Wednesday 2/18/98 6:04 PM J Orlin Grabbe John Young Authentication John Young has been sent a copy of ORDER with SEPARATE PAGE marked FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO February 10, 1998 US District Court District of New Mexico Digital File Stamp ... This document consists of an official stamp of the Court and, if attached to the document identified above, servers and endorsed copy of the pleading. It may be used in lieu of the Courts mechanical file stamp for the named document only, and misuse will be treated the same as misuse of the Courts official mechanical file stamp. The Courts digital signature is a verifiable mathematical computation unique to the filed document and the Courts private encryption key. This signature assures that any changes can be detected. Attached is Svets ORDER. WITH NO MARKINGS ON IT. Grabbe, perhaps I should modify the ORDER SLIGHTLY and return this to the court claiming that I believe that I have recieved a COUNTERFEIT COPY of Svets decision. And, would the court please verify if the copy I sent them was authentic or not. And, too, tell me WHY they knew that it was a counterfeit or authentic. But this is why we have back-ups. ALLAHU AKBAR! Perhaps the opposition has more brains than our [?] side. But first things first. bill UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) CIV NO 97 0266 ) SC/DJS ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Defendant ) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO JUDGE SVET'S ORDER FILED January 28, 1998, ORDER FILED February 10, 1998, AND AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITHCOURT ORDER FILED 98 FEB-9 1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne and Morales [Plaintiffs] to respond to two ORDERs and AFFIDAVIT. 2 Magistrate judge Svets [Svet] writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT sanctions will be granted and counsel for Defendant shall submit an affidavit outlining her costs and fee in bring the Motion within ten days of entry of this Order. Plaintiffs may respond within ten days of service of Defendant's affidavit. 3 Svet states in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 Plaintiff's attempt at discovery violates this Court's Order entered June 11 , 1997. 4 June 11 order states, THIS MATTER come before the Court sua sponte following an Initial Scheduling Conference held June 5, 1997. The establishment of deadline for discovery and pre-trial pleading is necessary for the orderly hearing of this case. However, this case in not one in which an Initial Pre-trial pleading will assist the Court. Accordingly, such a document will not be entered. Further, the parties will not be permitted to undertake any discovery in this matter absent Court permission. The parties shall submit any proposed discovery to the Court for approval, accompanied by a motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the need for that discovery. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following deadlines are hereby established: 1. The parties shall complete discovery necessary by September 3, 1997. 2. Motions relating to discovery shall be filed no later than September 23, 1997. 3. All pretrial motions regarding matters other than discovery shall be filed by October 3, 1997. 4. The Pre-Trial Order shall be provided as follows: Plaintiffs to Defendants by November 3, 1997; Defendants to the Court by November 18, 1997. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in the matter shall only be undertaken upon obtaining Court permission. The parties shall submit any proposed discovery to the Court for approval, accompanied by a motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of point and authorities explaining the need for that discovery. signed DON J. SET UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 5 Plaintiff's point out in UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND RESETTING TIME LIMITS FOR DISCOVERY Rule 36 states, Request for admission (a) A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for the purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) set forth the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying. The request may WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. ... Plaintiffs capitalize WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. 6 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 On June 11, 1997 this Court ordered that any proposed discovery must be approved by this Court. Svet's above sentence violations Rule 36 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 7 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 Further, Plaintiff's did not seek to take discovery prior to the discovery deadline. Svet FAILED TO RESPOND to Plaintiffs' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND RESETTING TIME LIMITS FOR DISCOVERY. 8 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 Finally, Plaintiffs, failed to serve counsel for Defendant and instead served General Minihan. This violates Fed. R. Civ 5. Plaintiffs DID SERVE General Minhan with first set of admissions through US lawyer Mitchell on October 13, 1997 in full compliance with Fed. R. Civ 5. 9 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 The fact that Plaintiffs are pro se does not relieve them from the burden of complying with court orders and rules of civil procedure. To the contrary, Svet flaunts in writing his disregard of truth and rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff have always attempted to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and were always willing to correct any mistakes. Svet, on the other hand, proceeds with an attempt to ignore the laws IN WRITING of the United States. Friday October 24, 1997 08:10 file criminal complaint affidavit with Supreme Judge Antonin Scalia against judges Svet and Campos. Scalia has not yet responded to Plaintiffs' criminal complaint affidavit. Svet, by issuing ORDER filed January 28, 1998, must believe that Scalia is going to cover-up for Svet's and Campos' judicial misconduct. 10 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998 Further, Plaintiffs flagrant disregard of this Court's order warrants the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion to Strike and all of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Various Employees of the National Security Agency and to Various Employees of Sandia National Laboratories is granted. Svet cite no law or rules which prevent Plaintiffs' from requesting admission from non-parties, therefore Plaintiff's must assume in the interest of justice that Svet agrees with Plaintiff's procedure. 11 Svet ORDER FILED February 10, 1998 states THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove Docket Sheet Entry 14 and Associated Response file on June 24, 1997. The matter of discovery was addressed in and Order entered June 11, 1997. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove Docket Sheet Entry 14 and Associated Response is denied as moot. Docket Sheet entry 14 posted 6/9/97 is RESPONSE by defendant to motion to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs as an unopposed motion before the Court (dmw) [Entry date 06/10/97] 5/23/97 Docket Sheet entry 9 Plaintiffs file MOTION by plaintiff for order to accept discovery plan (dmw) Defiant misses filing date for response to entry 9. Therefore, Plaintiffs' file on 6/9/97 Docket Sheet entry 13 MOTION by plaintiff to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs are an unopposed motion before the court (dwm) In panic Defendant's lawyer US Mitchell submits on 6/9/97 Docket Sheet entry 14 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs as an unopposed motion before the Court [13-1] (dwm) [Entry date 06/10/97] Lawyer Mitchell, apparently realizing her legal procedureal blunder, is forced to deposit her LATE MOTION in Court outside mailbox since entry was not until June 10. Svet, again, flaunts disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by ORDER FILED February 10, 1998 by ruling late motion moot. Svet cites no authority to overrule dictates of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and even local court rules, on timeliness. Svet demonstrates again, IN WRITING, prejudice toward Defendant. 12 Svet NOT ONLY has shown, IN WRITING, his attempt to inhibit the legal process specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but has engaged in a proactive process of attempting to retaliate against Plaintiffs' in their attempt to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Svet NEVER attempted to clarify procedures or rules so that either side could correct any mistakes in civil procedure. WHEREFORE 13 Plaintiffs' invoke 28 USC § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ... 14 REMOVE judges Svet and Campos from this proceeding for clear demonstration of pattern and practice of judicial misconduct IN WRITING in this lawsuit. 15 ORDER judge Svet RESTRAINED from awarding sanctions against Plaintiffs. 16 APPOINT new magistrate and judge to begin this lawsuit DE NOVO. 17 GRANT such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 _________________________ Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and hand delivered to Jan E Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Thursday February 19, 1998. 7