Monday 6/22/98 1:02 PM Senate Judiciary Committee http://www.senate.gov/committee/judiciary.html Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman senator_hatch@Hatch.senate.gov Strom Thurmond, South Carolina senator@thurmond.senate.gov Charles E. Grassley, Iowa chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania senator_specter@specter.senate.gov Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov Jon Kyl, Arizona info@kyl.senate.gov Mike DeWine, Ohio senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov John Ashcroft, Missouri john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov Spencer Abraham, Michigan michigan@abraham.senate.gov Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts senator@kennedy.senate.gov Joseph R.Biden, Jr., Delaware senator@biden.senate.gov Herb Kohl, Wisconsin senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov Dianne Feinstein, California senator@feinstein.senate.gov Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov Richard Durbin, Illinois dick@durbin.senate.gov Robert Torricelli, New Jersey senator@torricelli.senate.gov Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis and help get this matter settled. Thursday March 30, 1995 I wrote Tenth Circuit clerk Hoecker to request a copy of the docket sheets for case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al Hoecker did not answer my letter. On Tuesday March 5,1996 I wrote Judge Lucius D. Bunton to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. On Monday September 23, 1996 Arthur R Morales and I wrote Henry A. Politz, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets of my case and Morales Tenth Circuit case 95-2204. Tenth Circuit also refused to send Morales copies of docket sheets for his case. Politz is Bunton's boss. No response. Friday May 30, 1997 I wrote Antonin Scalia to get this help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. 5 May 1998 citizen John Young finds docket sheets on Source: PACER, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1-800-279-9107 and posts them on Internet at http://jya.com/whp-10usca.htm Docket as of April 10, 1998 0:05 am Proceedings include all events. 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al shows that I filed my Brief of the Appellant on 2/19/95. 2/23/95 [835344] Appellant's brief filed by William H. Payne. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 2/19/95 Oral argument? pro se. Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95 for Thomas P. Wright, for Robert Surran, for Paul A. Stokes, for Mary J. Stang, for Tommy A. Sellers, for Craig A. Searls, for Albert Narath, for Preston B. Herrington, for Peter S. Hamilton, for Roger L. Hagengruber, for James R. Gosler, for Harold L. Folley, for Robert L. Ewing, for C. William Childers, for Harvey J. Brewster, for Sandia Corporation (mbm) mbm writes "Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95" Sandia had sent me a copy of its brief by 3/28/96. I filed attached MOTION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S DEMANDS ON BASIS THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEES FAILED TO FILE BRIEF WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 31 on Tuesday the 28th day of March, 1995 My February 28 MOTION at the Tenth Circuit is filed WITHOUT notice of service logged. 4/4/95 [845484] Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief. Original and 3 copies c/s: y (mbm) In 1995 FRAP 25 (a) stated "[b]riefs shall be deemed filed on the day of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery, is used." FRAP 25 has been changed by 1998 to http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Since I mailed Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief on 3/28/98, it is likely Sandia's lawyer Friedman received it 3/29/95. Tenth Circuit logs 3/30/95 [844759] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia Corporation, Harvey J. Brewster, C. William Childers, Robert L. Ewing, Harold L. Folley, James R. Gosler, Roger L. Hagengruber, Peter S. Hamilton, Preston B. Herrington, Albert Narath, Craig A. Searls, Tommy A. Sellers, Mary J. Stang, Paul A. Stokes, Robert Surran, Thomas P. Wright. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/27/95 Oral Argument? y (appellant is pro se) Appellant's optional reply brief due 4/13/95 for William H. Payne (mbm) Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [FRAP] 26 (c) states (c) Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c While the Tenth Circuit ASSERTS Appellees brief was, in fact, served on 3/27/95 evidence given below points to the brief was served, in fact, on 3/29/95. I allege that Friedman affixed a false date of service to Sandia's brief. I WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED. I wrote Wednesday March 29, 1995 Dan Friedman Simons, Cuddy & Friedman Pecos Trail Office Compound 1701 Old Pecos Trail POB 4160 Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160 505-988-4476 505-984-1807 FAX Dear Lawyer Friedman: Today at 14:00 hours I found a green and white about 9x13 inch envelope in our mail box at my home. Mailing label indicated that the envelope came from your firm. CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on the mailing label. I wrote "Received at 14:00 hours on W 3/29/95 with no POSTMARK OR STAMP by W. H. Payne" at the bottom of the envelope. There was no STAMP OR POSTAGE METER LABEL or POSTMARK on the envelope. Therefore, I gave the envelope to US Postal Service supervisor Mel at 14:49 hours today at the Postal Receiving station at 9904 Montgomery, NW in Albuquerque. Mel has a copy of the cover of the envelope with Mel's note written on it. Mel told me the post office was going to return the envelope to your firm for proper mailing. I ask: 1 What did this envelope contain? Please identify the documents precisely. 2 If any Certificates of Service were included in the envelope, then what were the dates affixed to these documents? 3 Who placed this envelope in our mail box? Lawyer Friedman: It appears you missed an important filing date. And are in the process of attempt to correct your failure. But may be using illegitimate methods to conceal your failure. Please respond as soon as possible so that we all may discover what has happened here." ... Lawyer Friedman did not respond to the above letter. But Friedman did mail me Appellees brief many days later in envelope showing TRUE MAILING date. Certificate of service on received Appellees brief did not reflect postmark date. 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 But Tenth Circuit clerks Fisher and Hoecker despite my protests and submission of evidence may have stamped FILED on Sandia's IMPROPERLY SERVED Appellee/Respondent's brief according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Laywer Friedman FALSIFIED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Friedman DID NOT MAIL ME "Served on 3/27/95." d) Proof of Service; Filing. A paper presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the name of the person served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service. Proof of service may appear on or be affixed to the papers filed. When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing or dispatch in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B), the proof of service shall also state the date and manner by which the document was mailed or dispatched to the clerk. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Crime apparently committed by Hoecker and Fisher is § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1017.shtml Despite my protests of judicial misconduct Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis award decision to Sandia 10/6/95 [890055] Order filed by Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis "...All outstanding motions are denied..." (found in Order & Judgment of 10/6/95) [879579-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) when these judges should not have had Appellees brief before them. Then in an apparently attempt to conceal what happened 10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205] (pdw) I WON MY APPEAL, pro se, ON A TECHNICALITY but judges Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis awarded the win to Sandia Labs! Members of Congress, judicial misconduct in this matter has been well-documented. Court records filed with the Tenth Circuit. But CURRENTLY under seal. Lawyers involved in this matter attempt to use the legal strategy of IGNORE and STONEWALL to attempt to deny me justice. Ignoring and stonewalling by lawyers forced Morales and me to seek visibility so lawyers could no longer ignore and stonewall. Lawyer attitude apparently is that they ignore rules of civil procedure or even the law so long as their actions are invisible to public scrutiny. Visibility was achieved by suing the National Security Agency which revealed even more judicial misconduct http://www.jya.com/whp052898.htm. I would like to settle all matters involved with this unfortunate cyrpto-related matter, which includes criminal violations of the Privacy Act. DOE lawyer Steve Dillingham asked me to prepare a settlement offer in 1994. I wrote a settlement letter May 22, 1994 to Dillingham. Nothing happened. June 11, 1998 I made several modifications to my 1994 settlement letter and sent it e-mail to Robert Nordhaus, Chief Counsel, DOE. I ask that you 1 help with settlement of my six-year-old since I won my appeal at the Tenth Circuit, 2 investigate Tenth Circuit case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al to bring the guilty to justice. Sincerely william payne 505 292 7037 I am not reading e-mail http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Monday 6/22/98 1:04 PM Members of Congress Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan and request a congressional investigation. After several years, with Payne, of trying to get Tenth Circuit to send docket sheets from my case, citizen John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm locates docket sheets and posts them Morales Case Dockets 10th USCA June 12, 1998 on Internet at http://www.jya.com/arm061298.htm. Source: Online records Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals via PACER GENERAL DOCKET FOR Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Docket #: 95-2204 Filed: 9/29/95 Nsuit: 3440 Morales v. Sandia National Lab. Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of New Mexico I filed 11/9/95 [898274] Appellant's brief filed by Arthur R. Morales. Original and 2 copies. c/s: y. Served on 11/7/95. Oral argument? pro se. Appellee's brief due 12/11/95 for Sandia National Lab. (pdw) Sandia files its FIRST ATTEMPT at 12/11/95 [905033] Appellee's deficient brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Appellee's corrected brief due 12/21/95 for Sandia National Lab. additional copies received 12/11/95. (fg) Tenth Circuit court clerk Patrick Fisher writes Wells on December 11, 1995 concerning Sandia's deficient brief [C]orrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of service upon all other parties to the appeal. ... and issues 12/14/95 [905975] FIRST notice of rules violation for Deborah D. Wells for Appellee Sandia National Lab. (sls) Wells submits 12/21/95 [907974] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 Oral Argument? n Appellant's optional reply brief due 1/8/96 for Arthur R. Morales (mbm) but DOES NOT serve me with a copy. Wells later admits in 2/1/96 [917660] Response filed by Sandia National Lab. Appellant/Petitioner motion to clarify Original and 3 copies. c/s: y response Null Relief Code (fg) Certificate of Service date 30th day of January, 1996, [h]ad Appellant simply made a phone call to the Tenth Circuit, he could have established that the Defendant-Appellee's corrected brief was indeed filed on a timely basis, ... I protested by filing 1/3/96 [909965] Appellant's motion "for the Court to Grant Appeal" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909966] Appellant's motion "for New Trial" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909967] Appellant's motion "to Discipline Defendant-Appellee" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) because Sandia did not properly serve me in violation of Fisher's December 11, 1995 order. The Tenth Circuit court of appeals should NOT, by its own rules, filed Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 And is doubtful whether court clerk Fisher had any authority under appellate procedure to permit Wells to correct her deficient brief. Rather Sandia's brief did not comply with with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and should have been summarily rejected for filing. I WON, pro se, my appeal to the Tenth circuit on a technicality but Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan awarded the win to Sandia Labs. 4/2/96 [932848] Order filed by Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan denying parties' motions for general relief(found in Order and Judgment of 4/2/96)--"...During the course of this appeal, the parties have filed various motions for dismissal, summary grant, and sanctions. We find no merit to any of these motions, and they are [920851-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) by accepting and judging on a documents which was not permitted to be before the court by its own rules. Judicial misconduct in my case has been well-documented as it is in Payne's case. Payne and I speculate that similar judicial misconduct may have occurred at the Tenth Circuit. Sandia lawyer Robert J Park wrote me a settlement letter on Feb 18, 1998. I filled in the blanks and made minor handwritten chages and returned it on February 22, 1998. But my offer has not yet been accepted. I ask that you 1 help have my settlement offer accepted, 2 investigate judicial misconduct in case 95-2204 and punish the guilty. Some citizens can only express such frustrations with the US court system with violence. I seek change by legal reform. Sincerely Arthur R Morales 505 345 1381