Kay Sieverding (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The only reason that I was blocked have to do with censorship. I was not accused of misquoting references or putting spam on the articles. The editors don't want the public to know that the 11th Circuit has ruled that federal courts can't stop people from filing anything they pay to file and that Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5 requires the court clerks to file anything they get even if there is a local policy restricting that. The editors are so gung hoe about this that they have resorted to putting defamatory comments about me on the talk pages, believing that I won't be able to respond. Arthur Rubin in particular has claimed I violated Rule 11 by making false accusations. What false accusations he thinks I made is not supported by the record because in my lawsuit before Judge Edward Nottingham there was no opinion written and there were no Rule 11(c)(6) orders. He could see that if he downloaded the docket report from PACER for the District of Colorado 02-cv1950 instead of relying on a disputed magistrate's report that conflicts with the Supreme Court decisions of Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259. (1993) In fact, just this summer the 10th Circuit wrote " Petitioners contend the district court failed to “explain the basis for the sanction” as required by Rule 11(c)(6), so the sanctions were not proper under Rule 11. Because the sanctions were improper under Rule 11, petitioners reason, they could have been imposed only under the court’s inherent power, but the district court did not give them advance notice that it might impose sanctions under its inherent powers, so the order imposing sanctions is void." This opinion is not on the 10th Circuit data base of opinions but it is on PACER and can be purchased for 20 cents. see Appellate Case: 11-1227 Document: 01018649569 Date Filed: 05/31/2011 Page: 2. The magistrate also recommended that I be sanctioned by having my case dismissed, losing my right to represent myself and paying $100,000 because I claimed that my neighbor was a rumored drug dealer. He admitted in a press conference for Steamboat Springs city council candidates that he plead guilty and spent 5 months in jail. See http://m.steamboattoday.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/ Here is an article about how a neighbor complained about zoning violations so an 8,333 foot newly built house was torn down. http://www.coastalcontractor.net/article/526.html
kay sieverding (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Talk page access revoked. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InternetReader2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Avruch T 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser completed earlier, and User:InternetReader2 has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of this indefinitely blocked account. Risker (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)