THE ROBING ROOM

This judge is mean-spirited, nasty, vitriolic and appears to have little or no respect for individual constitutional rights. This conclusion is not based solely on [a] ruling[s] that I disagree with but, rather upon the volitional and caustic language he has included in orders. In cases that he doesn't want to bother with (e.g., individual pro se litigants, civil rights cases), he simply disregards the applicable legal maxim (e.g., he dismisses a case for want of jurisdiction yet, 'with prejudice' as some kind of undocumented sub silentio sanction and then seems to sneer, if you don't like it, go appeal it). One docket containing an example of this conduct is posted at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harrington/05CV01858.htm Another example is located here (http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/01/vexatious_litigant_jailed_for.html and http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2006/11/06-1038.htm) `though I do not, in any way, condone the repetitious filing of frivolous lawsuits by any party. By pure coincidence and for professional reasons, I have occasion to interface with many attorneys and law firms in the area frequently and all of the attorneys I have discussed this matter with revealed that Nottingham has a reputation in the Tenth Circuit as vitriolic. One appellate attorney suggested that he must have a thesaurus of insults in his chambers for writing opinions and orders, evidenced by his frequent use of ad hominem caustic words (in accosting litigants and attorneys alike), such as 'specious,' 'lazy,' 'lascivious,' 'vexatious, 'frivolous,' 'harassing,' 'spurious,' inter alia. Another encouraged me to take heart in the fact that the Tenth Circuit panels are well aware of his conduct.