2010-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District Court, Washington DC – in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impeachable Misconduct by US Judge John D Bates s

Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.12.14
18:15:28 +02'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
10-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District

Court, Washington DC – in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Act

Plaintiff Sieverding claimed that FBI and other federal agencies created records pertaining to her arrest
and imprisonment that were false and deliberately misleading. Such record reported her as arrested and
imprisoned on felony, which she claimed has no basis in reality.
Moreover, she claimed that such federal agencies failed to produce key records pertaining to her arrest
and imprisonment.
The records below document litigation in the US District Court of dubious validity at best.
Records:
1) December 14, 2010 Docket … 3
2) December 14, 2010 Judgment Index … 12
3) June 30, 2010 Related Transactions Report … 13
4) Dkt #001: March 25, 2009 Complaint and Civil Cover Sheet … 34
5) Dkt #008: June 1, 2009 - MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For Summary Judgment by UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE … 83
a. Dkt #008-1: Memorandum in Support
b. Dkt #008-2: Declaration of William E. Bordley (FILED UNDER SEAL)
c. Dkt #008-3: Declaration of Paul Sever
d. Dkt #008-4: Declaration Stephen D Wallisch
6) Dkt #023: July 23, 2009 - MOTION to Strike MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For Summary
Judgment, by KAY SIEVERDING … 130
7) Dkt #025: August 28, 2009 - Memorandum in opposition to re (Dkt #023) MOTION to
Strike (Dkt #008) MOTION to Dismiss, by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE. … 147
8) Dkt #032: August 5, 2009 - MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT # 25
BECAUSE OF PERJURY, by KAY SIEVERDING … 156
9) Dkt #057: May 15, 2010 - Order granting 8 the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative for summary judgment, and addressing pending motions by Judge JOHN D.
BATES … 280
10) Dkt: #078: October 19, 2010 - ORDER of USCA – Order granting summary affirmance - Not
accessible through PACER … 281
z Page 2/2 December 14, 2010
Of Note:
1) Docket as a Whole:
a. The Docket failed to include any of the Attestation/Authentication records by the clerk (NEFs –
Notices of Electronic Filing). Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain the validity of the records.
b. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Kay Sieverding was never served NEFs in the case, and has
never gained access to the NEFs.
c. Related Transactions Report: The Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (Dkt #057) was not docketed as
related to the Complaint (Dkt #001), and the Complaint was not docketed as ‘terminated’.
2) Judgment Index: Failed to record any judgment in the case.
3) Dkt #001: March 25, 2009 Summons
Summons was not docketed, in apparent violation of FRCivP.
4) Dkt #001: March 25, 2009 Civil Cover Sheet – not signed by Clerk.
5) Dkt #?: No Assignment Order for Judge Judge John D. Bates appears in the docket.
6) Dkt #008-4: Declaration Stephen D Wallisch
The declaration failed to provide as evidence the arrest and booking records of Kay Sieverding. Instead,
the declaration only stated:
9. Relevant and necessary records regarding Ms. Sieverding were prepared and maintained in
the USMS Warrant Information Network (WIN) and Prisoner Population
Management/Prisoner Tracking Systems (PTS) of records.
7) Dkt #078: The Order by the US Court of Appeals was filed by the US District Court as a judicial record
that was not signed by a Circuit Judge, not authenticated by Clerk of the Court of Appeals, and failed to
bear the seal of the US Court of Appeals.
See also:
1) See also request for NEFs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33734513/
2) See also records pertaining to Sieverding et al v Colorado Bar Association et al (02-cv-01950) at the
US District Court, District of Colorado regarding circumstances of the arrest and imprisonment.
12/14/2010 District of Columbia live database
CLOSED, PROSE-NP, TYPE-I
U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
SIEVERDING et al v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Date Filed: 03/25/2009

Assigned to: Judge John D. Bates Date Terminated: 03/15/2010
Demand: $11,600,000 Jury Demand: None
Case in other court: 10-05149 Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Cause: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
DAVID SIEVERDING represented by DAVID SIEVERDING
641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
(608)848-5735
PRO SE
Plaintiff
KAY SIEVERDING represented by KAY SIEVERDING
641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
(608)848-5735
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT represented by David Cotter Rybicki
TERMINATED: 05/01/2009 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 353-4024
Email: david.rybicki@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF represented by David Cotter Rybicki
JUSTICE (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 1/9
Date Filed # Docket Text

03/25/2009 1 COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt
number 4616019314) filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING.
(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tr) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
03/25/2009 SUMMONS Issued(2) as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (tr) (Entered:
03/26/2009)
04/09/2009 2 NOTICE of Appearance by David Cotter Rybicki on behalf of UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
04/09/2009 3 NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service by UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
re 2 Notice of Appearance (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
04/16/2009 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered:
04/20/2009)
04/21/2009 5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of
Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
04/22/2009 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 5 defendant's consent motion for extension of
time to respond to the complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED;
and it is further ORDERED that defendant's response to the complaint shall be filed by not
later than June 1, 2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/22/2009.
(ck) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
04/22/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's response to complaint due by 6/1/2009. (ck) (Entered:
04/22/2009)
04/27/2009 6 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 1 Complaint filed by KAY
SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
05/01/2009 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(tr)
(Entered: 05/04/2009)
06/01/2009 8 MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For Summary Judgment by UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, #
2 Declaration William E. Bordley Declaration (FILED UNDER SEAL), # 3 Declaration
Paul Sever Declaration, # 4 Declaration Stephen D. Wallisch Declaration, # 5 Statement
of Facts, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) Modified on 6/15/2009 (tr).
(Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE (tr)(See Docket Entry 8 to view document) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/05/2009 10 MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of William E. Bordley Under Seal by
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Rybicki, David) (Entered:
06/05/2009)
06/10/2009 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 8 MOTION to Dismiss by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. "Let this be filed" by Judge John D. Bates
(jf, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 defendant's motion to seal the declaration
of William E. Bordley, and the representation that the request for seal is based on
protected information contained in Exhibit C to the declaration, it is hereby ORDERED,
that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is further ORDERED
that, by not later than June 16, 2009, defendant shall refile the Bordley declaration on the
public record, redacting the protected information in Exhibit C; it is further ORDERED
that defendant may file an unredacted version of Exhibit C under seal. SO ORDERED.
Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/11/2009. (ck) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/12/2009 12 NOTICE of Filing of Redacted Exhibit C of Bordley Declaration by UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 8
MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For Summary Judgment (Rybicki, David)
(Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/18/2009 13 Memorandum in opposition to re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For
Summary Judgment filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. " Let this
be filed." Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/18/2009. (tr) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/18/2009 15 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 13 Memorandum in
Opposition filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. " Let this be filed"
Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/18/2009. (tr) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/19/2009 14 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Revised Memorandum of Points &
Authorities in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/22/2009 16 MOTION to Substitute Revised Memorandum by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING " Let this be filed" Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/22/2009.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Revised Memorandum)(tr) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/22/2009 17 RESPONSE re 14 Reply to Document filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/25/2009 18 MOTION to Amend/Correct Statement of Facts 13 Memorandum in Opposition by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 19 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 13 Memorandum in
Opposition filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING, 16 MOTION to
Substitute filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered:
06/29/2009)
07/08/2009 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2)(tr) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/14/2009 21 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 20 MOTION requesting
Injunctive Relief filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered:
07/16/2009)
07/20/2009 22 Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief filed by

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
07/23/2009 23 MOTION to Strike 8 MOTION to Dismiss Or, Alternatively, For Summary
Judgment, MOTION for Entry of Default by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
07/27/2009 24 REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief filed by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(tr ) (Entered:
07/28/2009)
07/28/2009 25 Memorandum in opposition to re 23 MOTION to Strike 8 MOTION to Dismiss Or,
Alternatively, For Summary Judgment MOTION for Entry of Default filed by
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Stephen D. Wallisch)(Rybicki, David) (Entered:
07/28/2009)
07/28/2009 26 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki,
David) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
07/28/2009 27 MOTION for Oral Hearing re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief by DAVID
SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
07/30/2009 28 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 24 Reply to opposition to
Motion filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered:
07/31/2009)
07/30/2009 29 NOTICE of Certificate by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING re 27
MOTION for Hearing re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief (tr) (Entered:
07/31/2009)
07/31/2009 30 REPLY re 25 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 31 MOTION to Strike 26 MOTION for Protective Order by DAVID SIEVERDING,
KAY SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
08/05/2009 32 MOTION to Strike 25 Memorandum in Opposition, by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/06/2009 33 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 20 MOTION requesting
Injunctive Relief filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (tr) (Entered:
08/07/2009)
08/27/2009 34 Amended MOTION to Strike 26 MOTION for Protective Order , by DAVID
SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr) Modified to correct link on 8/28/2009 (jf, ).
(Entered: 08/28/2009)
08/27/2009 35 Amended MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive

Relief by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
09/22/2009 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr).
(Entered: 09/23/2009)
10/05/2009 37 Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts)
(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/05/2009 38 NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service for Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
10/07/2009 39 NOTICE of Judicial Notice by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (rdj)
(Entered: 10/08/2009)
10/08/2009 40 RESPONSE re 39 Notice (Other) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
10/08/2009 41 MOTION For Rule 1,12, 17c(2) and Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 3.2 by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (tr) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
10/13/2009 42 REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID
SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(tr) (Entered:
10/15/2009)
10/13/2009 43 Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID
SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (tr)(See Docket Entry 42 to view document.)
(Entered: 10/15/2009)
10/16/2009 44 REPLY to Response to re 39 Notice of Judicial Notice filed by DAVID SIEVERDING,
KAY SIEVERDING. (rdj) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
11/02/2009 45 MOTION under Rule 65 for a Court Order to USDOJ to upload to the Court a copy of
the annual reports by DOJ required by 5 USC 522 (u) by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(dr) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
11/04/2009 46 Memorandum in opposition to re 45 MOTION filed by UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
11/12/2009 47 Memorandum in opposition to re 45 MOTION under Rule 65 for a Court Order to
USDOJ to upload to the Court a copy of the annual reports by DOJ required by 5 USC
522 (u) filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit)(dr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/12/2009: # 1 Exhibits) (dr, ).
(Entered: 11/12/2009)
11/30/2009 48 MOTION under The Administrative Procedures Act for USDOJ to report its civil
contempt policies and procedures, Privacy Act complaints and complaint procedures, and
corrective actions taken in response to Privacy Act Complaints. by DAVID
SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2
Exhibit PE3000-PE3031)(dr) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
12/01/2009 49 Memorandum in opposition to re 48 MOTION under The Administrative Procedures Act
for USDOJ to report its civil contempt policies and precedures, Privacy Act complaints
and complaint procedures, and corrective actions taken in response to Privacy Act
Complaints. filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Rybicki,
David) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
12/01/2009 50 REPLY to opposition to motion re 48 MOTION under The Administrative Procedures
Act for USDOJ to report its civil contempt policies and precedures, Privacy Act
complaints and complaint procedures, and corrective actions taken in response to Privacy
Act Complaints. filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (dr) (Entered:
12/02/2009)
12/11/2009 51 Second Amended MOTION under The Administrative Procedure Act for USDOJ to
report its civil contempt policies and procedures, Privacy Act complaints and complaint
procedures, and corrective actions taken in response to Privacy Act Complaints. by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(dr) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/14/2009 Leave to File Denied signed by Judge John D. Bates on 12/14/09. Failure to comply with
the LCvR. (dr) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
03/02/2010 52 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Attachments)(dr)
(Entered: 03/04/2010)
03/05/2010 53 MOTION to Withdraw Documents 20, 21, 24, 33, and 35 by DAVID SIEVERDING,
KAY SIEVERDING (dr) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/09/2010 54 Memorandum in opposition to re 52 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of
Facts)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/09/2010 55 NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service for Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Second Motion for Summary Judgment in the Amount of $5.8 Million Each by
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Rybicki, David) (Entered:
03/09/2010)
03/11/2010 56 REPLY to opposition to motion re 52 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(dr) (Entered:
03/11/2010)
03/15/2010 57 Order granting 8 the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for
summary judgment, and addressing pending motions. See text of Order for details. Signed
by Judge John D. Bates on 3/15/2010. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/15/2010 58 Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/15/2010. (lcjdb1) (Entered:
03/15/2010)
03/17/2010 Leave to File Denied. Plaintiff's motion to admit facts based on and for judicial notice of
3/9/10 letter from USDOJ "Office of Information Policy." "Leave to file DENIED" by
Judge John D. Bates (td, ) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
03/18/2010 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Order granting 8 the Department of Justice's motion
to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, and addressing pending motions by
DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (dr) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
03/19/2010 60 Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Order on
Motion to Strike,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for
Summary Judgment,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply, Or filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered:
03/19/2010)
03/22/2010 61 REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Order on
Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for
Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply, filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (dr)
(Entered: 03/22/2010)
03/23/2010 62 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57
Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion
for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply, filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING.
(dr) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/24/2010 63 ERRATA by KAY SIEVERDING 62 Supplemental Memorandum, filed by KAY
SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. (rdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
04/01/2010 64 MOTION under Rule 60b(6), with concurrence, for reconsideration and recognition of
claims and facts under Obstructing justice, intimidating party, witness 42 USC 1985(2)
AND 18 USC 3771(d)(3) by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. "Let this
be Filed," Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/1/10, located on Certificate of Service.
(dr) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
04/08/2010 65 Memorandum in opposition to re 64 MOTION under Rule 60b(6), with concurrence, for
reconsideration and recognition of claims and facts under Obstructing justice, intimidating
party, witness 42 USC 1985(2) AND 18 USC 3771(d)(3) MOTION under Rule
60b(6), with concurrence, for reconsideration and recognition of claims and facts under
Obstructing justice, intimidating party, witness 42 USC 1985(2) AND 18 USC 3771(d)
(3) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Rybicki, David)
(Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/12/2010 66 MOTION to Withdraw 64 MOTION under Rule 60b(6) and Substitute their new
motion by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING (dr) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/19/2010 67 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying pending motions. See text of
Memorandum Opinion & Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on
4/19/2010. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 68 SURREPLY to re 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Order on Motion to Strike,,,
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,
Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply, Or filed by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. (dr) "Let this
be Filed," Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/19/2010. (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/19/2010 69 ERRATA by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING 64 MOTION under Rule
60b(6), with concurrence, for reconsideration and recognition of claims and facts under
Obstructing justice filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID SIEVERDING. "Let this be
Filed," Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/19/2010. (FIAT is on Certificate of Service)
(dr) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/19/2010 70 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Order by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING. "Let this be Filed," Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/19/2010. (FIAT
is on Certificate of Service) (dr) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
04/26/2010 71 MOTION to rule on document 70 consistent with Circuit Appellate Rule 4 because of the
extraordinary circumstance that it was timely filed but not timely docketed and because
USDOJ made false statements of law by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(dr) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/26/2010 72 MOTION for Extension of Time to file a notice of appeal until 30 days after the motion
numbered document 70 is ruled on. by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(dr) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/27/2010 73 ORDER denying [71,72] plaintiffs' pending motions. See text of Order for details. Signed
by Judge John D. Bates on 4/27/2010. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
04/29/2010 Leave to File Denied by Judge John D. Bates, Motion for Reconsideraton or alternatively
to amend claims to proceed under Bivens for 1st and 4th Amendment Violations based on
statements of law made by U.S. Supreme Court on 4/20/10. (dr) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
05/03/2010 74 MOTION for the Court to identify the "authorized law enforcement function" the court
discussed on page 4 of document 67 by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING
(dr) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 74 plaintiffs' "motion for the Court to identify
the 'authorized law enforcement function,'" and the entire record herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 5/5/2010.
(lcjdb1) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/10/2010 75 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 73 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY SIEVERDING. Fee
Status: No Fee Paid ($100 money order was submitted) Parties have been notified. (dr)
(Entered: 05/18/2010)
05/17/2010 76 Amended NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 73 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to by DAVID SIEVERDING, KAY
SIEVERDING. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 4616029735. Fee Status: Fee Paid.
Parties have been notified. (dr) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
05/18/2010 77 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court
of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 76 Notice of Appeal, 75
Notice of Appeal. (dr) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
05/20/2010 USCA Case Number 10-5149 for 76 Notice of Appeal, filed by KAY SIEVERDING,
DAVID SIEVERDING. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
10/20/2010 78 ORDER of USCA as to 76 Notice of Appeal, filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID
SIEVERDING, 75 Notice of Appeal filed by KAY SIEVERDING, DAVID
SIEVERDING ;Ordered that appellants' procedural motions under Rule 10(e)(2)(C)be
denied. It is further ordered that the motion for judicial notice be denied. Ordered that the
motions for leave to adduce additional evidence, for settlement conference, and to
recognize precedents as applicable, be denied. It is further ordered that the motion for
summary affirmance ge granted. USCA Case Number 10-5149. (ls, ) (Entered:
10/22/2010)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
12/14/2010 07:40:18
PACER Login: dr2600 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
Billable Pages: 6 Cost: 0.48
12/14/2010 District of Columbia live database-Judg…
Judgment Index Report
U.S. District Court - - District of Columbia
Report Period: 01/01/2000 - 12/14/2010 Sorry - no data for the chosen selection criteria
Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria

Case number 1:09-cv-562
Sort by Case Number

Transaction Receipt
12/14/2010 09:49:38
PACER Client
dr2600
Login: Code:
Judgment Search 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Filed From:
Description:
Index Report Criteria: 1/1/2000 Filed To: 12/14/2010
Billable
1 Cost: 0.08
Pages:
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/…/JdgIdxRpt.pl?1… 1/1
6/30/2010 District of Columbia live database-Relat…
1:09-cv-00562-JDB SIEVERDING et al v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
John D. Bates, presiding
Date filed: 03/25/2009
Date terminated: 03/15/2010
Date of last filing: 05/20/2010
Related Transactions
ote: Each selected transaction in this case is shown below in a box with any other
transactions to which it is related.
Doc. Event Event

Event ame
o. Filed Terminated
1 Complaint 03/25/2009
6 Errata 04/27/2009
Summons Issued as to AUSA 03/25/2009
2 otice of Appearance 04/09/2009

3 Notice (Other) 04/09/2009
3 otice (Other) 04/09/2009

2 Notice of Appearance 04/09/2009
4 Affidavit 04/16/2009
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to 04/22/2009

5 Motion for Extension of Time to 04/21/2009 04/22/2009
Set/Reset Deadlines 04/22/2009
6 Errata 04/27/2009
1 Complaint 03/25/2009
7 Amended Complaint 05/01/2009
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/…/RelTransactQry.… 1/21
Order on Motion for Leave to File 06/11/2009
10 Motion for Leave to File 06/05/2009 06/11/2009
12 otice (Other) 06/12/2009

8 Motion to Dismiss 06/01/2009 03/15/2010
9 Motion for Summary Judgment 06/01/2009 03/15/2010
13 Memorandum in Opposition 06/18/2009

15 Errata 06/18/2009
18 Motion to Amend/Correct 06/25/2009 03/15/2010
19 Errata 06/26/2009
57 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 03/15/2010
59 Motion for Reconsideration 03/18/2010 04/19/2010
61 Reply to opposition to Motion 03/22/2010
62 Supplemental Memorandum 03/23/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
67 Order on Motion for Reconsideration 04/19/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
15 Errata 06/18/2009
14 Reply to Document 06/19/2009

17 Response to Document 06/22/2009

19 Errata 06/26/2009
16 Motion to Substitute 06/22/2009 03/15/2010
21 Errata 07/14/2009
20 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 07/08/2009 03/15/2010


28 Errata 07/30/2009

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
23 Motion for Entry of Default 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
57 Order on Motion to Strike 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
28 Errata 07/30/2009
29 otice (Other) 07/30/2009

27 Motion for Hearing 07/28/2009 03/15/2010
23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
33 Errata 08/06/2009

38 otice (Other) 10/05/2009
39 otice (Other) 10/07/2009


39 Notice (Other) 10/07/2009



39 Notice (Other) 10/07/2009



Leave to File Denied 12/14/2009

55 otice (Other) 03/09/2010


26 Motion for Protective Order 07/28/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion to Dismiss 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File 03/15/2010

Response/Reply
11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 06/10/2009 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion to Substitute 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Entry of Default 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Protective Order 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
57 Order on Motion for Hearing 03/15/2010

63 Errata 03/24/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
58 Memorandum & Opinion 03/15/2010

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply

23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply
63 Errata 03/24/2010
63 Errata 03/24/2010
23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply


23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply

67 Order on Motion to Withdraw 04/19/2010

66 Motion to Withdraw 04/12/2010 04/19/2010
68 Surreply 04/19/2010
23 Motion to Strike 07/23/2009 03/15/2010
31 Motion to Strike 08/03/2009 03/15/2010
32 Motion to Strike 08/05/2009 03/15/2010
34 Motion to Strike 08/27/2009 03/15/2010
Response/Reply
69 Errata 04/19/2010

75 Notice of Appeal 05/10/2010
77 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to 05/18/2010
USCA
USCA Case Number 05/20/2010
73 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to 04/27/2010

USCA
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 05/05/2010

75 otice of Appeal 05/10/2010

USCA
76 otice of Appeal 05/17/2010
USCA
77 Transmission of otice of Appeal and Docket 05/18/2010

Sheet to USCA
USCA Case umber 05/20/2010

Docket Report ...

Transaction Receipt
06/29/2010 21:54:45
PACER
dr2600 Client Code:
Login:
Related Search 1:09-cv-00562-
Description:
Transactions Criteria: JDB
Billable
2 Cost: 0.16
Pages:
... Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 47
UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED
MAR 252009
David and K~ Si.n:e..tding ,!;;-&fU - Clerk, U.S. DIstrict and
h41 5f}S~().)OOlJ Wvt,1'& G Bankruptcy Courts
v. Va()N A- ) oJ I 635~S
Case: 1:09-cv-00562
Assigned To : Bates, John D.
U.S. Government -- Department of Justice
Assign. Date: 3/25/2009
Description: FOIAlPrivacy Act
Initiating Complaint
1.) Jurisdiction in the United States Court District of Columbia is under The Privacy
Act,S U.S.c. § 552, As Amended and construed as a broad remedial statute or
under 28 U.S.c. § 2201 Creation of remedy.
(All facts alleged apply to all counts)
Affidavit by Kay Sieverding
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2.) The Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently maintaining a record stating that
I was convicted of "5005 civil contempt".
3.) Congress has not recognized offense "5005 civil contempt". There is no 18
U.S.c. § 5005.
4.) I did not receive an affidavit of probable cause accusing me of "5005 civil
contempt" .
5.) No one made any attempt to tell me what "5005 civil contempt" is but, by law,
the person must be informed about the charges against them. There was no
affidavit ;qf,prQbable cause that I committed an offense called "5005 civil
contempt" .
1
\
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 2 of 47
6.) There was no evidentiary hearing trying me for "5005 civil contempt".
7.) The FBI has no authority to maintain records about "5005 civil contempt"
because it was not ordered to by statute and it was not ordered to by Executive
Order of the President. (See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (e)(l»
8.) Previous to creating the record that I was imprisoned for 5005 civil contempt the
FBI showed that I was imprisoned for 5005 criminal contempt. However, there is
no offense known as 5005 criminal contempt either. They changed it to 5005
civil contempt after I sent them the transcript showing that the prosecutor, an
attorney who was a defense attorney in a lawsuit I had filed, said that I was not
accused of criminal contempt only of civil contempt and therefore I was not
entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
9.) The FBI gave no explanation as to why it had created the new "5005 civil
contempt" code.
10.) I timely requested that the record be changed to "innocent until proved guilty" but
the FBI refused. Within 30 days I wrote to the U.S. Attorney General and
requested reclassification from 5005 civil contempt to innocent until proved guilty
but received no response.
11.) The FBI was required by (d)(B)(ii) to inform me of the reason for denial of
reclassification from "5005 civil contempt" to "innocent until proved guilty".
Therefore The Privacy Act U.S.C. § 552, g(l) requires a review of the FBI's
record that I was convicted of "5005 civil contempt" because the FBI:
"fail[ed] to maintain any record concerning any individual with such

accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure
fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights,
2
:a
or opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the

basis of such record, and consequently a determination is made which is
adverse to the individual."
12.) I believe the FBI's mistaken designation that I was committed for "5005 civil
contempt" was part of a willful and wonton, and illegal, conspiracy to damage my
reputation and cover-up of deprivations of my rights under law.
13.) Common law does not recognize the offense of general civil contempt.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14.) The U.S. Marshals have no authority to detain U.S. citizens who are not accused
of a federal offense recognized by Congress.
15.) I was not accused of a federal offense recognized by Congress.
16.) The U.S. Marshals are prohibited from maintaining records about my first
amendment activities without my permission.
17.) I did not give permission to the U.S. Marshals to maintain records about my first
amendment activities.
18.) I was detained by the U.S. Marshals from 9/2/05 to 114/06, on 2/8/06, and from
5/10/07 to 6/1/07. On multiple dates in 2006, the Marshals searched for me by
calling family members, visiting neighbors, and searching for me at the law
library.
19.) The only reason stated for these detentions, surveillance, and searching was my
first amendment activities.
20.) Maintenance of records by the U.S. Marshals of my first amendment activities
willfully and wantonly violated U.S.c. § 552 1(7)
3
"Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... maintain no record describing
how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly
authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless
pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity"
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21.) The Warrant Information System is a system of records maintained by the U.S.
Marshals Agency.
ACRONYM: WIN
ORIGINATOR: Department/Agency Name: U.S. Department of Justice Major

Organization Subdivision: United States Marshals Service (USMS)Minor Organization
Subdivision: Investigative Services Division Name of Unit: Street Address: CS-3, U.S.
Marshals Service Headquarters City: Washington State: DC Zip Code: 20530-
1000Country: United States Hours of Service: 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
ABSTRACT: WIN contains the warrant, court records, internal correspondence related to
the warrant and other information on individuals for whom Federal warrants have been
issued.
PURPOSE: WIN is used to track the status of all Federal warrants to aid in the
investigations of all Federal fugitives. It is also used to access the NCIC and NLETS
systems to obtain criminal record information from other Federal, state, local and foreign
law enforcement agencies participating in or cooperating with USMS fugitive
investigations and apprehension efforts and to update the respective systems with new
prisoner information.
ACCESS CONSTRAINTS: All records in WIN are protected from unauthorized access
through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards
include restricting access to those with a need to know to perform their official duties,
using locks and alarm devices, passwords and/or encrypting data communications.
USE CONSTRAINTS: Users of WIN will be restricted to only those privileges necessary
to perform assigned tasks.
AGENCY PROGRAM: The USMS is charged with ensuring the effective operation of
the judicial system through the execution of Federal arrest warrants, parole violator
warrants, Federal custodial and extradition warrants, and the investigation of fugitive
4
matters, domestic and foreign, involving escaped Federal prisoners, probation, parole,
mandatory release, and bond default violators. WIN is an information system tool used to
accomplish this.
SOURCES OF DATA: Data contained in WIN is the result of information provided by

the courts, the U.S. Attorneys, other Federal, State, local and foreign law enforcement
agencies, public and private organizations, witnesses, informants, and other persons
interviewed.
22.) The USMS is restricted from serving or publishing warrants that did not go thru
WIN. Publications of persons who are fugitives is an elaborately controlled
procedure and done thru the Marshals' official website.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23.) Three City of Verona police officers came to my home on the evening of 5/10/07.
They did not have a warrant. They grabbed my hands and forced them behind my
back, handcuffed me, and forced me into their car.
24.) A Verona WI police officer, Mr. Dart, told my husband that I was being arrested
on federal charges of "obstruction".
25.) No warrant ever existed to arrest me for "obstruction" nor for any other federal
criminal charge.
26.) Therefore the record was not "pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized
law enforcement activity."
27.) In response to my FOI request, officials of Verona WI claimed that they had
accidentally found a warrant on-line on a state database when accounting for a
parking ticket. At no time did they acknowledge having direct contact with the
U.S. Marshals prior to seizing me. They could not provide a copy of a state
5
database publication, however, when I filed a follow-up FOI.
28.) The Marshals later acknowledged that they contacted the Verona police
department.
29.) The Verona Police are prohibited by WI statute from serving any warrant issued
by other governments or participating in any arrest unless they are in "hot pursuit"
and it is a law they are allowed to enforce. "Only a marshal or other authorized
officer may execute a warrant." (See Federal Rules Criminal Procedure Rule 4c
(1))
30.) Communications regarding warrants are supposed to be thru WIN, a limited
access system. The Marshals aren't allowed to be mailing or faxing warrants to
the Verona police. The government would not have spent all the money they did
developing WIN if use of WIN was optional.
31.) The fact that Verona police officers were led to believe that I was to be arrested
for a felony shows the extent to which the U.S. Marshals failed to maintain their
records in a way that is "accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency
purposes" as required by § 552 (f)(1)(4)(1)(6).
32.) The fact that the Marshals wrote informally that they contacted the Verona police
(no details of name, date and purpose were shown although they were required)
when a formal recorded non delegable arrest procedure is required, shows that
the Madison office went out of its way to evade its required and normal
procedures.
33.) My seizure on 5/10/07 was not accidental. It was a coordinated willful and
wonton multi-person violation of my rights by the Verona police, the Madison
6
Marshals and the Denver Marshals.
FIFfH CAUSE OF ACTION
34.) The executed warrant for the 5/10/07 seizure was never returned, although return
is required within 5 days.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
35.) I still live in Verona, WI. I am constantly uncomfortable there because DOl has
done nothing to correct the records of the city, and the perceptions of my
neighbors (I was seized in front of the neighborhood soccer tournament), to show
that I am "innocent until proved guilty" and there was no probable cause to arrest
me for "obstruction". DOl is required to correct the records they created in the
City of Verona.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
36.) On 5/10/07, the U.S. Marshals office in Colorado faxed a detention order to Dane
County Wisconsin saying "FELONY NO BOND HOLD".
37.) I was not accused of a felony. That fax was a willful and wonton
misrepresentation and the only purpose was to deprive my rights. I was not
accused of a misdemeanor either.
38.) If I was accused of a felony, or even a federal misdemeanor, a detention order
would have gone through WIN and it would have specified the felony, by
7
number.
39.) As a result of the fax from the Denver Marshals, I was seized and held against my
will for 22 days, I was assaulted, I was taken 1200 miles against my will and
abandoned without financial assistance, my reputation was damaged, I suffered
financial loss, I was unable to adequately pursue my private interests and I was
publicly humiliated. Because the fax specified I was to be treated as a felon, I
was manhandled and disrespected.
40.) The first night I was in jail (5/10/07) I had the worst headache I have ever had in
my entire life. I was throwing up for what seemed like hours.
41.) I was in a holding cell with other detainees. There was a closed circuit viewer and
a guard saw me throwing up and came to ask if I was all right. I told him that I
had the worst headache that I have ever had in my entire life.
42.) Dane County and the U.S. Marshals have a contract for services. It requires
conformance with the "National Commission on Correctional Healthcare". That
requires that medical care be provided in event of an emergency. However, the
guard returned only with an aspirin, not with any sort of medical personnel.
43.) A woman was in a holding cell next to me because she had tried to commit
suicide and she was yelling about it. I was then held for about a week in a cell
where a woman had previously successfully committed suicide. That was general
knowledge probably because the bars were bent where she had hung herself and
the door did not work properly. It really is upsetting to be extremely stressed out
and then to be constantly reminded that another person committed suicide in the
exact same location, after sleeping in the same bed.
8
The Privacy Act provides civil remedies under (g)(l):
"whenever any agency fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such
accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any
determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or
benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, and consequently
a determination is made which is adverse to the individual."
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
44.) The U.S. Marshals and Dane County Jail have a contract that specifies who will
be held in the Dane County Jail. It defines "Federal detainees" as "individuals
sentenced or charged with federal offenses and detained while awaiting trial or
sentencing awaiting designation and transport to a BOP facility".
45.) The papers I have been able to get do not show that I was shown as charged with
a federal defense or convicted and do not show that I met the classification of
"federal detainees" covered by the contract. There was a failure to maintain
adequate records systems.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
46.) I was brought in chains and shackles to a federal courtroom in Madison WI on
5/11107.
47.) That was a fairly elaborate transfer involving multiple holding rooms but my FOI
requests brought up no paperwork about it.
48.) The proceedings were clearly irregular because there was no offenses listed in the
docket, the hearing was not listed on the court calendar, there was no reference to
the adjudicator, court clerk Theresa Owens acting as a magistrate, and in the
9
entire year of 2007, Owens did not officiate in any hearing.
49.) There was no declaration as to what type of hearing it was. There was no
declaration on the papers I received nor at the hearing itself. No one said that it
was an arraignment or a rule 20 hearing. On the docket report it says "CTRM.
MIN: INIT. APP.; DEFf. DETAINED; COMMITTED TO DISTRICT OF
COLORADO. (TMO) 25 (Entered: 05/11/2007)
50.) I was not informed of my rights.
51.) An Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson was there and he said:
"All I've gotten was this morning just the warrant for the arrest on the
bench warrant itself and the Government isn't a party to this and so- I
have no background on this at all except what I've heard from Mr.
Rodgers [court services 1and Mr. Lieberman."
52.) The public defender, Mr. Lieberman, (who I met for the first time that day) said:
"she's not charged with a crime. The judge has not charged her with
contempt or anything else. It is simply failure to appear at a civil
proceeding" (p.3.)
53.) In the presence of the assistant U.S. Attorney, Owens ordered that I be forcibly
detained and transferred to Colorado without being accused of an offense.
'We are here based on the bench warrant that has been issued by District Judge
Nottingham out of the District of Colorado under Case Number 02-1950. Ms.
Sieverding that is the reason you have been arrested." Transcript p. 2
"Judge Nottingham has informed this Court that he does want Mrs. Sieverding
detained and transferred to the District of Colorado in light of the continued
nonappearances!'P.4
"My concern is that I have a bench warrant from a district judge that says you are
to be arrested." P.6
10
"You would be required to appear, if, in fact, this Court releases you". P. 7
"I have a bench warrant from a district judge that says to -that you are to be
arrested and he's notified this Court that he wants you committed and transferred
to his district" p. 7
"Judge Nottingham picks a date and a time, and we have to convey that to you."
P.9
"it's not my place to judge what is viewed as a valid warrant, and that's why
we're keeping this proceeding somewhat less formal in looking for direction on
how to proceed" p.8
"it's not for me to get into a dialogue with Judge Nottingham as to the validity or
the background for the warrant for arrest." P. 9
"I do not believe that is within my authority to judge his decision. It is a court
order to me, and it's an order that 1 believe this Court at this time has to comply
with." P 10
"I know this is a civil matter, but again, at the direction of the district judge and
issuance of his warrant, 1 feel that it's necessary for this Court to oblige with his
direction". P.1 0
"the judge has informed this Court that he wants the individual detained.". p. 11
"It's the fact that a district judge has issued this warrant. His directive to this
Court is that you be detained. And so we're merely-we're not challenging that.
We're not judging it in this district. We just happen to be the district in which you
reside and in which you were arrested last night based on this warrant." P. 11
"What this Court has before it is a bench warrant, and that's the reason that we're
proceeding with a commitment and transfer to the District of Colorado". P. 12.
"This court does not have a pending matter before it other than the issuance of the
warrant and the fact that you were in this district when the warrant was executed".
P.12
"The warrant was issued. You were arrested. 1feel that - it's my position that the
warrant needs to be followed, and for that reason, 1 have signed a commitment
order". P 14.
11
The public defender said: "if it's a valid warrant, then it triggers the provisions of
the bail statute". P. 11
54.) I said:
"I appli[ed] for habeas corpus and I appealed to the to the 10th Circuit and he
defaulted." P. 7
"is the idea that any time a judge wants to see you about anything you have to
show up and do whatever they say or else you get shot? I mean is that the idea"?
"But on the bench warrant, the place for the statute is blank. There's no law. It
says right in Title 18 in the part there about jails, that a U.S. citizen cannot be held
by the U.S. Government except pursuant to an Act of Congress, which means it's
supposed to have a statute number." P.12
"I feel that this is fundamentally unfair and that my rights are being violated, not
just theoretical rights but rights that are there under a statute. I happen to know. I
looked it up that in the Rules of Criminal Procedure that under Rule 4 it says that
a warrant in order to be valid has to state what crime you are accused of and the
probable cause and that warrant does not do so." P. 12
55.) By statute, (Fed. Rules Criminal Procedure Rule 34), and common law, Owens
was required to let me go because I was not accused of a recognized offense and I
made a motion that the indictment or information did not charge an offense. (See
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 34. Arresting Judgment (a)
In GeneraL Upon the defendant's motion or on its own, the court must
arrest judgment if: (1) the indictment or information does not charge
an offense")
56.) Mr. Anderson knew that my rights were being violated but he failed to protest or
complain. When Magistrate Clerk Owens asked him "Anything further from the
12
Government?", instead of telling Magistrate Clerk Owens that she was required to
release me because the warrant did not state an offense, Anderson said "No, your
Honor".
57.) Anderson was bound by oath to support the Constitution and the U.S. statutes. He
was bound to protest my lawless seizure and incarceration.
58.) By his appearance without protesting, Anderson used the office of the U.S.
Attorney to lend the appearance of legitimacy to a proceeding that was essentially
lawless.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
59.) Owens, the court clerk of the District of Western Wisconsin, created a criminal
docket that did not list an offense. It says clearly "opening offense none". DOJ
got a copy of that somehow, or Anderson would not have shown up.
60.) DOJ did not adequately maintain its system of records as shown by the fact that
their prosecutor showed up for an incarceration hearing without an offense being
listed on the docket report.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
61.) I tried to file for habeas corpus in the three weeks I was held in Dane County Jail
but was deterred. The staff ignored my written complaints that I was being held
with an offense charged. Also, they made no habeas corpus forms or information
available to me although I repeatedly requested law library access.
13
62.) By contract with the Marshals, Dane County Jail is required to comply with all
laws and I think they are required to make a habeas process available to inmates.
TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION
63.) On 5/31/07, the U.S. Marshals transported me to Colorado. The transportation
involved my being taken through the Madison and Denver airports and on a
United Flight in chains by three armed officers.
64.) I told the female officer that I was being held illegally and had not been charged
with an offense and that there was no statutory basis for my detention or forced
movement across state lines.
65.) The female officer showed me her transport papers.
66.) On the transport papers, there was a place for the statute. It was printed "§" but no
statute was filled in.
67.) The female officer and I discussed the fact that there was no statute name or
number printed next to the "§" on the transport papers.
68.) The female officer threatened me with arrest if I were to communicate to any of
the passengers or United Airlines staff or the public that I was being detained and
moved without the basis of a statute.
69.) By transporting me without transport papers that had the "§" filled in, the
Marshals:
"failed to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy,
relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any
determination related to ... rights"
14
70.) I had a right to stay in Wisconsin and not attend the hearing, to which I had not
been subpoenaed and to which former Judge Nottingham could not have made me
attend because there was no trial and I was living and working more than 100
miles away. (This would have come out if I was notified of my right to a Rule 20
hearing, as is required by statute, and which DOJ employee Robert Anderson
should have required.)
71.) The Marshals acted to subvert the protections of Rules of Civil Procedure 45.
72.) The Marshals have a computer system that tracks prisoner movement but I think
that my movement was handled outside that system.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
73.) The Marshals took me to Denver. They refused to allow me to bring my driver's
license or credit card. At the hearing, the federal judge, former Judge Nottingham,
said "whoops" and told the marshals to let me go. I think the Marshals were
required to take some steps to make sure that I got home safely. It was a real
expense for my husband to help me get home and without his help I would have
been 1200 miles from home with no credit card, no i.d. and no funds.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
74.) I was held for more than 10 days without a probable cause hearing.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
75.) On 5/31/07, I was held in JEFFCO jail by order of the U.S. Marshals but I did not
meet their contractual restrictions for the definition of federal prisoner. The intake
clerks told me they had never before seen paperwork like mine but they
incarcerated and strip-searched me anyway. The record keeping system was
inadequate to protect my rights.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
76.) In December 2005, I filed a civil lawsuit in the District of Kansas.
77.) A lawyer named Christopher Beall mailed a document threatening to have my
husband incarcerated if I served or otherwise prosecuted that complaint.
78.) The U.S. Marshals in Colorado brought me in chains to a hearing on 1/4/06 even
though there was no law enforcement purpose stated and the number of the case,
02-cv-1950, made clear that it was a civil case not a criminal case .
79.)
•
I was not served with a subpoena, was not named as a material witness, and there
was no trial scheduled.
80.) By bringing me to the hearing, in chains, the U.S. Marshals implemented an
extortionist scheme. The purpose of the hearing was extortion. I was brought
there to pressure me by watching my husband be threatened and assaulted.
81.) I was damaged by the fact that the U.S. Marshals failed to maintain any record
concerning myself with adequate accuracy and exceeded their statutory authority
by transporting me in chains and at gunpoint without a law enforcement purpose.
82.) The U.S. Marshals claimed to me and to my congressional representative that they
had provided all their records about me to myself thru my congressional
16
representative but they provided no records of the reason for my forced movement
on 1/4/06.
83.) There is a civil remedy under U.S.C. § 552 g(l) (D) when any agency:
"fails to comply with any other provision of this §, or any rule promulgated
thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect of an individual"
84.) The Marshals office in Colorado did not maintain an accurate record as required
as to the purpose of their informing the Marshals in Wisconsin that I was on a
"felony hold" and willfully and wantonly engaged in a misrepresentation of my
status.
85.) The Marshals redacted the name of their employee who instructed that I should be
place on a felony hold even though it resulted in denial of my right to liberty and
therefore should not be exempt from withholding under § 552a (k)(2)
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
86.) On 2/7/06, the U.S. Marshals called me on the phone from their car, which was
parked outside of my home, contacted my husband, and threatened me with arrest
if I did not go to the U.S. Court house in Western Wisconsin on 2/8/06.
87.) Rule 4(c)(3)(A) explicitly requires the arresting officer in all instances to inform
the defendant of the offense charged", however the officers refused to tell me the
offense charged.
88.) Court records show that I appeared voluntarily at the hearing, but it was not
voluntary. I was under duress because the Marshals threatened me with seizure if
I did not show up and that should have been shown in the records.
17
89.) When I arrive at the federal courthouse on 2/8/06, the Marshals asked me if I was
Kay Sieverding. On hearing that I was, officers with guns insisted that I
accompany them to a cell and I was searched and threatened. They did not show
me a warrant nor inform me of the charges.
90.) The warrant was supposed to be returned within 5 days to the court to which the
prisoner was brought but it was not returned until May 2007 and then it was
returned to a different court (in Colorado).
91.) I think that the warrant return was supposed to be thru WIN, or at least a copy
thru WIN, but the Marshals returned it thru PACER and only PACER, more than
a year late.
92.) As a result of the Marshals failing to maintain accurate records, to show that there
was no valid warrant and I was not accused of an offense, I was extorted and
forced to file motions to dismiss my civil lawsuits. This resulted in the loss of the
economic value of my claims and also resulted in unfair determinations of my
character, rights, opportunities, and professional qualifications as a graduate of
the MIT city-planning program.
93.) The records previously supplied by the U.S. Marshals do not show their visit to
my home on 2/7/08. That violated their duty to maintain "(A) the date, nature, and
purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person... and (B) the name and
address of the person to whom the disclosure is made."
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
94.) In October 2007, I contacted my congressional representative, Tammy Baldwin,
18
for assistance in finding out why I was detained.
95.) U.S. Representative Baldwin wrote to the U.S. Marshals on my behalf.
96.) The U.S. Marshals returned a variety of documents.
97.) One of the documents show that I was jailed from 9/2/05 to 1/4/06 because I
"pled guilty" to offense 5005.
98.) I didn't plead guilty to any offense. I was not arraigned. I made no plea at all, but
simply quoted Federal Procedure Lawyers Edition and the U.S. Supreme Court.
99.) There is an established standard and procedure for recognition of a guilty plea and
that was not followed. In my case, I was never asked to plead and I never pled.
100.) The Marshals stated on another record in the same time period that I was "AWT"
which I think means "awaiting trial". However no trial was scheduled and there
was no bail hearing.
101.) By maintaining a fraudulent record showing that I "pled guilty" or was "awaiting
trial" the U.S. Marshals:
"fail [edl to maintain any records concerning any individual with such accuracy,
relevance, timeliness and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any
determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights or opportunities of, or
benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record."
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
102.) In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Marshals disseminated to my Congressional
representative information about my first amendment activities that a.) The
Marshals had no authority to possess and b.) Was not accurate. They
misrepresented to Congressional Representative Tammy Baldwin and to myself
that my being jailed for my first amendment activities was authorized and legal. I
19
believe that this made her and her staff think less of me and that it resulted in a
delay of remedy and was obstruction of justice.
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
103.) On 9/22/06, former federal judge Edward Nottingham issued an order that I
should be arrested for "failure to appear".
104.) No subpoena had been issued that I should go to the hearing on 9/22/06. By
statute, former Judge Nottingham could only issue subpoenas within 100 miles of
Colorado. If there were a legitimate purpose, the government would have had to
explain the purpose on paperwork in order to legally involve another judge to
cause the issue of a subpoena in Wisconsin. The geographical limitation to
judicial authority was developed to safeguard citizens.
105.) I violated no release conditions that complied with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3156. The
release conditions set by former Judge Nottingham (that I dismiss other civil
actions) were in excess of his jurisdiction.
106.) By their first and second seizures of my body, and their prohibited and unrecorded
phone call and visit to my home on 2/7/06, the Marshals participated in an
elaborate ruse to pretend that a subpoena is not required to force someone into
court against their will.
107.) The Marshals did not:
"(9) establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the ...operation ...oftheir
systems involving contact with the public ....and (10) establishing safeguards to
protect against any anticipated threats and hazards to their security or integrity
which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or
unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained."
20
108.) Failure to appear in a civil action is not an offense recognized by Congress.
TWENTY -FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
109.) As stated above, the U.S. Marshals maintains its Warrant Information System as a
limited access system.
110.) The Marshals colluded with former Judge Nottingham to bypass the security
provisions set by Congress to protect the rights of citizens.
111.) The so called warrant issued by former Judge Nottingham on 9/25/06 could not
possibly have gone thru WIN because it did not state an offense, did not state a
bail amount, was not signed by a judge, was not requested by a federal law
enforcement agent nor a government lawyer, and did not have a warrant number.
Whatever computer and records systems were in place required that information
for a warrant.
112.) The Marshals failed to establish and comply with the required safeguards to stop
use of a fraudulent/counterfeit warrant for arrest as required by § 552 d (b) (10).
113.) The U.S. Marshals were prohibited from maintaining records having no
relationship to criminal offenses and they are prohibited from maintaining,
without express permission, records related to civil lawsuits, which are by
definition first amendment activities.
114.) DOJ in Colorado has confirmed in writing that it had no role in the prosecutions
of Kay Sieverding.
115.) DOJ in Western Wisconsin has confirmed, in writing, that it has no records of any
criminal charges against Kay Sieverding.
116.) Without supplying a record showing direction from DOJ to search for me, as is
21
required when searching for a fugitive, the Marshals in Western Wisconsin did
search for me.
117.) In October 2006, a Marshals officer named "Paul Fever" "Randy Sieffert" (or
something similar) represented to both my husband and myself that there was a
valid warrant for my arrest even though he must have known that there was no
valid warrant for my arrest because it was not on the WIN system and all federal
warrants are required to go thru the WIN system and there was no document
stating an offense recognized by Congress.
118.) "Paul" called my husband and requested information about my whereabouts. On
getting it, without my permission, "Paul" of "Randy" repeatedly called my hotel
room in Winnipeg Canada and threatened me.
119.) If I had been accused of a crime, Canada would have extradited me.
120.) "Paul" or "Randy" finally stopped his threatening phone calls when I sent a long
distance fax to the U.S. Marshals office in Western Wisconsin complaining that
he was searching for me based on an invalid warrant because I was not accused of
a federal offense and there was no affidavit of probable cause.
121.) The Marshals should have notified DOJ of my allegations that the warrant was
invalid but the records supplied in response to my multiple FOI requests do not
show that they did.
122.) I think that U.S. Marshals are prohibited from searching for a person without
written authorization. As I understand it, DOJ is supposed to inform the Marshals
that a trial is actually planned before the Marshals start searching for a person.
125.) When my congressional representative contacted the U.S. Marshals on my
22
behalf in October 2007, the Marshals represented to her that there was a valid
warrant for my arrest.
123.) The Marshals misrepresentation that there was a valid warrant even though they
knew there could not possibly be a valid warrant because no offense was stated
and it did not go thru WIN, caused my congressional representative to think less
of me.
124.) The documents returned to my congressional representative did not include
anything about my or my husbands' calls from Paul or Randy even though the
Privacy Act requires
125.) "(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person ...
and (B) the name and address of the person to whom the disclosure is made."
126.) "Paul" or "Randy" ignored the reporting requirements because he was not
authorized to search for me.
127.) Paul or Randy's searching led to secondary threats from other parties.
TWENTY -SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
128.) The records supplied by the Marshals to my congressional representative show
that they visited my neighbors looking for me. However, the records do not show
the date or purpose of their visit or my neighbors name. That violated their duty
to maintain:
(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any
person ... and (B) the name and address of the person to whom the
23
disclosure is made.
129.) The Marshals were not authorized to search for me but did so anyway.
130.) As predictable, my neighbors contact with uniformed officers looking for me
damaged me and my family.
TWENTY -THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
131.) The records supplied by the Marshals to my congressional representative show
that they went to the University of Wisconsin law library to look for me, at the
suggestion by a private lawyer in Colorado named David Brougham who is
described as "very helpful".
132.) The U.S. Marshals claimed to my congressional representative that they had
provided all their records related to me.
133.) The records provided did not state the "(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each
disclosure of a record to any person ... and (B) the name and address of the person
to whom the disclosure is made" of their communications with the librarians or
with David Brougham.
134.) The Marshals were not authorized to search for me.
135.) The Marshals had no authority to discuss me with David Brougham because he
had no criminal information to report on me.
136.) In all the paperwork that I was able to get from the U.S. government, in not one
place was there any record that I was even being investigated for a crime.
137.) The Marshals exceeded their statutory authority and violated the Privacy Act by
24
collecting information as to my whereabouts, which activity had no relationship to
the Marshals' statutory authority.
138.) By not maintaining complete records as to their contact with David Brougham,
the Marshals showed their knowing and willing collusion to deprive my rights.
139.) Apparently the Marshals showed photos of me around the law library.
TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
140.) DOl offers services to released prisoners to facilitate their reentry into society.
These services include medical care and counseling.
141.) I was not offered any DOl reentry services even thought the programs are
supposed to be offered to all released prisoners.
142.) If the Marshals are going to detain U.S. citizens who are not charged with crimes,
then it must maintain adequate records to offer them access to release benefit
programs.
143.) If I had been assigned to a parole officer, then they would have had to recognize a
federal offense, so probably the reason why I wasn't assigned to a parole officer is
that there were no legal conditions of release and they didn't want the parole
department to know about my illegal detention. If I was being legally released
contingent to my agreement not to engage in civil actions, then DOl should have
provided me with counseling.
TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
25
144.) Former federal Judge Edward Nottingham instituted all of the records violations.
145.) Since I approached my congressional representative and the marshals released
their records it has become public knowledge about former Judge Nottingham that
a. It was revealed in his divorce case that the judge "spent $3,000 on strippers in
one night" (The Associated Press," Sen. Salazar Concerned About Judge's
Conduct" , Mar 29,2008,
http://cbs4denver.com/locaI/Edward.NottinghamJederal)
b. AP reported that the Diamond Cabaret manager Justin Frankell said the judge
had visited the strip club on other occasions. They reported that 9 News reported
that Judge Nottingham said he could not remember the details of spending the
$3,000 at the Diamond Cabaret on 9/05/05 because he had been drinking. The
transcript also said Judge Nottingham had paid $150 to use an Internet dating site,
Ipayfriendfinder.com. His ex wife reported that she learned of the dating service
calls when she mistakenly opened a bill, and immediately confronted her husband
in his chambers. "When I asked about the dating service, he turned around in his
chambers, and he hit his computer and he told me all about the dating service; it
was a porn site." (See Associated Press "Judge issues statement on strip club
visits" The Summit Daily News, August 11,2007,
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070811/NEWS/108110073)
c.) On a separate occasion argued with a woman in a wheelchair because she said
he illegally parked in a handicapped spot. Judge Nottingham allegedly threatened
26
to call the U.S. Marshals to deal with the handicapped woman. (see Felisa
Cardona, "Imperious & impartial Embattled Chief U.S. District Judge Edward W.
Nottingham is being viewed from both sides now", The Denver Post, April 1,
2008, A-Ol.)
d.) The 10th Circuit launched an inquiry of multiple complaints of misconduct.
These included an affidavit from a prostitute that Judge Nottingham asked her to
lie to investigators about their relationship. (See P. SOLOMON BANDA "Report:
Judge faced prostitution allegations" Associated Press, Summit Daily News,
10/31/2008, http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20081031/NEWS/81 0319951)
e.) Nottingham resigned on October 21,2008 without resolution of the complaints
and the 10th Circuit implied they had lost authority to hold investigate or hold
evidentiary hearings on the complaints against him.
f.) Associated Press reported that 10th Circuit released a document stating that the
prostitute had made an allegation that Judge Nottingham asked her to lie to
investigators and that 10th Circuit Chief Judge Henry filed a complaint against
Judge Nottingham on Oct. 1. Judge Henry's complaint alleged that Judge
Nottingham had been a client of prostitution businesses, used his court-owned cell
phone to call prostitutes, and lied during the investigation. Associated Press
quoted Denver's KUSA-TV reporting of allegations that Judge Nottingham
solicited prostitutes and asked one of them to lie about being a client. The station,
again citing anonymous sources, also had reported that Judge Nottingham's name
27
had turned up on a client list of a prostitution ring being investigated by the
IRS .(See http://www.summitdaily.com/article/200810311NEWS/810319951
and http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=102872)
g.) Two former prostitutes told 9Wants to Know, an news outlet in Denver, CO,
that Judge Nottingham was a client of another escort agency called Bada Bing of
Denver in 2003 and 2004. One of the women claims Judge Nottingham drove her
to his home in the Hilltop area in March. She says he made them both undress to
make sure they weren't "wearing wires". Then she says he told her to make up
stories and lie to federal investigators about the true nature of their relationship.
The woman did lie to an investigator and later filed a complaint with the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Deborah Sherman "Counsel Investigating chief
judge's past" 10/27/2008 9News.com
http://www.9news.com/rss/article .aspx?storyid=102682)
h.) The former prostitute says she had sex with Judge Nottingham for $250 to
$300 an hour once a week from February 2003 through November 2004 at the
former escort agency Bada Bing of Denver. The former prostitute says Judge
Nottingham helped her fabricate a story about how they knew each other so she
would not tell investigators that he paid her for sex. The FBI has contacted the
former prostitute and is looking into the allegations. Judge Nottingham was
previously investigated for allegedly appearing on a list of clients from another
prostitution business, Denver Players. (See Jeffrey Wolf, Deborah Shermann, and
28
Nicole Yap "Nottingham resigns, says it is in 'public interest'" 9 News.com
10/21/08 http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=102294)
i.) A search warrant was served to Microsoft for email addresses used for
prostitution in connection with the escort service Denver Players or Denver Sugar.
9Wants to Know, a news organization in Colorado, has reported Federal Judge
Edward Nottingham had ties to the escort service that catered to prominent clients
including judges, lawyers, businessmen, athletes and politicians. Judge
Nottingham's full name and personal cell phone number appeared on a list of
clients from a Denver prostitution business. (See Jace Larson posted by Jeffrey
Wolf "New warrant served in connection to prostitution ring"
http://www.9news.com/news/article .aspx?storyid-88440)
j.) The affidavit by the driver of the escort service interviewed by 9 News shows
that he delivered prostitutes on ten different occasions and that most of those
deliveries were made to an address on Steele in Denver. A Steele address was
given by Judge Nottingham at a hearing on his failure to renew his automobile
registration. The second address to which prostitutes for Nottingham were
delivered was not publicly released leading to the possibility that the prostitutes
were delivered to the U.S. Court house in Denver, where it is already established
that Judge Nottingham kept porno on his computer and entertained visitors who
did not have official business with the Court, specifically his ex wife.
146.) The U.S. Marshals provided after hours security for Judge Nottingham and drove
29
him everywhere he went.
147.) The Marshals in Colorado must have known about Judge Nottingham's illegal use
prostitutes and strip clubs before the knowledge became public. The Marshals
knowledge from both public and private sources of Judge Nottingham's illegal
use of prostitutes gave them extra reason to review and correct their records but
they did not.
148.) Judge Nottingham publicly admitted that on 9/5/05, he was too drunk to
remember how he spent $3,000 at a strip club. If he was that drunk, he was too
drunk to drive. The Marshals must have driven Judge Nottingham to the Diamond
Cabaret strip club on 9/5/05 and they must have driven him home.
149.) 9/5/05 was the Monday following the Friday at which Judge Nottingham ordered
the Marshals to jail me without a proper trial and proper paperwork.
150.) I think that Judge Nottingham's tab at various strip clubs, escort services,
brothels, bars, restaurants and other places of entertainment was paid for by other
parties. One reason that I think so is that his financial reports apparently show that
he was living on salary alone. Another is that his third wife found the AMEX
charge to the Diamond Cabaret because she was looking thru his credit card bills
and she was already suspicious because he had shown her porno on his computer
that was part of a "dating service". AP confirmed that former Judge Nottingham
had visited the Diamond Cabaret often enough that he was known there. Yet, his
suspicious ex wife found only one receipt for the Diamond Cabaret and very few
other suspicious receipts. DOl's prosecution of an escort service in New York
showed that they billed credit cards without having possession of the card and
30
other reports show that high end prostitution rings regularly engage in money
laundering by billing with false descriptions and thru third party billing. Since the
Marshals were escorting former Judge Nottingham, I don't see how they could
not have known this. The Marshals are required to observe all laws even while
escorting a drug. Since money laundering is a felony, the Marshals should have
reported any evidence of money laundering that they saw.
TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
151.) The U.S. Marshals effectively arrested me on 9/2/05, although they did not use
those words, when they seized me. They never said "you are under arrest for the
offense of. ..."
152.) The Marshals had no authority under Title 18 § 3050 to arrest me because none of
the conditions applied.
153.) I was then taken to Georgetown County Jail even though I did not meet the
description of a federal prisoner in the contract between the jail and the Marshals.
154.) The Marshals arrest without authority was a willful and wanton deprivation of my
rights, which was accomplished by inadequate record keeping.
TWENTY -SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
155.) The U.S. code regulations for "fugitive" all involve a crime having been
indentified. Either a fugitive is accused of a crime or they are supposed to testify
about a crime.
31
156.) The U.S. Marshals willfully and wantonly conspired to allow me to be treated as a
fugitive when, legally, I was not.
TWENTY -EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
157.) I filed multiple criminal complaints with U.S. Attorneys.
158.) On 2/9/09 I mailed a detailed 32 pages letter to Mr. Holder and the U.S. Attorneys
in Northern Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Colorado detailing criminal
information.
159.) At no time has the USDOJ acknowledged criminal information that I sent to them.
160.) The USDOJ has not acknowledged my 2/9/09 letter even though on 2/19/09 I
fedexed a copy to the U.S. Attorney in Colorado.
161.) The Justice For All Act of 2004 gives me a right to discuss my allegations of
criminal acts and their decisions to prosecute or not prosecute with a U.S.
Attorney but I have been denied that right.
162.) There is jurisdiction for the crimes committed against me in the District of
Columbia, and under § 3771. Crime victims' rights because the Conspiracy
Against Rights was committed in the district, threatening communications were
mailed to me from D.C., and acts of witness intimidation were intended to affect
my actions in the district.
TWENTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
163.) My husband wrote twice to the FBI in Colorado in November 2005 and told them
I was being held without a federal offense being charged. Both he and I called to
32
follow-up. I called the FBI from jail using the jail phone system and told them I
was being held without a federal offense being charged.
164.) The FBI refused to acknowledge our complaint that I was imprisoned without
being charged with an offense recognized by Congress.
165.) The FBI has a statutory duty to report my imprisonment without charges to the
Attorney General but my freedom of information act requests has so far not
unearthed a report. It looks like there may be a possible discrepancy as to the
definition of a civil rights offense and that Congress did not intend that there must
be a discrimination component before 001 will investigate and prosecute. DOl
does prosecute prisoner abuse as a civil rights violation regardless of race.
THIRTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
166.) From 2005 to 2009, I repeatedly contacted DOl. My communications included
the fact that there was a hearing on 9/02/05, at which no DOl representative
attended, one result of which I was that I was incarcerated for over 4 months
which was paid for by DOl. I communicated that there was a hearing on 1/04106,
at which no DOl representative attended, one result of which was that I was
released into the community without bond, supervision, counseling, or medical
care. The U.S. Parole Commission did not supervise me and I was not on parole.
I communicated that there was a hearing on 02102/06, at which no DOl
representative attended, one result of which was an order that I be arrested even if
I was in Wisconsin and which did result in DOl staff (Marshals) coming to my
home. I communicated that there was a hearing on 02/08106, at which no 001
33
representative attended, a part of which involved my being searched and
incarcerated for several hours in a federal building. I communicated that there
was a hearing on 02/14/06, at which no 001 representative attended, a part of
which involved conditions on my release. I communicated that there was a
hearing on 09/22/06, at which no 001 representative attended, a part of which
involved a warrant for my arrest even if I was in Wisconsin and which did result
in 001 staff (Marshals) searching for me and in my eventual incarceration for 22
days.
167.) Out-of-pocket expense to the U.S. government for my illegal incarceration and
transportation must have exceeded $10,000.
168.) The federal code, 28 U.S.c. § 516, reserves conduct of litigation in which the
U.S. government has an interest by attorneys who are not 001 employees, except
for statutory exemptions.
169.) The statutory exemptions require on the record conference with 001 and there
was no such record revealed either thru my repeated open records requests or on
court dockets.
170.) Government prosecutors have a duty to protect the rights of the innocent.
171.) By its silence, 001 illegally allowed non-DOl lawyers to conduct litigation
involving the U.S. government without the participation of 001 lawyers.
THIRTY -FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
172.) When I was in custody of the federal government in the fall of 2005, I filed
motions in the district court that incarcerated me challenging the legality of my
34
incarceration.
173.) By statute, when:
"A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress

claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed
in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was
without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of
the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may
move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the
sentence.
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that
the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be
served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine
the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.
If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the
sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral
attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional
rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the
court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or
resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear
appropriate." (Emphasis supplied) 28 U.S.C. § 2255
174.) I believe that my communications with DOl were adequate for them to
understand that I had contested the incarceration as illegal and therefore they
should have looked for communications from the district court.
175.) The federal public defender in Colorado, Mr. Moore, wrote to me injail that he
could not represent me because I was not accused of a crime.
176.) I again contested the legality of warrants for my arrest in 2006 before both the
District Court of Colorado and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
177.) Again there is no record of court communications to DOl.
178.) Colorado federal public defender Ed Harris was aware in September 2006 that
there was a warrant for my arrest and that it did not reference an Act of Congress.
179.) Wisconsin federal public defender contract agent Richard A Code was aware in
35
February 2006 that there was a warrant for my arrest and that it did not reference
an Act of Congress.
180.) Wisconsin assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson was aware in May 2007 that I
had applied for habeas corpus claiming that the warrant for my arrest did not
reference an Act of Congress.
181.) I believe that the failure of DOl to look for communications from the district
court that I had requested a review of the legality of my incarceration was a
violation of the privacy act because DOl was responsible for the adequacy of
maintaining the functionality of its records including record of contesting
incarceration.
THIRTY -SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
182.) The Privacy Act defines a non-federal agency to include a state agency that
receives records contained in a "system of records" from a source agency
for use in a matching program. (See 552a Records maintained on
individuals (a) Definitions (10) "non-federal agency". The Colorado Office
of Attorney Regulation Counsel may be defined as such an agency since its
Rule 8.4. Misconduct defines "professional misconduct" to include "commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice... engage in any conduct that directly, intentionally, and
wrongfully harms others." By definition these include federal crimes. The U.S.
36
government relies on Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel and their
staff is paid partially to comply with The Privacy Act.
183.) I wrote repeatedly to the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
and complained that various lawyers had threatened me with administrative and
criminal prosecution in order to gain advantage in a civil matter and that that
violated their Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.5.
184.) Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel repeatedly misrepresented to
me, as late as March 2009, that no statutory basis is needed to threaten and jail a
person. As is required for non-federal agencies, Colorado Office of Attorney
Regulation Counsel did not establish rules of conduct for the maintenance of their
system of records with appropriate safeguards to prevent substantial hardship,
embarrassment, inconvenience or unfairness to myself. In fact, it wrote to some
of the individuals I complained about and said that their threats of physical harm
and imprisonment to me, made without a criminal complaint, were allowable, and
after receiving those Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
communications those individuals made new threats.
185.) I also complained to Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel that a state
prosecutor prosecuted me without an affidavit of probable cause, which was
obstruction of justice, but Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
communicated to both she and I that prosecution without probable cause is
allowable, and does not require investigation, even though that is prohibited by
their rule 3.8a. The ABA recognizes that there are constitutional rights involved in
zoning administration but Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
communicated that those rights need not be recognized.
37
186.) I also complained to Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel that various
Colorado lawyers had billed their clients for ex parte conferences. That violates
their regulation" It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (e) state or imply
an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve
results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;"
(Colorado Rules of Professional Misconduct Rule 8.4) (see
http://www .cobar .org/index.cfm/ID!20519/subID/22571/CETHII)
187.) DOl involved Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel in its programs as
a nonfederal state agency receiving criminal information. Thus the Privacy Act §
522 (e) Agency requirements should apply including that it maintain all records
with accuracy and completeness and makes sure that the records it disseminates
are accurate and complete. 001 relied on Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel and did not pay for an alternative regulatory agency. Since DOl relied
on Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel to comply with the Privacy
Act, I should be able to also. The way that Colorado Attorney Regulation
Counsel maintained its records was not accurate and timely enough to protect my
legal interests, which was one of its statutory purposes.
THIRTY -THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
188.) Under a similar rationale, the Washington D.C. Board of Professional
Responsibility is also subject to the Privacy Act.
189.) A letter dated 5/07/07 was mailed to me from a private attorney. He claimed that
he was appointed as Special Bar Counsel pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI section
38
19(b)". His letter did not cc the Board of Professional Responsibility.
190.) I had complained to the Board of Professional Responsibility that another attorney
in the District of Columbia area was president and CEO of an insurance company
that was illegally doing business in the states without registering with state
insurance regulators. It was using an address in Bermuda, which from my
research, houses only an administrative assistant.
191.) It is professional misconduct in D.C. to "(c) Engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation". I think that for a lawyer in D.C.
to manage an insurance company doing business in the States without registering
with state authorities meets that description.
192.) On receipt of the letter I called the lawyers' office where a phone receptionist
(whose name I saved) told me that he was a friend of the lawyer I had complained
about.
193.) I believe this violates DO]' s rules about recipient agency record keeping.
THIRTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
194.) I had been involved in litigation in Minnesota. There, the attorney a.) Wrote to
the federal judge and requested an ex parte conference regarding a Non Pro Se
order and b.) Sent me a bill for a conference with the judge's former law clerks,
which he identified by name.
195.) I wrote to the Minnesota Attorney Regulation Counsel complaining about these
communications. Federal judges are limited in their allowed ex parte conferences
and ex law clerks are absolutely forbidden by the U.S. government from
39
conferring about how their former boss might react.
196.) The Minnesota Attorney Regulation Counsel sent me a letter claiming that that
was not a violation of their rules.
197.) I believe this also violates DOl's rules about recipient agency record keeping.
THIRTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
198.) On 12/10107, I wrote to the U.S. Marshals in both Madison and Denver and asked
them for a copy of the executed warrant that was used to imprison me in May
2007. They were supposed to return that to the court but they never did. They
never sent a copy to me either even though I specifically requested.
199.) That was over one year ago. The Marshals should have acknowledged the
illegality of that and the other incarcerations by admitting that they didn't return
an executed warrant and why.
THIRTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
200.) The lustice for All Act extends a right to best, or at least reasonable, efforts to
protect from crime. I repeatedly notified DOl of crimes against myself and the
only recognition I received, consisted of an anonymous DOl email suggesting I
seek protection from the State DOl. The crimes I complained about involved acts
in different states and foreign insurance companies that were acting without state
regulation.
201.) DOl has a duty to perform its function to the best of its ability. It cannot simply
refuse to hear a criminal complaint, nor multiple criminal complaints with new
40
cnmes.
202.) DOJ knew I was repeatedly injured as a part of Witness Intimidation and Witness
Retaliation and they knew that the crimes involved government corruption. DOJ
also knew that I was injured by a judge whom engaged in obstruction of justice on
multiple occasions. DOl has a specific statutory mandate to investigate such
crimes and they chose not to.
203.) I wrote to the Victim's Assistance Center and asked for assistance. They wrote
back that assistance was denied because there is no criminal prosecution.
However, the plain language of the statute, the Federal Judicial Conference
memorandum, and a DOl Guide for U.S. Attorneys regarding the lustice for All
Act of 2004, all refer to victim's rights existing on the basis of allegations before
prosecution is commenced. Thus, Victim's Assistance must make its best efforts
to help me, and my family, in compliance with the lustice for All Act and
Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act.
204.) DOl Victim's Assistance must manage its records so as to recognize victim's
allegations and extend assistance based on them. See U.S.C. § 552 (d):
"Access to Records (3) (e) Agency Requirements Each Agency that

maintains a system of records shall ....(2) collect information to the
greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the
information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's
rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal Programs."
205.) Thus, because there are government victim's programs in which my husband and
I wish to participate DOl is required by The Privacy Act to collect our
information.
41
,
206.) Not only must it collect the information about our allegations of criminal conduct
directed towards ourselves, it must do so to the "greatest extent practicable
directly from the subject individual" even when the information may result in
adverse determinations, i.e. criminal prosecution and it should do so on a form.
Thus, in order to fulfill its statutory obligations to us under the Justice for All Act
and the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act, DOJ should subpoena the parties
whom we allege committed federal crimes that injured us. The Privacy Act
requires the sharing of our Victim's Rights allegations with the FBI and DOJ
when request so that we may be eligible for federal programs.
DAMAGES
207.) For years we have been subjected to threats of violence and economic
disadvantage, conspiracy to damage reputation, and baseless. The defense of
ourselves has occupied our lives and interfered with every aspect of our lives.
208.) The threats and seizure were a necessary part of a successful extortionist scheme
promulgated by former Judge Edward Nottingham. The result of this extortionist
scheme is that we lost both the economic value of our claims and the intangible
value of the airing of disputed facts, which related to our character and our
professional qualifications as graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
209.) We had direct expenses and economic losses from the seizure and harassment by
the marshals. These economic losses included damages to two businesses that we
started, owned, and operated, and interference in the production of new economic
42
. Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 43 of 47
products.
210.) While in custody of the U.S. Marshals, Mrs. Sieverding was subjected to physical
assaults that had no government purpose since she was not even accused of a
federal offense.
211.) I have nightmares about the U.S. Marshals every night. I think that part of that is
the refusal of my government to acknowledge what happened and to treat me with
dignity.
212.) My personal and my professional reputations, and my employability, were
severely damaged as a result of the illegal seizures as well as the failure of the
FBI to correct its incorrect records.
213.) My physician has stated that my leading medical risk factor is stress.
214.) Because of the threats and illegal seizures, I was unable to properly pursue my
civil actions. I couldn't go to the law library and Court officials were prejudiced
against me.
215.) The City of Steamboat Springs on the Internet starting 9/05/05 published the
illegal incarcerations and invalid warrants. They were not described as illegal or
invalid. The Internet publications by the City of Steamboat Springs include:
a. "Mr. Metternich reported his work on the following: 1. The Federal

District Court held a contempt hearing regarding Kay Sieverding. She
refused to dismiss the cases that she filed and was arrested. Mr. Sieverding
dismissed the cases but later reneged and said
He will not dismiss the cases; so he may be arrested as well." (See
http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2005/09/06/ccmn0906.pdf)
b. Mr. Metternich ... "Provided an update on the Sieverding case noting
43
• Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 44 of 47
that on February 2,2006 a judge ordered that she be arrested again and
brought back to Colorado for a February 14,2006 court date. To date she
has not been arrested." (See
http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2006/02/07/02 07 2006 cc
mn.pdD
216.) The unauthorized release of incorrect records as to my legal status damaged my
relationship with residents and former residents of the City of Steamboat Springs,
CO. That was the location in which my husband grew up and where we had
planned to spend most of our adult lives.
217.) The incorrect records maintained and released by the U.S. Marshals interfere with
my getting relief from a $102,000 invalid judgment by former Judge Nottingham
that was issued without the required due process and without a statutory basis.
218.) As an indirect result of the extortion, there was no public airing of my allegations
of permit fraud and government corruption involving the City of Steamboat
Springs and they continued in practices which Routt County assessor Mike
Kerrigan described as "enforcement of the regulations is lax" and "there are many
illegal buildings". As a result of that a man named David Engle burned to death
in June 2008. (See
http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2008/jun/17/fire_death_questions_linger/
"The Steamboat Pilot & Today Fire death questions linger"). I don't know
whether I have a legal claim for emotional distress because of the preventable
burning death of David Engle but the image of him burning to death in a dwelling
unit that didn't comply with the safety codes or zoning does bother me.
219.) I am only 54. Many people my age are at the height of their careers. I actually
have potentially good professional credentials because I published a book about
44
• Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 45 of 47
>,
municipal bond analysis, a topic again current. I'm interested in land use law and
have a potential doctoral thesis topic. Since I already have a Master's degree in
city planning, (from MIT a highly rated program) perhaps I could find a program
to earn another degree and thereby improve my income. In order to pursue this
possibility, I need to have the incorrect records about myself corrected.
AFFIDAVIT BY DAVID SIEVERDING
(All facts alleged by Kay Sieverding should apply to all counts)
220.) The facts alleged by my wife are true. Verona Police Officer Dart did tell me that
my wife was wanted for federal obstruction when he grabbed her without a
warrant on 5/10/07. Randy Sieffert, and or Paul Fever, a U.S. Marshal, did call
me and ask for my wife's location.
221.) Jurisdiction in the United States Court District of Columbia is under THE
PRIVACY ACT OF 1975,5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended and construed as a broad
remedial statute or under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy.
222.) As a result of the facts alleged above, I was subjected to threatening
communications and I was extorted.
223.) Being forced to burden and delay my civil complaints damaged me. I was
deprived of the economic contribution, sexual relationships, and general attention
of my wife Kay Sieverding. Seeing my wife seized and assaulted by government
agents emotionally distressed me. I had direct out of pocket expense caused by
the events above. My reputation was damaged. I was distracted from my
45
•
economic activities by the need to protect and rescue my wife from an illegal
Conspiracy Against Rights, which agents of the V.S. Marshals and DOl directly
participated in.
PRAYER
We pray that the Court will award both injunctive relief and monetary damages to
us. The injunctive relief should include correcting the FBI records to show that Kay
Sieverding was not convicted of or held for a federal offense and the issuing of a
government statement to the effect that she is presumed innocent and her incarceration
was illegal. We would like our experience with extortion by a government official to be
acknowledged by DOl National Crime Victim's Rights Week coming up soon on April
26,2009. (See http://www .ojp.usdoj .gov/ovc/ncvrw/welcome .html). Also, the V.S.
Attorney should meet with us to discuss our criminal complaint and their prosecutorial
decisions.
We read Stephen Hatfill's privacy complaint. Like Hatfill, Mrs. Sieverding was
subjected to years of criminal accusations without a formal process in which evidence
was presented. Kay Sieverding was also extorted, seized and assaulted by her own
government. We believe that both David and Kay Sieverding were extorted by a federal
government official (former judge Edward Nottingham).
David and Kay Sieverding ask that the V.S. 001 buy them each a virtually
identical annuity to the annuity DOl bought Stephen Hatfill.
46
We believe that the government can recover the funds thru criminal forfeiture if it
chooses to prosecute the facts described in Kay Sieverding's 02/09/09 letter to the DOl.
(See 18 U.S.c. § 241, § 242, § 245, § 371, § 872, § 873, § 875, § 876, § 1503, § 1506, §
1512, § 1513, § 1951, § 1952, § 1341, § 1343)(We will update that.)
We believe that a public acknowledgment of the illegality of the acts by the U oS 0
Marshals and DOl is required for the security of other U oS. Citizens 0
~ ~ ~~l\at
e are made under penalty of perjury under U.S Law. 0
1<,',u<'\
/) d
yVj~;-"i ....A"A-r-
so~ve
h /
, ',l,. ( ,-~ ....... '.
S./ Kay Sieverding, 3/24/09
641 Basswood Ave. Verona, WI 53593 608 848 5721
sieverding@alumomitoedll, kaYosieverding@alumomit.edll, davidosieverdingC(1igmail.com,
kaysieverdillgCq) aol.com
47
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 1-1 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44
(Rev.1/0S DC)
I (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS ...
.----------------------------------------------, ,----------------------------------------------
:David and Kay Sieverding : :United States Government :
~----------------------------------~~~:
I I
I ,
~---------------------------------------
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT
I
Dane County WI (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCA nON OF THF TR ArT nJ'
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
-
(e) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
---------------------------------------------~ Case: 1:09-cv-00562
,,,
I
:Mr. and Mrs. David and Kay Sieverding (pro se) : Assigned To : Bates, John D.
:641 Basswood Ave. ("\I) ~p pnr-.. : Assign. Date: 3/25/2009 ,,
:Verona, WI 53593 "-\J ~ ~ : ,
:608 848 5735
~ : l
Description: FOIA/Privacy Act I
,
-,
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
0 I u.s. Government 03 Federal QuestIOn

PTF DFT PTF DFT
(t9 Plaintiff
2 US. Go'omm'"
Defendant
0
(U S Government Not a Party)
4 DIversIty
(Indicate CItizenshIp of
Parties m ttem III)
CItizen of thIs State
Cttlzen of Another State
CItizen or Subject of a
0 I
0 2 0 2
0 3 0 3
0 I Incorporated or Pnncipal Place
of Busmess m ThIS State
Incorporated and Pnnclpal Place

of Busmess m Another State
0
0
4
5
0
0
4
ForeIgn Country Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT

(Place a X in one cateeorv, A-N, that best represents your cause of action and one in a correspondin~ Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining
Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary
Injunction
o 151 Medicare Act
o 410 Antitrust o 310 Airplane Any nature of suit from any category may
o 315 Airplane Product Liability
Social Security:
o be selected for this category of case
o 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
861 RIA «1395ft)
D 862 Black Lung (923)
assignment.
o 330 Federal Employers Liability
o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)
0340 Marine
o o 864 ssm Title XVI
'(If Antitrust, then A governs)'
o
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
o 865 RSI (405(g)
Other Statutes
D 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability o 891 Agricultural Acts
D 360 Other Personal Injury o
o 362 Medical Malpractice
o
892 Economic Stabilization Act
o 365 Product Liability
o
893 Environmental Matters
894 Energy Allocation Act
D 368 Asbestos Product Liability o 890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is Involved)
o E. General Civil (Other) OR OF. Pro Se General Civil

Real Property Bankruptcy Forfeiture/Penalty
0210 Land Condemnation 0422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 610 Agriculture o 470 Racketeer Influenced &
0220 Foreclosure o 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 o 620 Other Food &Drug Corrupt Organizations
0230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment o 625 Drug Related Seizure o 480 Consumer Credit
0240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions of Property 21 USC 881 o 490 Cable/Satellite TV
0245 Tort Product Liability o 535 Death Penalty o 630 Liquor Laws 0810 Selective Service
0290 All Other Real Property o 540 Mandamus & Other o 640 RR & Truck o 850 Securities/Commodities/
o 550 Civil Rights o 650 Airline Regs Exchange
Personal Property D 555 Prison Condition o 660 Occupational o 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC
0370 Other Fraud SafetylHealth 3410
0371 Truth in Lending Property Rights 0690 Other o 900 Appeal of fee determination
0380 Other Personal Property Damage o 820 Copyrights under equal access to Justice
0385 Property Damage Product Liability 0830 Patent o 950 Constitutionality of State
o 840 Trademark Other Statutes Statutes
o 400 State Reapportionment D 890 Other Statutory Actions (if
Federal Tax Suits o 430 Banks & Banking not administrative agency
o 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or D 450 Commerce/ICC review or Privacy Act
defendant Rates/etc.
o 871 IRS-Third Party 26 o 460 Deportation
USC 7609
-
,t).'
0 G. Habeas' Corpus/
2255
0 H. Employment
Discrimination
( FOIAIPRIVACY
ACT
0 J. Student Loan
o 152 Recovery of Defaulted

o 530 Habeas Corpus-General o 442 Civil Rights-Employment ~5 Freedom of Information Act Student Loans
o 510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, oOther Statutory Actions (excluding veterans)
national origin, (if Privacy Act)
discrimination, disability
age, religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)' *(If pro se, select this deck)'
0 K. Labor/ERISA 0 L. Other Civil Rights 0 M. Contract ON. Three-Judge Court

(non-employment) (non-employment) 110 Insurance 441 Civil Rights-Voting
0 0
0 120 Marine (if Voting Rights Act)
0 710 Fair Labor Standards Act o 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 0 130 Miller Act
0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 0 140 Negotiable Instrument
0 730 Labor/Mgmt. Reporting & o 443 Housing/Accommodations 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment &
Disclosure Act 0444 Welfare Enforcement of Judgment
o 740 Labor Railway Act o 440 Other Civil Rights 0 153 Recovery of Overpayment of
o 790 Other Labor Litigation o 445 American wIDisabilities- Veteran's Benefits
o 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act Employment 0 160 Stockholder's Suits
o 446 Americans w/Disabilities- 0 190 Other Contracts
Other 0 195 Contract Product Liability
0 196 Franchise
®
IGIN
, . Original 0 2 Removed o 3 Remanded from o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred from o 6 Multi district o 7 Appeal to
Proceeding from State Appellate Court or Reopened another district Litigation District Judge
Court (specify) from Mag. Judge
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ ~ __ 1..1.:~ ~il!iC?~ __ : Check YE only tema plamt
COMPLAINT o ACTION UNDER F.R C.P 23 JURY DEMAND: YES N I
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See mstructlOn) YES D es, pleas complete related case form.
IF ANY
DATE 3/24/09 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for CiVIl Cover Sheet
Thc JS-44 clvll cover sheet and the mformation contained herem neither replaces nor supplements the fihngs and service of pleadmgs or other papers as reqUired by
law, except as proVided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the JudiCial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reqUired for the use of the Clerk of
Court for the purpose of IOltlatmg the clVll docket sheet. Consequently a clVlI cover sheet IS submitted to the Clerk of Court for each ciVil complamt filed. LIsted below are lips
for completmg the CIVil cover sheet. These lips comcide With the Roman Numerals on the Cover Sheet.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of reSidence: Use 11001 to mdlcate plamllffls reSident of
Washmgton, D.C., 88888 if plaintiff is resident of the United States but not of Washmgton, D.C., and 99999 If plamllff IS outSide the UOlted States
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This secllon IS completed.Q.!l!y If diversity ofclllzenship was selected as the BaSIS of JurisdictIOn under SectIOn
II
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT The assignment of aJudge to your case WIll depend on the category you selcct that best represents the
IW.!lll!!:Y cause of acllon found m your complaint You may select only 2ill: category. You must also select 2ill: correspondmg nature of SUit found under
the category of case.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: CIte the US Clv1l Statute under which you are filing and wnte a bnefstatement of the primary cause
VIII. RELATED CASES, IF ANY: If you mdicated that there IS a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtamed from the Clerk's
Office.
Because of the need for accurate and complete mformatlOn, you should ensure the accuracy of the mformallon proVided pnor to signing the form
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
DAVID SIEVERDING, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-00562 (JDB)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR

ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), by and through undersigned
counsel, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the complaint filed by pro se Plaintiffs David and
Kay Sieverding in the above-styled matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Alternatively, Defendant submits that summary judgment in its favor on all claims is
appropriate. In support of this motion, Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the attached
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine
Dispute, and the Declarations of William E. Bordley, United States Marshals Service Associate
General Counsel, Paul Sever, Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal, and Steven D. Wallisch,
Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal
Pro se Plaintiffs are advised that if they fail to respond to this Motion the Court may dismiss
their action. See Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In this Circuit, a pro se
plaintiff has been given “reasonable opportunity” to respond to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion converted
into a motion for summary judgment when notice of the consequences of failing to respond is given,
as here. See Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Because this is a dispositive
motion, Defendant has not sought Plaintiffs’ consent. See LCvR 7(m).
A proposed Order consistent with this motion is attached hereto.
Dated: June 01, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar #415793
Acting United States Attorney
/s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar #434122
Assistant United States Attorney
/s/ David C. Rybicki

DAVID C. RYBICKI, D.C. Bar #976836
Civil Division
555 4th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone: (202) 353-4024
Fax: (202) 514-8780

)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
For the reasons stated below, Defendant the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or
“Defendant”) hereby respectfully submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In the alternative, Defendant submits that summary judgment in
its favor on all claims is appropriate.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs David and Kay Sieverding (“Plaintiffs”) assert a welter of claims against the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), and the
DOJ alleging violations of the Privacy Act (“Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and of unspecified duties to
investigate Plaintiffs’ various allegations of wrongdoing by a federal district judge, the FBI, the
USMS, and the DOJ. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief consisting of “correcting the FBI records
[pertaining to Kay Sieverding] to show that Kay Sieverding was not convicted of or held for a
1
federal offense and the issuing of a government statement to the effect that she is presumed innocent
and her incarceration was illegal.” Complaint at 46. Plaintiffs also request that “the U.S. DOJ buy
them each a virtually identical annuity to the annuity DOJ bought Stephen [sic] Hatfill.” Id.
(emphasis in original).
First, Mr. Sieverding lacks both Article III and prudential standing to assert claims under the
Act because the challenged records pertain to his wife, not to him. All Privacy Act claims asserted
by Mr. Sieverding should thus be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Second, Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claims against the FBI fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the FBI records systems relevant to this action are exempt from the Act’s
access, amendment, and maintenance provisions. The FBI additionally has no duty to investigate
Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing or report them to the Attorney General. The appropriate tool
for obtaining access to and amendment of records maintained by the FBI concerning Mrs.
Sieverding is an expungement proceeding, not a Privacy Act lawsuit.
Third, Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claims against the USMS fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the USMS records systems relevant to this action are exempt from the Act’s
access, amendment, and maintenance provisions. Moreover, the USMS did not violate the Act’s
disclosure requirements when it released certain records pertaining to Mrs. Sieverding to her
congressional representative. Nor did the USMS violate the Act’s prohibition on maintenance of
records describing First Amendment activities because the records Plaintiffs challenge do not
describe First Amendment activity and were generated in the course of authorized law enforcement
activity. Further, electronic mail generated by USMS personnel does not violate the Act because
the content and method of transmission of the mail were lawful. Finally, the USMS cannot incur
2
liability under the Act with respect to the content of records it did not produce.
Fourth, the DOJ records systems pertinent to this action do not violate the Privacy Act, as
Plaintiffs contend. Additionally, like the FBI and the USMS, the DOJ is not required to investigate
Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing. Nor is the DOJ required to amend records produced by the
USMS or by local law enforcement agencies, to collect personal information from Plaintiffs, or to
share such information with other agencies.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs have beleaguered federal and state courts alike with abusive, contumacious, and
frivolous litigation for years. Since 2002, Plaintiffs have filed at least twenty lawsuits in the federal
courts, including four in this Court.1 In a Memorandum Order dismissing sua sponte two lawsuits
brought by Plaintiffs in 2005, Judge Urbina observed that
[e]very time a court rules against the plaintiffs, they file a new action
based on the same events, typically adding as new parties any
individual misfortunate enough to have crossed the Sieverdings’
judicial path. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ penchant for filing a suit every
time a new individual becomes involved in an existing suit is
reminiscent of the lawsuit in Charles’ [sic] Dickens’ novel, Bleak
House, in which ‘[s]cores of persons have deliriously found
themselves made parties...without knowing how or why.’
1
See Civil Action No. 02-00287 (W.D. Wis.); Civil Action No. 02-00395 (W.D. Wis.); Civil
Action No. 02-00815 (D. Colo.); Civil Action No. 02-01950 (D. Colo.); Civil Action No. 02-01950
(D. Wis.); Civil Action No. 03-01949 (D. Colo.); Civil Action No. 04-04317 (D. Minn.); Civil
Action No. 05-00002 (D. Minn.); Civil Action No. 05-01283 (D.D.C.); Civil Action No. 05-01672
(D.D.C.); Civil Action No. 05-02122 (D.D.C.); Civil Action No. 05-02510 (D. Kan.); Civil Action
No. 05-03766 (N.D. Ill.); Civil Action No. 06-02055 (D. Colo.); Civil Action No. 06-02245 (D.
Colo.); Civil Action No. 07-00152 (W.D. Wis.); Civil Action No. 08-00252 (W.D. Wis.); Civil
Action No. 08-00324 (W.D. Wis.); Civil Action No. 08-01064 (D. Minn.); and the instant action,
Civil Action No. 09-00562 (D.D.C.). This list omits Plaintiffs’ numerous filings in the federal Courts
of Appeals and in state courts.
3
Sieverding v. American Bar Ass’n, 439 F. Supp. 2d 120, 122 n.2 (D.D.C. 2006) (alteration in
original and citation omitted). The Tenth Circuit, too, has condemned Plaintiffs’ pattern of “abusive
litigation practices,” Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass’n, 2009 WL 256388 at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 4,
2009) (unpublished), and recently upheld a Rule 11 sanction imposed by the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado in the amount of $101,864 for “frivolous and abusive litigation,”
id. at *1.
Their litigious enthusiasm unabated, Plaintiffs return to this Court with a rambling, verbose,
and intermittently incoherent forty-seven-page Complaint and a more modest Amended Complaint2
alleging violations of the Privacy Act by the FBI, the USMS and the DOJ. Ironically, one of
Plaintiffs’ many frivolous lawsuits sowed the seeds of the instant litigation.
In 2002, Plaintiffs filed a 106-page complaint related to a zoning dispute with their former
neighbors in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In October 2003, a
magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss the case with prejudice and order
Plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs and fees. See Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass’n, 2003 WL
22400218 (D. Colo. Oct. 14, 2003) (unpublished). Adopting those recommendations in a March 19,
2004, order, the district court additionally enjoined Plaintiffs from initiating further litigation
regarding the same factual nexus without first obtaining counsel.
Flouting the district court’s order, in 2004 and 2005 Plaintiffs contumaciously filed actions
related to the subject matter of the original lawsuit in federal district courts in the District of
2
Plaintiffs ostensibly seek to use the Amended Complaint to introduce evidence in support
of allegations presented in the Complaint. Defendant thus surmises that the Amended Complaint
was intended to supplement – rather than to replace – the Complaint. The analysis Defendant sets
forth in this Memorandum addresses claims made in both pleadings.
4
Minnesota, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Columbia, in Colorado state court, and
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At a hearing on September 2, 2005,
the Colorado federal district court found Plaintiffs in contempt of court for violating the March 2004
injunction. See Minute Order, Civil Action No. 02-01950-EWN-OES (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2005). The
district judge then gave Plaintiffs the choice to dismiss the remaining lawsuits or go to jail. Mr.
Sieverding acquiesced and withdrew his name from the still-pending lawsuits. Mrs. Sieverding
refused and was jailed. See Declaration of Stephen D. Wallisch (“Wallisch Declaration”) ¶ 5-6.
At a January 4, 2006, show-cause hearing, the district judge again ordered Mrs. Sieverding
to dismiss the remaining lawsuits filed in violation of the March 2004 order and released her from
custody on the condition that she dismiss the lawsuits by January 11, 2006. After being released,
however, Mrs. Sieverding once again ignored the district court’s order and failed to dismiss the
lawsuits. When she failed to appear at a status conference on February 2, 2006, a warrant was issued
for her arrest. Mrs. Sieverding surrendered herself to the United States Marshals in Madison,
Wisconsin, on February 8, 2006. See Wallisch Declaration ¶ 7. Later that day she appeared before
a magistrate judge at a preliminary examination at which she promised to appear at a contempt
hearing in the Colorado federal district court on February 14, 2006. See United States v. Sieverding,
Case No. 06-0019M-X-01 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2006).
At the February 14, 2006, contempt hearing the district judge again ordered Mrs. Sieverding
to dismiss lawsuits pending in this Court and in a Kansas federal district court and to provide proof
that she had done so. Yet again, Mrs. Sieverding promised to dismiss the lawsuits. This time,
however, Mrs. Sieverding obeyed the district court order – for a while at least.
Less than three months later, on May 8, 2006, Mrs. Sieverding contumaciously filed a notice
5
of appeal in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in violation of the district
court’s order. And again, on August 1, 2006, Mrs. Sieverding contumaciously filed motions to
reconsider in three lawsuits which had been pending in this Court. In response, defendants in the
original Colorado action – who were also named in the Kansas and District of Columbia actions –
moved for a new show-cause order as to why Mrs. Sieverding should not be subject to a renewed
contempt citation. On August 15, 2006, the district judge ordered Mrs. Sieverding to appear in court
on September 22, 2006. Mrs. Sieverding failed to appear and a warrant was issued for her arrest on
September 25, 2006. She was ultimately detained by the Village of McFarland, Wisconsin, Police
Department on May 10, 2007, and was held in the Dane County Jail until the USMS transported her
to Denver on May 31, 2007. See Declaration of Paul Sever (“Sever Declaration”) ¶ 6-7.
At a contempt hearing the next day, the district judge ordered that any future filings by Mrs.
Sieverding related to the subject matter of the original action would be rejected.3 At the conclusion
of the hearing Mrs. Sieverding was released from USMS custody.
Plaintiffs filed this action on March 25, 2009, alleging, inter alia, that the generation and
maintenance of records by the FBI, the USMS, and the DOJ related to Mrs. Sieverding’s
investigation, arrest, detention, and transportation violate the Privacy Act.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
The Privacy Act “is primarily designed to provide individuals with more control over the
gathering, dissemination, and accuracy of information about themselves contained in government
files.” Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d 1090, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citing Greentree v. United States
3
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit modified the district court’s
order, restricting it to filings made in the District of Colorado. See Sieverding v. Colorado Bar
Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir. 2006).
6
Customs Serv., 674 F.2d 74, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). This Court has explained that the Act constitutes
“a code of fair information practices” that applies to federal agencies which use a “system of
records”4 to collect, store, and disseminate personal information about [individuals].” Doe v. United
States, 821 F.2d 694, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Smiertke v. United States Dep’t of Treasury,
447 F. Supp. 221, 224 (D.D.C. 1978) (alteration in original)). The Act requires federal executive
agencies to “maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about
any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably
necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). To
promote this mandate, the Act gives individuals the right to access agency records pertaining to
them. See id. § 552a(d)(2). Upon request, the agency must “permit [an individual]...to review and
have a copy made of all or any portion [of the requested record] in a form comprehensible to him”
and must “permit the individual to request amendment of a record pertaining to him....” Id.
§ 552a(d)(1) & (2). Individuals also have a right to request review of an agency decision if the
agency refuses to amend a challenged record. See id. § 552(d)(3). Within thirty days of the request,
the agency must complete its review and make a final determination regarding any refusal to amend.
See id. § 552(d)(3).
The Act provides civil remedies for individuals who contend that their rights to accurate
recordkeeping or amendment have been violated. Subsection (g) authorizes a private right of action
in a district court whenever an agency “makes a determination under subsection (d)(3)...not to
4
The Act defines “system of records” as “a group of any records under the control of any
agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying
number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5).
7
amend an individual’s record in accordance with his request” or when an agency “refuses to comply
with an individual request under subsection (d)(1)” to access pertinent records. Id. § 552a(g)(1)(A)
& (B). Individuals also may obtain relief if an agency “fails to maintain any record concerning any
individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure
fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or
benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, and consequently a
determination is made which is adverse to the individual....” Id. § 552a(g)(1)(C). In the event of
a lawsuit, the Act authorizes a district court to review de novo the agency’s classification or
amendment decisions and to order the agency to amend the challenged records when warranted. See
id. § 552a(g)(2)(A). Individuals who request money damages, costs, or attorney’s fees under
Subsection (g)(1)(C) must prove actual damages resulting from violation of the Act and must
demonstrate that the agency acted intentionally or willfully. See id. § 552a(g)(4).
An individual’s rights to access and amendment of personal records under the Act are not
absolute, however. Subsection (j) allows the head of an agency to promulgate rules exempting any
system of records maintained by the agency from any provision of the Act if the system of records
is
maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its

principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of
criminal laws...and which consists of (A) information compiled for
the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged
offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of
arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing,
confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B)
information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation,
including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with
an identifiable individual; or (C) reports identifiable to an individual
compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal
laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision.
8
Id. § 552a(j)(2); see also Fischer v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 596 F. Supp. 2d 34, 45 (D.D.C.
2009) (“Section (j)(2) of the Privacy Act permits an agency to exempt from disclosure criminal
investigative records systems, provided that the principal function of the agency is the enforcement
of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend
criminals....”). Agency heads may also promulgate rules exempting any system of records from
Subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and (f) of the Act if the system of records contains
“investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope
of subsection (j)(2) of this section....” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(2).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
I. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
“On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Monument
Reality LLC v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 535 F. Supp. 2d 60, 67 (D.D.C. 2008). “In
determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
may either consider the complaint alone, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s
resolution of disputed facts.” Best v. United States, 522 F. Supp. 2d 252, 254-55 (D.D.C. 2007).
The Court has an “affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its
jurisdictional authority,” Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9,
13 (D.D.C. 2001), and in doing so may consult materials outside of the pleadings as the Court deems
appropriate, see Boening v. CIA, 579 F. Supp. 2d 166, 169-70 (D.D.C. 2008). The Court “must
dismiss a claim if it does not possess subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute due
9
to a defendant’s immunity from suit.” Oster v. Republic of South Africa, 530 F. Supp. 2d 92, 96
(D.D.C. 2007).
II. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
On motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule
12(b)(6), the Court will dismiss a claim if the complaint fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007),
abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2009 WL 1361536 at *13 (May 18, 2009).
Although “[d]etailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a plaintiff must furnish “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Martin v. Arc of Dist. of Columbia, 541 F. Supp. 2d 77, 81 (D.D.C.
2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The facts alleged in the complaint “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” or must be sufficient “to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will...be a context-
specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, 2009 WL 1361536 at *13. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement,
but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. at *12 (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). The court “need not accept inferences unsupported by facts in the
10
complaint, nor must the court accept [Plaintiff’s] legal conclusions.” Id. (citing Kowal v. MCI
Comm’cns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence demonstrate that
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial
responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may successfully support its summary
judgment motion by identifying those portions of “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
In determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude
summary judgment, the court must regard the non-movant’s statements as true and accept all
evidence and make all inferences in the non-movant’s favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The non-movant, however, must establish more than the “mere existence
of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. “If the evidence is merely colorable,
or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50. Summary
judgment is appropriate if the non-movant fails to offer “evidence on which the jury could
reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Id. at 252.
ARGUMENT
I. MR. SIEVERDING LACKS STANDING TO ASSERT PRIVACY ACT CLAIMS ON

HIS WIFE’S BEHALF
A plaintiff asserting a claim of unlawful government action must satisfy the three
11
requirements of Article III standing: injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. See Renal
Physicians Ass’n v. United States Dept’ of Health & Human Servs., 489 F.3d 1267, 1272 (D.C. Cir.
2007). Injury-in-fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (1) concrete and
particularized rather than abstract or generalized, and (2) actual or imminent rather than remote,
speculative, conjectural or hypothetical.” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759-60 (D.C. Cir.
2008). In addition to Article III’s requirements, a plaintiff must also satisfy requirements of
prudential standing and demonstrate that the injury alleged falls within the zone of interests
protected or regulated by the statute at issue. Humane Soc’y of the United States v. United States
Postal Serv., 2009 WL 1097413 at *11 (D.D.C. April 23, 2009) (citation omitted).
Mr. Sieverding lacks both Article III and prudential standing to assert Privacy Act claims
on his wife’s behalf. The plain text of the Act’s access, amendment, and maintenance provisions
at issue here denotes that relief is available only to individuals who request action be taken with
respect to records about themselves maintained by covered agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2)
(each agency that maintains a system of records shall “permit the individual to request amendment
of a record pertaining to him....”); (d)(3) (agencies shall “permit the individual who disagrees with
the refusal of the agency to amend his record....”); (e)(5) (describing standards of record
maintenance with respect to records used in making a determination about the individual who is the
subject of the challenged record); (g)(1)(A) (authorizing a civil action by an individual who is the
subject of the challenged record); (g)(1)(C) (authorizing a civil action by an individual who is the
subject of the record allegedly responsible for an adverse action having been taken with respect to
the subject of the record). Because the records challenged in this action all pertain to Mrs.
Sieverding – not to her husband – Mr. Sieverding lacks a legally cognizable interest under the Act
12
to challenge those records. The interests Mr. Sieverding alleges were violated by the Defendant fall
outside the zone of interests protected by the Act, namely, the right of an individual to ensure the
accuracy of records maintained by federal executive agencies pertaining only to the indivdual who
is the subject of the records. Thus, because Plaintiffs fail to allege that Mr. Sieverding is the subject
of any records challenged here, he lacks standing to assert claims arising out of the alleged
inaccuracy of those records or out of the methods by which the Defendant maintains those records.5
Accordingly, all claims under the Act alleged by Mr. Sieverding should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THE FBI UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
Plaintiffs allege the FBI violated the Act’s amendment and maintenance provisions by
failing to maintain accurate records pertaining to Mrs. Sieverding and by refusing to amend those
records according to Mrs. Sieverding’s specifications. See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 7, 10-12. Plaintiffs also
claim the FBI violated an unspecified “statutory duty” to report Mrs. Sieverding’s allegations of
false imprisonment to the Attorney General. Id. ¶ 165. All claims against the FBI brought under
the Act and otherwise are meritless and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
A. The FBI’s NCIC System Is Exempt From The Privacy Act’s Access,
Amendment, And Maintenance Provisions
Although Plaintiffs do not cite the relevant provisions of the Act in their Complaint, they
contend the FBI has violated Subsections (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e)(5). Subsection (d)(2) requires an
5
The various injuries Mr. Sieverding alleges, e.g., loss of consortium and economic
contribution, see Complaint ¶ 223, must be asserted – if at all – in an action under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) et seq., not the Privacy Act.
13
agency promptly to amend any record an individual alleges to be inaccurate. Subsection (d)(3)
requires the agency to review of any refusal to amend a record under Subsection (d)(2) and to
explain the basis of the refusal. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) & (3). Subsection (e)(5) requires an
agency to “maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about
any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness as is reasonably
necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination.” Id. § 552a(e)(5). Plaintiffs
contend the FBI violated Subsection (e)(5) because the agency maintains an allegedly inaccurate rap
sheet6 stating that Mrs. Sieverding was charged with civil contempt. See Complaint ¶¶ 2-12. They
contend the FBI violated Subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) when it refused to amend that charge to read
“innocent until proved guilty,” as Mrs. Sieverding has requested, and when it failed to explain the
reason for the refusal. See id. ¶¶ 7, 10-12; Amended Complaint ¶ 52. These claims should be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet is exempt from Subsections
6
According to 28 C.F.R. § 16.31,
An FBI identification record, often referred to as a “rap sheet,” is a
listing of certain information taken from fingerprint submissions
retained by the FBI in connection with arrests and, in some instances,
includes information taken from fingerprints submitted in connection
with federal employment, naturalization, or military service. The
identification record includes the name of the agency or institution
that submitted the fingerprints to the FBI. If the fingerprints concern
a criminal offense, the identification record includes the date of arrest
or the date the individual was received by the agency submitting the
fingerprints, the arrest charge, and the disposition of the arrest if
known to the FBI. All arrest data included in an identification record
are obtained from fingerprint submissions, disposition reports, and
other reports submitted by agencies having criminal justice
responsibilities. Therefore, the FBI Criminal Justice Information
Services Division is not the source of the arrest data reflected on an
identification record.
14
(d)(2), (d)(3), and (e)(5) of the Act.
Plaintiffs claims against the FBI amount to a request for expungement and correction of
criminal history record information (“CHRI”) contained in Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet. CHRI is
compiled by the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”), an agency coordinated by the FBI’s
Criminal Justice Information Services (“CJIS”) Division. The CJIS Division serves as the nation’s
central repository for personal-identification and CHRI functions. The CJIS Division incorporates
the Fingerprint Identification Records System, the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, and the NCIC.
The NCIC is a nationwide, computerized information system that stores data pertaining to
fugitives, missing persons, stolen property, and other criminal justice objectives. The NCIC also
serves as the telecommunications link to an electronic system of FBI-maintained CHRI known as
the Interstate Identification Index. These systems are maintained pursuant to Section 534 of Title
28, which charges the Attorney General with acquisition, collection, classification, and exchange
of records pertaining to individuals’ criminal histories. See 28 U.S.C. § 534(a)(1). The Attorney
General, in turn, has delegated these responsibilities to the FBI’s CJIS Division. See 28 C.F.R.
§ 0.85(b) & (f).
This Circuit has long recognized that all manner of FBI records containing CHRI are exempt
from the Act’s access, amendment, and maintenance provisions. See Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346,
1351 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he FBI has promulgated a rule in accordance with the procedural
requirements of subsections (j) and (k) [of Section 552a] that exempts its [Central Records System]
to the fullest permissible extent from the requirements of subsection (d).”); Laxalt v. McClatchy,
809 F.2d 885, 888 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (FBI records pertaining to law enforcement investigations
15
are exempt under Subsection (j)(2) even if subpoenaed); Taylor v. United States Dep’t of Justice,
257 F. Supp. 2d 101, 107 n.12 (D.D.C. 2003) (“The FBI’s investigation systems have also been
exempted [from various Privacy Act provisions] by the Department of Justice.”); Tamayo v. United
States Dep’t of Justice, 932 F. Supp. 342, 344 (D.D.C. 1996) (“[T]he Privacy Act confers no right
of access to the [criminal law enforcement] records at issue, as they have been exempted from
disclosure pursuant to subsection (j)(2), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2), as implemented by 28 C.F.R.
§ 16.96...as to the FBI....”).
Rap sheets and other CHRI maintained in the FBI’s NCIC system are exempt from the Act
as well. The CFR’s applicable recordkeeping regulations state that NCIC records, which include
Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet, are “exempt from 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2),
(e)(3), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).” 28 C.F.R. § 16.96(g)7; see also Vondette v.
FBI, 2005 WL 913280 at *2 (D.D.C. April 17, 2005) (unpublished) (“The Attorney General has
promulgated regulations to exempt the NCIC (JUSTICE/FBI-001), from, among other provisions,
the access and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act.”) (citation and footnote omitted); Wallisch
Declaration ¶ 4. The regulations specifically enumerate the justifications for exemption of NCIC
records from subsections (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e)(5) – the statutory bases for Plaintiffs’ claims under
the Act. With respect to subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3), the regulations state that the NCIC system
7
This Section states that CHRI contained in NCIC records is exempt “only to the extent that
information in the system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) and (k)(3).” 28
C.F.R. § 16.96(g)(1). Because NCIC data are maintained by the CJIS Division, an FBI component
“which performs as its principal function...activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws,”
and because the NCIC system consists, inter alia, of “information compiled for the purpose of
identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders,” NCIC records qualify for
exemption under Subjection (j)(2). 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2). The Subsection (k)(3) exemption, which
deals with records systems maintained in connection with providing protective services to the
President of the United States and other dignitaries, is inapplicable here.
16
is exempt
because [Subsection (d)] concern[s] an individual’s access to records

which concern him and such access to records in this system would
compromise ongoing investigations, reveal investigatory techniques
and confidential informants, and invade the privacy of private
citizens who provide information in connection with a particular
investigation.
28 C.F.R. § 16.96(d)(2); see also id. § 16.96(h)(2). The FBI thus has no duty under Subsection
(d)(2) or (d)(3) to amend Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet or to respond to Plaintiffs’ requested
amendment of CHRI pertaining to Mrs. Sieverding contained in the NCIC system.
NCIC records are also exempt from Subsection (e)(5)’s maintenance requirements.
Subsection (e)(5) does not apply to NCIC data
because in the collection of information for law enforcement

purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information
is accurate, relevant, timely and complete. With the passage of time,
seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new
significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The
restrictions imposed by subsection (e)(5) would limit the ability of
trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their
judgment in reporting on investigations and impede the development
of criminal intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement. In
addition, the vast majority of these records come from other federal,
state, local, joint, foreign, tribal, and international agencies and it is
administratively impossible to ensure that the records comply with
this provision. Submitting agencies are, however, urged on a
continuing basis to ensure that their records are accurate and include
all dispositions.
28 C.F.R. § 16.96(h)(5). The FBI thus has no duty to amend Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet or to
ensure the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of its contents. See Vondette, 2005 WL
913280 at *2 (holding that 28 C.F.R. § 16.96(g) exempts an allegedly inaccurate rap sheet from the
Act).
Moreover, Subsection (e)(5) only applies to records the FBI has used “in making a
17
determination” about an individual. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5); accord Deters v. United States
Parole Comm’n, 85 F.3d 655, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (explaining that an adverse determination is a
necessary predicate to suit under Subsection (g)(1)(C) for a Subsection (e)(5) violation). Plaintiffs
have not alleged that the FBI made any determination with respect to Mrs. Sieverding – they allege
only that the FBI has maintained erroneous CHRI about her. Therefore, even assuming arguendo
that Mrs. Sieverding’s CHRI are inaccurate and ignoring that the contested record is exempt from
the Act, Plaintiffs still fail to state a claim under Subsection (e)(5) because the FBI has not used the
record “in making a determination” about Mrs. Sieverding.8
All claims against the FBI involving maintenance and amendment of and access to Mrs.
Sieverding’s rap sheet should accordingly be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).9
B. The FBI Is Not Required To Report Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of False

Imprisonment To The Attorney General
Plaintiffs also argue that the FBI violated an unspecified “statutory duty” by refusing to
report to the Attorney General their allegations that Mrs. Sieverding was falsely imprisoned as a
result of a criminal conspiracy between Chief Judge Nottingham of the District of Colorado and
certain United States Marshals. See Complaint ¶ 165. Plaintiffs allege that David Sieverding “wrote
twice to the FBI in Colorado in November 2005 and told them [Kay Sieverding] was being held
8
Since Plaintiffs request money damages under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C) they must
additionally demonstrate actual damages, which they have failed to do. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4).
9
Plaintiffs claim also that the FBI “was part of a willful and wonton [sic], and illegal,
conspiracy to damage [Mrs. Sieverding’s] reputation and cover-up [sic] of [sic] deprivations of [her]
rights under law.” Complaint ¶ 12. This claim is devoid of any factual support and should be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). See Iqbal, 2009 WL 1361536 at *13 (“Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Among
other reasons, the claim is baseless given that the FBI’s NCIC system is merely a passive recipient
of data generated by other agencies.
18
without a federal offense being charged. Both [David Sieverding] and [Kay Sieverding] called to
follow-up [sic].” Id. ¶ 163. This claim is wholly meritless and should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs cite no basis for the alleged duty to report. Indeed, no such duty exists. While the
FBI “may investigate” alleged violations of Title 18, the FBI is not obligated to do so with respect
to every allegation of wrongdoing it receives. 28 U.S.C. § 535. “The decision to allocate limited
governmental resources to investigate a reported crime, like the decision to allocate limited
resources to prosecute a crime, is a discretionary function.” Martinez v. United States, 587 F. Supp.
2d 245, 248 (D.D.C. 2008); Moses v. Kennedy, 219 F. Supp. 762, 765 (D.D.C. 1965) (observing that
initiation of a criminal investigation by the FBI is discretionary). “Th[e] power to decide when to
investigate, and when to prosecute lies at the core of the Executive’s duty to seek the faithful
execution of the laws[.]” Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201
(D.C. Cir. 1986). Because criminal investigation is a discretionary act, the FBI is immune from suits
for failure to investigate or to prosecute. See Griggs v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 232
F.3d 917, 921 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claim. “A private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ sundry claims regarding the FBI’s duty to investigate and to report their allegations and
should dismiss them under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6).
C. An Expungement Request – Not A Privacy Act Lawsuit – Is The Proper Tool

For Obtaining The Relief Plaintiffs Seek From The FBI
Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain access to and amendment of Mrs. Sieverding’s rap sheet via a
19
lawsuit under the Act is misguided. The FBI’s CJIS Division is authorized to revise or expunge
CHRI – including postings of final dispositions such as Mrs. Sieverding’s contempt charges – only
when specifically instructed to do so by the agency which collected and submitted the CHRI to the
FBI. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.34. If the subject of an FBI identification record believes it to be incorrect
or incomplete and desires amendment or expungement of the record, he has two options: (1) contact
the originating agency directly; or (2) “direct his/her challenge as to the accuracy or completeness
of any entry on his/her record to the FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division,”
which will then contact the originating agency. Id. § 16.34; accord Menard v. Saxbe, 498 F.2d 1017,
1025 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“We think sound principles of justice and judicial administration dictate that
in general actions to vindicate constitutional rights, by expungement of arrest records...be
maintained against the local law enforcement agencies involved....In general, the role played by the
FBI’s Identification Division is derivative.”) (footnote omitted). Therefore, if Plaintiffs desire to
challenge the CHRI related to Mrs. Sieverding’s arrest and transport by the USMS, the proper tool
is an expungement request under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34, not a lawsuit under the Act.
III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THE USMS UPON WHICH
Plaintiffs’ claims against the USMS fall into seven categories: (1) violation of Subsection
(e)(5) for failure to maintain accurate records used by the agency in making a determination about
Mrs. Sieverding; (2) violation of Subsection (e)(7) for maintaining records which describe how Mrs.
Sieverding exercises First Amendment rights; (3) violation of Subsection (c)’s disclosure
requirements; (4) allegations that electronic mail sent by USMS personnel violates the Act; (5)
allegations that the USMS is required to amend records it did not generate; (6) allegations that the
USMS was obligated to investigate and respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing; and (7)
20
allegations that Chief Judge Nottingham and certain United States Marshals conspired to deprive
Plaintiffs of their rights. All claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
A. The USMS’s WIN, PPM, & PTS Are Exempt From Subsection (e)(5)’s
Maintenance Requirements
The USMS records systems at issue here are exempt from Subsection (e)(5)’s maintenance
requirement. Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claims against the USMS involve records related to
investigation, arrest, detention, or transportation of Mrs. Sieverding by the USMS and are all
contained in and transmitted by the USMS’s Warrant Information System (“WIN”), Prisoner
Processing and Population Management System (“PPM”), or Prisoner Transportation System
(“PTS”). Subsection (e)(5) of the Act does not apply to these systems of records. See 28 C.F.R.
§ 16.101(a) (exempting the WIN from Subsection (e)(5)); id. § 16.101(q) (exempting the PPM from
Subsection (e)(5)); id. § 16.101(o) (exempting the PTS from Subsection (e)(5)).
The WIN contains warrant information, court records, internal correspondence related to
warrants, and other information concerning individuals for whom federal warrants have been issued.
The USMS uses the WIN to track the status of all federal warrants to aid investigations of federal
fugitives. The WIN also interfaces with the NCIC and the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System to obtain criminal record information from other federal, state, local,
and foreign law enforcement agencies participating in or cooperating with USMS fugitive
investigations and apprehension efforts.
WIN records are exempt from Subsection (e)(5)
because the requirements of [Subsection (e)(5)] would present a

serious impediment to law enforcement in that it is impossible to
determine in advance what information collected during an
investigation will be important or crucial to the apprehension of
Federal fugitives. In the interest of effective law enforcement, it is
21
appropriate in a thorough investigation to retain seemingly irrelevant,

untimely, or inaccurate information which, with the passage of time,
would aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide
investigative leads toward fugitive apprehension and assist in law
enforcement activities of other agencies.
28 C.F.R. § 16.101(b)(4); see also Carbe v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 2004 WL
2051359 at *12 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2004) (unpublished) (stating that the PTS and the WIN “are
exempt from the Privacy Act”) (citation omitted); Crawford v. Metcalfe, 2008 WL 59728 at *5
(S.D.W.Va. March 3, 2008) (unpublished) (stating that WIN records are exempt from the Act’s
access provisions under Subsection (j)(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.101(a)); Declaration of William E.
Bordley (“Bordley Declaration”) ¶¶ 6-7.
Likewise, Subsection (e)(5) does not apply to records contained in the PPM. Among other
purposes, PPM records are used by the USMS to capture the daily prisoner population totals in
USMS facilities and to obtain an average daily prisoner population each month. PPM records are
exempt
because the system may contain investigatory information or

information which is derived from information collected during
official criminal investigations. In the interest of effective law
enforcement and litigation, of securing the prisoner and of protecting
the public, it may be necessary to retain information the relevance,
necessity, accuracy, timeliness and completeness of which cannot be
readily established. Such information may nevertheless provide
investigative leads to other Federal or law enforcement agencies, or
prove necessary to establish patterns of criminal activity or behavior,
and/or prove essential to the safe and secure detention (and
movement) or prisoners. Further, the provisions of (e)(1) and (e)(5)
would restrict the ability of the USMS in exercising its judgment in
reporting information during investigations or during the
development of appropriate security measures, and thus present a
serious impediment to law enforcement efforts.
28 C.F.R. § 16.101(r)(4). See Anderson v. United States Marshals Serv., 943 F. Supp. 37, 39-40
22
(D.D.C. 1996) (holding that the USMS properly withheld PPM records pursuant to Privacy Act
exemption (j)(2)).
PTS records are also exempt from Subsection (e)(5)’s maintenance requirements. The PTS
contains court records and identifying data on each prisoner generated during the routine processing,
housing, safekeeping, and disposition of prisoners in USMS custody. The PTS is maintained to
capture all information necessary to complete the administrative processing, housing, safekeeping,
health care, and disposition of individual federal prisoners who are in custody pending judicial
proceedings and covers any law enforcement and security-related records generated during such
custody. Data maintained in the PTS are received from the prisoner, the courts, federal, state, local
and foreign law enforcement agencies, and medical professionals.
PTS records are exempt from Subsection (e)(5)
because the security classification of prisoners is based upon

information collected during official criminal investigations; and, in
the interest of ensuring safe and secure prisoner movements it may be
necessary to retain information the relevance, necessity, accuracy,
timeliness, and completeness of which cannot be readily established,
but which may subsequently prove useful in establishing patterns of
criminal activity or avoidance, and thus be essential to assigning an
appropriate security classification to the prisoner. The restrictions of
[Subsection (e)(5)] would impede the information collection
responsibilities of the USMS, and the lack of all available
information could result in death or serious injury to USMS and other
law enforcement personnel, prisoners in custody, and members of the
public.
28 C.F.R. § 16.101(p)(4).
Accordingly, all claims alleging that inaccurate or extraneous information was included in
records related to investigation, arrest, detention, or transportation of Mrs. Sieverding by the USMS
23
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).10
1. Records Maintained In The WIN Are Exempt From Subsection (e)(5)’s

Maintenance Requirements
USMS records maintained in the WIN are exempt from Subsection (e)(5)’s maintenance
requirements. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.101(a) & (b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Subsection (e)(5)
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to the September 25,
2006, warrant for Mrs. Sieverding’s arrest;11 the February 6, 2006, warrant for Mrs. Sieverding’s
arrest;12 documents related to her detention by the USMS in Denver, Colorado;13 subject reports
containing Mrs. Sieverding’s warrant information;14 investigation reports;15 and all other claims
related to records containing warrant information contained in the WIN.16 See Sever Declaration
¶ 4; Wallisch Declaration ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs also allege that USMS violated the Act by failing to transmit certain warrant
10
Plaintiffs allege Subsection (e)(5) violations by the USMS in the following paragraphs:
Complaint ¶¶ 31, 45, 69, 75, 81, 84, 92, 101, 112, 154, and 217; Amended Complaint ¶¶ 36, 40-43,
46-48. Related allegations that Mrs. Sieverding’s arrest was ultra vires because it was effected with
inaccurate documents should likewise be dismissed. See, e.g., Complaint ¶ 154.
11
See Complaint ¶ 31 & Amended Complaint ¶ 42.
12
See Amended Complaint ¶ 41.
13
See Complaint ¶ 75 (referring to “paperwork” presented upon intake at the Denver,
Colorado, federal detention center). All such records are maintained either in the WIN, PPM, or PTS
and are exempt under 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.101.
14
15
16
See Complaint ¶¶ 92 (referring to records containing warrant information, which are
maintained in the WIN) and 112 (referring to “a fraudulent/counterfeit warrant,” which, if such
warrant existed at all, would be maintained in the WIN).
24
records through the WIN. See Complaint ¶¶ 22, 30, 32, 38, 91, 111, 117, 123; Amended Complaint
¶ 37. These claims also should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Act does not regulate
intra-agency transmission of records containing individual information, nor does it specify
acceptable instrumentalities of transmission from covered agencies to non-federal recipient agencies.
In any case, all warrants pertaining to Mrs. Sieverding were transmitted though the WIN. See Sever
Declaration ¶ 4; Wallisch Declaration ¶ 4.
All claims related to record data maintained in the WIN should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).
2. Records Maintained In The PPM & PTS Are Exempt From Subsection
(e)(5)’s Maintenance Requirements
All documents maintained in the PPM and PTS are exempt from Subsection (e)(5)’s
maintenance requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Subsection (e)(5) claims fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted with respect to all records related to Mrs. Sieverding’s
transportation by the USMS to Denver, Colorado;17 all records related to processing and intake at
the federal detention facility in Denver, Colorado;18 PTS Detainer forms;19 Form 106;20 or
Individual Custody and Detention Report Form USM 129.21 See Bordley Declaration ¶ 6-7. All
claims related to record data maintained in the PPM and PTS should be dismissed under Rule
17
See Complaint ¶ 69 (referring to unspecified “transport papers”).
18
See Complaint ¶ 75 (referring to “paperwork” presented upon intake at the Denver,
Colorado, federal detention center). All such records are maintained either in the WIN, PPM, or PTS
and are exempt under 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.101.
19
20
21
See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 46 & 47.
25
12(b)(6).
B. The USMS Did Not Violate The Privacy Act’s Prohibition Against Maintaining
Records On The Exercise Of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights.
Plaintiffs contend that the USMS violated the Act’s prohibition against
“maintain[ing]...records...describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7).22 Although the pleadings cite only one record that allegedly
violates Subsection (e)(7),23 Plaintiffs ostensibly intend to challenge records related to executing the
various warrants issued for Mrs. Sieverding’s arrest and to the resulting fugitive investigations
conducted by the USMS. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 16-20, 102, 112-113. These claims are frivolous
and should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
No record on Mrs. Sieverding maintained by the USMS violates the Act. As far as can be
ascertained from the pleadings, Plaintiffs argue that the USMS’s fugitive investigation records
involving Mrs. Sieverding violate Subsection (e)(7) because they were generated pursuant to a
warrant issued in a judicial proceeding. And, Plaintiffs claim, since judicial proceedings are a form
of First Amendment activity, the USMS is therefore prohibited from maintaining any documents that
reference judicial proceedings.
This absurd interpretation of Subsection (e)(7) would bar creation of any record related to
the execution of a warrant by federal law enforcement agencies. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention,
the USMS’s investigation records do not describe how Mrs. Sieverding exercises her First
Amendment rights – the records merely reference the Colorado judicial proceeding related to the
22
The Act defines “maintain” to include “maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a(a)(3).
23
26
warrants issued by the district judge.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the USMS’s records document how Mrs. Sieverding exercises
her First Amendment rights – which they do not – Subsection (e)(7) unambiguously provides that
an agency may maintain information regarding the exercise of First Amendment rights if such
maintenance is “pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;...”
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7); accord J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation v. FBI, 102 F.3d 600, 603-04
(D.C. Cir. 1996). The USMS’s records generated in response to the warrants issued by the Colorado
federal court were used solely as part of an authorized law enforcement activity, viz., the execution
of warrants on Mrs. Sieverding after her serial failures to appear. Since the challenged records relate
to court-ordered warrants and their execution on Mrs. Sieverding, the USMS did not violate
Subsection (e)(7). All claims alleging violation of Subsection (e)(7) should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).24
C. The USMS Did Not Violate Subsection (c)’s Disclosure Requirements
Plaintiffs allege that the USMS violated Subsection (c), which requires agencies to “keep an
accurate accounting of...the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person
or to another agency made under subsection (b); and...the name and address of the person or agency
to whom the disclosure is made;...” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(1)(A)-(B).25 Plaintiffs contend that the
24
Moreover, a claim for violation of Subsection (e)(7) must be brought pursuant to
Subsection (g)(1)(D), a remedial provision requiring that Plaintiffs demonstrate that the USMS’s
maintenance of the challenged records had an “adverse effect” on them. Plaintiffs plead no fact in
support of the proposition that maintenance of the USMS’s fugitive investigation records adversely
affected them.
25
Plaintiffs allege violations of Subsection (c) in Complaint ¶¶ 93, 124, 125, 128, 132, and
133.
27
USMS violated Subsection (c) because certain records released to Plaintiffs’ congressional
representative “did not include anything about my or my husbands’ [sic] calls....” Complaint ¶ 124;
see also ¶ 128 (“[T]he records do not show the date or purpose of [the Marshals’] visit or my
neighbors [sic] name.”).
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Act does not, as
they contend, require the USMS to include the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure made
pursuant to the Act in the record being disclosed. The Act requires only that the USMS “keep an
accurate accounting” of such information. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(1). Moreover, Plaintiffs assert no fact
to support the contention that the USMS’s alleged failure to observe Subsection (c)’s disclosure
requirements had an “adverse effect” on them – a prerequisite to suit under that subsection of the
Act. See id. § 552a(g)(1)(D).
D. The Content of Challenged Electronic Mail Generated By The USMS Does Not
Violate The Privacy Act
Plaintiffs allege that an electronic mail sent from a USMS official on November 2, 2007, to
the office of Plaintiffs’ congressional representative violates the Act “because USMS wasn’t
supposed to have minutes in a civil matter without my permission unless involved in a criminal
matter.” Complaint ¶ 45. That claim’s incomprehensibility aside, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Act does not require the USMS to request Plaintiffs’
permission to collect information pertaining to them. This claim should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).
E. Privacy Act Claims Related To Records Not Generated By The USMS Should
Be Dismissed
Records not generated by federal executive agencies are not subject to the Act. Accordingly,
28
all claims concerning records not generated by the USMS, the FBI, or the DOJ, should be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, Form AO 94 – generated by the District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin – and the Dane County Sheriff’s Office Arrest Summary Report are not covered
records because neither the district court nor the sheriff’s office is an “agency” as defined by the
Act. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 38, 48.26
F. The USMS Was Not Required To Investigate Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of

Wrongdoing Or Issue Public Statements Concerning Same
Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he Marshals should have acknowledged the illegality of [failing to
send a copy of a warrant at Mrs. Sieverding’s request] and the other incarcerations by admitting they
didn’t return an executed warrant and why.” Complaint ¶ 199.
Plaintiffs’ claim is frivolous. The USMS is not required to investigate Mrs. Sieverding’s
allegations or respond to demands to issue explanatory statements. As explained in Section II.B,
supra, “[t]he decision to allocate limited governmental resources to investigate a reported crime,
like the decision to allocate limited resources to prosecute a crime, is a discretionary function.”
Martinez, 587 F. Supp. 2d at 249. Plaintiffs’ claims of failure to investigate, prosecute, comment
on their allegations of wrongdoing, or produce documents when Plaintiffs refuse to follow
established procedures should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
G. Plaintiffs’ Claims That The USMS Conspired With Chief Judge Nottingham
And Other Parties Are Frivolous
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the USMS conspired with Chief Judge Nottingham and other
unspecified parties to deprive them of various rights. See Complaint ¶¶ 33 (claim that marshals
26
Likewise, the USMS cannot be sued for allegedly unlawful procedures used in the Dane
County Jail. See Complaint ¶ 62.
29
conspired with local law enforcement as part of a “willful and wonton [sic] multi-person violation
of [Mrs. Sieverding’s] rights....”); 80 (alleging an “extortionist [sic] scheme” by certain marshals);
110 (claim that marshals conspired with Chief Judge Nottingham to “bypass the security provisions
set by Congress to protect the rights of citizens.”); 156 (claim that the marshals “conspired to allow
[Mrs. Sieverding] to be treated as a fugitive....”).
Plaintiffs fail to support these claims of conspiracy with any factual basis aside from
fantastical allegations. Mrs. Sieverding’s arrests and detentions by the USMS and local law
enforcement were lawful acts conducted pursuant to arrest warrants. These claims are frivolous and
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THE DOJ UPON WHICH
Plaintiffs allege a host of claims again the DOJ, all of which are wholly meritless and should
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
A. Plaintiffs’ Claims That The DOJ Failed To Maintain Adequate Records

Systems Are Meritless
Plaintiffs allege that the DOJ violated Subsection (e)(5) by failing to maintain its records
systems “with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary
to assure fairness” in determinations made with respect to Mrs. Sieverding. Plaintiffs’ claims under
Subsection (e)(5) are meritless and should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
First, Plaintiffs take issue with documents maintained in connection with Mrs. Sieverding’s
appearance in federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, on May 11, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that
“DOJ did not adequately maintain its system of records as shown by the fact that their [sic]
prosecutor showed up for an incarceration hearing without an offense being listed on the docket
30
report.” Complaint ¶ 60. But the “docket report,” which Plaintiffs append to their Amended
Complaint as “PE3,” is not a record as defined by the Act. A “record” is “an item, collection, or
grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency....” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a(a)(4). An “agency,” in turn, is defined as “any executive department, military department,
Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the
executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any
independent regulatory agency;...” Id. § 552(e); see also id. § 552a(a)(1). Because the “docket
report” was not maintained by an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(e), its contents are not
governed by the Act. Plaintiffs thus fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second, Plaintiffs allege that the DOJ violated Subsection (e)(5) because the agency failed
“to look for communications from the district court that [Mrs. Sieverding] had requested a review
of the legality of [her] incarceration....” Complaint ¶ 181; see also id. ¶ 174. Insofar as Plaintiffs
contend DOJ had an affirmative duty to seek out information Mrs. Sieverding submitted to the
Wisconsin federal district court, they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because
the Act does not require agencies to request records from other branches of the federal government.
Insofar as Plaintiffs contend DOJ failed to respond to Mrs. Sieverding’s allegations of unlawful
incarceration by conducting a search of records generated by the Wisconsin federal district court,
Plaintiffs likewise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Act does not
require agencies to search for records maintained by other branches of the federal government.
All claims alleging that the DOJ violated Subsection (e)(5) should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).
B. The DOJ Was Not Required To Investigate Or Prosecute Plaintiffs’ Allegations

Of Wrongdoing Or Issue Public Statements Concerning Same
31
Plaintiffs contend that the DOJ was required to investigate and prosecute Mrs. Sieverding’s
allegations of wrongdoing by Chief Judge Nottingham, the FBI, and the USMS, and should have
issued public statements in response to Plaintiffs’ sundry demands. See Complaint ¶¶ 161 (alleging
that the “Justice For All Act of 2004 gives [Kay Sieverding] a right to discuss [her] allegations of
criminal acts and their [sic] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute with a U.S. Attorney....”); 201
(“[The DOJ] cannot simply refuse to hear a criminal complaint, nor [sic] multiple criminal
complaints with new crimes.”); 202 (“DOJ has a specific statutory mandate to investigate such
crimes [committed by Chief Judge Nottingham] and they [sic] chose not to.”); Amended Complaint
¶¶ 15 (“[The DOJ] have [sic] not acknowledged threats and have declined to protect me.”); 22
(“[T]he federal government has denied me both a right to prosecution and a right to an explanation
as to why they [sic] are not prosecuting [Chief Judge] Nottingham, [attorneys] Beall, Brougham,
[and U.S. Magistrate Judge] Owens etc.”); 50 (“I think that DOJ had a responsibility to timely issue
a statement from the U.S. government that I was not charged with breaking the law and not
convicted.”).
Plaintiffs’ allegations are frivolous. Even Plaintiffs admit that “the government does not
recognize a right to prosecution.” Amended Complaint ¶ 22. As explained in Section II.B, supra,
“[t]he decision to allocate limited governmental resources to investigate a reported crime, like the
decision to allocate limited resources to prosecute a crime, is a discretionary function.” Martinez,
587 F. Supp. 2d at 249. Accordingly, the DOJ is not required to investigate or prosecute in response
to Plaintiffs’ allegations, nor is it required to issue the explanatory statements Mrs. Sieverding
demands. Plaintiffs’ claims of failure to investigate, prosecute, and comment on their allegations
of wrongdoing should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
32
C. The DOJ Is Not Required To Amend Records Located In Verona, Wisconsin
Plaintiffs allege that “DOJ is required to correct the records they [sic] created in the City of
Verona[, Wisconsin].” Complaint ¶ 35. The only records relevant to this lawsuit located in Verona,
Wisconsin, are those generated either by the USMS or by local law enforcement authorities. As
explained, supra, in Section III.A, all records related to the investigation, arrest, detention, and
transportation of Mrs. Sieverding are maintained in the WIN, PPM, or PTS and are exempt from the
Act’s maintenance, access, and amendment procedures. Any records generated by local law
enforcement are not subject to the Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
D. The Privacy Act Does Not Require The DOJ To Collect Information From
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs contend that the Act requires the DOJ to collect information from them so as to
facilitate their participation in “government victim’s [sic] programs.” Complaint ¶ 205; see id. ¶ 206
This claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Act does not require agencies to
collect personal information from individuals.
E. The Privacy Act Does Not Require The DOJ To Share Plaintiffs’ Personal
Information With Other Agencies
Plaintiffs contend that the Act requires DOJ to share Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing
“with the FBI and DOJ [sic] when request [sic] so that we may be eligible for federal programs.”
Complaint ¶ 206. This claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Act does not
require agencies to share individually identifiable information with other agencies.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that all claims against the FBI,
33
the USMS, and the DOJ be dismissed with prejudice, or, alternatively, that summary judgment be
granted in Defendant’s favor with respect to all claims.
Dated: June 1, 2009
/s/
/s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. BAR #434122

DAVID C. RYBICKI, D.C. BAR #976836
Civil Division
555 4th Street, N.W.
(202) 353-4024
(202) 514-8780 (fax)
David.Rybicki@usdoj.gov
OF COUNSEL:
Edward Bordley
Associate General Counsel
United States Marshals Service
Betsy J. Ritter
Assistant General Counsel
Civil Litigation Unit I
Federal Bureau of Investigation
34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 1, 2009, I caused the foregoing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment; Memorandum in Support;
Declaration of William E. Bordley; Declaration of Paul Sever; Declaration of Stephen D. Wallisch;
Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute; and Proposed Order to be served on Plaintiffs
via electronic mail to the following addresses:
kaysieverding@aol.com
david.sieverding@gmail.com
and via first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
MR. & MRS. DAVID SIEVERDING

641 Basswood Ave.
Verona, WI 53593

DAVID C. RYBICKI
35

)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN D. WALLISCH
I, Stephen D. Wallisch, declare as follows:
1. I am employed by the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) as a Deputy U.S. Marshal
for the District of Colorado, in Denver, Colorado. I have been employed as a Supervisory Deputy
U.S. Marshal for the District of Colorado for 6 years and was employed as a Deputy U.S. Marshal
for 11.5 years prior to that. My primary responsibilities are to oversee prisoner and court operations
in the District of Colorado.
2. The information set forth in this declaration is based upon my personal knowledge
and information obtained in the course of my employment. In the event that I am called as a
witness, I could competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration.
3. On September 25, 2006, Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Kay Sieverding for
contempt of court.
1
4. The USMS is responsible for the execution of all lawful orders of the federal courts,
including bench warrants. In this case, Deputy U.S. Marshal Roberto Rodriquez was assigned
apprehension responsibilities for the bench warrant and the initiated the arrest of Ms. Sieverding
for the District of Colorado. In accordance with USMS policy, the bench warrant was entered into
the USMS Warrant Information Network system of records and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) records.
5. Plaintiff sued the Colorado Bar Association (D. Colo., Civil Action No.02-CV-1950-
EWN). She was taken into custody by order of Judge Nottingham on September 2, 2005, under a
civil contempt violation until “she purges herself of the contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily
to dismiss the lawsuits.” She also had lawsuits in the District of Columbia and in the City and
County of Denver.
6. Plaintiff spent her time in custody at Clear Creek County Jail, a local jail under
contract to the USMS to house federal prisoners, from September 2, 2005, until January 4, 2006, a
period of 124 days. On January 4, 2006, Judge Nottingham ordered her released that day after she
agreed to the conditions of dropping her lawsuits.
7. Plaintiff was also arrested and released on February 8, 2006, when she turned herself
in to the USMS in Madison, Wisconsin, for further contempt violations ordered by Judge
Nottingham.
8. Plaintiff was arrested again on May 10, 2007, on further contempt violations ordered
by Judge Nottingham. The USMS transported her back by commercial airline on May 31, 2007.
On June 1, 2007, she appeared before Judge Nottingham and was then released.
2
the USMS Warrant Information Network (WIN) and Prisoner Population Management/Prisoner
Tracking Systems (PTS) of records.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: May 29, 2009 /s/ Stephen D. Wallisch

STEPHEN D. WALLISCH
3

)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN GENUINE DISPUTE
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), Defendant respectfully submits this Statement of Material
Facts Not in Genuine Dispute:
1. Plaintiffs filed Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Association, Civil Action No. 02-CV-
1950-EWN, in the District of Colorado on October 11, 2002. See Civil Action No.
02-CV-1950-EWN PACER Doc. No.1 (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 2002).1
2. On September 28, 2006, Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham imposed upon
Plaintiffs a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 amounting to
approximately $102,000 as a result of their conduct in the prosecution of Civil
Action No. 02-CV-1950-EWN. See Civil Action No. 02-CV-1950-EWN PACER
Doc. No. 911.
3. On September 2, 2005, Chief Judge Nottingham found Plaintiffs in contempt of court
1
The 113-page docket is available through the District of Colorado’s PACER system,
available at: https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl.
1
for violating a court order requiring dismissal of certain lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs.
Kay Sieverding refused to abide by the court order and was jailed. See Civil Action
No. 02-CV-1950-EWN PACER Doc. No.593.
4. Kay Sieverding was held in the Clear Creek County Jail, a facility under contract to
the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to house federal prisoners, from
September 2, 2005, until January 4, 2006. Wallisch Declaration ¶ 6.
5. Kay Sieverding surrendered herself to the USMS in Madison, Wisconsin, on
February 8, 2006, and was arrested pursuant to a warrant for contempt of court
issued by the federal district court in Colorado. Wallisch Declaration ¶ 6. She then
appeared before a U.S. Magistrate Judge and agreed to appear in the Colorado
federal district court for a contempt hearing scheduled for February 14, 2006. She
was then released from USMS custody. See United States v. Sieverding, Case No.
06-0019M-X-01 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2006).
6. At the February 14, 2006, contempt hearing Chief Judge Nottingham again ordered
Kay Sieverding to dismiss several pending lawsuits she had filed. She agreed to do
so and was released. See Civil Action No. 02-CV-1950-EWN PACER Doc. No.807.
7. On May 8, 2006, Kay Sieverding filed a notice of appeal in federal court in the
District of Kansas and several motions to reconsider in three lawsuits which had
been pending in federal court in the District of Columbia. See Civil Action No. 05-
CV-02510 (D. Kan.); Civil Action Nos. 05-CV-02122, 05-CV-01283, 05-CV-01672
(D.D.C.).
8. On September 25, 2006, Chief Judge Nottingham again found Kay Sieverding in
2
contempt of court and issued a bench warrant for her arrest. See Civil Action No.
02-CV-1950-EWN PACER Doc. No.910.
9. Kay Sieverding was arrested on May 10, 2007, on a contempt warrant issued by
Chief Judge Nottingham. She remained in custody from May 10, 2007, until June
1, 2007. Sever Declaration ¶ 6; Wallisch Declaration ¶ 8.
10. On May 11, 2007, Kay Sieverding appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa
Owens of the Western District of Wisconsin, who ordered her removed to the
District of Colorado. Sever Declaration ¶ 6.
11. The USMS transported Kay Sieverding from Wisconsin to Denver, Colorado, via
commercial airliner on May 31, 2007. A contempt hearing was held the following
day, after which Kay Sieverding was released from USMS custody. Sever
Declaration ¶ 7; Wallisch Declaration ¶ 8.
Dated: June 1, 2009
/s/
/s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar #434122

DAVID C. RYBICKI, D.C. Bar #976836
Civil Division
555 4th St. N.W.
3
Phone: (202) 353-4024

Fax: (202) 514-8780
Of Counsel:
William E. Bordley
Associate General Counsel & FOI/PA Officer
United States Marshal Service
Elizabeth J. Ritter
Office of General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
4

)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, or
Alternatively, for Summary Judgment, and for good cause shown, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED;
ORDERED that the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
SIGNED:
________________ ____________________________
Date JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Case 1:09·",,-OO562·JD8 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ 1 of 18
IN THE UNITE[) STAn:s [)JSl'RICT COURT
FOil TIlt; 1l1~,ItICT 0.' COI.l)M lilA
,,,
PlalnUff.,
,.
,
,,
) d,';1 Mtlon No, 09-0056l (JIlS)
U1'o'lTEIIST.\,n;s llEPAIlTMENT 0.'

JUSTICE, ,
Plainilffs' mot"", undo' 1.<><lOi lIul< !.l (i) '0 it"k< IJOJ <Iocum.n' I 8 and find OOJ
In <Iofa "I"
OOJ i"<lud«!" ".oign«l <1<><"""'.' ." ...hibi, in i" moO"" to di,,,,;,, and
dtoc,;b«! i' ..." .rfidavit "nd<' po.. lty of po'i"ry, Loc,1 11"1. 5.l (h) and (i) ..... that
,iJl'O'"" "lIS ",""red ou" A proposed on!<' <OII,i.".' ,.i'h "'i. mot"", i, ."""hod I,
'"ppO(l of 'hi. ">Oli<>n. pI.i"tiff, "'p«'fully ..rer II>< Coun to ,I>< ,"ocl><d
M.tooriInd"m of Poin" and A"lhori,ie •• nd Plaintiff.' S.... ""'n' 0( Mm",1 F,... Not i"
C.",i". Di",,",., TI>< defend." is "minded 'hat U"<Ie, .,.,.1 ,"I., f.il"" to ,.. pond
D.a,ld 5i... Inl Kay Si"'''di'g

641 Ilao''''ood A", V.rona. WI ~}~91 608 848 ~721
do, i d.;i....... i.~ ilf I"'"; l-«lrtl '1),,,,,'.1)11 "'" "'~ ron
RECEIVED
JUl 2 3 1009
.....:;y ....'lll ...n... 'OtI. CWl'
U,U"TIIIC'GOUIl1
),EXE IOl Un.l'DM"EXE c:D l-{l9-cv-0056l-JDB.riD

Ca.e 1:09-cv.Q0562·JD8 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ 2 01111
IN TH~: UNln:D SfAn:s D1SfItICT COUItT
fOR THE DlSfRICf OFCOLUMIIIA
I'I.in,tfT.,
,)
)
)
USJTEO SfATES DI::PARTMENT O~·

,I
)
C"'~ A<'ion No. "'.(JOS<i~ (.lUll)
JU~T[(;E. )
PLAINTln's' )fE)fORANIlUM Ot· POI1'o,S ANIl AlrfIJORJTlt:s IN
SUPPORT m' MOTlO:</l'O t'INlI lIEH.NIlA.NT IN IlU,,"UU'
,m.i1.d t<, I><r '"ice •• rlier in ,t>< ,Joy. u.:., Ro", ~.l (i) .s.. the "ord "s"""" "'" be
"'hOlly olpo,ju,y 'hat i. "n,i!"'d.
PI.i,,"I]' forst poioted ou' t .... til< <1«1"","" ..... u"'iCned i" documen' 13,.nd
"'1",,0<1 ,,,"' in do<ume"lS 16. 17 •• nd 10. hhs, Si.vmliol ,... ". ,.110<1 ,t>< USMS ,,",to
in O<ov" .... h.r< St<ph<n WlJli><11 i. 'mploy<d, B"'h ,ime•• Il. I«.iv.d voice mail
A k,y poin' i" ••tabli.hin, Ii.t>ililj' ulHk, the Pri .."Y " " i" thi, ..lion i.... h<tb<r
'" 001 the PACER ".".n" "<f" ,nter"d in'o 'Oo USMS WOltant Information Net"",<
in CoI",ado ",Ii ,be WIN Pro<<dur<•• 0<1 Tr.io;"1 M,,,.,I PoC" 4-13 (PE249) i, dear
IOl UnZioMe,EXE c:o }-1l9-cv-0056l-J[)B.zio

Case 1:09·",,-OO562·JD8 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ 3 01 III
,h... bse"t ." inappropri"e e<>mmu"ie"i"" '05OlllOOllO f(;W ... oc.-n ,... USMS h•• judi,i.1
"",,0<,;"" '<Sp<l<I.i"'Ii,y,.n office< """", e"Ie' • ,u~)e<' in,o 1'."1' U"" .. 'h.y hold •
"'""n' (;Wi,iu.'inl i. ,..I, dl"~<l. Tou" U... US.\\S off,,,. I" Wi-SOOfl.'i" oouJd _ ."Ie,
• '-''''''''''''' ....""., ,.," WIN. 1 he OIIly _ume.' ,uPJ"'''' oy DOl 'ndlC"'"1 011 • non·
!>e.... y 0..;. 'ho' ,II< ....IT>"li "ere ,n'md i",o WIN "u ,... documeo' 'hot M,.
W.lli«o d,d _ .iln. Ile<.u", ,,,, oo<u"",o, ""' u""lned, ~ co,,_ be ,n'md into
..i<!en<' pe' ,,,,,.llIul, ~_I .nd na'ion.ol nile '0. COII""lu<nlly. ''''re i. 110 od",i";bI•
..i<!en<e ,h., 'II< ",-".'Ied PAlell " ..""," "',re ''''md into WIN.
PACER "'''''''li cou'd "'" IuIve be<n e""red i"l0 WIN u ...ened in 'h. u."lned
docum<n' be<>u", WIN require•• ,-iol..i,," u"mbe, .u<! 'ke", i. 00 'iolori,," ""mbe,
(So< I'EJO""" PE!50 "1O<"'d) .u<! b«.u'" Rul•• of C~mio.1 Pro<edu" 4 (4) «.)
.-.quI,< a requ<" hy a JO'-er"""'o' """""y defined "' a U.s. ArlOrn<y, A"'",n, U.S.
Anorn<y. or U.s. A'lOrney G<"""I bef.......... IT>", ,,"""'ioo orde, i. vo'id. OOJ ha'
""ody .doowledled 'lui' 'ke U.s. A""",,) in C<>I"'ado ..... no docu""'." rel.llli.1
Mn, Si,ve,"i"I'O" did _ ""nid"",< i. 'he ""'COO i"mI'I"1 Mn. Si,,-erdi.I' (S« PE9
"'o<ked).
1.0<., Ru'< ~.I Ii) inc'ude•• ""n<!olOry requi"menr. 'herd..... , 'ho' doco"".r
"umber 8 be "ruck, Thi.I<.... OOJ i". def.ul, pooi';"" oill« ''''IOv<IO''''"' ""'
-lerved .nd ,,'a, nooif,ed b)' 'I>e Coun rhar '''''re oold be no ....,.. <"e"""", of time,
Th< Compl.i", demond' 'hal ooJ -1<1'" i,o <o<h of 'ke p1.in<ifb <quivale,,' 10 ,,,,
'''''<Illme,,'- "I<me,,' ...i,h Dr. S"v<" 110'fill .u<! 'ke 'i'il rove, sI>ee, d.il\lJl $11.6
mil'i,,", The N Y(;W~ Time. re""', ,h" 00J"s se"I,""" .. i,o Dr, 11.,f,1I .... 52.82.'5
miliioo in <o,h plu, .n 'J",ui,y poyi"l SI50J)OO 1'" y.ar f(;W ' ...n'y yean. The US.\1S
IOl UnZiDM"EXE t::ll HJ9-cv-0056l-JIlB.ziD

Case 1:09·",,-OO562·JD8 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ 4 of 18
Pu...... nt 10 zs u.s.c. t 1746. we he«by de<lo« onde, ~.." ..Ity ot pe,jory th>t the
o.,Kj Si"eroinl I(.y Si.,',ldinS

641 ll..,wood A". V'J'OIIlI. WI S3S93608 S4S S721
d. ,id .... ,.ro i"1 @ ~ ... i I""'" y".jc.cll! in.:;; ..,. -<'M
IOl UnZioMe,EXE t::ll }-1l9-cv-OOS6l-JOB.zio

Case 1:()9.cv·OO562-JDB DoctJmenl 23 F~ed 07/231M Page 5 of 16
Ir- Till,; UNIHIIS1'AU:S DISTRICf COURT
tUR Till', ()'~T"'CT 0>' COl.lI"""'A
,
)
~"'in,jff"
,
)
'.
UNITI,;JJ ~,. ATI'S m:I'ARTME,''T 01'
,)
)
C;,'~ Atlion No. 0!I-00561 (JIIII)
JUSTICE, )
I'LAI'-'TItl'S' STATEMENT m' MATERIAL t'ACfS NOT IN GENUINE
Ols~un;
I.) 1'1>< doc""",n' OOJ de",rib.. as' <1<<1,,,,,,,,, 0( Soep/l<n Walh",h, which
i.<lude. a v<rifie.,i"" .. de«rib«l in 100,1 Rul. $, I(h),;' "n';i"~ S«
docn"",n' S, '''I'y .... ch«!,
.rod ....' II>< wo.-~ ·'>!loll".
docn""'nl .ltril>ul«l '0 M•. W.IIi",h ;, n"~gn«1 See doc""",n" 13. 16..... 17
4,) If docu'''''"' 3 ;. "ru<k. 'I><n [)OJ i. in defanlt.
S.) Ttl< rompl,in' dem.nd<d lha'<aeh of II>< plaintiff. ~o,ve a ..,lIo"",n' vir'ually
6,) Til< c;vil CUveT 'ho<' de",. .....d $1 1.6 m;t1,,,,,.

7,) Tl>e New y",k Tirno. .epo.-1. Ilia, ,I>< ",nlo"",n' from DOJ to Dr. H,tfill
coo,;SI<d of. <.,h poy"",n' of $2.325 milli"" pi.. an .noui'y paying $1 SO))))
IOl UnZiDMo,EXE t::ll HJ9-cv-00562-JDB.ziD

Case 1:09.cv.Q0562·JD8 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Page 6 of III
"'" y." r", !W'"'y y..rs .0£1 'hi, ;. acc'p"'b1. to ,II< p1.intiff,
S.) The 5i.,-<<<Iing.' <ompl.int .11'100 y••" d ~."'''m<n' by ,he U5~15,
Po"",,", '0 Z8 U.~_C_ f 1746, w, "'''by _I." und<r pen.lly d perjury 'llat ,he
o..id S,,,.roi"1
<;41 1.I woo:I A" V,,,,,,,, WI 5J$93 60& S4& 5721
".y Si•••roi"1
d••ill , rdi"'@I""il.<"'" loy"". rdjn g@oo!,"'10
•
IOl UnZ'DM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056l-JOB.riD
•
Case 1:09.cv.Q0562·JD8 Document 23
-.-
Filed 07123109 Page 7 of III
IN TilE UNITEIl ST... n:s IlI~TIUcr COURT
FOIt THE DISTRICf m"COLUMDlA
i~;;;".;;;.,oo"'~-::,"""C.'~;;;.'.;-------,
,
Plaintiffs. ,,
,,
) ChoU A<lion NO.O'NlOS6l (JOK)
UNITED S1'AYES DEPARTMENT

JU!;-rICE,
O~·
,
Plaintiff,' Pr.......... Ordtr 10 find 1110 <lele",,"nlln 'Moull.
Dofer.daa' U.s. 0<1""""'0' q{ Jusu« "'., in",oc"d tlut. «ply to th< plaintiff,'
nnd., penalty of "",jury. locol Rule 5.1 (h) oDd (il rtqu;", th."uch doc."","1S ",<Iud<
.i,,"'ly identic.1 ro 'hot OOJ provided to Dr, S""-,n 'Illfili. T" Ne... Yori< Time>
",p"'IS llu' Dr. H.lfol'", ""lI,,,,,,o, ."",1,,«1 of S2.B2S ",illion in <o.h pin' on o"n,ily
pol'in, him SISO;OOO per ye", for :to ye.n, DO! ""i<l th., onn oity ..<I ..... IW.n: of i'
...nen 11 ,..,.. lQ "I< ii' <lere,,"" """",", Thn, DOl "'." 0«<'" "'. """"'1"0«0 uJl<1<r
Lot.1 Rule 5.1 (i.j ol filing an .""~nW do<u"",nt 'hal ."",we, • ,.lifo."i"" 0'
<le",ribcd in L.,..I Rul< 5.l (h.). Til<'" inin'l pay""'"" to Mr .•oo M", S",v<r<ling ,n tl><
IOl Ul\liDM"EXE Cj) }-1l9-cv-0056.2-JDB.ziD

Case 1:09·ev-00562·JDB Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ a olla
~fChoO«l wi,hi. 60 d.y.,
Dot' JOIlND,DATES
U.itO<! S,,"'. o;"tk, JL>dl'
"
IOl UnZiDMe,EXE C2l HI9-ev-0056.2-JDB.ziD

"... ,,<-fur t"d'" OIUl1I """ ... " ' . -
Requesl«: Kay sit"wins
Request Nurnb<r._j~"'·""'l' ~ of Rouipl:--C'"""""""L _

Subj=_--'••"LI"~""""'L _
hi ~ to you: Freedom oflnfomllliCG Ad udlor P1iVllCY ht rtqutSl, the

poragnpb(.) chochd bolow OWl,.:
,
2. (. J A sean:h fur n<:ords locattd ;" Ibt United SlIIeo AttorDo)'. Offico(.) for lbe
pHlrist of c..lor'l4p hBo reYelItd 00
""I""'I"i"'...,.,..Js rtpnling lbt above SlJbjoct. Tho DisIri<:t ofCoIorodo wos not
it>v<>1V«! i.o lbo _ ~ Kay S~
,
S l' J "lout note thoI your 0liii:W ItIltf"... opIil info...,.me lilts ("rtq~ for
proecu'lli JI"'l'O'C'I, ba.«4 "" ltlt IlUurt 01_ you sougIIt. _ lilt was Ii"'" •
se...,.. R"'JI"'Ol NUIliber (lioted btl"..), for wbicll you will ftlCeive. otpm'Bll:!tSpOJlS<:
!lS-28Jl1
This H .... Ii.naI aoUOQ on 1hlJ obo...........,btml roq...... You mIIy opptaIlhb 0tcW00 WI
thi. rtq\><$l1l')' writiDa wilbiD 60 doy> from tbt ..... oftlti> Itt1e£ 10 tho Olllcc o'lnl....... ti...
...d l'oiva<y, U.''''' St.... Do.....-.o".' JD'tI<ot, 14~ N_ Yorl< AUDUt, Suu. I lOW,
W••bio!'O'" D.C. 205](1-0001. Ilo<h tho lctttr arid ........ oIIouI<Il>t madtd "FOIA
AppoaI.~ JfyOU ... diosati<f"", wirh lhe ltOI'llJoI" lOll)' S!J<J> _ioi_v<> apfUI.j.... ;eial ..,.,itw
....y lboreoftt! bo ovaitoblt iD. U.S. District COurt, 21 C.FR 116.9,
IOl UnZioMt,EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056l-JOB.zio

"":'" ,OO::O_....
-'
j
~":".',,"'~"o.o,,::;;;:"'''''':::,...------------
-, CltPn'fi'l!if§ule, Di,lri<:t Court
lldIrid of CoknIlo
J.A YSlE~P 2~ A C- 22
COLORADO EWt. ASSOCi.'TION•

• 'oJ.,
To, The UJ>i1Oll StalCl MmhaI

&rid ""1 A ~ UaiIOOl Sta... 0""",
YOUAREIIE1lEIIYCOMlolANDEDlO ,~""'~'!!.:,~""'~""'------
Viotllion !'r<>lIIlioo. Viola.... _
....,.o"fJ.trD
'~.~.~'":'"-
_. _- . :..
_..........
_ofw;MI_
'" -
-Jlti. _ I 'I'b"""';Y«l ond ..cel>tod wilhll>t 0InISl of.... obov~l\IIIIbddefend..1
N.... ODd Tit!< of Arr<otina Ofli=

r?'lOflo
OUS,AOf
IOl UnZioMe,EXE Cj) H<9-cv-0056.2-JDB.rio

0.. In Conjuncd"" With PIII_ Trackltlg S~I"" (PTSj
E..... USMS dislric:l PIal oo:eo.o lo!he PTS .lIhough k may not resOdI "" \lie _
~ .. WIN. PTS <lI:01IainI detailed recon:ls of NCh ........ p<Isonor hoo beeI1
in Ihe cuolody g/ Iho USMS. end COIn be ~\IIfiBd by USMS Rogisler """,boor ot by
Name and Soc:iaI Sea.rty _ , . Like _ polenIioIl""""," g/ inlQrmetion. jW
lIIouid Mlrch PTS beIoro jW edd llUbject ot I .-- w..... n11o WIN.
PTS ~ repoftS which jW con use 10 nput dltll into WIN. USM·129 is t....
Individual C",to<fy R8f'O"l. whle USM-312 is !he Perwnal HjI1O<y R8f'O"l. USM·
312 II 01 pa~-' Interest beco..... I o/Ien COOlain, irJforrna1ioo on famIy
tnembera,
" - "'II _ _ ~ 01 "",,_ inlDnnotion ..."", WIN, NCIC, PlS. Nl.€"T$

_ _ .........,., ... ti"ne to _,!he doll. K)'OIl hIocllound Ihalyoox 1.IJI>jBcI _
_ , ... WIN. jW 1'1'0I*I not enter. new 1l/tIjecI,"
dupJicIkt rocordo diltorl!he
databa... lnslnd.)'OIl """'"d modify Ille e><illing ...cords. adding .1 much new
inlormolion .. y<>IJ h.... 1II1!lefed, 0.-.::1 che<:I<i>g 10 ellllJ1'1t Iho1 IhIl """"nl
Information II ~
If. h _ . yo<J I>Id not _ !till ro<"" bjod woo ok.O<ly In WIN. VO" craate
new l'fll;<lO"dt. Not o:IIy 'NIl yoox diltric:rl tigatcn be.toe 10 _Ille IrrfoomaIion
you enter, but othet diltri<:tl • .-.::1 _ a l .",..,.,.. IhIl oounuy bIl obIe 10 he'(I
_ Ihe fl.W1IIve. FOIlnllance. Wrou enter. _ 10 nurrt:>er, a lrlfll<: cop
,
2000 ITlile$IWrI "-'"10 puIIlhol .._ 0V1II1or .limplo """"ing _lion, a
rOlJline NCIC qLlef)' \OflI reslm In. "Nt" which may .... Ip you localo !he "-'\1_.
P r o c _ TIP. You "",sf "". . .",. 01 the IoIIowfng re• ..,nl Ioi .ntemo •
• uf>jlocIi'>Io WIN'
o You _ ~ _ one - . f or/f1IIIIfiI>flln )'OUT~tdct tort1l'l wb;ect

~
o You .... .li'Ib"lI_ 0Q0<:iI1It III 0 fugItNtt
o<igi'Iaring")'OiIf _
1oi_)'OII_'""""""
o A &>elSOII Ioi wI>om II-. USMS hot ~ " " ' _ ~ hu
_"'In~~.
o A ~ "". _ _ ~ COInm....o::.6on If> _ Ioi I01>om
II-. USMS hff iudici&I ptOIe<:iIOO ~. '
Step 1: Scle<:l 2· EftIIIf Now SubJoc:t (FlIlIlh. 01 .... ..,.,1.11) from the WIN
Online • Moin Me"U The oexllClH/l ISg \'0'110 be I bit mOl'''p'''''- ~
PE249
..II 'MN-"nT~_
IOl UnZiDM"EXE c:o }-1l9-cv-0056l-J[)B.ziD

United s..1eI Oistri<:l Court
l,l;ooo;,t",~
Too TIIoIJailod _ _
Wilt'! .............. Uliloj _otr_
YOU ARE K<RtJlYOOMMANDEDIO ..... --'U"""'~"_,-~·"'''',· _
..... btin&"""o.-Ilo< _ 1 0 "" _ .......... JU4Ie 1 0 _ 0(0)
FaOlvolO_
io.-.r· l.loOodstot<oCod&.SocIi<m(.) _
lloiJ,i5:o<d" l • -------=:;;;;...0;------ _.._---

0.0 N... ondnkofArr... .,.OlIio:<r
3 .. " f.)$J-fS -
tv '-<I:--
IOl UnZioMc,EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056l-JOB.zio

\tI,I~",s !.Oll<'U'
. ..,
Case 1:()9-cv.oo562.JDB Document 23 F~ed 01123109 Page 13 of 1B
p.......n' 10 2' U.S.C § 174<>, I deel.... lmder !"'tWl)' of I""jury that "'" foregoini i, truI:
on<l OOIT«' 10 tile ..., of my k"",,1«1g. IU'Id belief.
''; Stcpb<p D Wslli"b

STEPIJEN D, WALLISCH
S....."i""Y llopuly Unilfil S"'"', Mar""'l
_on
00......
.,.-~~---...
••
,..
__
-.... "...ihl"'_'''-lo<''_O<'''~1
_ ........ _ s
"" 'rmo<o
PE369 (al
IOl UnZioM.,EXE c:o }-1l9-cv-00562-JDB.zio

,,,,, ..... -
-_._---------_.
In....8 ••_
Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit

IIy '!COlT SttANt ond tRIC !!CHIlI,,,lJ
WASHINGTON - The Justice o.,partment announced Friday that it would pay $4_6
million to settle a la""'Suit filed by Steven ,I. lIatfill, a fl)rmer Army bioddense
researcher intensively investigated as a "person of interest" in the deadly anthrax letters
Of~ool_
The settlement, consisting of $~,825 million in cash and an annuity paying Dr. Hatfill
$150,000 a year for ~o years. brings toan end a tive--year legal battle that had recently
thl"f'alenOO a l"f'porter with large fines for declining to name sources she said she did not
'""'.
Dr. Hattill, who W(lrked at the Army's laboratory at Fon o.,trick in Frederick, Md.• in
the late 19906, was the subject of a flood of news media coverage beginning in mid-
2002, after television cameras showed Federal Bureau of Investigatjon agents in
1>iolla""....1suits searching hi. apartmcnt ncar the Army base. Ik Wall later named a
"p.:m;on of interest" in the case by then Attorney General ,lohn Asbcrofl, speaking on
national television.
In a news conference in August 2002, Dr. HatfiU tearfully denied that he had anything
tndo with the anthrax letters and said irresponsible news media coverage based on
~Ovemment leaks had destroyed his reputation.
Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit, filed;n 2003, accused F.B.I, agents and Justice o.,partment
officials involved in the criminal investigation of the anthrax mailings of leaking
information about him tothe news media in violation ofthe Privacy Act. In order to
prove their case, his lawyers took depositions from key F.B.1. in,...stigators, senior
officials and a number of reporters who !tad covered the investigation.
Mark Grannis, a lawyer for Dr, HatfiLi. said his dient was pleased ",~th the settlement.
"The good news is thatw" still live in a C<".lOtry where a guy who's been norribly abused
IOl UnZiDM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056l-JOB.ziD

. . __
~ <~, ~~:€l.·91~~!i2·J!28 Document 23 Filed 07123109 Pa~ 15 of III
..... -
"""
can go to ajudge and say 'I need your help: and maybe it takes a while, but he gelS
justi",,: Mr. Grannis said.
The settlement, Mr. Grannis said, "means that Steven Hatlill is finally an ex-pcJ'8()n of
'nte.....t.·
In a written statemcnt, Mr. Grannis and Dr. Hatlill's other iltwyers said, "We can only
hoW that the individuals and institutions involved are sufficiently chastened hy this
epL'<OOe tl) deter similar dcstructil)lll)f private citizens in the future - and that we will
all read anonj'IIlously sourced news re(lOrts with a great deal more skeplicism."
The lawyers will take their fee out of the setllement, which win payout $5.8 million
over 20 years. The $".6 million figure is the CllSt I)fthe annuity to the government.
l"e settlemem called new attemion 10 the faet tltal nearly seven years aner the toxic
lettcrs werc mailed, killing five people and sickening at Ica,t 17mhers, the case has not
!teen solved.
A Justice Department S(lOkesman, Brian Roehrlrnsse, said in a statement that the

government admitted no liability but decided settlement waS "in the best interest of the
United States.·
-11>e government remains resolute in its investigation into the anthrax attacks, "i1ich
killed five individuals and sickened others after lethal anthrax (lOwder was sent through
the United States mail," Mr. Rochrkas.se said.
An I'.B.1. s(lOkesman, Jason Pack, said the anthrax investigation "is one of the largest
and mo<t complex inv""tigntiono ......or conducted by law enforcement" and i. ""r...,ntly
being pursued hy more than 20 agents oflhe F.B.I. and the Posta! Inspection Service,
,
"Solving this case is a top priority for the F.B.I. and for the family members of the
victims who were killed: Mr. Pack said.
ll"t.R<!pr1OOOntative 1111Gb Hgb, a New Jersey [)em""",,\ w ..... e districtwa.

the .i\& of •
>'OStat box believed to have been used in the attacks, said he would press Rohen S
Mueller III, director of the F,6.1., for more answers about the status of the case.
• As today's settlement announcement confirms, this case was botched from the very
beginning," Mr. Holt said. "The F.B.I. did a poor job of collecting evidence, and then
inappropriately focused on one individual as 3 sllSpecl for too long, developing an
. . ·1_,_._-,<><1,._-,--_·,.. . . . _·-
erroncoos theory of the CllS(' that has led to this very expensive dead end."
PE369(c)
. "..
IOl UnZiDM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056l-JDB.riD

...
,,,,, ,, ...
Dr, Hatfill subpoenaed Washingtonjoumalists to tl)' to learn which federal officials had
,ookcn to the news media about the case against him in possible violation of federal
privacy la"'"1>.
Toni Lacy, a former legal affairs reporter for USA Today who wrote several artides
about the case, was held in contempt of court, facing fines of up to $5,000 a day from
Judge Reggie Walton over her refusal to name her sourres, and her case is pending
hoMon> an "1'l""-,,10 Murt. MR. In<)' .. id Friday thar Rhe ""s ....lieve<! hy the developments
but thar it was too soon to ""Iebrate.
"I hope this means that this ordeal is over and that I can get on with my life," said Ms.
Lacy, who will begin teaching legal reporting at Washington and Lee University in the
fall.
Sle said Dr. Hatfill'slawyers said they no longer needed her testimony, though she had
Pot been told whether the contempt order against her had been lifted.
The ouloome differed significantly from the settlement of a simUar case involvingWen
IIq I.ee, a former nuclear scientist once suspected of espionage. In that case, five n"",,,,
organirotionsjoined the government's settlement, agreeing to pay a total of S750,OOO
to prevent their reporters from having to testify about their sources.
Ms. Lacy said that a federal mediator had tried to get Gannett, which owns USA Today,
10 negotiate some type of settlement with Dr. Hatftll"slawyers, but that it had refused
She called the result an important affirmation ofjournalists' ability to use confidential
sources ingathering material on important news stories. "I protected my sources, and
That's important," she said.
Dr. Ilatftll also sued The New York Times and the columnist NicllQlas D. Kristof, saying
that M),lmru; Mr. Kristofwrote about the case had libeled him bysuggesting Ihat he
might be the anthrax mailer. That lawsuit was dismissed last year, but Dr. Hatfill has
appealed the dismissal.
The former Armyscientist also sued Vanity Fair and the author of an article about the
case in the magazine, Donald Foster, as well as Reader's Digest, which published a
cu",kll.,.>l 'C'.;UlI. n,al case was settled last y<:ar on confidential term•.
Dr. Hatlill, 54, grewup in Illinois but studied medicine in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.
After returning to the United States in the early 199Os, he worked at the Natiqnal
.! ." " ,
PE369 (d)
IOl UnZiDMe,EXE CD HJ9-cv-0056l-JDB.ziD

_."_........-1_,"""__' ,,............._ ..... PE369 (d)
"'-"'."--'O!IGe US I!'I"G0062·;ee DooJment23 Filed 07123109 Page 17 of 16 ..

",,, ,,.""
lnslillltes pi Health and the Ul!!red States Army Medical Reseat~., Institute fot
InfectioUIJ Di.>ca.>c. at Fort Detriek. In applying for thooc joho, he claimed to hove hod •
Ph.D. from a SouIh African university that his lawyers later admilled he had not earned.
lie did training on bioterrorism for the F.B.I., Centra! Intelligence AgenCY and Defense
Imelljgence agenCY and trained to he a bioweapons inspector for the United NatiOnS,
thongh he never began the job.
After Dr. Halfin came under suspicion in the anthrax case in 2002, an F.B.I.
surveillance team began following him eve'Y"·here,and a small motOr<:ade sometimes
Irailed his car around Washington.
In May 2003, an F.RI. surveillance car ran over Dr. HalfiU·s foot in GwrgeIown as he
approached the car to take the driver's picture. lie was given a ticket for "walking to
create a hazard' and was fined $5.
David Stoutoontributed reporting from Washington.
""'" "*' I _ I """""- I _II -....... I _ I ~ I """ ... US I _ _
PE 369 (el
IOl UnZiDM"EXE c:D }-1l9-cv-0056l-JDB.ziD


)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
~ ) Civil Action No. 09-00562 (JDB)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION UNDER LOCAL RULE

5.l(j) TO STRIKE DOJ DOCUMENT #8 AND FIND DOJ IN DEFAULT
Defendant the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ" or "Defendant") by and through
its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this reply to Plaintiffs' "motion under Local Rule 5.1 (i)
to strike DOJ document # 8 and find DOJ in default" ("Plaintiffs' Motion"). The motion is without
merit and should be denied.
Plaintiffs claim that "DOJ included an unsigned document as an exhibit in its motion to
dismiss." Plaintiffs' Motion at I. The problematic document, they claim, is the Declaration of
Stephen Wallisch, who swore pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that "[r]elevant and necessary records
regarding Ms. Sieverding were prepared and maintained in the USMS Warrant Information Network
(WIN) and Prisoner Population Management/Prisoner Tracking Systems (PTS) of records."
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Declaration of Stephen D. Wallisch at 3. Plaintiffs claim that the
document is not signed and that the absence of a signature warrants striking Defendant's entire
Motion to Dismiss and the issuance of a default judgment against Defendant.

Plaintiffs' Motion is wholly meritless. The Wallisch Declaration bears the electronic
signature "/s/ Stephen D. Wallisch", and Defendant maintains a signed declaration on file. That
signed copy ofMr. Walllisch's declaration is attached hereto. Moreover, Plaintiffs' contention that
an alleged deficiency in a declaration attached to a motion renders the entire motion invalid is plainly
false. Plaintiffs' Motion is nothing more than their latest abusive attempt to use this court's filing
system as a sounding board for frivolous claims.
"Motions to strike pleadings are generally considered a drastic remedy disfavored by courts,
and the decision to deny or grant such motions is in the sound discretion of the Court." Canady v.
Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 307 F. Supp. 2d 2, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2004). The Defendant respectfully
submits that Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied.
Dated: July 28, 2009
Respectfully submitted.
/sl
/s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. BAR #434122

DAVID C. RYBICKI, D.C. BAR #976836
Civil Division
555 4th Street, N.W.
(202) 353-4024
2
(202) 514-8780 (fax)

David.Rybicki@usdoj.gov
OF COUNSEL:
Edward Bordley
Associate General Counsel
Betsy 1. Ritter
Federal Bureau ofInvestigation
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 28, 2009, I caused the foregoing Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike to be served on Plaintiffs via electronic mail to the following addresses:
kaysieverding@aol.com
david.sieverding@gmail.com
and via first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
DAVID & KAY SIEVERDING

641 Basswood Ave.
Verona, WI 53593
co: :=:=t.c: <:3.-== ----.::;:>-

DAVID C. RYBICKI
4

)
DAVID SIEVERDlNG, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
~ ) Civil Action No. 09-00562 (JDB)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, for
the reasons set forth by Defendant in support thereof, and based upon the entire record herein, it is
this _ day of , 2009, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike be and is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date:
JOHN D. BATES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

)
DAVID SIEVERDING, et aI., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
)
1. I am employed by the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") as a Deputy U.S. Marshal
and information obtained in the course ofmy employment. In the event that I am called as a witness,
I could competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration.
3. On September 25,2006, Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District
contempt of court.
I
apprehension responsibilities for the bench warrant and the initiated the arrest ofMs. Sieverding for
the District of Colorado. In accordance with USMS policy, the bench warrant was entered into the
USMS Warrant Information Network system of records and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's
National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") records.
5. Plaintiffsued the Colorado Bar Association (D. Colo., Civil ActionNo.02-CV-1950-
EWN). She was taken into custody by order of Judge Nottingham on September 2,2005, under a
civil contempt violation until "she purges herselfofthe contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily
to dismiss the lawsuits." She also had lawsuits in the District of Columbia and in the City and
County of Denver.
contract to the USMS to house federal prisoners, from September 2,2005, until January 4, 2006, a
period of 124 days. On January 4,2006, Judge Nottingham ordered her released that day after she
7. Plaintiffwas also arrested and released on February 8, 2006, when she turned herself
in to the USMS in Madison, Wisconsin, for further contempt violations ordered by Judge
Nottingham.
8. Plaintiffwas arrested again on May 10, 2007, on further contempt violations ordered
On June 1,2007, she appeared before Judge Nottingham and was then released.
2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and
l,!
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I
Dated: May 29, 2009

f
\) . Uv{;---
EPHEN D. WALLISCH
3
Case 1:()9.",.«l562-JDB Documenl23 F~ed 07123109 Page 16 of 16
11' TilE UNITED STAn:s DISHUCf COURT
O", ....Kl K..) S",.,J.iuS ,

)
I'lainlifb, )
)
'. 1 Chil A<lion 1'\'0, (l9.O(IS62IJDEll
)
UNITED ~T An;s llEI'ARTM niT O~' )
JUSTICE, )
C,rtif,w, of s.e"ic< of P1.inl;ff,' moIion "00., Loc.IR"I, S.l (il '0 ,trik. [)OJ
docu"",o' , 8.lId fiod Dol in d<f0lJ1'
B<c.... tho plojn"ff' <lon', haY< .n ECFow"ml. 'h<y ..nt> p1p<' ropy of
"f'I.in,iff,' moIi"" .00.. Loc.1 R"I. S.I (i) '0 >Ink. 001 d<><""",nl' 8 .lId tirtd 001 io
<l<f."I1" '0 [)OJ by FEDID: '0
Unil«J Sial" AtI<>rn<y'. Offi« .lIn o..id Rybicki
IOl UnZiDM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-00562-JDB.riD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
David and Kay Sieverding )

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION UNDER RULES OF EVIDENCE 403 TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT # 25 BECAUSE OF PERJURY AND FIND
DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT ON MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENT 23.
Defendant submitted perjury in document 25 and that is not allowed by the Rules of
Evidence # 403. Therefore, document 25 should be struck which leaves plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' motion under Local Rule 5.1 (i) to strike DO] document # 8 and find DO] in
default (document 23) as undisputed. A proposed order consistent with this motion is
attached. In support of this motion, plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court to the attached
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts Not in
Genuine Dispute. The defendant is reminded that under local rules failure to respond
1
servO ce will cause the motion to be conceded.

/
~-F-1~lI-f..!-~~~~.,.---'
08/04/09 _k:U:--j ~~-r- ~09
'_
J
David Sie rding Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Ave Verona, WI 53593 608 848 5721
david.sieverding@gmail.com kaysieverding@laol.com
RECEIVED
AUG 0 fl 2009
NANCY MAYER WHiTTINGTON, CLERK
U.S DISTRICT COURT
1

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09·00562 (JDB)
)
JUSTICE, )
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT # 25
BECAUSE OF PERJURY AND FIND DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT
Perjury is by definition, not admissible. See Rules of Evidence 403. Defendants'
response, document 25, to plaintiffs motion to strike, document 23, defendants' response,
document 8, on the basis that the document described as the declaration of Stephen
Wallisch was unsigned, was to present a signed copy of it. However, the document
includes perjury and is therefore inadmissible. Therefore DOl should be in default.
The signed document presented as a "declaration of Stephen D. Wallisch",
Document 25-3, contains multiple perjuries.
Perjury # 1: "On September 25,2006, Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a bench warrant for the arrest of
Kay Sieverding for contempt of court". (Wallisch "declaration" page 1 See PE753
attached)
Proof: The unexecuted (PE16 attached) and executed (PE30 attached) warrants
dated September 25,2006, do not mention the word "contempt".
Perjury # 2: "The bench warrant was entered into the USMS Warrant Information
2
Network system of records and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime
Information Center ("NCIC") records." (Wallisch page 2)
Proof: The WIN System will not accept entry of a warrant unless there is a
"violation code". (See PE237 attached). The U.S. code only allows detention as a
sanction for Failure to Appear when there is an underlying criminal offense. (See PE758-
PE763 attached.). The WIN system will not allow entry of a fugitive warrant unless there
is also a warrant for an underlying offense. (See PE765 attached). All the other
warrants that were executed by the USMS in Colorado included the numbers of the
offense(s) charged. (See PE766-829 attached)
Perjury # 3 "a civil contempt violation" (Wallisch Page 2 see PE754 attached)
Proof: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Read:
"The notice ....[must] "state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal
contempt and describe it as such". (See PE757 attached).
FBI publications state the prosecution for violations of injunctions are "obsolete"
and contempt is now prosecuted under 18 USC 3285,3691 and 3692 and 10 USC 847.
(See PE 45 attached). None of those violation codes, 3285, 3691, or 3692 were used in
any record that the Sieverdings received and DO] has access to all records when
defending a civil complaint against the U.S. (See PE47 attached) Furthermore, since the
prosecution was not prosecuted in the name of the United States, and there was no
statement that Mrs. Sieverding committed contempt in the presence of the court, a jury
trial was required. See 18 U .S.C. 3691 (PE830-832 attached) but a diligent search of the
records produces no record of a jury trial.
Perjury # 4 "Clear Creek County Jail, a local jail under contract to the USMS to
house federal prisoners".
3
Proof: DOJ sent the Sieverdings a copy of the USMS contract with Clear Creek
Jail and it defines "federal prisoners" as "persons charged with or convicted of violations
of Federallaw or held as material witnesses". (See PE208 attached). When Mr.
Rybicki filed the signed copy of Mr. Wallisch's declaration, on 7/28/09,20 days had
already lapsed since he received document PE 208, the page from the Clear Creek Jail
Contract that Mrs. Sieverding got thru the Freedom of Information Act, and the
corresponding "Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute" in
plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief saying
"54.) The USM contract with Clear Creek Jail authorized them to hold
people "charged with or convicted o/violations 0/ Federal law or held as material
witnesses". (See PE208) It does not authorize them to hold people awaiting trial
on noncriminal or immigration offenses. Mrs. Sieverding's detention there
violated their contract. (Document 20 p. 26) (See PE756 attached)
Thus, Mr. Rybicki was aware that the contract with Clear Creek Jail allows
the jail only to hold people under the definition of their contract, not random people that
the USMS chooses to detain and he had a duty to be aware of that on 7/28/09 when he
filed the false declaration under the signature that he claimed belongs to Mr. Wallisch.
So even if Mr. Wallisch didn't know the details of the jail contract, Mr. Rybicki did on
7/28/09. Mr. Rybicki subordened perjury.
Perjury # 5 "plaintiff was also arrested and released on February 8, 2006".
Proof:
"(A) A warrant is executed by arresting the defendant. Upon arrest, an officer

possessing the warrant must show it to the defendant. If the officer does not possess the
warrant, the officer must inform the defendant of the warrant's existence and of the
offense charged and, at the defendant's request, must show the warrant to the defendant
as soon as possible. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 4 (3)"
4
The definition of arrest includes being told the charges or being shown a warrant
that state the charges. Mrs. Sieverding was not told the charges nor was she shown a
warrant of any sort on 2/08/06. Furthermore, Mr. Wallisch was not in a position to testify
about what happened in Wisconsin.
Perjury # 6 ''further contempt violations ordered by Judge Nottingham".
Proof: Judge Nottingham did not issue a warrant for contempt of court for Mrs.
Sieverding. A diligent search of the records shows no warrant for contempt of court for
Mrs. Sieverding.
Perjury # 7 "Plaintiff was arrested again on May 10, 2007" .
Proof: There is no executed warrant dated 5/10/07. The Verona Police (who
kidnapped her), McFarland Police (See PE833) and Dane County Sheriff do not have a
warrant. Mrs. Sieverding was simply kidnapped by lawless thugs. (See PE 380, 384-
390). Wisconsin local police are not authorized to serve federal warrants. (See PE 834
letter from Municipal Court Judge) Mrs. Sieverding did not meet any U.S. Marshals on
5/10/07.
There is an executed warrant with execution dated 5/31/07. It is signed by Paul
Otto. (See PE30 attached.) He is a Marshal in Colorado not in Wisconsin. (See PE767 ,
P773 attached)
Perjury # 8 ''further contempt violations ordered by Judge Nottingham"
Proof: There is no warrant for contempt of court with Mrs. Sieverding's name on
it. There was no contempt of court hearing scheduled in May 2007. (See PE367 attached
letter from public defender asking to be excused on basis not a contempt hearing, April-
June 2007 02-cv-1950 docket report attached PE835-PE 838 and minute order document
5
1007 setting hearing on motion)
Perjury # 9 "Relevant and necessary records regarding Ms. Sieverding were
prepared and maintained in the USMS Warrant Information Network".
Proof: A violation code is required for a warrant to be entered into WIN. (See PE
237 WIN Procedures and Training Manual 2-4 attached.) The PACER warrants didn't
have an offense code. (See PE15 and PE16 attached.) Normal Practice in the District of
Colorado is for all warrants to have a statute number (See PE766-829 attached) and this
is used to determine the violation code when the warrant is entered into WIN. (See PE237
WIN Procedures and Training Manual 2-4 attached). Without a violation code, a warrant
cannot be entered. DOJ reported that it had sent all documents it possessed to Mrs.
Sieverding and a diligent search of them showed that none of them included any number
in the form xxxx-xxxx-xxx-x. (See PE370-371) The NCJRS reports that the government
does not keep violation codes 5002,5005, or 5007. (See PE559-700 attached).
When an untried prisoner is detained, the detainer must be entered into WIN by the
originating district and sent to the U.S. Attorney's office. (See PE35 attached) The U.S.
Attorney's offices in both Wisconsin and Colorado have no files or records on Mrs.
Sieverding. (See PE4-6 attached).
Furthermore, USMS Congressional Affairs Officer John J. McNulty lied to Mrs.
Sieverdings' congresswoman and claimed that Mrs. Sieverding was arrested based on a
warrant for contempt of court. (See PE375 letter from Mr. McNulty to Congresswoman
Baldwin and PE 566 letter from Congresswoman Baldwin to Mr. McNulty). Mr.
McNulty did not correct his letter to the Sieverdings' congressional representative. In this
case, Mr. Rybicki lied to the Court and represented that there were warrants for contempt
6
of court. (See PE574 document 14 p 2)
The evidence shows conclusively that the declaration filed on 7/28/09, which
purports to be under the signature of Stephen D. Wallisch, is filled with perjuries and
false statements that Mr. Rybicki knew were not true on 7/28/09 (See PE 753-755
attached). Therefore it must be struck. Without that perjurious document, DOl's
objection, document 25, to plaintiffs' motion to strike, document 23, is meaningless.
Therefore, DOl should be found in default.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1746, we hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoin is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.
David Sie e ding Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Ave Verona, WI 535936088485721
david.sieverding@gmail.com kaysieverding@laol.com
7

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09·00562 (JDB)
)
JUSTICE, )
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN GENUINE

DISPUTE
1.) There are no warrants for contempt of court with Kay Sieverding's name on
them. See PEI5-16.
2.) The WIN System will not accept entry of a warrant unless there is a "violation
code". (See PE237 attached)
3.) The U.S. code only allows detention as a sanction for Failure to Appear when
there is an underlying criminal offense. (See PE758-PE763 attached.).
4.) The WIN system will not allow entry of a fugitive warrant unless there is also a
warrant for an underlying offense. (See PE765 attached).
5.) All the other warrants that were executed by the USMS in Colorado included the
numbers of the offense(s) charged. (See PE766-829 attached)
6.) The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Read "The notice ....[must] "state the
essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as
such". (See PE757 attached).
7.) FBI publications state the prosecution for violations of injunctions are "obsolete"
8
and contempt is now prosecuted under 18 USC 3285, 3691 and 3692 and 10 USC
847. (See PE 45 attached).
8.) Violation codes, 3285, 3691, or 3692 were used in any record that the Sieverdings
received.
9.) DOJ has access to all records when defending a civil complaint against the U.S.
(See PE47 attached)
10.) The USMS contract with Clear Creek jail is to hold federal prisoners" defined as
"persons charged with or convicted of violations of Federal law or held as
material witnesses". (See PE208 attached).
11.) Mrs. Sieverding was not shown a warrant on 2/8/06 nor was she told the offense
charged so the arrest procedure did not comply with Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 4(3).
12.) Mr. Wallisch cannot reliably testify about events he was not involved with,
including what happened in Wisconsin. That is hearsay and is prohibited.
13.) The WIN system requires the entry of the number of a deputy to whom a warrant
is assigned but Mr. Wallisch made no reference to the deputy's number nor does
it show on any document. (See PE839-842)
14.) There is executed warrant dated 5/10/07. The Verona Police (who kidnapped
her), McFarland Police (See PE833) and Dane County Sheriff do not have a
warrant. Mrs. Sieverding was simply kidnapped by lawless thugs. (See PE 380,
384-390). Wisconsin local police are not authorized to serve federal warrants.
(See PE 834 letter from Municipal Court Judge) Mrs. Sieverding did not meet any
U.S. Marshals on 5/10/07.
9
15.) There is an executed warrant with execution dated 5/31/07. It is signed by Paul
Otto. (See PE30 attached.) He is a Marshal in Colorado not in Wisconsin. (See
PE767 , P773 attached)
16.) There was no contempt of court hearing scheduled in May 2007. (See PE367
attached letter from public defender asking to be excused on basis not a contempt
hearing, April- June 2007 02-cv-1950 docket report attached PE835-PE 838 and
minute order document 1007 setting hearing on motion)
17.) DOJ reported that it had sent all documents it possessed to Mrs. Sieverding and a
diligent search of them showed that none of them included any number in the
form xxxx-xxxx-xxx-x. (See PE370-371)
18.) The NCJRS reports that the government does not keep violation codes 5002,
5005, or 5007. (See PE559-700 attached).
19.) When an untried prisoner is detained, the detainer must be entered into WIN by
the originating district and sent to the U.S. Attorney's office. (See PE35
attached)
20.) The U.S. Attorney's offices in both Wisconsin and Colorado have no files or
records on Mrs. Sieverding. (See PE4-6 attached).
21.)The U.S. Attorney's offices in both Wisconsin and Colorado have no files or
records on Mrs. Sieverding. (See PE4-6 attached).
22.) USMS Congressional Affairs Officer John J. McNulty lied to Mrs. Sieverdings'
congresswoman and claimed that Mrs. Sieverding was arrested based on a
warrant for contempt of court. (See PE375 letter from Mr. McNulty to
10
Congresswoman Baldwin and PE 566 letter from Congresswoman Baldwin to
Mr. McNulty)
23.) Mr. McNulty did not correct his letter to the Sieverdings' congressional
representati ve.
24.) In this case, Mr. Rybicki lied to the Court and represented that there were
warrants for contempt of court. (See PE574 document 14 p 2)
25.) The evidence shows conclusively that the declaration filed on 7/28/09, which
purports to be under the signature of Stephen D. Wallisch, is filled with perjuries
and false statements that Mr. Rybicki knew were not true on 7/28/09 (See PE
753-755 attached)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1746, we hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.
K~~"" ~t,-;~ .A '. ,~~~

David Siev <:ling Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave Verona, WI 535936088485721
david.sieverding@gmail.com kaysieverding((Jlaol.com
11

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
Defendant. )
Plaintiffs' Proposed Order to Strike Defendants' Document # 25 because of Perjury
Defendant U.S. Department of Justice filed a response to plaintiffs' motion to
strike, document 23, that contained perjury. That is not allowed. Therefore, document 25
must be struck. This leaves DOJ in default.
Plaintiffs' complaint demanded that both Mr. and Mrs. Sieverding a settlement
virtually identical to that DOJ provided to Dr. Steven Hatfill. The New York Times
reports that Dr. Hatfill's settlement consisted of $2.825 million in cash plus an annuity
paying him $150,000 per year for 20 years. The plaintiffs presented the New York Times
article in document 23 and DOJ did not dispute its accuracy. These initial payments to
Mr. and Mrs. Sieverding in the amount of $2.825 million each must be made within 10
days and the final annuities purchased within 60 days.
Signed
Date JOHN D. BATES

United States District
12
U.S. Department of Justite
Office of Infonnation Policy
Telephone: (202) 514-3642 Washmgton, O,c. 20530

,:.'
APR \ 62009
Ms. Kay Sieverding Re: Appeal No. 09-1090

641 Basswood Avenue Request No. 08-2830
Verona, WI 53593 KAH:SRO
Dear Ms. Sieverding:
You appealed from the action of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(EOUSA) on your request for access to records pertaining to charges filed against you by the
United States Attorneys Office for the Western District of Wisconsin.
After carefully considering your appeal, I am affinning EOUSA's action on your request.
EOUSA infonned you that it could locate no records responsive to your request in its files. I
have detennined that EOUSA's response was correct and that it conducted an adequate,
reasonable search for records.
I note that on appeal you seek "a referral from a US Attorney allowing the Marshals to
search for [you]," a certain docket report, a "5005 offense code," and any record ofa guilty plea.
Generally, you may not on appeal expand the scope of your initial request, which was limited to a
request for records pertaining to charges filed against you. I have, however, as a matter of
administrative discretion, reviewed the administrative record in this case, and can advise you that
lhe Western District of Wisconsin opened no file on you and thus, there are no records to process J [/
from that district. --- ~
~hft5\5> ~J J
If you wish to submit another Freedom of Information Act request to EOUSA, you must S~rU-.t<
write directly to EOUSA and indicate the district to be searched.
With regard to the specific questions you asked in your appeal letter, please be advised
that the FOIA does not require federal agencies to answer questions or create records in response
to a FOIA request, but rather is limited to requiring agencies to provide access to reasonably
described, nonexempt records. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 162 (1975);
Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 574 (9th Cir. 1985).
,-,U.,J\.I I .V\J VY VVVVC- UL••" •...I L.l"V"VUIII\.I11L c..... L.. I 11\.1\,,1 V 11'-1 IL-VVV 1 t.A~V oJ I VI UVV
October 5,2007
Ms. Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
I am in receipt of your correspondences dated September 20,2007 and October 3, 2007. In those
correspondences, you requested my responses under Wisconsin's Public Records Law regarding
the following inquiries:
(1) Why the 3 police officers came to my home on 5/10/07 without

a warrant, handcuffed me, and forced me into the police car?
(2) How did the officers find out about the federal warrant?
(3) Why did the officers tell my husband that there was a warrant
for obstruction ofjustice against me?
Wisconsin's Public Records Law requires that the Police Department provide you with
records in its possession and of which I am the custodian and responsible for retaining.
The Public Records Law does not require this Department to conduct research and create
records or answer questions responsive to your request. The Department has fulfilled its
obligation under the Public Records Law when we provided you with the records in our
possession responsive to your inquiries. These records were provided to you in my
correspondences to you dated August 23,2007 and September 20, 2007. I cannot speak
for the records production capabilities of the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice or
that of other agencies, and I am not responsible for their records retention practices.
I have nothing further to add related to the inquiries you address above.
Sincerely,
Bernard 1. Coughlin
PE388
Chief of Police
va"t:: I.V~-I,.,V-VV~U,:::,-vUD UVI,.,UIIIt::IIl.:::.<t-.:::. ,1It::U VII':::'II':::'VV~ ,a~t:: ~~ VI ..:J~V

'1
SHERIFF DAVID J. MAHONEY
DANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

RON BOYLAN, Chief Deputy
(608) 284-6167
-f
I JEFF HOOK M. TANYA MOLONY JEFFREY A. TEUSCHER TIMOTHY F. RITTER
,~ Captain, Executive S.rvic••

(608) 284-6175
Captain, Support S.rvlc••
(608) 284-6186
Captain, Slcurity S• ...,lcII
(608) 284-6165
Captain, Field Slrvlc.a
(608) 264-6870
~
l
Date: 7/14/09
--_:...-._-------------
To: Kay Sieverding
RE: Arrest #362120
o Your request for any additional infonnation is denied pursuant to §19.35(1)(am) 1., Wis. Stats., in that
any record containing personally identifiable information that is collected or maintained in connection
with a complaint, investigation or other circumstances that may lead to an enforcement action or
proceeding, or any such record that is collected or maintained in connection with such an action or
proceeding is exempt. The records you have requested are being maintained by the Dane County
Sheriffs Office in connection with an on-going investigation.
o Your request for any additional infonnation is denied pursuant to §19.35(l)(am)l., Wis. Stats., in that
any record containing personally identifiable information that is collected or maintained in connection
with a complaint, investigation or other circumstances that may lead to an enforcement action or
proceeding, or any such record that is collected or maintained in connection with such an action or
proceeding is exempt. The records you have requested are being maintained by the Dane County
Sheriffs Office in connection with a law enforcement action. At this time it is also part of a prosecuting
file maintained in conjunction with Municipal Court W e will not be able to release the complete
report until the court case is closed.
[2J We are unable to locate your request for arrest #362120 in our records. Please check with the proper
agency. Verona Police Department or United States Marshalls. These records do not appear to be Dane
County Sheriff's Records; therefore, your request is denied in that your request does not specifY a
"record" as defined by § 19.32(2), Stats.
D Please remit $---fu.r t he cost of the copies.
Pursuant to §19.35(4)(b), Wis. Stats., this decision is subject to review by mandamus under §19.37(1), Wis.
Stats., or upon application to the Attorney General or a district attorney.
PE390
Public Safety Building, 115 W. Doty Street. Madison, WisconSin 53703 - (6...3) 284-6800
www.danesheriff.com
ADMINISTRATION FAX (608) 284-6163 - SUPPORT SERVICES FAX (608) 284.6156 - SECURITY SERVICES FAX 1608\-6050 - FIELD SERVICES FAX {nOIl\ ?1I4_RA~A
(tongr£55 of ttle Wniteb ~tate~ 10 1iA...-r Dary

MADISON.
~'T1tEFT, ~lJlTE .03
WI 3)'03
COMMITTEE ON Tu.· (608) 2S~800
ENERGY AND COMMERCE 1!)oU5't of It\eprrnentatibt£, FAX. (606) 25S--980S
SU1l<:OMMm1lIl 0'" Hl'ALnl
SUac.oM'Mrrrm! ON ~a$bmgton, ::m€ 20515 400 rAST Oa..oro A VVlU.E.. 5iUlTI! 4l:J2
BbWlT. WI 53511
~y ~ ....u: QUALITY TeL.: (608) 361-2S00
!.-uacoLIMrrr££ ON BNvIIUJN~'llN'1 F~)(. (608) J6:1-11i)~
...."0 )l"-lAJU)OU$ MAtllltJ.-..L5

October 24, 2007
coMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMrITu.OH CkWll.
1\0.:1:011."'10<. ANU HO.1tlLM'O S~J1Y
)013LjLj
Mr. John 1. McNulty III

Chief, Congressional Affairs
US Marshal Service
Washington, D.C. 20530-1000
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Dear Mr. McNulty,
Thank you for your Ocrober 11 'h respon:;e (attached) to my inquiry on behalf of Ms. Kay
Sieverding, my cOI1S1ituent.
Ms. Sieverding now requests
• a copy of the arrest warrant for contempt of court issued in the District of Colorado in
May 2007, and
• a copy of an arrest warrant issued for her in September 2005. (I am unclear from Ms.
Sieverding if she had contact with the US Marshal Service at that Time.)
I would appreciate your on-going efforts. in this matter and ask that you give all due
consideration, cons'istem with current federal law and agency regulations, to assist Ms.
Sieverding with her request for copies of these warrants.
Kindly continue 10 correspond with my Madison, Wisconsin office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
-.
PE566
7"7~1.k
Tammy Baldwin
Member of Congress
TB:et
Attachments (3)
cc: Ms. Kay Sieverding
oq-
rJO!:> b 2- [)oc I i
Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opening Brief'), the Court should dismiss this case, or,
alternatively, grant Defendant summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs' Opposition is yet another
unmeritorious filing in their history of abusive litigation in the federal courts.
Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendant's Opening Brief contained factual misrepresentations
is false. See Plaintiffs' Opposition Section ~irst, it is indisputable that the district court for the
District ofColorado sanctioned Plaintiffs under Rule 11 for asserting baseless and frivolous claims FJ"'l
in one of the many abusive lawsuits they filed in that District. See Sieverding v. Colorado Bar
Ass'n, 2009 WL 256388 (10th Cir. Feb. 4,2009) (unpublished) (holding that Plaintiffs, who had
attorney fees awarded against them as a Rule 11 sanction for frivolous and abusive litigation,
received ample notice of the basis for their sanctions and had the opportunity to object before the
sanctions were imposed).
secon~aintiffS' claim that Mrs. Sieverdingwas not arrested pursuant to multiple contempt
-
warrants beggars belief. See Plaintiffs' Opposition Section A. Plaintiffs appended the selfsame -
fe r)LA'
I::-.
warrants to their Amended Complaint as "PEI2," "PEI5," and "PEI6."
Third, Defendant never stated - let alone misrepresented - that among the functions of the
United States Marshals Service ("USMS") was the harassment of"innocent citizens because oftheir
first amendment activities." l4.
Further, Plaintiffs self-evidently enjoy no "right to discovery" in this action. See id. Section
B. The alleged basis for the putative right they assert - misrepresentations and false implications
by Defendant - is nonsensical.
The remainder of Plaintiffs' Opposition consists of recapitulations of arguments made in
their Complaint and Amended Complaint, see, e.g., Sections C - F, H, K, M - P, R, S, X, and npl
-(
\I
2
PE574
va~e I.Vtl-\.;V-VV:::m<C:-JUO uu\.;urrlem ,cq-,c rlleu VI/<C:II,cVVtl r-a~e ,",'"'0 UI '"'OV
AIJout NCjRS Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 124 7/23/095 28 P~
_._--_._--
AboulNCJRS A-Z Publications/Products Library/Abstracts I Search Q & A I Grants & Funding I Justice Events
Home / About NCJRS
ABOUT NCJRS
NCJRS is a federally funded resource offering justice and substance abuse

information to support research, policy, and program development worldwide.
Who are the Federal Sponsors?

The Federal sponsors include:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)

• Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG)
• Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
• National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Office for Victims of Crime (aVe)
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
'
.
.
le}'l;to~
• Sex Offender Sentencing. Monitoring, Apprehending. Registering. and
Tracking (SMART) Office
~:?1NCJRS?
r '
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
'~.-ff.".l'" f~ .'
Executive Office of the President
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
More on our Federal Sponsors.
Who can use NCJRS?

NCJRS services and resources are available to anyone interested in crime,
victim assistance, and public safety including policymakers, practitioners,
researchers, educators, community leaders, and the general pUblic.
What services does NCJRS offer?

NCJRS offers a range of services and resources, balancing the information
needs of the field with the technological means to receive and access support.
The following offers a number of highlights of NCJRS services and resources.
Ask Questions, Find Answers

PE669
~, ' NCJRS offers extensive reference and referral services to help you tina answers
to your questions about crime and justice-related research, policy, and practice.
htl p.1 /www.ncjrs.gov/whatsnCJrs.html Page 1 of.

l-ase 1 :U~-CV-UUOb~-JUtj uocumem ~4-~ rllea U I/~ II~UU~ t-'age ;j;j~ or ;joU
Case
Fwd AskOJP Cnme 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
violation codes 5002, 5005, O' -1)07 Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 124 7/24/09234 P'
From: kaysieverding@aol.com
To: David. rybicki@usdoj.gov
SUbject: Fwd: AskOJP: Crime violation codes 5002, 5005, or 5007
Date: Thu, Jul 23, 20094:00 pm
-----Original Message-----
From: askojp@ncjrs.org
To: kaysieverding@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 20092:17 pm
Subject: Re: AskOJP: Crime violation codes 5002, 5005, or 5007
Dear Kay,
Thank you for your message to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP).
We do not have nor maintain records on violation codes 5002, 5005,

and 5007. You may wish to contact the resources provided ~n your
~,rev~ous email for assistance in locating the information you are
seeking.
Thank you,
·~r:tber
~ontent Specialist
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
http://www.ncjrs.gov
***************************************
Have a criminal justice, juvenile justice, or drug-related question?
Search the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
Questions & Answers database at:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/QA/SearchQA.aspx for immediate answers.
***************************************
Disclaimer:
~he enclosed response may include referrals to non-Federal Government
.r.esources.
The resources, and the information contained therein, are only as
reliable and complete as their originating source.
Responsibility for the quality/accuracy of the information rests with
the original source.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:11:17 -0400 you wrote:
>Dear Keri
> PE670
>
>
>50 you have no records of violation codes 5002, 5005, or 5007 then?
>
>
>
>
.,ttp.( /webmail.aol.com/43 792/aol/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx Page 1 of

Case
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document
1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document
32 25-3FiledFiled PagePage
07/28/2009
08/05/2009 20 of1124
of 3

)
DAVID SIEVERDING, et aI., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
)
1. I am employed by the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") as a Deputy U.S. Marshal
and information obtained in the course ofmy employment. In the event that I am called as a witness,
I could competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration.

\ '. -, .\ 'c • 'j fI I
On September 25,2006, Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District
------- ---- ----"'------~-~.~ ---- .-
......... ---~
contempt of court.
Case
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document
32 25-3
Filed Filed 07/28/2009
08/05/2009 Page Page
21 of 2124
of 3
apprehension responsibilities for the bench warrant and the initiated the arrest ofMs. Sieverding for
\ .' .,\ 'I \ \ ,1
the District of Colorado. In accordance with USMS policy, the bench warrant was entered into the
USMS Warrant Information Network system of records and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's
• ~_~ M _---.- ---~--._------- -- - - - - - . - -• • ----<~~_.-- - --.. - -----
National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") records.
. .__.- -- - -- ~._----- ~--- .-----~_.-._---~~~---~---.~----~
5. Plaintiffsued the Colorado Bar Association (D. Colo., Civil Action No.02-CV-1950-
ff3
EWN). She was taken into custody by order of Judge Nottingham on September 2, 2005, under a
civil contempt violation until "she purges herselfofthe contempt of court by agreeing to voluntarily
-----_.~.
to dismiss the lawsuits." She also had lawsuits in the District of Columbia and in the City and
County of Denver.
.{rI' - f
contract to the USMS to house federal prisoners, from September 2, 2005, until January 4, 2006, a
period of 124 days. On January 4,2006, Judge Nottingham ordered her released that day after she

-.:}f-5"
7. Plaintiffwas also arrested and released on February 8, 2006, when she turned herself
#G
to the USMS in Madison, Wisconsin, for further contempt violations ordered by Judge
-
In
~'-if-7 4Z
8. Plaintiffwas arrested again on May 10,2007, on further contempt violations ordered
.----------
On June 1,2007, she appeared before Judge Nottingham and was then released.
2
Case
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDBDocument
32 25-3 Filed 07/28/2009
Filed 08/05/2009 Page
Page 22 3 of 3
of 124
J l.~~
---------------------
~-----------------
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and
l
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1
/
I
Dated: May 29, 2009

EPHEN D. WALLISCH
3
Case
Case1:09-cv-00562-JDB
1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 3220 Filed
Document 08/05/2009
Filed 07/08/2009 Page 23 26
Page of 124
of 35
Brougham, does not complain that she committed a crime, only that she filed a
document that will "require the expenditure of further attorney's fees" . See
PE200.
50.) Former judge Nottingham may have been motivated to jail Mrs. Sieverding
because she filed a complaint of judicial misconduct in 2004. See PE201-202.
51.) The courtroom minutes on 9/2/05 do not refer to a criminal charge as is
required by Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 42 and there is no entry of
appearance by an independent or government prosecutor. See PE203-205. That
document is not a judgment and commitment order, nor is it a detainer. There is
no warrant for arrest of Mrs. Sieverding before her detention nor any record of an
executed warrant in 2005, although she was held for four months as awaiting trial.
52.) An FBI report dated 12/18/07 shows that Mrs. Sieverding had not been
sentenced. (See PE206).
53.) An FBI report dated 1117/08 shows that Mrs. Sieverding was found guilty
and was sentenced to 124 days (See PE207) but there are no records of a trial, of
her pleading guilty, or of sentencing in open court as is required by the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
54.) The USM contract with Clear Creek Jail authorized them to hold people
"charged with or convicted of violations of Federal law or held as material
witnesses". (See PE208) It does not authorize them to hold people awaiting trial
on noncriminal or immigration offenses. Mrs. Sieverding's detention there
violated their contract.
55.) The records returned to Mrs. Sieverding by the USMS showed a record of a
'\IS1 S-fo
26
51 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 42
filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must
receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the mo-
tion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property
to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect
access to the property and its use in later proceedings.
(h) Motion to Suppress. A defendant may move to suppress evi-
dence in the court where the trial will occur, as Rule 12 provides.
(i) Forwarding Papers to the Clerk. The magistrate judge to
whom the warrant is returned must attach to the warrant a copy
of the return, of the inventory, and of all other related papers and
must deliver them to the clerk in the district where the property
was seized.
(As amended Dec. 27, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Apr. 9, 1956, eff. July
8, 1956; Apr. 24, 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Mar. 18, 1974, eff. July 1, 1974;
Apr. 26 and July 8, 1976, eff. Aug. 1, 1976; July 30, 1977, eff. Oct. 1,
1977; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987;
Apr. 25, 1989, eff. Dec. 1, 1989; May 1, 1990, eff. Dec. 1, 1990; Apr. 22,
1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Oct. 26, 2001; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002;
Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 23, 2008, eff. Dec. 1, 2008.)
Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition Mter Notice. Any person who commits criminal
contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on
notice.
(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open
court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The no-
tice must:
(A) state the time and place of the trial;
(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a
defense; and
¥
(C state the essential facts constitutin the charged
crimina~OIlL mpt and escribe it as such
(2)Appom mg a Prosecutor. The court must request that the
contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government,
unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of an-
other attorney. If the government declines the request, the
court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the con-
tempt.
(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for
criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in
which federal law so provides and must be released or detained
as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves dis-
respect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disquali-
fied from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the
defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the
court must impose the punishment.
(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision
of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may sum-
marily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its
presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and
so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as
provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the
facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.
(As amended Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1. 1987: Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec.
1,2002.)
Office of the u. Revision Counsel, U.S. House Representatives
Home Search Download Classification Codification Popular Names Ahout
Go to 1st query term(s)
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 3146 01/0s/200S
-BXPCITE-
TITLE IS - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 207 - RELEASE AND DETENTION PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
-HEAD-
Sec. 3146. Penalty for failure to appear
-STATUTE-
(a) Offense. - Whoever, having been released under this chapter
knowingly -
(1) fails to appear before a court as required by the
sonditions of release; or
(2) fails to surrender for service of sentence pursuant to a
court order;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Punishment. - (1) The punishment for an offense under this

Case
section is1:09-cv-00562-JDB
- Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 26 of 124
(A) if the person was released in connection with a charge of,
or while awaiting sentence, surrender for service of sentence, or
appeal or certiorari after conviction for -
(i) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or
imprisonment for a term of 15 years or more, a fine under this
title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both;
(ii) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five
years or more, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not
more than five years, or both;
(iii) any other felony, a fine under this title or
imprisonment for not more than two years, or both; or
(iv) a misdemeanor, a fine under this title or imprisonment
for not more than one year, or both; and
(B) if the person was released for appearance as a material
witness, a fine under this chapter or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both.
{2) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to the sentence of imprisonment for any other offense.
(c) Affirmative Defense. - It is an affirmative defense to a
prosecution under this section that uncontrollable circumstances

prevented the person from appearing or surrendering, and that the
person did not contribute to the creation of such circumstances in
reckless disregard of the requirement to appear or surrender, and
that the person appeared or surrendered as soon as such
circumstances ceased to exist.
(d) Declaration of Forfeiture. - If a person fails to appear
before a court as required, and the person executed an appearance
bond pursuant to section 3142(b) of this title or is sUbject to the
rp.lease condition set forth in clause (xi) or (xii) of section
3142(c)(1)(B) of this title, the judicial officer may, regardless
of whether the person has been charged with an offense under this
section, declare any property designated pursuant to that section
to be forfeited to the united States.
-snURCE-
(Added Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 203(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98
Stat. 1982; amended Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 55(f), Nov. 10, 1986, 100
Stat. 3609; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(K), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec.
601(a)(4), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)
·-IHSC1-
?RIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 3146, added Pub. L. 89-465, Sec. 3(a), June 22,
1966, 80 Stat. 214; amended Pub. L. 97-291, Sec. 8, Oct. 12, 1982,
96 Stat. 1257, related to release in noncapital cases prior to
trial, prior to repeal in the revision of this chapter by section
203(a) of Pub. L. 98-473.
Another prior section 3146, act Aug. 20, 1954, ch. 772, Sec. 1,
68 Stat. 747, which prescribed penalties for jumping bail, was
repealed by Pub. L. 89-465, Sec. 3(a), June 22, 1966, 80 Stat. 214,
and covered by former sections 3150 and 3151 of this title.
AMENDMENTS
1996 - Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(iv). Pub. L. 104-294 substituted "a fine
under this title" for "a fined under this title".
1994 - Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(iv). Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined
under this title" for "fine under this chapter".
1986 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 55(f)(1), added subsec.
(a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "A
person commits an offense if, after having been released pursuant
to this chapter -
"(1) he knowingly fails to appear before a court as required by

the Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
conditions Document
of his release; or 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 29 of 124
"(2) he knowingly fails to surrender for service of sentence
pursuant to a court order."
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 55(f)(1), added subsec. (b) and
struck out former subsec. (b) which was captioned "Grading", and
which read as follows: "If the person was released -
"(1) in connection with a charge of, or while awaiting
sentence, surrender for service of sentence, or appeal or
certiorari after conviction, for -
"(A) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or
imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, he shall be
fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten
years, or both;
"(B) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five
or more years, but less than fifteen years, he shall be fined
not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both;
"(C) any other felony, he shall be fined not more than $5,000
or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both; or
"(D) a misdemeanor, he shall be fined not more than $2,000 or ~'L1bL--

imprisoned for not more than one year, or both; or
" (2) for appearance dS a material witness, he shal.L be fined
not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or
both.
A term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this section shall be
consecutive to the sentence of imprisonment for any other offense."
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 55(f)(2), substituted
"requirement to appear" for "requirement that he appear" and "the
person appeared" for "he appeared".
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 55(f)(3), inserted "of this
title" after "3142(b)" and substituted "clause (xi) or (xii) of
section 3142(c)(1)(B) of this title" for "section 3142(c)(2)(K) or
(c) (2) (L)".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 99-646 effective 30 days after Nov. 10,
1986, see section 55(j) of Pub. L. 99-646, set out as a note under
section 3141 of this title.
Home Search Download Classification Codification Popular Names Anom

O./fice of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
Step 8: Assign the case. Your district procedures determine who actually assigns
the case, so here we just take a look at how the assignment is entered into WIN.
+----+--------------------Deputy Case Ass~gnment---------------------+-----+
ICreal I
'FID# I ID# Name Type Dace Assigned I
Icreal +---------------------------------------------------------+ I
IWarrl 02/17/95 I
I I 02/17/95 I
I I 02/17/95 I
I I 02/17/95 I
1 I 02/17/95 I
I I 02/17/95 I
I I 02/17/95 I
1 I 02/17/95 I ,
+----1 02/17/95 1-----+
I
+---------------------------------------------------------+ ,
I
Press F4 when f~n~shed. I
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Press Alt-pe to search personnel list.
ALT_H = Funccion keys Definit~on I I F1 = Online Help
ALT-F8 provides you with a list of deputies if you don't remember the Deputies 10
number. WIN then proceeds to create the new subject record, as shown below, and
gives you the option of printing the record.
+-------------------------------------------------~------------------------~
Icreating new Subject record.
7C
IFIOII• •
'Creating warrant record.
I WarrantNumber • • • • • •
/press P to Print or Enter to continue.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ALT_H • Function keys Definition I F1 = Online Help
Remember the NCIC election? If you had answered Y, and entered the
additional NCIC information, WIN would have appended some additional
information onto the Creating New Subject record screen. This additional
information needs no explanation. Just review it so that you will know what to
expect.
4-21 WIN Procedures and Training Manual

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Icreating new Subject record.
t FID• • •
!Creating warrant record.
7C I WarrantNumber ••••
ISent to NCIC
IIf there is a problem w~th the NCIC entry,
Ithe Communications Center will send you a message.
I··· Please check your messages frequently.
IPress P to Print or Enter to continue.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ALT_H a Function keys Definition I I FI a Onllne Help
"y'
Practice:
1. Create a complete WIN record for the following sUbject-
Name:
A.K.A.:
008:
SSN:
7C Sex:
Race:
Hgt:
Wgt:
SID:
DL:
FBI:
Criminal History:
Date of Warrant:
\t Offense:
Original Offense:
2. Write dow~ FlO for future reference:
3. Enter the attached Class 2 felony warrant. Make sure the warrant
number ends in the correct letter - "J"
WIN Procedures and Training Manual 4-22

~
Case 1:08-cr-OO~",..J-REB Document 4 Filed 09/08/Luu8
~ Page 1 of 1
AO 442 (Rev 5/85) Warrant for Arrest
United States District Court
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _-.:oC~O=LcxO~R~A=DO=_ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SHAWN ROBERT ADOLF WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 08-er-00366-REB
TO: The United States Marshal

and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest SHAWN ROBERT ADOLF and bring him
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an
• Indictment D Information D Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with

Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person
Possession of body armor by a violent felon
Possession of methamphetamine
in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(9)( 1), 931 and in violation of Title _
21 United States Code, Section 841
Gregory C. Langham. Clerk, U.S. District Court t _,

Name of Issuing Officer Title of Issuing Officer ;:()~.
"';V"
I 8 ...v
Signature of Issuing Officer Date and Location c.....- 1
r-
f.:' IV
'J
sfT.Lee ,
(By) Deputy Clerk
I..
~
Bail fixed at $ by ---:-:-----:--:-:::-:-:-= --::~:.__ _:".:.:.,._ti=-_";;;',-'_

Name of Judicial Officer p ..:. (..1)
RETURN
This warrant wal received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at _
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER

2
DATE OF ARREST
-2-
If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
Sincerely,
i"~#~
", .Janice Galli McLeod
Associate Director
C~ask:q~~Y~5eiPfb8 DC{5CieiWfM,fp,~ flHffetA1~~ ~~f1~
u.s. D, ent of Justice
E:ucutille Officefor United States Attorneys
Freedom ofInformation et Privacy Staff
600 E Street, N. w.,
Suite 7300, Bicentennial Building
Washington, DC 20530-000/
aOl} 6/6-6757 FAX: 6/6-6478 (wwlV.llsdoj.goY/lIsao)
Requester:_~K~a~y~S~i~e.!..ve~r~d~in~g:>-- _
Request Number:_~O~8~-2::.l:8~3~1 Date of Receipt:._I....,O"'-'/2=9;..:.../O"""8"-- _
Subject:_--:S~e~lf~(~c~har~g:::oes....
) _
Dear Requester: NOW ~s 1009
In response to your Freedom of Information Act and/or Privacy Act request, the
paragraph(s) checked below apply:
1. [ ] A search for records located in EOUSA - has revealed no

responsive records regarding the above subject.
2. [x ] A search for records located in the United States Attorney's Office(s) for the
District of Colorado has revealed no
responsive records regarding the above subject. The District of Colorado was not
~ involved in the cases concerning Kay Sieverding.
3. [ J After an extensive search, the records which you have requested cannot be located.
4. ] Your records have been destroyed pursuant to Department of Justice guidelines.
5. [xJ Please note that your original letter was split into separate files ("requests"), for
processing purposes, based on the nature of what you sought. Each file was given a
separate Request Number (listed below), for which you will receive a separate response:
08-2830
This is the final action on this above-numbered request. You may appeal this decision on
this request by writing within 60 days from the date of this letter to the Office of Information
and Privacy, United States Department"of Justice, 1425 New York Avenue, Suite 11050,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001. Both the letter and envelope should be marked "FOIA
Appeal." If you are dissatisfied with the res~ts of any such administrative appeal, judicial review
may thereafter be available in U.S. District Court, 28 C.F.R. §16.9.
Sincerely,
(
~lliam
\~iSiStant
G. Stewart n
Director
Form No. 005 ·3/07

FEB 07 2006 14:45 ~ 916086618304
A0«2 (DICO Mrod. 08101)

District llfColorado
UNlTEDSTATES OF AMF,RICA IJlqoL!'/

WARRANT FOR ARREST
v.
K.AY SlEVERDING CiI5C N\Ullber: 02~v·01950.EWN-oES
To: T!~ United States Morsl131

illld allY Amhori:ltld United States Officer
YOU ARE HERI!BY COMMANDED to arrest --=KA.=.:.;Y:..;S::.:'lE=-:,.VE::;RD=lN::.:.::G:.-- _

Name
and bring him or her fortl1with to the nearCllt mag\!itnl.te judge to answer a(n)
_Jndictment _Information _Complaint K Order ofCourt Violation Probation Violation Peution
charginl; him or her (bric£drescri~ol\of(ll1Cnae)
Failure to appear
in violation of United States Code, Section(s) __ .. ,
CJfcgory C. Langham Clerk, United Slale; l)1:)trlct Court
Clerk Februag 2, 2006 Denver, Colorado

SIl:Jl.1turc or luuin, OtflQtf
Bail fixed I1t $ by --:-:-_:-:-:'-::::- _

NanlC ofJudloial Oftiocl
\..
Return
Ibis warrant was Iectived and executed with the arrest of100 above-named defendant
Date Received Name and Title of Arresting OffICer SignaLur~ ofArresting Officer
DiJttl ofArrest
tll ;I" £- 93J Wlll
oavllOl(X)
dOL~OlJ.Srq
,;\07 17:17 FF .~11I8t::618304
'",-"
A0442 {n/('o Mud. 08/0 I}
jJ.,~ : I. :,..;r VI1
d uil14tThtates District Court

District <JC Colorado
WARlUNT FOR Alill-EST

v.
COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, Case Number: 02-<:v-O I950-EWN-OES

et a1.,
To: The United States Marshal

and any Authorized United Stales Officer
YOU ARU HEREBY COMMANDED to me!!t KAY smVERDING

---------'--.;.--.....;,;..~;:......------
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate judge to answer a(n}
- Indictment - Information
- -
Complaint X Order of Court VIolation Probation Violation Petition
charging him or her (briefdescription of IIfCwe)
FAILURE TO APPEAR
ill violation of Unilcd States Code, Section(s) , _
Grego!'y C. Langlll1Il1 Clerk, United States Di~lrict Court

Nsmc: or Issuing Officer
Septem~r 25, 2006 Denver. Colorado
Bail f1xed at $ by
-----~----- --------~~~--~--------
Name (If J\ldic:illl om~~r
Return
This warrant was received and executed with the SJTest of the above·named defendant
Date Received Name and Title of Arresting Officer Signature of Arresting OJ1iccr
-
I Date of Arrest
I
~ ~.
Case
Case1:09-cv-00562-JDB
Document32
20-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 38 of
Page 33124
of 196
.t
A044:Z (OICO Mod. 08101) l 015 I ~I.~";" 0'

Warrant for Arrest
CO~-ta-t-e-s-D-i-stri-·c-t-C-o-u-rt-------------
"\ - - - - - - - - - - - -......
District of Colorado
KAY SIEVERDlNCiP 2~ A 10: 22

WARRANT FOR ARREST
v.
COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, Case Number: 02-cv-O 19S0·EWN-OES

et aL,

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ...;.KA~y....:S;.-.IE_V_E_RD_..;;..;;IN.;;.....G _

Name
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate judge to answer a(n)
Indictment Information _ Complaint ~ Order of Court Violation Probation Violation Petition
charging him or her (bricfdcscription ofoffcnsc) Uf,J,j ,~o sT~!sL ED

'''-.. ""~QDISTRICT 1'1.....
~OI.o ~qT
FAlI.URE TO APPEAR
JUN 1
G/- " .. 2007
in violation of Unitcd States Code, Section(s) --------=.·::'-~~r....L,1.......-i'"j-.---,-- _
. ' i v, L.I"1/\ :";/-fAM

Gregory C. Langham Clerk, United S~ Court CLERI
Name of IIS~llS Officer Title o(wulng Officer --=::::::::::::
f.~~::;.z~
~ilJ'latwe of~~cjr: :, ~ ..
September 25, 2006 Denver, Colorado
Date and Location
~. ~
.. :. ~>_:-.'. ' '..:
- -- -- .-:-
..-.....
-
,
~ -' - ' .... - -'" -.' _." ,-"'-
"
'~.,
/,
,:/
.
B~il fix ed-at $' . ' ... ..: .
._-._
-
.,......;:.---..,..;".::..-_------
..... - - ," -
.,.,.
by
----------------------
Name of Officer ludicial
Return
i" , This warrant was received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named defendant
i
Date Received Name and Title of Arresting Officer Signature ofArresting Officer
/}- '/·tJ7
Date of Arrest
!~I Offo ~~.
7"p"1/-t) 7 /)US/e1
PE30
process underlying the detainer}. 1
'2. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Detainer Files: Maintain USMS records of detainers based upon Federal warrants for arrest and
escape notices in the same manner as district fugitive investigative files.
3. Exhaustion of Detainer: Do not file detainers, or allow detainers to remain on file, unless a
lawful basis exists for the USMS to assume custody of the sUbject of the detainer. Accordingly,
once the warrant for arrest for the prisoner has been executed, or escape status of the prisoner
has been terminated. lift the detainer. If a new basis for the lodging of a detainer exists (such as
an order of detention, order setting conditions of release, or other court order), the appropriate
office will file a new detainer.
4. Purging of Detainer Files: Review and update detainer files at least every 6 months.
5. Place of Filing: The USMS district in which the prisoner is in Federal, state, or local custody ~
---
will file detainers. The originating district is responsible for tracking the detainer in WIN.
--
7Y 6
~--- ------~-- ---~.-----. - " ' - -
Form of Detainer: USMS personnel shall use the official USM-16 series of detainer forms or
those generated by the Warrant Information Network (when they become available) in
accordance with the procedures set forth below:
a. Use the l)SM:-19A to file detainer lodged against unsentenced prisoners based upon a
federal warrant.
b. Use the _L1.SM:1~a. to file detainers based upon Federal JUdgment and Commitment
orders and maintain separately from warrant detainers unless the detainer is lodged
against an escaped Federal prisoner and no warrant for arrest has been issued for the
escape.
c. Use the VS.M=1.~G to file detainers based upon warrants for arrest issued by the U.S.
Parole Commission.
d. Use the U$M.:.160 to file detainers based upon violations of probation and/or supervised
release.
e. Use the l).S.M.-Jf:?E; is used to file detainers against unsentenced prisoners who are
brought into federal custody, but need to remain in custody pending further criminal
proceedings.
f. Use the W$.M-17A, is to be used against a sentenced state prisoner who is the subject of
a federal arrest warrant and who is required to be advised of his/her rights under the
interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. to the concerned U.S. Attorney's offices.
g. Use the V.$M-17B, is to be used against sentenced federal prisoners. Although the
Interstate Agreement on Delainers Act does not apply to sentenced federal prisoners,
these prisoners still need to be advised of their right to a speedy federal trial under 18
USC 3161.
7. ~~~fica~tion~ U.S. ~"!!ts C?ffic~Ll!~.-f_!l~ole.C:~~rnis~~o~, or Other Cqn~emed _

Age!!~: ni!C?~_~]eta,"er p~iid.U,oan-anJ!n!r~~~ o1fense IS filed, f1~~lY the case Assistant U.S.
Aff6mey 01 the placeofoonfin~[Ilent of the prisoner and @3 darethe detainer was filed, and .
case
i:ffo~ae a. coQyoft_ne d~tmQer to'lii~ .01]t.E!r: Also notifY the agenf (if the USMS ;s not the
originating case agency). Notrry "and provide a copy of the detainer to the U.S. Parole
Commission and/or probation officer for violations ot parole. For violations of probation, notify the
concerned U.S. Probation Officer. In escape cases, notify the Bureau ot Prisons. In all cases,
promptly notify the originating USMS office when the subject of a USMS detainer comes into
USMS custody.
E. Definitions
PE35
,-.:.-~J!I!• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- "7/"'1 A 1"'11'\1'\0
,,[',\ Privacy Act
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
5yst~~Se 1 :09-cv-00562-JDB
Document
Document32
20-2 Filed 08/05/2009
Filed 07/08/2009Page 40 of
Page 46124
of 196 7/4/097·28 P
2117.
16) Violations of Federal Injunction (obsolete). Consolidated into Classification ~
69, "Co m t of Court". -
17 Fraud Against the Government, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Department of Veterans Affairs Matters. Title 18, United States Code, Section
287,289,290, 371, or 1001, and Title 38, United States Code, Sections
787(a), 787(b), 3405, 3501, and 3502.
18) May Act. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1384.
19) Censorship Matter (obsolete). Pub. L. 77th Congress.
20) Federal Grain Standards Act (obsolete) 1920 only. SUbjects were alleged
violators of contracts for sale. Shipment of Interstate Commerce, Section 5,
U.S. Grain Standards Act.
21) Food and Drugs. This classification covers complaints received concerning
alleged violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Tea Act; Import Milk
Act; Caustic Poison Act; and Filled Milk Act. These complaints are referred to
the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration of the field component
of that Agency.
22) National Motor Vehicle Traffic Act, 1922-27 (obsolete). Subjects were
possible violators of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, Automobiles seized
by Prohibitions Agents.
23) Prohibition. This classification covers complaints received concerning
bootlegging activities and other violations of the alcohol tax laws. Such
complaints are referred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Department of the Treasury, or field representatives of the Agency.
24) Profiteering 1920-42 (obsolete). SUbjects are possible violators of the
lever Act--Profiteering in food and clothing or accused company was subject
of file. Bureau conducted investigations to ascertain profits.
25) Selective Service Act; Selective Training and Service Act. Title 50, United
States Code, Section 462; Title 50, United States Code, Section 459.
26) Interstate Transportation of Stolen Motor Vehicle; Interstate Transportation
of Stolen Aircraft. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2311 (in part), 2312,
and 2313.
27) Patent Matter. Title 35, United States Code, Sections 104 and 105.
28) Copyright Matter. Title 17, United States Code, Sections 104 and 105.
29) Bank Fraud and Embezzlement. Title 18, United States Code, Sections
212, 213, 215, 334, 655-657, 1004-1006, 1008, 1009, 1014, and 1306; Title
12, United States Code, Section 1725(g).
30) Interstate Quarantine law, 1922-25 (obsolete). Subjects alleged violators
of Act of February 15, 1893, as amended, regarding interstate travel of
persons afflicted with infectious diseases. Cases also involved unlawful
transportation of animals, Act of February 2, 1903. Referrals were made to
Public Health Service and the Department of Agriculture.
31) White Slave Traffic Act. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2421-2424.
32) Identification (Fingerprint) Matters. This classification covers general
information concerning Identification (fingerprint) matters.
33) Uniform Crime Reporting. This classification covers general information
concerning the Uniform Crime Reports, a periodic compilation of statistics of
criminal violations throughout the United States.
34) Violation of lacy Act. 1922-43. (obsolete) Unlawful Transportation and
shipment of black bass and fur seal skins.
35) Civil Service. This classification covers complaints received by the FBI
concerning Civil Service matters which are referred to the Office of Personnel
Management in Washington or regional offices of that Agency. 36) Mail Fraud.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.
IIttp / /foia.fbl.gov/prlvacy_systems/63fr8659.htm
PE42 Page 3 of 2;;
FBI
Privacy Act SysC,fl~e 1 :09-cv-00562-JDB
Document 32
Document 20-2
Filed 08/05/2009 Page
Filed 07/08/2009
41 of 124
Page 47 of 196 7/4/097,28 I
37) False Claims Against the Government. 1921-L2 (obsolete), SUbjects

submitted claims for allotment, vocational training, compensation as veterans
under the Sweet Bill. Letters were generally referred elsewhere (Veterans
Bureau). Violators apprehended for violation of Article No.1, War Risk
Insurance Act.
38) Application for Pardon to Restore Civil Rights. 1921-35 (obsolete).
Subjects allegedly obtained their naturalization papers by fraudulent means.
Cases later referred to Immigration and Naturalization Service.
39) Falsely Claiming Citizenship (obsolete). Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 911 and 1015(a)(b).
40) Passport and Visa Matter. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1451-
1546.
41) Explosives (obsolete). Title 50, United States Code, Sections 121 through
144.
42) Deserter; Deserter, Harboring. Title 10, United States Code, Sections 808
and 885.
43. Illegal Wearing of Uniforms; False Advertising or Misuse of Names, Words,
Emblems or Insignia; Illegal Manufacturer, Use, Possession, or Sale of
Emblems and Insignia; Illegal Manufacture, Possession, or Wearing of Civil
Defense Insignia; Miscellaneous, Forging or Using Forged Certificate of
Discharge from Military or Naval Service; Miscellaneous, Falsely Making or
Forging Naval, Military, or Official Pass; Miscellaneous, Forging or
Counterfeiting Seal of Department or Agency of the United States, Misuse of
the Great Seal of the United States or of the Seals of the President or the Vice
President of the United'States; Unauthorized Use of "Johnny Horizon" Symbol;
Unauthorized Use of Smokey Bear Symbol. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 702, 703, and 704; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 701, 705,
707, and 710; Title 36, United States Code, Section 182; Title 50, Appendix,
United States Code, Section 2284; Title 46, United States Code, Section 249;
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 498, 499, 506, 709, 711, 711a, 712,
713, and 714; Title 12, United States Code, Sections 1457 and 1723a; Title 22,
--
United States Code, Section 2518.
44) Civil Rights; Civil Rights, Election Laws, Voting Rights Act, 1965, Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 241, 242, and 245; Title 42, United States Code,
Section 1973; Title 18, United States Code, Section 243; Title 18, United
States Code, Section 244, Civil Rights Act--Federally Protected Activities; Civil
Rights Act--Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975.
45) Crime on the High Seas (includes stowaways on boats and aircraft). Title
18, United States Code, Sections 7, 13, 1243, and 2199.
46) Fraud Against the Government (includes Department of Health, Education
and Welfare; Department of Labor (CETA), and Miscellaneous Government
Agencies), Anti-Kickback Statute; Department Assistance Act of 1950; False
Claims, Civil; Federal-Aid Road Act; Lead and Zinc Act; Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965; Renegotiation Act, Criminal;
Renegotiation Act, Civil; Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Unemployment
Compensation Statutes; Economic Opportunity Act, Title 50, United States
Code, Section 1211 et seq.; Title 31, United States Code, Section 231; Title
41, United States Code, Section 119; Title 40, United States Code, Section
489.
47) Impersonation. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 912, 913, 915, and
916.
48) Postal. Violation (Except Mail Fraud). This classification covers inquiries
concerning the Postal Service and complaints pertaining to the theft of mail.
Such complaints are either forwarded to the Postmaster General or the nearest
.,tlP" //fola fbl.gov/pnvacy-systems {63fr8659 ,htm Page 4 of 25

PE43
~~I.!,rivacy Act Sy£-ase
T ~, ' _ .""
1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 20-2 Filed 07/08/2009 Page 49 of 196 7/4/09 728,Prv;
(formerly Section 88, Title 18, United States Coa~); effective September 1,
1948}. .
63} Miscellaneous--Nonsubversive. This classification concerns
correspondence from the public which does not relate to matters within FBI
jurisdiction.
64) Foreign Miscellaneous. This classification is a control file utilized as a
repository for intelligence information of value identified by country. More
specific categories are placed in classification 108-113.
65) Espionage. Attorney General Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence;
Internal Security Act of 1950; Executive Order 11905.
66} Administrative Matters. This classification covers such items as supplies,
automobiles, salary matters and vouchers.
67} Personnel Matters. This classification concerns background investigations
of applicants for employment with the FBI and folders for current and former
employees.
68) Alaskan matters (obsolete). This classification concerns FBI investigations
in the Territory of Alaska prior to its becoming a State.
69} ,Contempt of Court. Title 18, United States Code. Sections 401, 402 3285.
369t 3692; Title 10, United States Code. Section 847; and Rule 42, Federal ~
Rules of Criminal Procedure. -
(0) Crime on Government ~eservation. Title 18, United States Code, Sections
7 and 13.
71} Bills of Lading Act, Title 49, United States Code, Section 121.
72} Obstruction of Criminal Investigations: Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction
of Court Orders. Title 18, United States Code. Sections 1503 through 1510. ~
73} Application for Pardon After Completion of Sentence and Application for
Executive Clemency. This classification concerns the FBI's background
investigation in connection with pardon applications and request for executive
clemency.
74} Perjury. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1621, 1622, and 1623.
75) Bondsmen and Sureties. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1506.
76) Escaped Federal Prisoner. Escape and Rescue; Probation Violator, Parole
Violator, Mandatory, Release Violator. Title 18, United States Code, Sections
751-757,1072; Title 18, United States Code. Sections 3651-3656; and Title
18, United States Code. Sections 4202-4207, 5037, and 4161-4166.
77} Applicants (Special Inquiry, Departmental and Other Government
Agencies, except those having special classifications). This classification
covers the background investigations conducted by the FBI in connection with
the aforementioned positions.
78) Illegal Use of Government Transportation Requests.' Title 18, United States
Code, Section 287, 495, 508, 641, 1001 and 1002.
79) Missing Persons. This classification covers the FBI's Identification
Division's assistance in the locating of missing persons.
80. Laboratory Research Matters. At FBI Headquarters this classification is
used for Laboratory research matters. In field office files this classification
covers the FBI's public affairs matters and involves contact by the FBI with the
general public, Federal and State agencies, the Armed Forces, Corporations,
the news media and other outside organizations.
81) Gold Hoarding. 1933-45. (obsolete) Gold Hoarding investigations
conducted in accordance with an Act of March 9, 1933 and Executive Order
issued August 28, 1933. Bureau instructed by Department to conduct no
further investigations in 1935 under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Thereafter,
all correspondence referred to Secret Service~
82) War Risk Insurance (National Life Insurance (obsolete». This classification
{/foia. tbi.gov / privacy_systems/63fr86S 9.htm

PE45 Page6of25
'~I PrIVacy Act SysCase 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 20-2 Filed 07/08/2009 Page 51 of 196 7/4/09728 PM
104) Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act OJ 1942 (obsolete). Public Law

625, 77th Congress, Sections 115-119.
105) Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General Guidelines on
Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
106) Alien Enemy Control; Escaped Prisoners of War and Internees, 1944-55
(obsolete). Suspects were generally suspected escaped prisoners of war,
members of foreign organizations, failed to register under the Alien Registration
Act. Cases ordered closed by Attorney General after alien enemies returned to
their respective countries upon termination of hostilities. .
107) Denaturalization Proceedings (obsolete). This classification covers
investigation concerning allegations that an individual fraudulently swore
allegiance to the United States or in some other manner illegally obtained
citizenship to the U.S. Title 8, United States Code, Section 738.
108) Foreign Travel Control (obsolete). This classification concerns security-
type investigations wherein the subject is involved in foreign travel.
109) Foreign Political Matters. This classification is a control file utilized as a
repository for intelligence information concerning foreign political matters
broken down by country.
110) Foreign Economic Matters. This classification is a control file utilized as a
repository for intelligence information concerning foreign economic matters
broken down by country.
111) Foreign Social Conditions. This classification is a control file utilized as a
repository for intelligence information concerning foreign social conditions
broken down by county.
112) Foreign Funds. This classification is a control file utilized as a repository
for intelligence information concerning foreign funds broken down by country.
113) Foreign Military and Naval Matters. This classification is a control file
utilized as a repository for intelligence information concerning foreign military
and naval matters broken down by country.
114) Alien Property Custodian Matter (obsolete). Title 50, United States Code,
Sections 1 through 38. This classification covers investigations concerning
ownership and control of property subject to claims and litigation under this
statute.
115) Bond Default; Bail Jumper. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3146-
3152.
116) Department of Energy Applicant; Department of Energy, Employee. This
classification concerns background investigations conducted in connection with
employment with the Department of Energy.
117) Department of Energy, Criminal. Title 42, United States Code, Sections
2011-2281; Public Law 93-438.
118) Applicant, Intelligence Agency (obsolete). This classification covers
applicant background investigations conducted of persons under consideration
for employment by the Central Intelligence Group.
119) Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. Title 2, United States Code, ections
261-270.
120) Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2671 to
2680. Investi ations are conducted pursuant to specific re uest from the ~
De of Justice In connection WI cases In w IC the Department of
Justice re resents agencies sue un er e c.
21) oyaltyof overnment Employees (obso e e). Executive Order 9835.
122) Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. Title 29, United States Code,
Sections 161,162,176-178 and 186.
123) Section inquiry, State Department, Voice of America (U.S. Information
Center) (Public Law 402, 80th Congress) (obsolete). This classification covers
ep.// fOla. fbi.gov / privacy_systems/ 63fr86S 9.htm

PE47 Page 8 of 2S
U.S. Department of Justice

2
Intergovernmental Service Agreement Schedule I13-Qf>-003.1

IGA No.
!
page No.
2...-oj-l..Q
ARTICLE I - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Servioe Agreement (IGA) is
to establish a formal binding relationship between the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS) and other'federal user agencies (the
Federal Government) an~ Clear Creek County (the Local Government) (
for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of
violations of Federal law or held as material witnesses (federal
prisoners) at the Clear Creek County Jail (the facility).
ARTIQLE Xl - ASSIGNMENT bND CONTRACTING OF CATEGORICAL PROJECT-
SUPPORTED EFFORT
1. Neither this agreement nor any interest therein, may be

assigned, or transferred to any other party without prior written
approval by the USMS.
2. None of the principal activities of the project-supported
effort shall be contracted out to another organization without
prior approval by the USMS. Where the intention to award
. - ------contracts-xs-mad"e-known-at-the-ti-me-ot-appr±cati-on,---the-approva-1;-'-- --------.
may be considered granted if these activities are funded as .
.proposed.
3 . . All contracts or assignments must be formalized in a written
contract or other written agreement between the parties involved.
4. The contract or agreement must, at a minimum, state the
activities to be performed, the time schedule, the project
policies and the flow-through requirements that are applicable to
the contractor or other recipient, other policies anQ procedures
to be followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement and the
cost principles to be used in determining allowable costs. The
contract or other written agreement must not affect the
recipient's overall responsibility for the duration of the
project and accountability to the Government.
ARTICLE III - SUPPORT AND M?DICAL SERVICES
1. The Local Government agrees to accept and provide for the
secure custody, care and safekeeping of federal prisoners in
accordance with state and local laws, standards, policies,
procedures, or court orders applicable to the operations of the
facility.
2. The Local Government agrees to provide federal prisoners with
the same level "of medical care and services prOVided local
prisoners including the transportation and security for prisoners
requiring removal from the facility for emergency medical
PE208
Form U~M-"'n-... (Rev. 2/92)
Types of Warrants Entered Into WIN System
WIN Case Number
WIN assigns all Class I felony warrants received by USMS a case or warrant
number.
.. FiscaL .Mmit4":
··year:····
... andD~y
9214 - 1001-0001 - Pr'--~

',,: .,'" .. ..
!: District.>.' Wattan(
Nrirriber: Number: •
. ',:
....... :
The USMS classifies all Federal warrants into two groups to denote enforcement
focus. Both classes of warrants should be entered into WIN.
Class I Offenses
Class I consists of felony offenses for which the USMS is primarily responsible
with certain exceptions (FBI or DEA assume apprehension responsibility). As
you noticed above, violation codes which depict the types of warrants are part
of the case number. The violation codes and their definitions are-
A Escaped Federal prisoners
8 Bond Default and Failure to Appear
C Parole Violation
o Probation Violation and Supervised Release Violation
E Agencies Without Powers of Arrest. This includes all felony warrants

received from the courts which are based on investigations by agencies
without powers of arrest, including provisional arrest warrants issued on
behalf of foreign countries.
F Others such as material witness, aiding and abetting, harboring, contempt

of court, contempt of grand jury, pe~ury, etc.
Z Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Warrants. Fugitive warrants

originated by the DEA for which the USMS is administratively and
investigatively responsible.
WIN Procedures and Training Manual 2-4

PE237 V

DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 02-cv-0 I 950-EWN-OES
KAY SIEVERDING, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLORADO BAR ASSOCIAnON, et al.
Defendants.
MOTION TO EXCUSE COUNSEL
COMES NOW Edward R. Harris, appointed counsel for Plaintiff, and seeks to be
excused from the May 11, 2007 hearing in this case for the reasons set forth herein:
1. Counsel was appointed to represent Ms. Sieverding concerning then pending
contempt motions because the Court anticipated a possible penal sanction.
2. The May 11,2007 hearing concerns matters beyond the scope of counsel's
appointment in this matter. The May 11 th hearing deals not with contempt, but with prospective
restrictions on filings which are sought by the various defendants in the case.
WHEREFORE counsel respectfully requests that this Court excuse his appearance,
RAYMOND P, MOORE
Federal Public Defender
PE367
sl Edward R. Harris
Edward R. Harris
Assistant Federal Public Defender
lh . " , ,,,' "
633 17 Street, Suite 1000 ,',,, .,'~""", ,',,'
Denver CO 80202
Teleph~ne: (303) 294-7002 ... " . --- - - - .•' "
FAX: (303) 294-1192 . -,~}
Edward_Harris@fd.org
Attorney for Defendant
U.S. Departn. of Justice
Office ofGeneral Counsel
Washington, DC 20530-1000
June 24, 2009
Ms. Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
RE: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOI/PA) Request No. 2009USMS 13257
The United States Marshal Service (USMS) is responding to your request for information
pertaining tol) itemized bills with prisoner names of three jails in which you were held, and
items 2 through 13.
At the outset, you should check with the court(s) for a determination on the existence and
accessibility of some information you seek. As you are aware, an agency (USMS) is not required
to respond to questions posed as FOrA requests, but will attempt to search for and provide you
with records in response to your questions, if such records or information exist within the files of
the USMS.
Pursuant to your request, the USMS conducted a search of its files and located 37 pages
of billing and transportation papers in response to items 1 and 2; 17 pages of policy directives in
response to items 8 ard 9; and a 179 page Warrant Information Network Procedure and Training
Manual in response to item 10 of your request. A total of233 pages of documents responsive to
your request were loc~ted. We have determined to grant you access to these documents, except
for internal website acldress(es) and other internal information; names of government employees/
law enforcement officers; names, FID and license numbers, addresses, and other information
pertaining to third-party individuals referenced therein, which are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to exemptions 2, 7(C), and 7(E) ofthe Freedom ofInformation Act, 5 U.S.C. 5S2(b).
Exemption 2 allows an agency to withhold matter related solely to internal personnel

rules and practices. Certain information withheld under this provision meets the test of
"predominant internality," set forth in Crooker v. BATF, 670 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Disclosure of this information would reveal investigative techniques and procedures utilized by
the USMS, and would risk·circumvention of the law. Exe.mption 7 allows an agency to withhold
records or information compiled for ~w enforcement purposes, to the exteni that disclosure
could reasonably be expected to (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and
(E) disclose techniques and proced~es for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, if
such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. A copy of these
233 pages of documents are enclosed. PE370
Ms. Kay Sieverding

June 24, 2009
Page Two
In response to items 3 through 6 and 11 through 13, the USMS has previously provided
to you all records and/or information pertaining to you that was indexed to your name. The
USMS has no records in response to item 7 of your request.
As you know, if you are dissatisfied with my action on this request, you may appeal by
writing to the Director, Office ofInformation Policy, United States Department of Justice, Suite
11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001. Your appeal must be
received within 60 days ofthe date of this letter. Both the letter and the envelope should be
clearly marked "Freedom of Information! Privacy Act Appeal." In the event you are dissatisfied
with the results of any such appeal, judicial review will thereafter be available to you in the
United States District Court for the judicial district in which you reside or have your principal
place of business, or in the District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
tUti J) ~~~;;:tk'/:
/1 .
r
William E. Bordley ('
/ Associate General Counsel/FOIPA Officer
Office of General Counsel
Enclosures
PE371
U.S. DepartfT t .ustice
Office ofCongressional Affairs
Washmgton, DC 20530-JOOO
OCT 1 6 2Q[j" October 11, 2007
-
<
... -
~l. • _.
~;- ._- -- - -- . -- - - - - - - - --- - _. -
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
10 East Doty Street, Suite 405
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Dear Congresswoman Baldwin:
This is in response to your letter on behalf of Ms. Kay Sieverding, who

requested your assistance to determine why she was detained by the United
States Marshals Service (USMS) in Madison, WI, on May 10, 2007.
The USMS Western District of Wisconsin (WfWI) had notified local police
departments of a federal warrant for Ms. Sieverding's arrest. Ms. Sieverding was
arrested by the McFarland, WI Police Department on May 10,2007, on an arrest warrant
for contempt of court issued in the District of Colorado (D/CO), and remanded to USMS
custody. She appeared before a federal magistrate in the WIWI and was ordered to be'-
moved to the D/CD. On Thursday, May 31,2007, the USMS transported her via,
s"
commercial airline to the D/CO. On June 1 Ms. Sieverding appeared before U.S.
District Court Judge Edward Nottingham, and was subsequently released.
I hope this information is helps you in responding to Ms. Sieverding.
Sincerely,
John J. McNulty III

Chief, Office of Congressional Affairs
Case 1:09-cv-00562=JDB Document 24-2 Filed 07/27/2009 Page 52 of 350
------- ~/ERONA POLIC~,~DEPARTMENT
111 Lincoln Street
Verona, Wisconsin 53593-1520
(608) 845-7623
Fax: (608) 845-8613
BERNARD J. COUGHLIN E-mail: pollce@c1.verona,wl us
Chief of Police Web Site: www.c!.verona.wl.us
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Av.
Verona, WI 53593
June 26, 2009
"I Dear Kay,
I!
I am in receipt of your request for records from the City of Verona Police Department. You
requested the following records:
Please send all records on myselfexcluding auto or parking tickets, property taxes, and utility
records, and communications from myself, since 1/1/05. ps. Also exclude library.
To ensure you receive the intended records, I have included a "profile sheet" generated from our
records management system. Please indicate specifically which records you would like. There is
a .25 cent per page fee for photocopying.
Sincerely,
LJy.c?~
Lt. David Dresser
PE380
lERONA POLle: DEPARTMENT

111 Lincoln Street
Verona, Wisconsin 53593- 1520
(608) 845-7623
Fax: (608) 845-8613
BERNARD J. COUGHLIN E-mail: pollce@ci.verona.wi.us
Chief of Police Web Site: www.ci.verona.wi.us
July 9, 2009
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593
I am in receipt of your request for records from the Verona Police Department dated June
30, 2009. You requested the following records: a.) Copy of warrant b.) Copy of executed
warrant c.) Crime code 5000 d.) Charge 999.99 e.) Docket for case or name of court for
case 2007-00045496.
In response to items a.) & b.): The Verona Police Department is not the custodian of the
warrant that you have requested and this has been communicated to you in previous
letters dated August 23,2007, September 20, 2007, October 5,2007 and December 3,
2007. We suggest you contact the United States Marshall's Office at the following
location, U.S. Marshal, Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Courthouse, 517 E.
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 38, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
In response to c.) & .d): The Verona Police Department uses a Records Management
System to document arrests and uses data entry codes for tracking purposes. There is no
crime code of 5000. Upon review of the above cited case number, I believe you intended
to inquire about crime code 50000. Crime code 50000 is a data entry code assigned to
the descriptor "obstructing Justice Offenses." Charge code 999.99 is a data entry code
assigned to document warrant arrests. While we don't have a "record" responsive to your
request, it is the intent of the Verona Police Department to provide you with this
information so as to avoid any confusion.
In response to e.): The Verona Police Department does not possess a docket or court
information pertaining to case 2007-00045496. The case number in question is a case
number specific to the Verona Police Department's records management system
documenting the local arrest and does not include the facts relating to the warrant itself.
The Entering Agency for the warrant was the US Marshals Service Headquarters
Arlington 202-307-9100 and inquires should be directed to that agency.
If you have additional questions, please contact the Verona Police Department.
Sincerely,
U.YU~
Lt. David Dresser
PE383
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page
· 52
-~-.. of
-' 124
---
lERONA POllC, DEPARTMENT
11 1 Lincoln Street
Verona, Wisconsin 53593-1520
(608) 845-7623
Fax: (608) 845-8613
BERNARD J. COUGHLIN E-mail: police@ci.verona.wi.us
Chief of Police Web Site. www.cl.verona.wl.us
July 9, 2009
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593
I am in receipt of your request for records from the Verona Police Department dated July
1,2009. You requested the following records: 1.) Copy of Open Records Information
provided in 20072.) Any authorization to serve federal summons.
In response to item 1.): Upon further inquiry from you it was determined you were
asking for previous responses to record requests you filed with this agency in 2007. I've
included copies ofletters we sent you on August 23,2007, September 20,2007, October
5,2007, November 28,2007 and December 3,2007. Please note if you would like any
copies of the attachments to these letters then a separate locating fee may apply in
addition to any copying costs.
In response to item 2.): The Verona Police Department does not possess any record
responsive to your request. I would suggest you view Wisconsin State Statutes and
Federal law relevant to police authority and arrest powers.
If you have additional questions, please contact the Verona Police Department.
Sincerely,
OJ~~
Lt. David Dresser
PE384
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009
I IlvU V"'-'IC-VUV
Page 53 of 124
• U~V""TV VI UVV
CJ copy
\
August 23, 2007
Ms. Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
I am in receipt ofyour request for records dated August 16,2007, in which you requested records
from the City of Verona Police Department. You requested the following records:
1. Copy of report showing wrong DOB

2. The reason why Ms. Pagliaro was performing word processing involving Kay
Sieverding
3. Copy of claimed warrant publication relied on by Lt. Barger
4. Reason why warrant was not brought with him on May 10, 2007
5. Names all officers at Sieverding's on May 10,2007
The City of Verona Police Department desires to provide you with as many records as the law
permits. Following are my responses to each of your requests.
In response to your first request for a copy of the report showing the wrong date of birth, I have
enclosed a copy ofa Verona Police Department Supplemental Report dated July 5, 2007. This
report was previously provided to you in response to a previous request.
In response to your second request for reasons why Ms. Pagliaro was preparing word processing
involving Kay Sieverding, the Department does not possess any records responsive to your
request.
In response to your third request for copies of claimed warrant publications relied on by Lt.
Barger, the Department is not the custodian of the warrant that you have requested. In the event
you desire a copy of the warrant, then we suggest you contact the United States Marshall's Office
at the following location, U.S. Marshal, Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Courthouse, 517 E.
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 38, Milwaukee, W153202, telephone: 414-297-3707.
PE385
In response to your fourth request for reasons why the warrant was not brought with the officers
on May 10,2007, the department does not possess any records responsive to your request.
In response to your fifth request for the names of all officers at the Sieverding's on May 1'0,
2007, I have provided a copy of the police reports, which provide the infonnation that you
requested. This report was previously provided to you in response to a previous request.
If you have any questions regarding my responses to your request, please contact me at the City
of Verona Police Department.
Sincerely,
Bernard J. Coughlin
Chief of Police
ene.
PE386
I..Jd::>t: I.U:1-l,;V-UUOO,,:::-uUD UUl,;UII 1t:lll ~ . - rllt:u U II"::: lI":::UU:1 rctyt: Ov v.
(\ (O?'I
September 20, 2007
Ms. Kay Sieverding

641 Basswood Avenue
Verona, WI 53593
I am in receipt of your request for records dated August 27,2007, in which you requested records
from the City of Verona Police Department. You requested the following records:
I. "the log of the 7/20 report"; and

2. "the actual publication that your officers claimed to rely on when they came to my
home with guns on 5/10/07."
The City of Verona Police Department desires to provide you with as many records as the law
permits. Following are my responses to each of your requests.
In response to your first request for a copy of the log of July 20,2007 report, I have enclosed
copies of the Verona Police Department Reports dated May 10,2007 and July 5,2007. These
reports were previously provided to you in response to previous requests.
In response to your second request for the actual publication that was relied upon by Verona
Police Officers, the Department is not the custodian of this record. I suggest you contact Mr. Phil
Collins at the Crime Infonnation Bureau, Wisconsin Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2718,
Madison, Wisconsin 53701·2718, telephone: 608·267-2235 or email: collinspe@doi.state.wi.us.
If you have any questions regarding my responses to your request, please contact me at the City
of Verona Police Department.
Sincerely,
Bernard J. CougWin PE387

Chief of Police
enc.
- A _t A
Jr
AO 442 (Rev 5/85) Warrant ff',..j·•Arr:.;,;e:o:;,st:...
• ...... _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---"'C~O=L=O=RA=D::..:O><__ _
v. SEALED
3. JESSICA ARAMBULA WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 08-cr-00457-CMA

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JESSICA ARAMBULA and ?ring her

, , ~ .;:.A I
I8l Indictment 0 Infonnation 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Bond Violation Notice 0 Pr~bation Vl~lation' ':
C ,..:. G'l "-
c::, " :
r- "
charging her with r:::-
Mail Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud the Government, and False Claims

cr
in violation of Title ..J.L United States Code, Sections 1341. 286. 287, and 2
Greg Langham Clerk. U.S. District Court

Name oflssuing Officer TItle of Issuing Officer
, ,
11 14 108 lofado ;.:1 .:=
SIgnature of Issuing Officer Date and Location
, __ r
-,
s/KTriplett
(By) Deputy Clerk
...._,,-
Bail fixed at $ _ by .......... ~-
Name of Judicial Officer

. ,
..•
~
VI ;.. -,
RETURN ",-
~"
-'- C~ .. ~"-
This warrant was received lind executed wltb the arrest of the above-named defendant at
" '
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
/,e5
DATE OF ARREST
II/'7 he) J'(J;I,IA/ A/6WOWI t=-rg Jr'/ !/RP, 1/-
AO 442 Rev. 5/85 Warrant (or Arrest
r-
(
c --.. J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICTOF_~C=O=L=O=RA~D=O~-----

v.
TOBIAS LEE ARCHULETA
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: {$'" Mj -11.3 (.q
(Name and Address ofDefendant)

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest em=-

T.A.'ol'.>b~ias=-,",Le=-e """'Ar=c=h=ul... and bring him
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a
"
o Indictment 0 Information • Complaint CJ Order ofCourt 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with

t::J
...: C1 ~ L0 C
Bank Robbery ;tj c::.~' --'1 ~
~ ~ ;:i'
(" ,:-: .I ... ~
\ ; ,! l---
in violation of Title IJ United States Code, Section(s) _ ......2!:&oll;,.A.13::J.(~a)u:anl*lld-..21~1.=.:.3(~d;l...) t-\ _-ioF~'~~_':-->.~v.w.l;. -" ',: "
BOYD N. BOUND I :.:; ,.' ". ,.
United States Magistrate Judge ,
Name of Issuing Officer /~~tle of Issuing Officer L
~~1A£jM~ .~.~'~"
Signa~aiicer ~ . ~'-at-'e'--an-d.....
08 Denver~oloJo ~
/,,'f/i'-on----'"'=:.::..:.:&.~~~'----- Lo-cat
....
-----~----...~
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $~ _ by _
Name ofJudicial Officer
RETURN
Thl. Wilrr80t WllI received and executed with the anat oftht above-lJilMcd defendant It
DATBRECEN~'. "1},;;) 4 0'9

NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
E'll<" fkARA
SIONATIJRB OF ARRESTING OFFICER
DATE OF ARREST ':s.}?S los ~s..t' ~LE: Om~--fL £fl--

_.'
(
Case 1:07-cr-00359-EWN *SEALED* Document 6 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 1 of 1


SEALED
v.
3. CARLOS LEAL BARRAGAN, WARRANT FOR ARREST
oGf~~:- 0 0 3 5 9-EW~
To: The T.!nited States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ~C:.t!:ar~IQ~s'-lLea1~~Barrai~:.Ut.1iilllan _

NlI/l\C:
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n)
181 Indictment 0 Infonnation 0 Complaint CJ Order ofcourt 0 Violation Notice D Probation Violation Petition
charging himlher with \,OOwdofa\jlIicIa" .....)

Smuggling and Money Laundering
Til~ of Inuing Oftker
NIDIe 01 JudiciI! Oftlcer
This warrant was received and executed with the arres( of the above-named defendant at kA/(-etptXti. 00 L~2k2
CATSJU!CElVEl) 1-~ -01
DATSOI'.uaBST 9-7-o 7
SEALED
f[ll o
. Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB
~-,
Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 59 of 124
Case 1 :o8-cr-ool-MsK Document 2 Filed 11/17CU8 Page 1 of 1

- - - - - DISTRICT OF COLORADO

v.
ALEJANDRO BARRON-REYES, WARRANT FOR ARREST
a/kIa "Alex"
CASE NUMBER:
0 8 - C R - 0 0 4 7 9·- \{V\...;L.11 \L'
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _ _....AL.wa.EwJAi.iJNu.lD""'~~Q:loUIOB~ARR~~O;a.;lN~-RE~YESL.Io!!oO~ _ _

Name
and bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a
X Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order ofcourt 0 Violation Notice 0 Prob6tion Violation Petition
charging him with (brief description ofolfeue)
unlawful and willful escape from an institution in which he was confined by the Attorney
General based upon his having been convicted and sentenced for a felony violation ofTitle
21, United States Code, Section 841(aXl),
in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 751(a).
GREGORY c.lANGHAM
Clerk. U. 8. DiIItct Court
NlIIDe ofls3l1ing Officer
1\ - \'1- D72
BAIL FIXED AT $, .....;.;,..;...._

Neme of Judicial Officer
This wamnt was recaiYod and CllCllUtCd with tf1e arrest of the abovc-lBMd defencIIat at
DATa RIlCIlMlD NAMB AND nru;; OF AlUlESl1NG OI'JIICD. S1GNATtUOP AlW!STINGOl't'JCE&
//
DATI Of' AlWST/ 2h/~
/ /
If k v ,L) /J-"/SK ) f~
J :;-
., 77
Case 1:08-cr-OOOO- ~WN Document 4 Filed 01/07' 08 Page 1 of 1

v.
•
1. MICHAEL JAMES BECNEL,

'0 8WARRANT
- C R- 0 0 0 0 7-Ew/\/
FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
To: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARB HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest .t:::M~ic~ha~e~l~J~ames~u=BQ:£C~n~e~l _

Name
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n}
181 IndictmentCl Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation NoticeD Probation Violation Petition
charging him/her with (briet~ptionafof(_)

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
in violation ofTitle II United States Code, Section 2250

GREGORV C.lANGHAM
Clerk, U. S. 0iItriCt Court
Name of Issuing Officer Title of Issuing Officer
Signa\lm:O~ Denver Colorado

t
Date and Location

I - 1 - O~
BAIL FIXED A1' $, _ by _

I 1<1". IKN
I, 'This warrant was received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named defendant at
:
DAf8 Rl!C£lVED ,/,/0& NAME AND TlTU! OF AJtnSmro OPFICIm
m,~
) DATIl OF' AAABST ;j;o /09 ~~~ ... ~ br ~\ov C'"'- • ~f""'\
v~ MAfl.-li"-A-~ :::.>
.-
?~77Z,
,1 t 1 r--)
TEO STATES' . '.l
DEM'ER D/3m/sr C;:: I'
. ,COLORADO
rJAN 1 12008
~REGORY c. LANGHfld.,
----..£//:.,
· - . Case 1:07-cr-005 ~-;JB Document 2 Filed 12/19, -7 Page 1 of 1
U nit e d Stat es Dis t ric t c:.)~~'~i~rgmo

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICTOF COLORADO ZD07DEC 19 Ph 2:05
v. BY------------ DEP.CLK
JASON ALEXANDER BROADWAY WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JASON ALEXANDER BROADWAY, and bring him
• Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with
Possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and felon in possession of
a firearm
in violation of Title 21 United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1 leA) and in violation of
Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(9)(1) and 924(a)(2)
;: :·-."t- :"" :-".~ ~ . :- ~~~2~:£\\1
Name of Issuing Office/"' .J. ";r';:'~~l,m TItle of l$Suing OffIcer
Signature of Issuing Officer
\/)r
(B;}?;,lY&", "
0 //~' _"1 JAN 0 2 200? n
Bal"IfiIxed at$_ _- b
'y '2i1EGOjq·,;rc . :,~:\.;r.n~'firc~773
~~~::_:=_-----..;..;.,...::.,-"..,ll."~-'+_'I~.-.~.I'.-._
Name of Judicial Officer :.~':J=?: (
RETURN
Thi5 warrant was received and executed with the arrest of tile above-named defandant at
DATE RECEIV~k'.
/';l-J- ..·0
DATEO~r!31si -0"7
( NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
I~(/ tiNt;' 7)1/7/71 S';V7"·

AO 442 (Rev. 5/85) Warrant for Arrest
-«., _ n.

v.
1. JACK L. CHRISMAN, WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
08-cr-0025 7-JLK
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest : ~Ja~c~kwL~.C:.<.u.hnu·~sm~an~ _

Name
I8l Indictment 0 Infonnation 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging himlher with (bnefdoscnpllonofof&mel

Possession of a Fireann which is not registered in the National Fireanns Registration and Transfer Record
in violation of Title 26 United States Code, Section 5861

.J
...
0 r--J
C"')
~~
(,,.: c:
;:J
r"
L::>
G.>
-1L('
]
Gregory C. Langham. Clerk. U.S. District Court (-
( - ..
Name of Issuing Officer TItle of Issumg Officer
- fv
c..;>
sff.Lee Denver. Colorado 6/16/08 "
Slgtlal1lre of !ssumg Officer Date and Location 7"" .~~
'"
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ by _ . (.n

w
Name of Judiclal Officer
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at, _
NAME AND mu OF ARRESTING OFR::Ell. SrGNAT\JIU!OF ARRESllNGOmCEll.
f ~#1llJ /0 , e-l~ 4'f5

AO 442 (Rev 5/85) Warrant for Arres41 _.
'United States District Court

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _--:lC~Q.::.eL=-:=O::.J.RA~D~O~ _
v.
LAWRENCe EUGENE COUTURIER

WARRANT FOR ARREST
0 8 - C R;; 0 0'. 1 1 5- 'rQ.E.6
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest LAWRENCE EUGENE COUTURIER and
bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an
• Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation
Petition
charging him with Travel with Intent to Engage In Illicit Sexual Conduct and Attempting to
Entice a Minor to Engage In Illegal Sexual Activity ,
in violation of Title 18 United States Codes Sections _-=2,-,-,42=3~(b'=4)-=a:.:.:.nd=-..=.24..:.=21U12~(b~) _

GREGORY C. LANGHAM'
Clerk. u. S. Diltrict Court
Name of Issuing Officer TItle of Issuing Officer
T·~..) ----)
'3" 1/ c:~";,
--.- , "
'-"
"
I,....
i~'
f
'.
I
~:>~ r,, __:
(By) Deputy Clel1<
.-: .' .
by _ _~-"':""':'""_::_:_~:__-L~i- --7:-:--~--
" ..
Bail fixed at $ <-
.."
[
i
Name of Judicial OffIcer i::J
:>
-~~
r"l..) -, .
,."
~
~
~..)
RETURN
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named d.f8ndant~~~tt::::=::z:...._!:::i:::u.:2::I:iiii!....o.ll~ _
DATE RECEIVeD NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER

3
DATE OF ARREST
S II 'f.pt Ifl1 err..!?
c (,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-:D~I:::..ST~RI;:;C,;;;.T.:...;::.O:...F..:::;U..::~A~H,~~R~!y~I~SI~O;.:..N=-- _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U,~, o.
V. lUUb nEe ,t t:WlithNT FOR ARREST
Jesse Christopher Cordova rl~-rRICi
\.J\~ ~
I
Of \JTAIi
I
8'1'~, __..cME-NfJMBER: 2:06-CR-807-001 PGC

DE.?Ul'i(C'\..t.Kl\ - -.-
ORIGINAL
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ~J,;:;:E:::::S=S,;:;:E~C=H=RI=ST=O:..=:P~H=E=.;R=...::C;;;...O=RD::::;....;O;;...V.:....;A=- _
Name
00 Indictment o Superseding Indictment 0 Information 0 Superseding Infonnation
o Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice D Probation Violation Petition
charging him or her with (bnef descnpllon of offense)
Possession of Firearms by a Convicted Felon; Possession of Ammunition by a Convicted Fel~;

Notice of Intent to Seek Forfeiture 2 ~
t/'l
g 0
-l ,../"~~
~ 5 _.. rf'l
.....:: :... t j
..... ." rf"~
Vl - ......-
violation of 18:921(2l(l); 18:92Ue)O); 18:924(d)(1) .., Unitedr8tates Code.
1Il
..... -:0
'
Clerk of Court
Title of Issuing Officer
,-
November 15, 2006 at Salt Lake City, Utah
Date and Location
'By: Krysta Arner

Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by ::-:-_~~_:_=_~---------

RETURN
Irhis warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at
1SK Document 2 Filed 02f2 -18 Page 1 of 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---"lC=Q;;,:L~O;;.;.RA.........:D=O~ _
v.
ROCH ALLEN CROTEAU WARRANT FOR ARREST

CASE NUMBER:

08- C R- 001 0 4"'MS~
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ROCH ALLEN CROTEAU and bring him
charging him with C

Q ~1 ;:nc:
::0 g -I'
Odometer Tampering m
t.~
cu
~ x:;~
·tt)
'-::' ~ , .' -~
in violation of Title 49 United States Code, Section 32703(2) anf 327~(b)~~ ~"~': _'.
GREGOfW c.l..AfGHAM I
,
I
::0"
; ....::r"
~ u. s. DiIldctcourt
Name of Issuing OffIcer Tille of Issuing OIIicer

~r.. ~: ;~
. . . . _ . . . _ ...
~ !r 0 ._---
~ / ~B I Of) Oe~er, C~loraao \~-.

Oate am:! L.ocation
Bail fixed at $. ----:by --:--:----:-~~~---------_ _

RETURN
,
Thl. wlrrent w.. received and eQCuted with the Irreat of tN aboYHl.mld defendant at
DATE RECEIVE~/~hr- NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICE~ SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
J:>I- //.;r/'t? I t\ ~ "" ~ ,r
OATEOFARREST ~~
~.,
r /)(Jr 5'/+ :r:~11~u- 7-~
AO 442 (Rev. 5/85) Warrant for ArTeSt
Case 1 :06-cr-0031~WN Document 2 Filed 08/09/~ Page 1 of 1

v.
1. JASON PAUL CRAIG WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: O{P-c-r.. D03/q-~ wN

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Jason Payl Craig

N.me
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate to lW3wer a(n)
all IndictmentCl InfonnationO ComplaiDtO OTder of ~I:J Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging himIher with (bricfcl<al:ription Dlol'fflllCl

Distribution of Child Pomorgraphy and Possession ofChild Pornography
in violation ofTitle 18 United States Code, Sections 2252A(aJO)(B) and 2252ACal(5)(B)

GREOOIn' c. LANGHAlYl
CleEk. u.s. DiIIrict Court
Title ofIssuing Officer
Denver. Colorado
Date and Location
BAlL FIXED AT $, _ by _ :~~

,,
I -,
Name ofJudicial Officer ,-.
I 1
c.;J ',,:)
"{·l
'\J :;-. .'0
,-:><
This warrant was received and executed with the attest of the above-named defendant a',L"t _
DATB IUlCtilVIlD S1GNA11JU OF AIUUiS1IIIIG OFftCBk
DATE OF ARREST
-IO-C;(P

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF_~C=O=L=O=RA~D~O ......::S~fALED
v.
ASHTON PAUL DAIGLE
WARRANT FOR ARREST
08-cr-00491-MSK
,..," ......'
and any Authorized Unitel! States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Ashton Paul Daigle and bring hiP.' forthwith to the'
nearest magistrate to answer an .:: ) . J
• -(-I
• Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 ProbationVioiation-"Petiti6i{'
. !~) ... ~
charging him with '-.

..
. -~ .....
Tampering with a Consumer Product and Aiding and Abetting the same; and Creating a Counterfeit
Controlled Substance
in violation ofTitle -lL United States Code, Sections 841 (a)(2) and (b)(1)(C) and Title 1.[., United States Code,
Section 1365(a) and 2 .
Gregory C. Langham. Clerk. U.S. District Court

Name ofIssuing Officer Title ofIssuing Officer
11/18/2008 Denver. Colorado

Signature of Issuing Officer Date and Location
t./iC
s/T.Lee -lu~
~'J •
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $ _
ThIS warrant
RETURN -
....
NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFF1CBR SrGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
SEALED ~\'\~ ORIGINAL

.... >' Case 1:07 -cr-002L~~ Document 2 Filed 06/05107 Page 1 of 1
AS 142 (Rev 5/851 Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DiSTRICT OF _--l!IlC~Q~L~OuRA:O.D~Q:lIl:_ _
v.
WARRANT FOR ARREST
EDDIE DAVIDSON CASE NUMBER
~~aEDWARDDA~DSON

o7 - CR- 0 0 2 5 7AV\S't--
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Eddie Davidson, alkJa Edward Davidson. and bring
him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an
X Indictment 0 Information Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
Falsifying Information to Send Spam Electronic Mail
in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1037 (aX3)
C!ldtlLa.= ",peyr
CJIiIEOQRY c.l.ANGHMt
TIlle of IsUng 0fIIcer
Sigl'\llture of Isaul ng Officer
(By) Deputy CI.
Bail fixed at $, ....;;.
RETURN
Thla wurant wu received llad ~ecU1ltd with the .,.,.., Of the above-tlamed ~nd."t at &:1"".... s.11 to ',;jr..,1.'9
DATE RECEIVED ~/J

r'/::;.",<)7
NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
b
.s~~t.'" r?o ~ ~/h.
DATE OF ARRf;ST 6/'/ ~oQ7 5>Ott.~... , ~
. k~
AO 442 (Rev. 5185) W.llllnt for Arresl
•
, Case 1 :07-cr-0027~D Document 2 Filed 07/10/2(;, Page 1 of 1

v.
07 - CR- 0027 8-\fJYO
t. EDWARD EREKSON WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
YOU.ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to mest Edward Erekson

Name
ao4 bring him or her forthwith to tbc nearest magistrate to aDSWCI a(n)
181 Indictment [J Information 0 Complaint [J Order of court [J Violation Notice CJ Probation Violation Petition
cbaraiDa himlher wi1b (nfdoloripDac>..ratr..j

Transportation ofChild Pornography; Possession ofChild Pornography
in violation ofTitle .ll United States Q)de. Sections 2252A(alfll. 2252A(a)(S)(B)

GREGORY c.lANGtW.t
a.n. u. 6. _ _ c.a
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ by .....;;.z.~
Name 01 Judicia) Olfiw


DISTRICf OF COLORADO SEALE,D
v.
5. ESTEBAN LOPEZ ESTRADA, WARRANT FOR ARREST

dJb/a BOTAS EXOTICAS CANADA
GRANDE
f)~~* - 0 03 5 9-~wi\J
To: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United States Offi\;er
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Esteban Lopez Estrada. d/b/a Botas Exoticas Canada Grande
NIIJIC
and bring him or ber forthwith to the lle<lI'eSt magistrate to answer a(n)
I8l Indictment 0 Infozmation [J Complaint I:J Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
cbarging himlb.er with (lIn{~c!"")

Smuggling and Money Laundering
-./ ..:,.
~GO\~'
BAlL FIXED AT $ _ G~t:.
by----------
N__ Jucilcilll Oftic:a
(If ---
----
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at. _
_ Case 1:08-cr-00159~\ - . to Document 2 Filed 04/08/2r'"'Q Page 1 of 1
(\9442 !Rev 5/85) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---.:::C~O~L=Q~RA::....:.:::.DO~ _
v.
MICHAEL P. EWING WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASENUMBER:O~ -CX-001'Jq-wYD
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest MICHAEL P. EWING and bring him
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n)
X Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
o :':"'r
-< 9 ~ ;:r.c:
charging him with (brief description of offense) I~ t:: ::.: if
c. ~
c' -,) , , ...::
Mail fraud and Tax Evasion " . -
in violation of 18 USC § 1341 t 26 USC § 7201 . -
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
Clerk. U. S. 0iItriet Cowt . ,
, .,
Name of Issuing Officer Title of Issuing Officer ~0 ~p ;<3

(') :':;-.J
De4lCtt-?, Co
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $ _
by _ _--:":'_--:-:~~=_---------
RETURN
, ThIs warrant was received and executed with tile arrest of the above-named defendant at _
\SS~ _
Case 1:06-cr-00455-EW_EALED* Document 2 Filed 11~2006 Page 1 of 1

AO 442lRev 5/851 Warrant for Arrest

_~ DISTRICT OF C~Q~L~O:.:..::RA~DQ.x.... _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICS~\..ED

<g 3/ ;;H/- I g;>O
v.
JOSEPH A. FERONA, Jr.
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMSER
06 .. CR. 0045 5 {,uJ~

QI

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Joseph A. Ferona. Jr.• and bring him
X Jndictment 0 Information Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
Mail Fraud. Wire Fraud, Money Laundering. Monetary Transactions in Property
Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity
in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341. 1343, 1956.1957 and 2

GREGORY c. U.NGIIAM
Qed" U.s. Di."Ittict e-r
Name of Issuing Officer Tills of Issuing Officer
Signature of IssuIng Officer

--.IJty v-W'
Date andLOCatiOfi
& 11-;;-0<0
Ball fixed at $. ~
. \ Q..,. , .. ,,1\
~~'
. n r " If
RETURN \. ,\~...:;.. ~~~ ,
." ..... C
This warrant was received and executed with ths arrest of the above-named defendant at f;.QO~" ,.- ~_..---
G~
DATE RECEIVED
i It-lot- NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
OAiEOF ARREST liz I" 1- J,jJAJ tA-t.. ~ P J f"""

\--k
AO 442 (Rev. 5165} WalT8nt for Arrest
Case 1:07-mj-0115lJ-CBS Document 2 Filed 07/17/2~,J7 Page 1 of 1

AO 442 iRev 5/'85) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _--'!IC~O~L::.!:Q.uRAQiD~Ql:'..... _
v.
TAMERA JO FREEMAN
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: , 7" y'. P /dJ, ... dlJ5

-TO: The United States Marshal
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Tamera Jo Freeman and bring her
o Indictment 0 Information • Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation PetitiOn
charging her with

Interference with Flight Crew; AND Assault Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction
of the United States
in violation of Title~ United States Code, Section 46504: AND Title .1a. United States Code, Section
113(5')(5).
Cruia B. Shaffer# United Sates Magistrate Judge
~~---
Tile of lasulng omQll'
JDateIe) to'
and LOeaIlon
(By) Deputy Clerk
RETURN
Thia w.,.nt wu received and executad with the arrat of the abov• ..,amed ~ndlllrt at L&.::...-L-L-_~--I-~.x...Ml.Il"'_
tJ6t!yt!ty f () &tJc'l.?
~~~:;:~~RE~ST~IN~G OFFICER
Case 1:ur-cr-00403-MSK "SEALED" Document 6 hied 0972172001 Page 1 of 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF_~Co;O:=:L~O~RAD~~O"___----

v. ORIGINAL
3. ELEANOR FRESQUEZ
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NU1vfBER:
(Name and Address of DefendllIlt)

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Eleanor Fresquez and bring,her

• Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probatirn Violation Petition
charging her ~th conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances; knowingly and
intentionally use a communication facility, in committing or in causing and facilitating !the commission of an act
or acts constituting one or more felonies; and forfeiture
in violation of Title 21 United States Code, Section 846; Title 21 United States Code. Section 843(b); and Title
21, United States Code. Section 853.
GREGORY C.LANGHAM
CIe!1t, u. S. DiaIrict Court
qI ~ 7/ 0 7 Denser. Colorado
Date and Location
Bail fixed at $, --'-

Name ofJurlicial Officer,- .' -, '
"
RETURN
This warnnt was received and exeeuttd with the arrest of the above-named defendallt at
,
DATE RECEIVED I NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER

SIGN3-~NG omCER
Ie L/fj':J- ~LA\lc.yoI \,l$.... s .a~
DATE OF ARREST '
It..
,Ill
l,. rtJ r SIA- ~ t VHf I De:-A-
ORIGINAL
(


v.
MAXWELL GARIHAN
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: j 7- mJ-tJ/J.5r

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _-,M~axc.:w~ell'LnL..:Gariw.=.....·h:.=an _

NalM
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a{n)
o IDdictmentO Information a Complaint 0 0rdeJ of 4:ourt C Violation Notice Cl Probation Violation Petition
Interstate transportation of stolen property valued at $5,000.00 or more and aiding and abetting
in violation ofTitle _....&.l18~__ United States Code, Section(s)----"'2....3......

14~an"""d....2L_.. _
~
Title of.bluing Officer
~::==~:::_----
BAn. FIXED AT S.-¥-~ ----_
This ~t was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant a,~t _
,
Case 1 :07-Cr-OOa-REB Document 2 Filed 06/oJ101 Page 1 of 1

=

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

v.
ROBERT EVERETT GIMER, JR.
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:

o'7 - CR- 0 0 2 5 O'~BiS
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to aneat, -IRo~beJ1~ .....EotJvUlere:uQttIo..:Gjw.u.·mWerllLL.:.Jur..... _

Nam:
-
and bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n)
I8IlDdictment a Information a Complaint C Order of court C Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
Possession of Child Pornography; Distribution of Child Pornography; AND Transport of Child

Pornography
in violation ofTitlell. United States Code, Section(s) 2252A(')(SlCB); 22SWa)(Z)(B); AND 2252A(a)(l)
Title of Iauilll Ofticer
le - Y ~ 01 Denver. CO
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ by _
Name orJudicial Officer
IlIiT JIlN
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest oftile abovc-nanted defendant at t2.,,,\VH, (,f,,04.
b/.rhoo-' NAWBAHD TnUl~QOPFIl:U

~~;
IM.TIllSClliVID
>-qf'-<- ~ 1~ k.
DATBOFAJWIiT '/7/~~. ? S{)~r~A \ 1:J. Y
II '"
Case 1 :07-cr-0013-~N Document 2 Filed 03/27/W Page 1 of 1
AO 442 (Rey 5185) Warrant for Arrest () 8(13'7-D'-/&

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WARRANT FOR

V. ARREST
JAY VAUGHN GREGORY
o1~E~urt~: 00i 31 ~WtJ
TO: The United States Marshal, and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JAY VAUGHN GREGORY and bring him
X Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with (brief description ofoffense~
Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (a) and
(b).
Name of Issuing Officer Tille of Issuing Officer
Denver, Colorado
Dala and Locallon
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at S --:.
RETURN
. --*--
This warrant W<1lS received and executed with the arrest of the aboVe-named defendant at
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TItlE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SrGNATUR~CTrNG OFFICER

I l i l Slf) ~
DATE OF ARREST
/;'/I)}O'T
.:J.. ,.,I4.$1"" I ~-:M-S 7- ~
- -
AO 442 (Rev. 5/85 Warran\ for Arrest
AO 442 (Rev 5185)

·-.
Warrant for Arrest
Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009
•
Page 78 of 124
United States District q'.~t~i!r::n

.. Il ,,-. .. ~ :..: _, I II _ ,.'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF

~: 'I I J
, " .-" . '_. '. : •. .J
v.
PETER W. S. GRIGG
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 09-cr-00012-REB

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest PETER W. S. GRIGG and bring him forthwith to the
nearest magistrate judge to answer an
1m Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with knowingly and intentionally distributed, dispensed, and possessed with intent to
distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of Oxycodone, a Schedule II
controlled substance, outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose;
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, a Schedule I controlled substance; and Fentanyl, a Schedule II
controlled substance, outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
Gregory C.Langham, Clerk, U.S. District Court

Denver Colorado 1/6/2009

sIT. Lee
(By) Deputy Clerk
, . ...
~. ~
-"-
RETURN L,
.."
c, C) -
... [ :
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above·named defendant at
;V
,-
0 .... ---
~:..
:$ ..... ........
Tc"
' ..... J
~,

SIGNATURE OF
DATE OF ARREST
//7/09
1'.0 442 (Rev. 5/B5) Wilrriint for ICrresl
I r HOM fSo.J'-' ./) ef1 /~A- //
;;
I
Case 1:09-cr~00040~CMA Document 2. Fl!ed 0112712009 Page ~ of 1
United St.,tes District Court

-
DISTRICT OF CQ\.,QRAPO
UNITED STATES OF AMERiCA
v.
TIMOTHY RYAN GUTlERREZ WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE. NUMBER:09-er~OOO4O..cMA
TO: The United States Marsha!

and any Authorized United states Officer
VOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest TIMOTHY RYAN GUT1ERREZ and bring him
forthwith to the nearest magistrate Judge to answer a(n)
X lndlctment 0 111fofll\atior'J 0 Complaint 0 Order of Coort 0 Violation Nolk:e 0 Probation Vlo\ation PeliUo!)
charging him with '.
transmission of threats against President via e-mail
in vIolation of 18 USC § 875(c} and 844{e)
Gr9gory~C- Langbiilll.. C!QdiJi......~.J2.l.2mm..QQill.t __.

N1lfIliO' {)f 1~13U;~ Ofii£;filf
1/2712009 Denver(CO _, __
D-<!le lind U,"¢allbYl
sJT,1.~
{By) D<Jo.Ay ClerK
._~.- - _.- - ~._-
. _-----_._- - ,
RETURN
_ ...... _rrw. m
... - - - _ . . - - . . . . -
-
Tnl~ WS;""r>1 Wl\~ rec.el~clllrn:l ~x.et;l:e(l '-'11th the l\E14tSt 0' tN! abQ~ll-ll~ft1(ltl dlllbn<l;iM {II", /1/.7 FL_,~~~~~~
,oF"
_,_._, _ _ _ ~~,._"""'_M ••_ ••_ _." ...'" ...",_"" .."",
UJ\iL RfCEIVEO NAME: AND 'flEE OF ARRF.S l' ING OFf 'CER SlGNl\iUR~f.t!;;S1U'JG ~FlCf.R
.fJ..!L__
1
L~-
DATE Of ARREST
/ ~'.:! 9 r &~
......... /y.#;e~er- ;i!j;pMl
~h~.4~~;1-
,
...~#.C
#- '/
~
PJ) 447. (nt!~. !;Jifl5) Watrant f(ll Ar~M'l /"
Document 5 Page 1 of 1
AO 442 (Rev 51B5) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----=C::o..;O=L=.:O~R~A~D=O=_ _

WARRANT FOR ARREST
v.
CASE NUMBER:09-C~~~05iPAm
4. ANTHONY ALDANA, ---.;.'.
C):._
t..
;£; ~
aka "Trusty" ..... v~ 0:~: Z ~.Q;
0::"_
-.,::.-,
W
0
'j'!.='•
.
n r --
TO: The United States Marshal {-- (.":
and any Authorized United States Officer ~~" U ~-:::::
»;r,)~:- W
.. .rT1 ~
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ANTHONY ALDANA and b~ hillT-fort~!~I to the
nearest magistrate judge to answer an Pl N
t8l Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with knowingly and intentionally conspiring to distribute and possession with the intent to
distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, a Schedule II Controlled
Substance, and knowingly and intentionally using any communication facility, to wit: a telephone, in
facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony,
in Violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), 843~b) and 846.
-< Cl r--.:>
;:0 g
r"Cl -.D
""T1
ham Clerk U.S. District Court
Title of Issuing Officer
Denver Colorado 1/29/09

Signature of Issuing Officer Dale and location C.' ,~
sIT. Lee ;:.1 ' -:'' :

'.,,~J" :;.,1
(By) Deputy Clerk
o
Bail fixed at $ _ by _ _--:-:-_--;--,,.--,,-~::_:_:_----------
RETURN
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at
DATE RE'}'VJ.?tY'1 NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
) - 5-
DATioF A~ST
-;2 ,~ 17- /~I {)/fo 1)(/541 /--:?:/~
AO 442 (Rev, 5185) Warrant for Arrest
_a.1 ... ~
St,\LC\)
Case 1:07-cr-004~EB Document 2 Filed 10/02/~ Page 1 of 1

v. 07 - CR- 004 0 9~~~T:J

1. CHARLES EDWARD HARRIS, ~ WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
To: The UnitedStates Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Charles Edward Hurjs.1t.
and brins him or her forthwith to the DCara.t magistrate to amwer a(n)
I8Ilndicanent 0 Information0 Complaint 0 Order ofcourt [J Violation Notice C Probation Violation Petition
cbarJiDg lUmIhcr with (lnof.-ripli.. "'. . . .)

Possession With.lntcnt to Distribute 5 grams or more ofCocaine Base, a Schedule II Controlled Substance
in violation ofTitle II United States Code, Sections 841(.)(1) and <bXIXB)fiijl

GREGORY C.l.ANGHAU
Ciefk. u. s. 0iItrict CUt ~~
~Tillcuu.ool~lI_I4W6' otfi.-ucer~--=:..:..-~ ~'.~.

N_ of luuirII Officer
;Ib. \
s_~
I
_Denver. Colorado J 01
Q - :;. - ,
Dalc and l...oc:aliOD
,~:;/
BAlL FIXED AT $, _ by _
Name of Judicial Offieer
This wan-ant was received and CXCClned with the mrest oflhe above-uamcd defendant a.:.,.t _
o...l'li JJlCIlJVID HAIioIJl AND TmJ! OF Aa&IlSlOIO OfFICII.
DA11lOPma-r It> (0 rJ7 M4rK Fe 1ft:. SIT ATF ~b


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRIcT OF _~C~O~L~O~RA~D~O _
v.
1. JEFFREY HARRIS WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 08-cr~00456~MSK

and any Authorized United States Officer ,- ~ . ~
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JEFFREY HARRIS and bring ~i:J!1. , ,/
,
:, J
r·- !
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an ":';1
c'
'., -,
181 Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Bond Violation Notice 0 prob~io~ Yiolattbn . "
r:. '. (r'
'- /" (! I
charging him with
Mail Fraud. Conspiracy to Defraud, and False Claims
in violation of Title _1_8_ United States Code, Sections 1341, 286, 287. and 2
Greg Langham Clerk, U,S. District Court

Name oflssulng Officer Title of Issumg Officer
II /4 /08
sfKTriplett
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $, _ by
N":"'a-m-e-:Of:-:'Jt-:ld-tc-t31:-':O:"":ffj=-'c-er-------I---..-.::::...-...;;.;.;:....
RETURN
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at _
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICE
DATE OF ARREST
a = Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 83 of 124
( ---- ---
AO 442 (Rev. 01109) Anest Warrant

for the
SEALED
United States of America
v. )
1. DAVID I. HILLMAN )
Case No. 09-cr-00181-PAB
)
)
)
Defendant
ARREST WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay
(name ofperson to be arrested) DAVID I. HILLMAN
---'---'-~":'-'::-=--'-----------------------------
who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:
It Indictment 0 Superseding Indictment 0 Information 0 Superseding Information CJ Complaint

o Probation Violation Petition 0 Supervised Release Violation Petition 0 Violation Notice 0 Order of the Court
This offense is briefly described as follows:

Count 1 - ConspIracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1956(h),
Counts 2-6 - Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and aiding and
abetting same, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1957 and 2, o
Count 7 - Making false statement, in violation otTitle 18, U.S.C., Section 1001, -<
Count 8 - Forfeiture UJ.C
!
I
I I
-!:..---
.~ -1 •
Date: 04/20/2009
--------
sIT.Lee ; .'~'": . '-
~;..
City and state: Denver, Colorado

Printed name cild title ::: r. ,j .- > :-
::>;
Return
This warrant was received on (date) --''T--cr---- , and the person was arrested on (date)
at (city and state)
Printed name and title
SEALED
Document 2 Filed 02/~ '08 Page 1 of 1

. DISTRICT OF COLORADO
•
v.
1. DOMINIC EUGENE HUGHES,

o8 - C R- 0 0 0 7 0., W'<D
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
To: TherUnited States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ~D~onumlild·IMl·kll:.C: It&EuglMo:l:leneIllllUr.H~u ...

ghlillles:l!-- _
NItlW
and bring him other forthwith co the nearest magiatrate to answer a(n)
,
181 Indic1ment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging himlher with (1IrW~ tto«-)
Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
in violation of Title II United States Code, Section ~

GReGORVC.~
Clerk, U. S. QiUric:iCUt
Name of luuilli Officer Title ofblUilll Ofticcr
_cL~ DenVer. Colorado
BAll.. FIXED AT $, _ by _
,-
'.J
r--v
<.-.:>
c:.:.
.-, J~
This warrant was received aJld executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant a'.l:.t-----t---;,+--?t!---;~--
-
;
;
..
- ~
.,
NAMB ANDTITLIl OF AItUSTlNG 0I'1'1CllIl CD "..
J. AIICZ/O
&-k ;:) .: .
.'
m (.j
:-u , . a
(")
r-
:."C
...." ..- ~
-.;
o·
.-
•
Case 1:07-mj-oL-KLM Document 2 Filed 11/1Lo7 Page 1 of ~

DISTRlCf OF COLORADO

v.
SHANNON MARIE HUNTER
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: ~ t Ifl J- 0/2 3 C/

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _...lIiSu.HANN!.a!.:~Ql&.N1..oIMARI~oQ,U,Ei.JHUNTER~~~ __

Name
CJ IndictrnentCl Information X Complaint 0 Order ofcourt[] Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with (bnd~... otr-l
Bank Robbery
in violation ofTitle _~18f.-_ United States Cod~ Section(s) 2113{a)
t)lUSTBN L ~ .
~S1R·'JJUCoII"'AIII;o.- _
ofI~OPCOLORADO
Depver. CoIRo
Date and Locatioo
BAIL FIXED AT $,_________ by.

" ' - of Judicial OfYaeer
_
This wamnt wu received and executed with the anest oftbe above-named defe!Want a,:...t _
DATluaMD (f. It '11- IWaAM>1TnZOFAlUSTlNGomcu
IM.TlO'AWlST I rr~? SA ~I'I"

Case 1:08~cr-00256-EWN Document 2 Filed 06/16/2008 Page 1 of 2
REeEl VEDUnited States District Court

l ooa JUN 2b P 3: 31
IP~T.}'~DSS1TATES OF AMERICA
. .11/m: hAlS SERVICE
v.
1. TERRICE GAY HUTCHINSON, WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
08-cr-00256-EWN
H~u""'t""'ch""i""n""'sQ"'-n'-'--
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest __T...,e....r'""'ri""c;,.e--'G="'...ay....... _
Name
I8l Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him/her with (b"eCd••cnpbo. ofoffe.s.)

False information and threats concerning Aviation Transportation
in violation of Title 49 United States Code, Section 46507
Gre~ory C. Langham, Clerk, U.S. District Court ,'~

,-,
Name ofIssumg Officer Title of Issuing Officer (.":1 c::
r---J \..~;
-< (I (=,)
:<1 c..:;) --4 IJ)
siT. Lee Denver, Colorado 6/16/08 \ r·j
C~
(;:~
C ..
L::
.-
- .---:
.,
..-
Date and Location ',--) ,
Signature oflssuing Officer \ .. '
\
"
,. r-J -
\ :
"
;
-...\
BAIL FIXED AT $ _ by _ .... ;:;;
.
. ,~
,
.-'
;--
. - -
.- '
-,)
'l
.. ~.»
-,'
"-
"
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at 2'
DATERECEIVE~/.e->hr NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFflCER

~rINGOFFICER
J, ~J/~I V-SA/S
~/;
DATEaF ARREST
,
''2<'~J!''
/"
r Document 32 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 87 of 124
Un ited States District Court
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _-----.;C:oo:.;Q:zu=.:LQ~RA~D~Q=_ _
v.
NATHAN DWAINE JOHNSON WARRANT FOR ARREST

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest NATHAN DWAINE JOHNSON and bring him
charging him with
Possession of a fireann by a prohibited person

Possession of methamphetamine
in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(g)(1) and in violation of Title
21 United States Code, Section 844
Gregory C. Langham. Clerk, U.S. District Court w

Name of Issuing Officer Title of Issuing Officer r,) .. .-
~
-
f"!
.'
L;:...:
t:.7-
c .....·
'.'.. , 00
9/8/08 0 OC)
Signature ot Issuing Officer Date and Location
-
,,
.- - -
-. ,,J
I
Bail fixed at $. by _ _---:'__-~--~.:.,--.;.,.;...--.:;,:....-_---
'"
(,
Name ot Judicial Officer :g ~~ ~ .... ~)

-~ . '
_'l'~
RETURN
This warrant wa. l'ICelved and eXecuted with til. arrest ofthe above-named defendant at i/&;vv'bI C ( .,-y
() CW v'M / Co L!J ~".c.JJ
DATE RECEIVED <=t NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
{< 4 SS E-LL
DATE OF ARREST 4(
'07 q 0
AO 4-42 (Rev. 5/85) Warrant for Arrest
Case 1:07-mj-01224-KLM Document 2 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 1 of 1

NJ 442 fRev 5185) wammt for ArrpJl
United States District Cou·rt

_ _ _ _......... DISTRICT OF _~CClOa..l~Q:.uRA~D~Q~ _

V.
RICHARD KIM WARRANT FOR

ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 01- ~ -- 0 /;;2 ~¥

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Richard Kim and bring him forthwith to the nearest
magistrate to answer a
o Indictment 0 Information • Complaint 0 Order of Ccurt 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with Felon in Possession of a Firearm
In violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(g)(1)
~· .. ft ... t.. M,')t

Name of lsaulno OffIcer
(By) DelXlty Clerk
,
~ ' ..
RETURN -
This w,mnt WM r.calvad Met eucutIMI with the . , . . oIthe~.... det.ullint at
OATE,RECEIVED
·i 11-
i- -/1 ":f
NAME AND TtTl£ OF ARRESTING OfFICER SIGNAlURE OF ARRESTING OFFlCER
7· ~/I~;'(), US,lfS t;r

DATE OF ARREST
1/- 5 -1'1 -:r ?.i- t), !'rn 7-"~ r ~ Irn-:- ?~
. AO 442 (Rev. 5185) Warrant for Arrest
#C ~ Case 1:06-cr-0003~SF Document 3 Filed 02/06/20~ Page 1 of 1

AO 442 (Rev 51851 Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _~Cc.:loOC.!=LoJllQ:.!..:RA~D=Q ---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ild/ILf

v.
SYDESSAH NYESSAH l.EWIS WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER~

and any Authorized United States Officer 06- C R- 0 00 31-fS F
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest SYDESSAH NYESSAH LEWIS and bring her
X Indictment 0 Infonnation 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging her with (brief description of oIf8tlse) filing false tax returns
in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 287 and 2.
Name of Issuing Officer TItle of lssulng OffIcer
Signature of Issuing Officer Dale and location

,-,
r"A ")
-~ (,~
~.:
~?::-'
...- "';"
(By) Deputy Clerk r, ,
\. '"
--n .'
'-<
P-l «
,
Bail fixed at $. _ by _ _~-~-__,_,.,.+_-__,..,. ( .
\ -~,'
_ __+_------~,--
r::fJ <~
Name of Judlclat Offi~r

\ ~
r- C.)
,-,,:t. ,
« •
-0 -- J
RETURN
SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
ORIGINAL
Case 1:09-cr-00055-PAb "SEALED*
n Document 2 Page 1 of 2
AO 442 (Rev S/8S) Warrant for Arrest
v.
1. GERARDO LOPEZ,
aka "Clever," "G-Man"

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest GERARDO LOPEZ and bring him forthwith to the
nearest magistrate judge to answer an
18I Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court D Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with knowingly and intentionally conspiring to distribute and possession with the intent to
distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, a Schedule II Controlled
Substance, and knOWingly and intentionally using any communication facility, to wit: a telephone, in
facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony,
in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1 )(A)(viii), 843(b), and 846.
o
01
-< "..", tile
C:::;).
c;::::. - l tJl
-.0 :.d'
ham Clerk U. S. District Court -r'\ - ':J
Title of Issuing Officer ..., -\1.]1 ....
"""'
;..oM
~ --\ "
0'-< ~ ~~:':f:'
Denver Colorado 1/29/09 ~,~'"; "':''"
-,
';< r- 11
::!~:
(~
,..
.' .. ~
;
'.
"
sfT.Lee o
r'1
~.<
S~
... -
(...)
N
.. ,~
';Pi'
l..•
.f:
(By) Deputy Clerk -0 ">- u.-,
:I:. tIl
,..
(')
c·
Bail fixed at $, _ by _ _-:-:-_---,--,--"..':'""7":=-_ _:001 _
RETURN
). -)~- O'Cf
/~( Of/{; ;OU5/U
DAT)O~ )~:s09 /1:/~
AO 442 (Rev 5IBS) Warrant for Arresl
.t#"" ...
, ?t DO (
. Case 1:07-cr-00172-E • . • •EALED* Document 20 Filed 0"/2007 Page 1,of 2
...
AO 442 (Rev 5J85) Warrant for Arrest
~~~""-~~~::'O:O;;O~---------------------,-.,'~ _
-~, '.,; f
·,.L:O

. ~ , r·a 2SAIl; 22
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DISTRICT OF COLORADO
--.=.:;=:..:....:::....>.=~-------
v.
0r:
"J l\-,,1,
j
I
....
'-~ ~.::--j.J
t:n,*
~~"'!"...lt""l":; ;J.-:-./
COURTNEY McCOY WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:

0 7 - C R- 0 0 1 72---(;wN
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest COURTNEY McCOY and bring him
charging him with knowingly distributing and possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine, and cocaine
base a Schedule II controlled substances; and conspiracy and use of a telephone to facilitate the above.
in violatIon of Title 21 United States Code. Sections 846. 843(b) and 841(a)(1 ).
GREGOR.Y C. LANGHAM
Cleric. U. S. District Court
Name of Issuing Officer Title of I$sulng Officer
~ I ?t..J / 01 Denver. Colorado

Signatuf& of lasl.l\ng 0fIlC8\' Date and Locatlon
(By) Deputy Clerk

VNt (€:D J:: Ii i"" ,..
~"Ar. C u
Bail fixed at $. b,y --:-.,.-----:'-:--::~=__---~-,.-. -"E:S-,;f)~IS....
TR"Ifl.~~---
Name of Judicial Officer ' ~"'" ,;CJ OOUl1r
RETURN
~ ~,.,.\ ..,
This WBJT8nt was ree.lved and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at - _'' _'f-,,-~~ _
1o..,t- 'J .. , '. .-'-1
(:.,. '~'M
·~.t"'~'
NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF AR~FFICER

0~~/ U$"lS
?-~
,-c S /I' tv/let'/./ r~
Case 1:08·cr-01~ KLM Document 2 Filed 10/28, Page 1 of 1

FOR THE DrSTRTCT OF COLORADO
UNITED STATES OJ;' AMERICA
fvlICHAEL llv10IU{O\V \,rARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: or· y" 0/).0:7 -At;L.!'n

To: The United Stales Marshal
and any Amhorized United States OfTIccr
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMA~DED to arrcsl Mi!..!<cc!.!.h>.!:ae~·1"..:;J:,:"-*,,r..:.;;.1:.:.or;;,,!r~o_v..-.:.~r _
and bring hi:ll/her forthwith to tile nc-urest mugis:rate to answera(n)
o InJktment 0 information X C~lmplaint 0 Order ofC<Jurt D Violation ~olice 0 Prob,:ltion Violation Pe~itioll
in violation of Title llL United St.atc5 Code, Sect,on(s)2252A(aX5}(Hj
KRISTEN L. MIX
U.S. MAGIS1l'tATE 1UDG '
'-: fllSTRICf OF COLOD "
D,- "'\J"UJ'V
n!:.
De!1Ver. CO
D-ate and l..o(:st;Dn
BAIL FIXED AT $, ~ _ by _
I\ame of J~dicJal Officer
1----------------J;w;;..u..l.J:Wi,,----"""'Jl:""'_~___,..._:_--_.,.--.....,
This warrant >~'as rc:cived....anq executed ."ith the arrest or tile aoove-n<L'TIed defendant at,-.:;;../U;;;+Ll.~'+-+~H_l,J.,-l~6Ly'l&4r----~"
• G" /[ "
,-,,-------~..;_........._A4
Case 1:05-cr-00545-EWN Document 2 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 1

DISTRICT OF COLORADO FilED
UNITfD'$TATES I)leTPlrT ~'!URT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DENVF:'.' "!, ,: ,)
v.
JOSEPH P. NACCHIO DEC 2 0 200~
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
'CLERK
WARRANT FOR ARRE''CiST~-----':';::::''::''
CASE NUMBER:
and' any Authorized Law Enforcement Officer OS-CR-0054S-
fuJN
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JoseI!h P. NacchiQ
Nllmo
and bring him or het forthwith to the nearest mftgistrate to answer sen)
X Indictment 0 Infonnation C1 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
Insider Trading
in violation ofTitle ~ United States Code, Sections Z8j(b) and 78flta) and 17 C.P.R 240.lOlr5 and
1O(b)5-1.
o GRBOORYC l.ANGJIAM
11
Ck:rk. u.s. J)iIlIb COld
"
Title "'ISSUing Officer
UtI!.. ;la, ;J.otJ5 ~, (!()

Date and Location I
. FILED
BAlL FIXED AT $ _ by UN,rE~:Jen~ ~I.~rp.,~,~ ~')URT
Name ofJudlcial Officer
I:)
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named defendant atL e:.G=.:O:.:.R~Y~C!:.•..J..J.W~.'1\nM
SRK
NAMe AND nTLE OF ARRI!STINO O!'fICER ?-
I-------L.:.=f-$'~~-t 'T: ~ ~4~/ LIS 11/$
~ .I ~ /,(. It(tf'#"TP '"I 5) ';I
U nit e d Stat e s Dis t ric t C;o ur t

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----'C:..;O=L=-.:O:::..:R~A__o:D=:;..O=__ _

V. • " ,I
GEORGES NAJJAR WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: a--Mj - loH~- m~tt

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest GEORGES NAJJAR and bring him forthwith to the
nearest magistrate to answer a
o Indictment 0 Information • Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with Travel with Intent to Engage in a Sexual Act with a Juvenile CO,
o
..; C1 ~;
, ~
eJ)'-" -
In violation of Title 18 United States ~~~~W~3(b) :'..,
1'''1
c...:)
c::.. :'"
~--t
'.-:-.J
v.. .
United stales Magistrate Ju4ge

Denver,~.b,
\\
\ I ."
Name of '''"'"9 o ~ f
".)
Signature of Issuing Officer tol
-"
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $, _
by ----:-~~~_:_::~----------
RETURN
DATE RECEIVED I I. NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
3/~t1Y.
,',
:J: ,.H~I"I VS;.tJ' ~,-
DATE OF ARREST j) ./I.
':t. '/1", t; Y ~",. ",vI 1/1'./ r~t5' 7Y--
AO 442 Rev, 5/85 Wafrant fof Arrest
i
, AQ 442
tRev 5109!
_
vvarrannQrAtre.
..•--~
Document 32

Filed 08/05/2009 Page 95 of 124
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- DISTRICT OF _---:=CoQu.L~O~RA~D~O~ _
v. AMENDED
JOSE LUIS MEZA-GARCIA alkJa "Chulo" J WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 0&,-''1- 0 I J r:t 3
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arr _ .: , .' .'~;. • ~ I ,.;

nd
bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n)
o Indictment 0 Information ~ Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Bond Violation
charging him with (briefdescrfption of offeoIe} conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of
Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846, and 841 (a)(1)
GREGORY c. LANGHAW.
aorx. u.s.1*riCC CCNIt
Name of liSujn~ OffIcer Title of ISluing Officer
Denver Colorad
Date and Loe;atiOn
Bail fixed at $ _
by --:':_---:-:~~~--------
RETURN
Thl. warrant was receIved and 8J;ecuwa with the .rrnt of the abolle-nilmed defendant.t /f3ty LArk·i):" j)/L 7' APrtN,/""? Q
~fif7/0 b
NAME ANO TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARREST1NG OFFICER
DATE I3Ructi raJ) j,,;vk
spec'rt? I A 6'6"4/ 6.--- ~

D~TE 0 ~1/1/OP
OF ARREST
, f
442 (Rev. 5/85) Warrant fur Arrest

05/05/2a08 09:52 303 Document 32 Filed
USMS 08/05/2009
WARRANTS Page 96 of 124
PAGE alias
Case 1:08-cr-OL ,dO·t:WN Document 2 Filed 04/21/?"("'i Page 1 of 1
United States District Conrt

DISTRICf OF COLORADO
UNITED STATES OF ~RICA
v.
OS-CR-00180-EwN
1. TERRY L. MORRIS, WARRANT FOR ARREST
To: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United Stites Officer
YOU ARB HBREBY COMMANDBD liO meat J:.I~eny~L~.M~omsUo6ii'L....- ---------
and bring hUn or her fordlwith to ~ nearest magimate to answer a(n)
181 Indictment 0 Information 0 ComplaintD Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
oharging himlher with (lwW....,.... at""-l

Tl'llvcl \!lith Inttmt to Engage in tt1icit Sexual. Conduct and AtbxIpti.og to Entiu a Minor to Bnpje in mega] Sc:)Wa). A~vity
in violation ofTitle U. Umted StB.tes Code, Sections 2423&): 242Ub)

GREGORY Co L.ANGHAM
CtBdc, U. S. Diaitt Court
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ bY. -_
This warrant WlII received and executrd widl1be. UIe6t of the abov"",named defendant at
d 5"/0 s>
S~:-~
.. ,,~ »lI) l'flUI OIl.AU.lllmXG 0IIIlCD.
DATe UCfi]VW
:J. AI UJ ro,; US.-.f.$ ~r <;1;
DATE(lfAUII3T ~ 5/~ r 7rtl/tl r ~ I~ r~b r~·
,
FILE D
United States District Court F~FH) :n ArES D1STRICT COURT
.I;FQ, COl.O.

v. .. __._--
~
Frederick W. Murphy WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: ,J '1- ~ - 0 l o~4- Ch~

-------'YOt:TimFHEREBYT01VfMArIDED to arrest _----o!F~r~ed~e~n~·ck~W.!..!.'_=M=urp~hY.L__ _

Name
and bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a(n)
o Indictment 0 Information X Complaint 0 Order ofcourt 0 Violation Notice o Probation Violation Petition
charging him or her with (brief description of offense)
Interference with a Flight Crew and Assault
in violation of Title __4...:.:9:...-__ United States Code, Section(s)_~46~5=::.;,O~4~ _

BOYD N. BOLAND
United States Magistrate Judge
Name ofIssuing Officer Title of Issuing Officer
Sif!!£f~l~:.-----
BA~F~EDAT$. __
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at' - - - - - - - - -
DATERE NED SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER

l1
.n.''--.L',"wST
Case 1:07-Cr-00317-"D Document 2 Filed 07 i26/20" Page 1 of 1

AO 442 (Rev 5185) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---==C'-'=O:.:L~O.:..:.RA~D:::;.;O=___ _
v.
JOSE BENEDICTO JOSE-ZACARIAZ, WARRANT FOR ARREST
a.k.a, Fernando Juan Gomez,
a.k.a, Raul Hernandez-Gomez,
a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez-Roman, CASE NUMBER: .

0 7 - CR- 0 0 3 1 7- \;J \( f)
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JOSE BENEDICTO JOSE..zACARIAZ, a.k.a,
Fernando Juan Gomez, a.k.s. Raul Hernandez-Gomez, a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez-Roman and bring him
• Indictment 0 Informatron 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with TRANSPORTING UNLAWFUL ALIENS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES RESULTING
IN THE DEATH OF PERSONS
in violation of Title ----"1:8_ United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1 )(A)(ii) and (8)(1 )(B)(iv) .
GREGORy c.lANGtIAM
CkJftc. u. s. 0iItrim Court
Name of Issuing Offioer TiUe of Issuing OffIcer
f I 'rl.P12007 . Denver. Colorado

Date and Location
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $,_ _- - - - - - - - - - - by -:--__..."...",.-----------

Name of JudIcial Officer
RETURN
This warrant was rec:eived and exeouted with the arrest of the above-named d8l'endant at _
DATE RECE(VED SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
DATE OF ARREST
AO 442 (Rev 5{851 Warrant for Arrest
United States Distritt Court

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----:C~O~L~O=RA~D=Q~ _

V.
YEWCHOONG
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 0 f) - f'Y?J -II 7 </ _
. 03~a-colfb3-0L-JL
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest YEWCHOO NG and bring him

o Indictment 0 Information • Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with On or about July 8, 2008, in the State and District of Colorado, for the purpose of executing the
scheme to defraud or to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and
promises, and the concealment of material facts, knowingly caused to be deposited to be sent and delivered by the
Postal Service or any private or commercial interstate carrier, a Microsoft X-Box 360 gaming console, serial number
label 224732189805, addressed to Mike Hatch, 456 SW 155 Street, Burien, WA 98166, return address, YEWCHOO
NG, 1500 W. Plwn Street, Apt. #3A, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Q
-e: C) f'"~
c.":>
- -'.-
';:" c::> --~='..r'\
rf'l c.::.' -- , '.
C. r-J"J
<. r ;.. ~
in violation of Title ...

18:.-_ United States Code, Section ...:..1.=..34-=-1'-- _
\I .- -
-'{,-
~-,
\ cr~
l(RISTHN L WlX ,._

U.S.~CJ~~;. -
Name of IssuIng Officer ----T--Rle-o--1f.~OF'~~-,: 10
:u ~:: L--)
~~;z,~
n .,:4;0 1'...,) ;·..... 1
, I z.. ~I (J;'- Denver:;Colorado
Dale and Location
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $, _
by ~-~......,_,,__=_=_::::__---------

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
VNITED STATES OF AMERlCA

v.
1. ISAAC .~ENA-RA.SCO~·
2. CESAR AR\IANDO PEREZrCOROl\T£L
\VARRAr\T FOR ARREST

CASE ~UMEER: 08~ 0J-
1)00 09- arR
YOU ARE HEREBY COl\L\fA:"\DED 10 arrest Isaac Pena-Rascon and Cesar Armando Perez-Coronel
Namt
and bring him or ber forthwith to the nearest magistrate to iUlS\Ver a(n)
o Iadictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
\vith Possession of 500 Grams or more of a ~'1ixture or Substance

charging him with (brwfd«mj!llooofoU<.,cr
Containing Cocaine, A Schedule II Controlied Substance, with Intent to Distribute,
ill violation of Title 21 Uruted States OJde, Seclion(,) 8..H (al(J\
GlJdrun Rice United States \'fagistrate Judge

Name of lssti.ing Of!icrT Title of ls.suins: Otlkcr
Grand Junction CO
Signature of Issuing Offi<:er
by, _
BAIL FLXED AT ~-----------
!'\am; of JlJdicilll Officer
This ,,"'arrant was re-;eive'l1 and executed with the arrest of the above-named drfendant at .!'It)/!- ~d Ylf{.h
DA n: REr.FTVED ()
DArEOrl."Jl..EST O~·lf.or
! I
United States Dis'triet C,ourt

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _~C::d.oOLlIo!:O~RAD~·~Q>I--~_-----. _ _
UNITJ3:D STATES OF AMERICA

\I.
JACOB JOHN POLICK

WARRANT FOR ARRESt
(Name and Addrt:ss of Defendant) CASE NUMBER:

os-c R-'O'0379-twtJ
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Jacob John Polick and bring hirp. forthWith to the
nearest magistrate to answer an
• rndictment 0 Information lJ Complaint, 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with
Tampering with a Consumer Product and Aiding and Abetting the same; making .false statements
in violation of Title J..lUnited States Code, Sections 1365{c'l(1l and (2); 1001 (a)(2).
GREGORY C. LANGIWI
Clertl. u. S. OiatrlctCoUft
Cj ::::~
Name of Issu ins Officer Title of Issuing Officer ;<: C,';' ":' -
rZ1 c:_
.~. (,.r.
Of l C1 10 ('~, 0 L
Date and Location
..
>.
(By) Deputy Clerk ,

;;:1
Bail fixed at $ _ ~J ~:: ~')

by ------------ep--....:'''--..>,;w~·,-
Name of Judicial Qff'lCer ~-
RJ:TURN
TIriI w......'WO._rol ........U'N wj,Il,....n«t ... Ih.a~d.r...s.ataf -.-:._ _
DATil REC"W\lED

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----'C:....;O=..:L"""O:::....:R.....=A....:,:D=-O:..--- _
v.
1. NICOLE PULLER WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: rnP\

o6 - C R ~ 0 0 2 4 4-~
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest NICOLE PULLER and bring her
I:8J Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging her with

Wire fraud and aiding and abetting, and money laundering
in violation of Title jJi. United States Code, Sections 1343, 2, and 1957
G~2GORY C. ;..ANGHA~f
Cler:{, U~!::. Cfstrict COl!~
Name of Issuing Officer
Date and Location -r <»

-< c,.;
:-4':
~
r":::..::t . ----
.--
!"Tl
c.;)
<.r- ' J••
,
C,
C '-
c:: .
"J"~
::.:
0'<'
N
~~.;~ --
Bail fixed at $ _ by ----:------f------;;<,""::---~....:,.."....-
C"I .~
""'f
-, .:;~f"""
Name of Judicial Officer )':"r- );;''tl -i.-;;'~
._'':1'
-'~
RETURN
C;J
..... 6.. '-i!~
:"l ~.
lIlf·
'--
..
-.
~~ ~~.,
C~ U1
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at _ _....l--;;...:.:;....;~,.----::='--~---.--=.
__
DATE RECEIVED V1'22.-1 Olp NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
3~roJ .A-gclLf
DATE OF ARREST le l1 ~ IOLr lG-H .
17 E~13

v.
1. ISMAJ';L LEE RODRIGUEZ, WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
OeJ -0-- OD~Y ,.£WN
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ~rsmae!!!.!!!ii!.l.!=L~eei.JR~gdriguAW·l'.I!SezL- _

NlIJI'IIIl
1m IndictmentO InformationO Complaint D Otdel of court 0 Violation Notice Cl Probation Violation Petition
charging hUnlher with (brief dacriplicll of etl'_)

Possession ofa Firearm which is not registered in the National Fireanns Registration and Transfer Rerord
and Unlawful PossessionIDischarge ofa Firearm in a School Zone
,-,
in violation ofTitIe 26 United States Code, Section ~ and Title II United States Code, Section 92 r-'
=
-
~.
~,
c:
r...-:::, "~4 (..f'J
GREGORY C.l..ANGt'WA
~ u. &. Dilllri;teaurt = ::.:1
c=c_ -..
~" .~.<"";
;
NIIIllJ of !IIIums Officer TitJe of [sauing Oft"lCeT t'
~~_. Denyer. Colorado '1'~'

,...}"'
",
0g ;
Signature ofIs.uing Officer Date IlId lol:ation
~<
-
;:....
..
(}"1
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ c..()
Name ofJudicial Oft"u:cr
This ~:r received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant allt~~~!!'t:i~t:::J.:r:::-J~?li.~~~~
DATJi IU!CJ!IVIlI) NAME AND TI1LIl OF AJtltIl.'l'TlNG 0PPJCIlR
DATll OF AIUlIIST

FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
UNITEDSTATESOFAMEIDCA
v.
MARK RANDALL RAYBORN

WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
To: Th.e United States Marshal
and any Authorized United States Officer o8 - CR- 0 0 4 2 7·- -rL~
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED.to arrest._ _-,Mai~~k,-"R""an=d=al.l...Ra=y...,b"""o""'rn.:....- _
Name
and bring him forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an
~ Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him with (bricCd.....iplion ofollien",)
False threats ofexplosive on an aircraft
in vio]ationSE\r..~~tates Code, SectiOIl(S) 46507(1)
Title of Jssuing Offi~r
~ D?2 Denver. CQ
DlIte an Location
BAlL FIXED AT $ ....;..:lQl.........."",

by _
Narne of Judicial Officer
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at _
DATE RIlCBIVllD NAMa AND TrrLE OF ARRESTING OI'FICl!R


v.
1. IS~L LEE RODRIGUEZ, WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
OeJ -c.r- OD~Y ;£WN
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest.!SIsmaei!!!!!lllLl4=lL~ecuRi!o1Ipdrigulld:L!O·~ezL- _

NIIIYIll
181 Indictm.entO InformationO Complaint 0 Older of coUIt D Violation Notice Cl Probation Violation Petition
charging hUnlher with (briefdauiptiOll of oB_)

Possession ofa Firearm which is not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record
and Unlawful PossessionIDischarge ofa Firearm in a School Zone
in violation ofTitl~ 26 United States Code, Section 5861 and Title!!l United States Code, Section 92
GREGORY C. L.ANGtW'
Clerl. U. &. DiIIrici CGurt
Nan» oCwuing Oftiter Title of bavins Oft"lCeI'
~~-_. Denyer. Colorado '1 -~ - 0 ~

Siinature of Issuing Officer Date lllld Location
~. ,
;> (;;
BAIL FIXED AT $, _ (~~)
Name ofJudicial Oft"1CC!"
This ~:;yas received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named defeudant a.W~~~I:iC=t.z::c:.....l:!:~'.£!.:.g~~
0,\11i IUlCBIWI>
DA111 OF AJlIl!l5T
AO 442 (Rev 5/85) Warrant for,Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _~C=O;,=:L~O=RA~D~O:......_ _
v.
2. MANIKHONE SAIGNAPHONE WARRANT FOR ARREST

a/kla "Mani" Saignaphone
CASE NUMBER:
08-cr-00457-CMA
TO: The United States Marshal ,, , 'J
and any Authorized United States Officer "

( ,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest MANIKHONE SAIGNAPHQNE an~-bring him

"
:'-:1
c.. :.
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an r
181 Indictment D Infonnation D Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Bond Violation Notice 0 h~~ii~on Yiolation .
charging him with
in violation of Title _1_8_ United States Code, Sections 1341. 286, 287, and 2
Greg Langham Clerk, U.S, District Court

Name ofIssuing Officer Title oflssuing Officer
11 14/08
slKTriplett
(By) Deputy Clerk
" .
Bail fixed at $, _ by ~----.:~-..__
Name of Judicial Officer ,";' , ,-]
(.;
-0 ....._'"
6_'.'\
...... '
-,
.~
~.)
;
['.)
RETURN ","
;A
-~
10~r
~~
Jsf>$
DATE OF ARREST
;1J:hp fA R<:T81,vS-O'-'/
~:/
, ,-
AO 442 Rev,5/85 Warrant (or Arrest
Case 1:08-cr-00457-.jA *SEALED* Document 2 FiJelt1/04/2008 Page 1 of 1
AO 442 (Rev 5/85) W:llTant for-Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _--"C~O=L=O=RA~D'-"O'___ _
v.
1. LOUANN SAVALA WARRANT FOR ARREST

-.,,
CASE NUMBER: 08-cr-O~CMA' - 0
,
. ]
TO;
~57 ". .
- ,
The United States Marshal
and any Authorized United States Officer -
1
I
( - • -.;;1
(, t_)
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest LOUANN SAVALA and bri*g -her ~.>

1-, c.r-
181 Indictment 0 Infonnation 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Bond Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation
charging her with
in violation of Title J L United States Code, Sections 1341. 286, 287, and 2
Greg Langham Clerk U.

;. - ") ... ~, ~,j""':
Name oi Issuing Officer TItle of Issuing Officer \:--,
,",
1'1
( '.
10 /4/08 Denver, Colorado.-
I
SIgnature oflssuing Officer Date and Location
slKTriplett
(By) Deputy Clerk
.. ~
:,"'
Bail fixed at $ _ by ."
--<=o~_~~-......
; _c ,
RETURN
This warrant was received and elrOecuted with the arrest of the above-named defendant at
DATE RECEIVED
I/fr/a-r NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
"/
IDATE OF ARREST
//~%~ 5.~. Nt1wO/~"'3skI ~~-~ ,
..v-
/
.- .
//
AO 442 Rev. 5/85 Wamtnl for Xrrest ' ,

[
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---'C"-'O"'-'L=O=R=A.=D"'-"Oe.- _
v.
JANINE SLIGAR WARRANT FOR ARREST
TO: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Janine Sligar and bring her forthwith to the nearest
magistrate to answer an:
charging her with Sexual Abuse of a Ward
in violation of Title ..J.L United States Code, Section 2243(b) .
Gregory C. Langham, Clerk. US District Coyrt

Name of Issuing Officer TiUe of Issuing Officer
c;
r-..~
v'> ' -
7/22/0 -! ~
~!.J
~,
," L -". c-:

(';
c:::
" r'"
sIT. Lee c;· (..,) ," ~, ~
_..
(By) Deputy Clerk ," :::::J --
-i'
. -, ~i , ..
Bail fixed a1$, _ by ~__--____:__:__-......,___=__::_~....,__--
,"
Name of Judicial Officer ~~

·v -.,-
" I~y
~
'.
RETURN ....
0 ~ -- ,j'f ~
--,7-:
... - "
~I~~-;)
1
~Fl~R_
. -2.l-t" Q~
~(.r~~~
DATE OF ARREST I - 'l-~ . o~ '~Cc..A\" /':.~

v.
1. KENNETH DEAN STURM WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: Ol(J ~ VY\j - 0 \\1 \ -C-65

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest KeIDleth Dean Sturm

Name
o IndictrnentD Information 181 Complaint 0 Order of court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging him/her with (brief description of offen.e)
Violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(g)(l)

:;:;:::::-::;;:::;:;~~::er._8;1M1affe1r;-.United smmISWii\p~e Judge
BAIL FIXED AT $.---=~ _
I This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant a..!:. t _
L , - = = = = = =.......--,r---------------~-------------~
nATB RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTiNG OFFICER
DATE OF ARREST
Case 1:08-cr-003.....0-WYD
AO 442 (Rev 5/85) "
Warrant for Arrest
Document 2

Filed 07/21~8 Page 1 of 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----:oC=O:.t:::L=O.:..>RA
......D~O=__ _
V.
EDWARD SOBCZEWSKI WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: 08-cr..Q0300-WYD

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest EDWARD SOBCZEWSKI, and bring him forthwith
to the nearest magistrate to answer an
Bribery of public officials and witnesses
in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 201 (b)(1)(A)

tl.'l
-< l:;
G1 ~
lerk U.S. Di tr"ct Court = (.,-; C
Title of Issuing Officer r'1 c--' (/1
n ::..:.;
r_
CJ c:::
f'" -I ,.
'. - .- -- ..-
•J
,-- , N i
7/21/2008 at Denver, CO : 0' .-
G~-J "
Date and Location

" ; ....'":J l
srr.Lee
(By) Deputy Clerk
~
--.. .--
J>
-, ," ...., , ..
~ ...... ;:.\ - .-
Bail fixed at $ _ by -
Name of JUdicial Officer
RETURN
eived and executed with the arrest of the above-named defendant at S--=':' ~ - e nL~ $
G?~
DATE RECEIVED NAME ANt'. TITLE 0f...ARRESTINp OFFICER

1-------~~Jo::,,;;.--__1 t-o/·I1I~ ~l~/
DATE OF ARREST
AO 442 (Rev. S/85) Warrant for Arrest
THE FOLLOWING IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATION ONLY:

.-J~ .

DISTRICT OF COWRADO

v.
CHRISTINA ELIZABETH SZELE
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: (%-cr-coaE4"JI-I<.J

\ ....
and any Authorized United States Officer r.. /.J~" ~
'"-'
c. ~
C' .,
_.;_._-
"..1:.
co
(/)
.-il
0=:..·. fTl ':')
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _...:C~hri~·::::st::::in::::a:..:B~li:,:;:za::.:b::.::e;.::.th~S~z~e~le:""-"_""""(o~;;l-';...f~,...·_ 0 _ . , ijl

Name 'j:', 0 -
CJ:'
and bring her forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer an

f2~.'~
Or' U "z=:
__
~~.~ \,-',.1 "~
o IndictmerlIl Informatmn Comptaint OCQrder of court~ Violation Ebtice Pr~tf.on Y.~latiC;~tition
charging her wi th (brief description of offense) Violations of Conditions of Release
in violation of Title _~1,:;:...8 _ _ United States Code, Section(s) _ _~31:....;4:.:;:8 ~__
Signature ofIssuing Officer
BAIL FIXED AT $ _ by _
'De.....-t ~ Cr::? - -------
NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING

1------=-...;;;.....--'--=---1
OFFICER
Case 1:07-cr-00371-REB Document 2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 1

AD 442 (Rev SlB5) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _----.l:CoO.!..!:L~O!.!...RA~D~O~ _
v.
1. JOHNITA TAYLOR WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:

0 7 - CR- 0 0 3 71--l<EB (I)
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest JOHNITA TAYLOR and bring her
r81 Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 ViolaUon Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging her with (briel descripllon 01 offense)

First degree murder, felony murder, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury
all in violation of Title 18 United States Code §§1111(a) and (b), 1153 (a) and (b), 1201 (a)(2), 113(8)(3) and
(6),2 and 7
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
C!eIt., u. s. District CO! vi
Name of tSSl.ling Offioer Tille of Issuing Officer
Denver. Colorado q. It -0 1
Dale and LocaUon
(By) Depuiy ClerK
Bail fixed at $. _
by _ _--:-:-_~~_:_;_;~--------_
Name of Judicial Offieer
RETURN
This warrant wa. received and eJl.cuted with the arte$t of the above-named defendant at \'t'1 ca S'll, So VfH b?N ~
OL'rtNruW ChJr&z
DATE RECEIV
O,\-u]-Ol NAME AND TITlE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
CHl?.tJ
SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
~~
NAUtMJO
DATE OF ARR(1:
q, -0 1 - 0 1- (rtlM 'N4L I tJ v~sn ~
Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 32 7-<
i f ..>.J Filed
r 08/05/2009
0/.3 Page 113 of 124
Case 1:08-cr-00432-MSK Document 41 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 1 of 1
AO 442 (Rev. 01109) AlTOS I Wmant

for the
United States of America

v.
Case No. 08-cr-00432-MSK-01
~ ~E,ZRA JAMES WALLACE

Defendant
ARREST WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay
(name ojperson 10 be arrested) EZRA JAMES_
-=-=.:.....--.:..:...c:.._ WALLACE
'--'=-'--'''-- ~
who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:
o Indictment 0 Superseding Indictment 0 Information a Superseding Information ~ 0 COIl~lai~.:; 'i~~:::=

o .pro~atian, ViO,Jatian peti~ion 0 Supervised Release Violation Petition ~ Violation Notice\ a ord~.l of ~co~~'~
ThIS offense IS bncfly descnbed as f o l l o w s : - ' ;;;;:\ .-,
\ (~; '"
Violation of Bond, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b) -..-,

I
!
\ \.:, 0"1
0
.1'1
-<J ~-."" f""~
;.,,...
()
______ .p"""""="'--eL-""---~...:::::;lC_ _
City and state:

Printed name and title
(). .t. M
This warrant was received on (dare)

at (city and $/(1/1')
Date: ---::=-1'--''-lf.-/---{-
AO 442 (Rev 5185) Warrant for Arrest SEALED

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---:=C'-:llO'-!:L~O:..!...:RA~D~Q~ _
v.
EZRA JAMES WALLACE
WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER: t'F.t/·,. /117-/l,t./Jr
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest Ezra James Wallace and bring him forthwith to
the nearest magistrate to answer a
o tndlctment 0 Information • Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation ViolatIon Petition
charging him with

Assault on an aIrcraft
in violation of Title 49 United States Code, Section 46506(1) .
Name of Issuing Officer Title of [ssuing Officer ,.:.: c:", . <
':~' ..
.;,.- ~
Slg",,,,~' )(.l,,;; Colorado ....

-1
(By) Deputy Clerk c ~:.)

J
n
.~ 1"-)
Bail fixed at $. _ -" ~.
by ------------i"'------.....;;....._
; ;
~')
RETURN
This warrant was received and executed with the alTelt of the above-named defendant at_........::l~..J,....J.,..L.I(,~-lo..~~ _
NAME AND TInE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
DATE OF ARREST
iJ-
SEALED
Case 1:07-cr-00371-REB Document 3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 1

AO 442 (Rev 5185) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _~CC:Ol!.!=L~O=..LRA~D~O:....-.. ~_
v.
1. APRIL WATTS WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
TO: The United States Marshal 0 7 - C R- 0 0 3 7 1-- gEPC2 )

yOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest APRIL WATTS and bring her
181 Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging her with (brief deseription of offense)

First degree murder, felony murder. kidnapping. assault with a deadly weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury
all in violation of Title 18 United States Code §§1111 (a) and (b), 1153 (a) and (b), 1201(a)(2), 113(a)(3) and
(6),2 and 7
GREGORY C.LANGHAM
Chilt. u. S. OiItnct Court
Signature of Issuing Officer

Denver, Colorado
Dale and Location
q -u -0 1
(By) Deputy Clerk
Bail fixed at $ - - - .-=;::.R!~:_ by _ _--:-;-_......,...,,-;:-..,....,.-::~---_-----

Name of Judk;ial Officer
RETURN
this warrant wu received and llll.$Cuted with the aml.t of the above-namlld dlIfendant at 14'\ C.lt S"17 7 £0 liT t±tt?N
liTe- £)~r6!fTiol'l ( $VT6t.
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING oFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
--.
bt:t - 0'1- - 01- L H1Z..15' I,J ~ ()
DATE OF ANnEST
,-
01-
-O-:J. V,J. M ,'" 4L I Nv ES"nGAT~
j ~ V
~
Case 1:07-cr-0046. NYD Document 2 Filed 11/28/21.-,..1 Page 1 of 1

AO 442 (R41v 5/85) Wlrrlnt fof' Arrest
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _~C=O~L=O=RA=D::..::oQ"'__ _
v.
ROYBAL WHITEMAN WARRANT FOR ARREST

CASE NUMBER:

0 7 - C R- 0 0 4 6 7-- w '<D
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest ROYBAL WHITEMAN and bring him
charging him with
Assault with a dangerous weapon committed in Indian Country and Assault reJulting in serious bodily in,jury
committed in Indian Country
in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section _ _----'-1..:...;13x;..ol,.x3.... .....(=6)......a=n=d'-1.:..;1'-'"5..,.3~(a~)

) a=n....,d::....;.,11.....3 _
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
CI!!it, u. S. Ostrict Court 4'" ~
Name of l.suing OfIieer I" ;,(~
.... \. Title of tRuing Officer
•
"~~
\~. ~
" I ;}?:J I 0 1 Denver, Colorado
Signature of IRuing Officer j Date and Location
~~~, "ij
(By) Deputy Ch"k -..".",CIP'
Bail fixed at $ ,by ---:-.,-~..,........,......,....,...~-----------_

NamB of Judiclal Off,,*,
RETURN
Thl" _mmt was nlCllv.1I and .ucWld with thII I,.,...t of the lboVH18med defendant at '0.3 5h<4{2'1a1 U,· vt: (
P(,V,~(vJgOi Cp{Of'<LdQ ~1303
DATE RECEIVED NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTIt}G. OFFICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
t-------:.~....=.-:.~...;;..=-.~Ja..tl1 ueh'f\-{, l. Shl-H~++
DATE OF ARREST <;;ne,ooJ. Af),(.A:f \ -F6I:
Ja 0'1 J.001 ~ . J
AO 442 (Rev. 5185) Warrant
Case 1:07-cr-00371-REB
AO 442 (Rev 5/851 Warrnnl for Alresl
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF _---'>:C=O=L.::::O:.,!...;RA~p~O~-----
v.
1. MONICA WILLIAMS WARRANT FOR ARREST
CASE NUMBER:
TO: The United States Marshal 07 -c R- 00371-~EBC4)

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest MONICA WILLIAMS and bring her
forthwith to the nearest magistrate to answer a{n}
I8l Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order of Court 0 Violation Notice 0 Probation Violation Petition
charging her with (brief description of offense)

First degree murder, felony murder, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury
all in violation of Title 18 United States Code §§1111(a) and (b), 1153 (a) and (b), 1201 (a)(2). 113(a)(3} and
(6),2 and 7
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
C1er1c:. U. S. DiIb1d Court
Name of Issuing Officer nIle of Issui I'Ig Offie8r
Denver, QQlowdo 4 . & - D1

Dale and Location
Bail fixed at $ by _ _--:-;~--=-:__::__:_:_:=_==_--_-_- _

Name of JudicJal Officer
RETURN
Thia w;arl"llnt was received and uecuted "'Illl the 8 ..... ~t of the above-named defendant at 1~ '1. Lit.. S 17 .()tJTHOtri l!r~
ocf~.iflvN COJI~
DA.TE RElrl~ED NAME AND TITL.E OF ARRESTING Of'FICER SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING OFFICER
-at - frl- C.if-.'Ze S /Vl+tlAIJ'J 0
-,
~~~--,.~
OATE OF ~Ftf~T i) 1" _'01- Ci'L-lM f/.I AL iN ~(/-A7o/l..
-
I
AO 442 (Rev 5(85) Warrant for Arrest

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DISTRICT OF_~C=O=L~O.:..:RA::..:.:.DO=- _
v. WARRANT FOR ARREST

SEALED
GEORGIOS XYDEAS
CASE NUMBER
",
to:' The United States Marshal oB-cx-- OO\Dl.o~EwrJ
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest GEORGIOS XYDEAS, and bring him forthwith to the
nearest magistrate to answer an
Conspiracy to Defraud United States & Commit Offenses; Conspiracy to Import Schedule IV Controlled Substances;
Conspiracy to Distribute And Possess With Intent to Distribute Schedule IV Controlled Substances; Trafficking in Counterfeit
Goods; Importation of Scheduled IV Controlled Substances; Introduction and Delivery for Introduction Of Unapproved New
Drugs Into Interstate Commerce; Introduction and Delivery for Introduction Of Misbranded Drugs Into Interstate Commerce;
and Importation of MerchandIse Contrary to Law,
Name of Issuing Officer Title of IssuIng Officer
Signature of Issulng Officer Dille and location
(By) Deputy OGik
Bail fiXed at $ _
RETURN
Thl. warrant wa. rllC4lv9d and 9"lIcuted 'fIith the alT••t of the abov..namad dafendant at _
u¥)linn..l€,4. A,YP4?"t
~S~2-1
ORIGINAL
http./ /uscode.house.gov/download/pls/ 18C2 33 .txt 8/4/094.11 PM
Judicial Code and Judiciary (Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, Sees. 21, 24,
38 Stat. 738, 739).
The first paragraph of this section is completely rewritten from
section 386 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and
Judiciary, omitting everything covered and superseded by rules 23
and 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The second paragraph of this section is derived from section 389
of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary,
omitting directions as to the trial of other contempts which are
now covered by rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
-End-
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 3692 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 233 - CONTEMPTS
-HEAD-
Sec. 3692. Jury trial for contempt in labor dispute cases
-STATUTE-
In all cases of contempt arising under the laws of the United
States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders
in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the contempt shall
have been committed.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the
presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly
with the administration of justice nor to the misbehavior,
misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect
to the writs, orders or process of the court.
-SOURCE-
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.)
-MISC1-
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on section 111 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Labor (Mar.
23, 1932, ch. 90, Sec. 11, 47 Stat. 72).
The phrase "or the District of Columbia arising under the laws of
the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or
restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor
dispute" was inserted and the reference to specific sections of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (sections 101-115 of Title 29, U.S.C., 1940
ed.) were eliminated.
TAFT-HARTLEY INJUNCTIONS
Former section 111 of Title 29, Labor, upon which this section is
Page 2 of
http'!/uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C233.txt 8/4/094·11 PM
-CITE-
18 USC CHAPTER 233 - CONTEMPTS 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
-HEAD-
-MISC1-
Sec.
3691. Jury trial of criminal contempts.
3692. Jury trial for contempt in labor dispute cases.
3693. Summary disposition or jury trial; notice - Rule.
-End-
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 3691 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
-HEAD-
Sec. 3691. Jury trial of criminal contempts
-STATUTE-
Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience
of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any
district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or
thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted
also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or
under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the
accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a
jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in
other criminal cases.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the
presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the
administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in
disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the
name of, or on behalf of, the United States.
-SOURCE-
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.)
-MISC1-
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on sections 386, 389 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.,
Pa~
http / /uscode.house.gov/download/plsfl8C233.txt 8/4/094 11 PM
based, as inapplicable to injunctions issued under the Taft-Hartley

Act, see section 178 of Title 29.
-End-
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 3693 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
-HEAD-
Sec. 3693. Summary disposition or jury trial; notice - (Rule)
-STATUTE-
-MISC1-
SEE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Summary punishment; certificate of judge; order; notice; jury
trial; bail; disqualification of judge, Rule 42.
-SOURCE-
(June 25,1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.)
-End-
p
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593
6088485721
07/10/09
Police Department
City of McFarland WI
POB 110
McFarland WI 53558
Open Records/Freedom of Information Act R
Do you have any record of a warrant for my (

security number is 334 48 2443 and my datE. v> ~ VB •• __ _ ,
permission to release this information to me about myself.
Do you have any written authorization allowing you to serve federal warrants?
Thank you
K~'1~~
Kay Sieverding
~
.'
. \
_ Village of McFarland
Police
--
--------------
Department-----
lukcc St. • p.o. Box 110 • McFarland, Wl 53558
.
!
i .
, I I ,.
, (- (
" .'
.I, (/, . ! I
:' .-~
j
,
J •/'<
, , ,# ,l
;
<,.
.t ." ) ,I f
Village of Mount Horeb

Municipal Court
Judge: Jody Morey
138 E Main StiMt Horeb, WI 53572/(608) 437-7748/Fax (608) 437-3190
mhcourtclerk@charterintemet.com
July 28, 2009
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593
Re: Attached Letter
Kay Sieverding:
The Mount Horeb Municipal Court shows no record of a warrant for your arrest for 2006-
2007. Any written authorization to serve federal warrants would be with the Dane
County Sheriff's Department.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to
contact me.
F'Yi771~
Joanne Morey
Municipai Court judge
HOREB MUNICIPAL COURT

:. Main Street
oreb, WI 53572
.~
l ' l l f . ' r !',
$ 00
Kay Sieverding
641 Basswood Ave
Verona, WI 53593


)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
Certificate of Service of Plaintiffs' PLAINTIFFS' MOTION UNDER RULES OF
EVIDENCE 403 TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT # 25 BECAUSE OF
PERJURY AND FIND DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT".
A paper copy with original signatures was sent by FEDEX to
United States Attorney's Office

attn David Rybicki
Civil Division
555 4th St N .W.
Washington DC 2 530 and a copy by email to
D Yip.rybicki u Cloj .gov
<.
Ca.e 1;Q9.cv-00562.JDB Document 57 Fued 03115110 Page 1 of 1
L.' l1'E I) S1',\'rES IIIS'nU(1' COLllT

fOK nlE 1)ISTKI(1' Of COLL.\ll1l,\
l'lolntlff<,
,..
U" I1'E I) S1',\TES liE rMI.1\\lES1' or
JL'STlCL
lId,ndan'.
OKlIEK
h<",iD, aOO for tl'.< "",,,,n, ,toted in th< M<monutdurn Opinion i"uNl on this d.,., it i, "'<b).'
OKIIERE I) ,".at (8) ,",< Oepvtm<nt of Ju"id, molion to di'rni", or iD Ih< al1<mati,..
for 'umn....,. judgnt<Ttt, i, GIL\Sl'[[) utd ,hi. <as< i, lIIS\IISSE[): it i, fW1h<,
OKIIEREI) ,".at ,",< motion. fll«! .. Dock., [ntri<, 11, 16, IS, ott<l IJ OJ< GKAS1'EI);
it i. t'urt'"
OKIIERE I) ,".at ,",< motion. fll«! .. Dock., [ntri<, 20, 2J, 27. ) I. 32, J., J5, 36, 39, .1.
45, 48, II, aOO 12 ... Ill.' I Ell; :on<! it i, furth«
OKIIERE I) tlw (!6) tl>< U<partment of lu,u«', motion for a pro",,,ti,.. oro« i,
SOOKIIEREII.
JOIlS U,lIAnS
United Sut.. Ui.tri<t Jud8<
U01N1, NorcO)\ 2010
),EXE IOl IInZiDM<,EXE C2l H19-cv-00562-JOB.ziD

Case 1:()9-cv-00562-.1DB Document 78 Filed 10120110 Page 1 of 2
~niteh cStntu CIlaud of ~~ppl'al\'l

'~'.D.~'~C~C~
No, 10-5149 September Term 2010

1 :O~"",Y-OO$2-.1DB
Filed On: October 19, 2010
AppeIIams
-
United SlIOtes DeplOrtment of J\i$tice,
BEFORE: ~,GriIliIh,.r>d 1\8''''''''IIh, Ci<aJ~ Judges
ORDER
Upon CClt'liderMion of a~""t.. po:x:edunol motions ...-.de< Feda'" Rule of

1Ippe••ta Proced..... 10(.~2)(C);!he motion /of summaI)' a/fttmal'lCe. t.... OPjlOllilions
!hereto, ar>d 11>11 reply; 11>11 rnotio<1 /of judiciel f>:)tice; 111. motion lot lea"" 10 l>Clduee
ltdditiOl\lll ~; appalIants' bI1el; 11>11 motion for s..tll.m.m oonI."",,,"; Itn<lIIIe
motion to "recognize Nye Y. U.S. end Klein Y, U,S.• s .. ppi<:eble: ~ is
ORDERED lhet aweI""'ts' P"X"'durel motions under Rula 1(11.)(2~C) be

<lenied. That rule proYi<les no hasis f'" D>ol coun to order oppeIetIto c:t&rIty _ for
F._
appelanll' benefit ~ Ia
FURTHER ORDERED lhet D>ol motion '''' judioI""'- be _ ,

Rule of Evidence 201 app"s on/)' to "Judicilol Notice 01 Adjudiclltive FacII." end D>ol
IICtt appell""ts P"'Il<>M for judi6llll"lOlica IIrfI no1 edjudicatlwl facll Gn appeal. h Ia
FURTHER ORDERED that D>ol motions'''' laa... to fldd..co """ilion"

evId.nee,
for MtIl/ImfInl con/af(Il'>QlI, aM lQ recogniu pre<>t<lanl$ '" S~bIe, be derOed. ~ is
FURTHER ORDERED lhet ItHt rnoIlon f'" summlll)' affitm1l1'>Qll be 9'snted. The
rnerils 01 D>ol partiN' posilions .,,, 50 <IN, as to W3<T.m summ"'Y .ction. ~
Taxp!IY!fJ W8ll;!>d0l!, Inc. Y, Sl¥Iley, 819 F,Zd 2901, 297 (D.C. Cit, 1987) (per ",,~.m),
JoJItIoogI'lllf'P'l/lllnlll purj>OI1lO _k"""'agea uM.r!he "d""....tra~"" Procedure AcI,
D>ol citations In IhM _In support 0I1hlI damaoget ci.im are t<> D>ol PriYacy Act, In any
""""t, appellants ha"" not pn:....lded ony lactuIll balls f'" determining 1IIere was any
"intant_ '" willfur _lion by 11>11 agency oolilling Ihem lQ damages uncler the
PriYocy Act. S U.S.C. 552.19)(.)· Appe~ants ha"" _~O<! t.... _ foul' Issues lIley
),EXE IOl U"ziDM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056.2-JOB.ziD

_. Case 1:()9-cy-00562.JDB Document 78 Fued 10120110 Page 2 of 2
~l1iteb ~tatelli QIoud of J\pptailli

'011 , . . Oomu<:' "" C ao._ C"""'"
No, 10·5149 September Term 2010
",1M on oppoal because lIIK complaint did """ provide sul'ficienl notice oIlheM
cIalms. ~ A!heOoo y, D!ltI1cT 01 Columbia 01fIce 01 Mayor, 561 F.3d &12, 681 (D.C
Cit. 20(9) fA compla",t mUlt give tile dele.-.:lanll I>JIice 01 tile cIalml and !he groondl
upon """"" they "'"l:}; Mery. QiJlricl g! Co!umpia, 55ll F3d 5012, 550 (D.C. Cit,
20(9) l"lt .. wei _ t~ In,," and iooOIllhaoIIM no1 asserted at !he D!ltTIcl Coun
_ <)rd.... 11Iy ";11 no! be I>&ard on aweal,· (internal quotation marl<l om;tted)~,
PurIUII<It 10 D.C. Cireult _ 36. 1tI.. dilposition I0'Il no! be published. 1ha CIa<\<
ill d _ 10 wIII'IIlOId lUuanot 01 tria mlllldote MnlIn unm """"" dlYS Inl' resoIUloon
01 Illy tlmIly petition for .......""rIg C< potitlon for .......1Iing en bone, S"" Fed, R. App.
P, ~ l(b); D.C. CIt, Rulo ~ 1.
Ptr ClldIm
),EXE IOl UnZioM"EXE c:D HJ9-cv-0056.2-JOII.zio

2010-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District Court, Washington DC – in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impeachable Misconduct by US Judge John D Bates s

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2010-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District Court, Washington DC – in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impeachable Misconduct by US Judge John D Bates s

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Digitally signed

10-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District

Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Act

U.S. District Court

SIEVERDING et al v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Date Filed: 03/25/2009

Date Filed # Docket Text

07/20/2009 22 Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief filed by

08/27/2009 35 Amended MOTION requesting Injunctive Relief re 20 MOTION requesting Injunctive

PACER Service Center

Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria

PACER Service Center

Doc. Event Event

Summons Issued as to AUSA 03/25/2009

2 otice of Appearance 04/09/2009

3 otice (Other) 04/09/2009

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to 04/22/2009

Set/Reset Deadlines 04/22/2009

7 Amended Complaint 05/01/2009

12 otice (Other) 06/12/2009

13 Memorandum in Opposition 06/18/2009

14 Reply to Document 06/19/2009

17 Response to Document 06/22/2009

22 Memorandum in Opposition 07/20/2009

24 Reply to opposition to Motion 07/27/2009

25 Memorandum in Opposition 07/28/2009

29 otice (Other) 07/30/2009

30 Reply to Document 07/31/2009

37 Memorandum in Opposition 10/05/2009

38 otice (Other) 10/05/2009

39 otice (Other) 10/07/2009

40 Response to Document 10/08/2009

42 Reply to opposition to Motion 10/13/2009

43 Memorandum in Opposition 10/13/2009

44 Reply to Document 10/16/2009

46 Memorandum in Opposition 11/04/2009

47 Memorandum in Opposition 11/12/2009

50 Reply to opposition to Motion 12/01/2009

Leave to File Denied 12/14/2009

54 Memorandum in Opposition 03/09/2010

55 otice (Other) 03/09/2010

56 Reply to opposition to Motion 03/11/2010

57 Order on Motion to Strike 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Strike 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Strike 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Dismiss 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Substitute 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion to Strike 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Entry of Default 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Protective Order 03/15/2010

57 Order on Motion for Hearing 03/15/2010

58 Memorandum & Opinion 03/15/2010

2 otice of Appearance 04/09/2009

3 otice (Other) 04/09/2009

12 otice (Other) 06/12/2009

29 otice (Other) 07/30/2009

38 otice (Other) 10/05/2009

39 otice (Other) 10/07/2009

55 otice (Other) 03/09/2010

75 otice of Appeal 05/10/2010

77 Transmission of otice of Appeal and Docket 05/18/2010

USCA Case umber 05/20/2010