to accept an immunity defense from a municipality without additional undisputed evidence that the same laws and procedures were applied to everyone.  Really, a group of systems analysts could do it. Did you know that when you are before court there are no “exit interviews”. Why is that?  One procedure in systems analysis is “analysis of exceptions”.  That means that when I complain like I have, or Marvin Heermyer commits suicide by cop after causing $4.5 million in property damages, someone should investigate to see what the fuss was all about.  I think the judiciary should employ multi disciplinary systems analysts instead of just bar association union members.

          2. Business investment flourishes when there is no government and business corruption.  People are willing to risk their time and money when they think the competition is fair and open.

            Effective lawsuits deter crime and torts.  How many times have you heard people say “you better not ,,,,, or you will get sued”.  The Badman’s theory is that bad men will do what they can get away with.  If they can steal their neighbor’s property, make false accusations, etc. and get away with it, they will.

            Using laws similar to the federal  Justice for All Act of 2004, a motivated and determined party will even be able to compel criminal prosecution except in cases where the perp is too ill to stand trial.  The despots of the 3rd world can lose their comfortable retirements to their victims and their families and seeing that the new generation will be less likely to rape and pillage.

            1. in theory, is that lawsuits can make things better in America. That, of course, is assuming that plaintiffs are all in the right, but we’ll go with it. How is it supposed to help poverty abroad? Are you assuming they can do the same in Mexico – sue until there’s no more corruption? Surely you’re not that naive.

              No, if we could sue until everything is on an even keel here in America, that would only make us that much more attractive than we already are. Doesn’t sound like that will help Latin America’s poor, at least not at home.

              1. Why can’t Mexicans and citizens of other countries master use of their court systems?  The great majority of people can and do understand written law and study of written law expands intellect and reading comprehension.  David Boises lost a jury case to a landscaper who rambled and probably never went to college. That is the point of having a jury of your peers.

                The rules of procedure of all the U.S. states and the federal government are practically identical and the discussions of international law all hinge on the same issues. 

                The WSJ reported that property owners in Bejing were deprived of their homes by local politicians when the area was developed for the Olymipics. They tried to sue but the courts wouldn’t acknowledge their filings.  If they had been able to sue effectively for their property rights, then China would be safe from all forms of government corruption.  If China is safe for a middle class there, then there won’t be people working 80 hours a week just to sleep on a bunk bed so there will be less cut throat competition with American workers and a large middle class market in China for both Chinese and American goods. 

                1. to claim to knowing anything about Mexican jurisprudence, but I bet that access to the courts there means at least being able to hire an attorney, or otherwise acquiring the necessary legal knowledge to pursue a lawsuit. Since poor Americans don’t have either the resources or the time to learn, I highly doubt that poor Mexicans, especially rural poor, can just go about suing people to improve their lot.

        2. showed that the majority of illegals they interviewed had jobs or some income stream in Mexico.  They just knew they could do better here.  Many have abandoned their fields, no crops are being grown.  That appears to be a mix of lack of labor (they are “all” here) and low crop prices due to NAFTA.  The big corporate farms on the coastal plains I see there are plenty busy. 

      2. In politics, all anyone who is anyone ever cares about is winning.

        The Dems and ‘Pubs are tripping over each other to pander to the Hispanic bloc, forgetting that people aren’t necessarily racist on this score, but “me-centric.”  If you are a roofer who can’t earn a living wage because illegals have destroyed the union and the wage base, you don’t care overmuch whether the illegals are black, brown, or green.

        1. Maybe there will be new growth in unions and they will cover technology and middle class workers and establish themselves in South and Central Ameria and China.  Just think how unions could change China.  In the past, unions employed lawyers who represented members. The bars opposed that and that went to the Supreme Court also. 

          1. were about the workers, they would have done that long ago.  They are not.  There is not a single union official in this country willing to risk his life in a third world nation in order to help the workers there.  They are more than willing to collect dues from those that come here illegally, who work for a lower wage than those born here.

            1. …in those third world countries have often been killed.  Not sure why US union workers would do that work; different cultures and languages.

              Also not sure why “collect dues” is frequently put out there as some kind of perjorative by righties.  Unions run on a lot of volunteer work, some paid (salaried) staff, and at the very top, the execs.  Yes, at that level there is a long history of abuse, but not in the daily nuts and bolts. 

              1. I’m letting myself kneejerk on this.  I just don’t like unions.  I have put out why in a past thread.  And maybe I’m colored on the collecting dues thing because of my grandfathers experience.  I fully understand what union organizers in this country had to go through in the past to give American workers what many take for granted in their daily lives.  But the current unions are a far cry from that. When the illegal immigrant workers were arrested in Greeley, one of the loudest voices protesting was the local union president Ernie Duran.  But the workers who replaced the illegals were legal residents and Swift had to pay them a higher wage.  Isn’t higher wages one of the reasons to have a union?  Why allow a company to pay illegal workers less than they would pay legal ones?  Doesn’t that undercut all workers in that industry?

                1. if Swift had to pay the Americans more, but I’ll take that at face value.

                  I agree that many unions are hoping that the illegals will swell their ranks.  SEIU is a good example.  Why is it the fastest growing union?  Because there are so many illegals! 

                  The early days of the unions had HUGE numbers of immigrants, especially in mining and steel making.  But of course they were legal.

            2. Many union organizers risked their lives

              The problems with protecting the middle class have many factors.  It’s possible that the middle class as we knew it in the 70s and 80s was riding the effects of unions in the 50s and 60s and that the union benefits extended to non members because pay policies and job security policies were established by management to prevent the formation of unions.

              Whatever you want to say about illegal workers, from what I know they mostly have a strong work ethic and make great sacrificies to send money home to their families. 

              It’s not as if the earlier generation of Americans were comfortable with the hoards of Irish, Italians, Ukranians, Jews and Swedes.

              It is the nature of mammals to want to live. Scientific American reportedly did a study and was not able to find a single mammal, independent of size and normal diet, who would not fight for survival.  These illegal immigrants are fighting for survival and all we can hope to do is channel that fight in a way that doesn’t damage American citizens. If we can help them achieve true democracy at home the benefits to us are huge–lower immigration, greater export potential, and less demands on Americans for armed conflict.

  6. Now that Joe Liberman, the president’s captive (ex) Democrat, has come out in favor of retaliatory strikes aginst Iran, who can doubt that war with Iran is imminent? 
    When this “new” war starts (probably in September – what a coincidence), who can doubt that Senator Allard will come out with a statement that anything the president wants to do is OK with him.  Who can doubt that Senator Salizar will initially snivel but then fold under pressure and support the “new” war.

  7.   I’m sure there’s a market for the tirades posted by kay_sieverding, tiltawhirl, and rio grande, but I’m just not into it folks!  Sorry…………

          1. …what tripe! Next you’ll say that not every single judge is exactly the same as another, or that not all Mexican immigrants are identical.  Stop such madness!  Don’t you know that life is much easier when we stick to derogatory stereotypes?

        1. They speak about the obsession homophobes have with gay sex. It’s a lot like some 80’s feminist’s obsession with certain pornographic materials… makes you wonder what their damage really is. Right, NAQD?

            1. The acts described could easily by done by straight folk. But the self-appointed protectors of our anuses don’t make such distinctions.

              Speaking of which, where is rio? Did they block him after that comment?

      8. riogrande struck a raw nerve with many libs here. Ha ha.
        How dare he. Gosh, doesn’t he know that having the liberal agenda pushed down our throats constantly should be considered a blessing?
        Fuck that.
        Anyone stop to think that maybe rio is just a little frustrated with fighting all you fanatic liberals?
        Besides, everyone of you have said things here that you know you didn’t mean. But to all gang up on him for fighting back shows your gang mentality. Like a bunch of little school girls that all decide they don’t like the new girl in school.
        It is ok for you to say nasty shit to anyone that you don’t agree with but if they say something back…….
        Jumpin Jesus let’s attack him

        2. LIAS: But to all gang up on him for fighting back shows your gang mentality. Like a bunch of little school girls that all decide they don’t like the new girl in school.
          It is ok for you to say nasty shit to anyone that you don’t agree with but if they say something back…….

          USENET mentality — kind of the way it works.  They haven’t been able to counter the arguments of court reformers and so, have chosen to attack us personally.  And yes, I have indulged in my fair share of tit-for-tat, if for no other reason than to show that I won’t be bullied, browbeaten, or intimidated into silence (as ‘regulars’ have repeatedly attempted to do).

          Now that I have established that I won’t ‘go gentle into that good night,’ real discussion might actually break out. 

           

          1. You court arguments are so high and mighty that we were just waiting for you to make some stupid comment about fisting so we could finally have a reason to attack you.

            Are you clueless or dillusional?  Either case, if you want to salvage your credibility and/or your cause, may I suggest apologizing to OQD…..

          2. Okay, maybe you’re not a big bad homophobe after all (which will come as a disappointing surprise to Not A Queer Dude and Liberalism Is A Sickness), but your post was still crude and insulting. We don’t (or really want to) know OQD’s particular fetishes, so suggesting that he’s into certain hardcore practices is defamatory. It also registers your immaturity for all to see, as well (as I’ve stated above) revealed pure hypocrisy on your part for whining about ad hominems. Even if you suffered a thousand ad hominem attacks, you lose all credibility to complain about them once you make one yourself.

            So go ahead, dish out all the nastiness you want, but don’t whine about receiving any back. Got it?

      9. You’re kidding me, right?  Did you really just post that?  Well, I guess that the court crowd is going to be ignored now more than ever-good job there buddy.

        OQD- it doesn’t seem like his post pissed you off, and that speaks volumes to your character.  Way to go

      10. Did you have to go that far, Rio?  Didn’t we talk about this earlier today?  Well, I guess you proved the point that someone’s paying attention!  Save if for AdultFriendFinder.com!

    2. Pols! Can you do this? 

      Unfortunately, it seems that rio does post other topics than the judiciary screeds.  Maybe he/you could promise to not do so, just stay off of the topic.  However, I think tilter couldn’t abide by that, and we know Kay’s record of keeping a promise. Even jail didn’t deter her.

      1. The judicial issues come up because they are so important and because they are so hard to attack in other ways.

        Before I “promised” to dismiss my other actions as a condition of getting out of jail, I read the 158 page duress of jail chapter in American Jurisprudence, which says that a contract made under duress is not binding.  I then quoted it and filed it in the docket so they knew not to rely on it.  Even in the court discussions under which I was threatened with rejailing if I did not file a motion to dismiss, Judge Nottingham notes that more was coming.  The U.S. code is very specific about conditions on release which are limited and only apply when one has been convicted or pled guilty to a crime.

        1. What a sophomoric statement.  You had your options, you chose to lie.  I would have done the same thing if I was that judge.

          Does “Don Quixote” mean anything to you?

          I suggest therapy.

      2. See my comment above.  I use the diary section.  You don’t have to read my rants, dissertaions, diatribes and “screeds.” Gimme a break, already.”

      1. “Get us a forum?” Tilter has one, it’s not anyone’s duty here to do so.  Make your own. 

        It hurts because you keep stabbing yourself.

      2. Better yet, meet at Starbucks and actually talk to each other.  It’s much easier to emote that way.  Besides, the caffeine might tone t’all down.  There is no need for expressing the anger here; all that anger, what a  shame.  Can’t we just like one another.

        1.   You gotta be kidding me?  You haven’t read too many Tenth Circuit opinions (or Nottingham orders), lately.  (And I don’t blame you –unless you had a reason, who’d want to?) Aside from the fact that many of the results (all of the results in pro se cases) “handed down” by the Imperialist Judiciary (Justice Scalia’s words, not mine), ought to invoke “anger” (unless you’re a stone), these orders and opinions contain unmistakable disdain, disgust and anger towards and about any fool, who thinks that he can vindicate his/her so-called rights in federal court.
            A docket fee for any civil case is now $350. Federal district judges are paid $165K per year (for life). The docket fee for an appeal of a usually erroneous decision to the Tenth Circuit is now $455. Circuit judges are paid $175K per year (for life). Source: U.S. gov. salary chart.  Perhaps, not so much $$ to a successful trial lawyer, but a lot of money for public office in the grande scheme of things.  At these salaries, we should expect every case to be handled with honesty, sincerity and professionally.
            Justice William “Beds” Bedsworth out in California once wrote in his pithy blog A Criminal Waste of Space:

          I make a comfortable living doing nothing more strenuous than thinking about things people ask me to think about. There is no heavy lifting; no shift work. I’m not required to drive through snow and I don’t come home smelling of fish. When I’m done thinking about these things, I give my “opinion” about them and start thinking about something else. Anyone churlish enough to complain about such a job, anyone who -asked so little- would fail to give every case, regardless of whether it’s handled by a successful attorney or a prison inmate, full consideration, is an ungrateful lout.

            Now, I’m not disagreeing with you that ColoradoPols Monday openThread is an inappropriate place to hijack the topics and convert them into rants about the allegedly evil judiciary but, I do take issue with you characterization og the topic as somehow invalid or unfounded.

          1. The topic isn’t really invalid or unfounded but people like Rio are doing more damage to your cause than good, and I think that they’re the major part of the problem-

            1. I’m not sure that the topic was ever a problem for most people: The monomania, perhaps; the excessive verbosity, probably; and the abrasive style of some, certainly. The topic itself is perfectly appropriate, and there may be a valid point to be made, but their position is ill-served by their approach.

              1. . . . , which is why, as noted in a prev. post above, I use the diary section for rants. In fact I just posted one   ->>>  ->>>  ->>>

                  . . . and, you don’t have to read it (my feelings won’t be hurt)!

                For what it’s worth, I read nearly all your (collective) posts on every topic under the sun, whether I have something to contribute to them or not.  As you know, some are pretty light-hearted and trivial but, then, there’s no rule that says we have to stick to substantive discussion all the time?

  8. Is it possible that CO Pols could provide two open threads?  One would be for lawsuits and judicial/legal corruption, and the other would be about everything else.

    Because I have to say, it it getting *unreadable* around here.  It’s easy to skip a post or two, but this stuff is taking over the site.

    1. Look, I didn’t post *anything* here, today.  I’m just speaking up, now, because my name was mentioned more than once. I’m just making the obligatory retort.

      1. If you were the only poster repeatedly and loquaciously hitting the anti-courts refrain, it would not be a big problem.  But that is obviously NOT the case.  A swarm of other anti-court-crusaders have tried to take over this site with their endless posts and bitterness…..with severe detriment to their cause, as many people have noted.  And some of these posters are so unsavory and rude as to actually drive people away from this site!

        1. Granted, but there has to be a better way than discrediting everyone that has an opinion (one way or the other) on the subject.

          I’m just going out on a limb here but, I’d say that if no one else entered into those topic threads, the posts from the “other anti-court-crusaders,” consisting of “endless posts and bitterness,” would dissipate.

          We’ve already established that the topic is valid and has its place.  People usually do want to hear about what the hell is going on in their courts. So, if the particular point requires more than 150 words, the appropriate place is —->>>> in the diaries section.  And –going out on a limb here, again– I assume that principle applies to all subjects.

    2. A warning label.  “Opinions may vary, but contents of this post may be viewed as the paranoid rantings of an individual personally agrieved by the judicial system.”

      It would only be required if it is a judicial rant. But people would be free to post non judicial rants.

      I undersrand this is a forum for adults, but the graphic sexual language is troubling. My little girl sits on my lap when I work on the computer.  When I think I’m reading politics, and I end up reading words I may have to explain, that is troubling.  I can handle explaining curse words but how do I explain those 2 words rio used?

      1. A warning label.  “Opinions may vary, but contents of this post may be viewed as are the paranoid rantings of an individual personally agrieved [sic.] made to bend over and grab the ankles by a petty tyrant in our judicial system –you could be next.”

        It would only be required if it is a judicial rant. But people would be free to post non judicial rants.

        1. Why doesn’t ColoradoPols just post a question like “how can the judicial system be more fair and effective”?  What’s the need fo rname calling and sarcasm

          2. Then you can knock yourself out talking about it all day long?  People are sarcastic because they’ve tired of you commandeering the conversation… Get a clue.  I’m sure everyone’s very sorry you had a tough time of it.  But, shoving it in peoples faces at every turn only makes those trying to have legitimate conversations about OTHER topics than yours a bit annoyed.

            After all, it ain’t all about you, babe.  And you aren’t helping your cause by shoving it in peoples faces.

          1. Colorado politics and legal ethics  are inseparable.  You know that. Make some effort to clean up the legal ethics system and the quality of the politicians that  you gossip about and that we have to deal with may improve. Talking about it is a good start.
              As for long diatribes and personal stories of alleged victimization from the courts, those belong in the diaries, even if newsworthy.  (See prev. posts ad nauseum.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

49 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!