Please forward to william haas of new mexico state risk management. Thusday 6/14/01 12:12 PM Christina E. Anaya 500 Marquette Ave. N.W., Suite 600 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Ms Anaya: We respond to your June 11, 2001 letter. You write RE: Morales and Payne v. Theodore C. Baca. et al., Civil No. 01-634 JP/DJS Harassment is not a federal question. Your law firm has issued a fraudulent document to federal court stating that harassment is a federal question. New Mexico state court realizes this and issued Clerk's certificate on June 12, 2001. Your law firm harasses us. You write Pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a), the purpose of this letter is to determine whether you will concur with or oppose the motions I intend to file on Monday, June 18, 2001. The first motion will seek the dismissal of all your claims against Judge Baca on the basis of absolute judicial immunity. The second motion will seek a stay of discovery pending the Courts ruling on Judge Bacas motion to dismiss. Please let me know your position, in writing, on or before Friday, June 15, 2001. Our position is that your firm harasses us. Harassment is not a federal question. We ask that you forward a copy of this letter to William Haas RMD Claim No.: 0101299-000 Date of Loss: 10-20-00 in hope that we can reach a monteary settlement of your acts of harassment with your law firm's insurance carrier before we are forced to file a fourth lawsuit for harassment in New Mexico state court. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Karen Molzen http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/judges/molzen.html Thank you SO MUCH for the legal advice if going to state court you gave me by phone in pullman, washington. It looks like it is working for Morales and me. It doesn't look good for Svet and Vazquez. To bad about Vazquez. http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/judges/vazquez.html She should have known better than to sign what the feds gave her. Morales points out that Vazquez is not exactly flipping burgers for a living. Best http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/ http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/ and, of course, keep up-wind http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html Let's hope for settlement soon. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Arthur R Morales William H Payne Plaintiffs v civ 01 0634 wfd Theodore C. Baca Norman C. Bay Phyllis A. Dow Raymond Hamilton Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Martha Vazquez MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FILING ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING 1 Defendant lawyer Robert St. John writes Counsel for Defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., has expressed an intention to participate in electronic filing of pleadings and documents in this case. and signs SUBMITTED BY: RODEY, DIKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB,P.A. By Robert M. St. John Larry Montano Attorneys for Defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. P.O. Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 768-7337 Facsimile: (505) 768-7395 Exhibit A. St. John is a defendant in this case. St. John has not filed ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in this lawsuit. St. John's filing ORDER is more than frivolous. It is a malicious intentional attempt to set the stage for possible digital document alteration. 2 Lawyer St John writes 3. In addition to serving on all parties, the parties shall file directly with the Court, any motions, briefs in support, responsive briefs, reply briefs and exhibits relating to them whether filed electronically on the ACE serve or in paper form. with "shall file directly with the Court" high-lighted in bold text. Paragraph 3 appears to be frivolous in that St. John appears to want something from plaintiffs by bold high-lighting which St. John does not explicitly state. Plaintiff's have always filed directly with the court. Paragraph 3 is frivolous. 3 Lawyer St John writes 5. Upon completion of the briefing process, the movant shall file with the Court and serve on all parties a Notice of Completion specifically identifying the pertinent motion ready for decision and any briefs or other documents which have been filed relating to that motion. St. John apparently writes this because of previous motion of plaintiff Payne for filing MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FILING "NOTICE OF BRIEFING COMPLETION." St. John attempts to overrule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. St. John's paragraph 5 is frivolous. 4 Lawyer St John has the gall to have defendant magistrate Don F Svet sign IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June ____,2001. UNITED STATES JUDGE Svet does not date filing. 5 St. John and the Rodey law firm by submitting ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING have established pattern and practice of malicious intent to subvert the federal judicial process by the frivolous ORDER. Moreover, harassment is NOT a federal question as recognized by New Mexico state court. Exhibit B. 6 Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. 7 Rule 11 goes on to state (c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (1) How Initiated. (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 , but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. (B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto. (2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2). (B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. 8 The best way to insure that this malicious and intentional judicial conduct does not occur again is for this court to levy a substantial monetary penalty again the law firm of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA for violation of Rule 11 by the filing. And, of course, for continue harassment of plaintiffs by this state issue continue to be heard by THIS COURT. 9 WHEREFORE sanction Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA $3,000,000 for having filed ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to Stephen G French 500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque, NM 87102 505 843 7075 John W Zavitz Assistant US Attorney PO Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 this June 14, 2001 _____ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Arthur R Morales William H Payne Plaintiffs v civ 01 0634 wfd Theodore C. Baca Norman C. Bay Phyllis A. Dow Raymond Hamilton Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Martha Vazquez MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING 1 ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING was written by defendant Robert St. John employed by defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA. Exhibit A, page contains lawyer St. John's signature. St. John is a defendant in this lawsuit. St. John has not filed ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in this lawsuit. St. John's filing ORDER is more than frivolous. It is a malicious intentional attempt to set the stage for possible digital document alteration. 2 ORDER was signed by federal magistrate judge Don F Svet. Svet is defendant in New Mexico state lawsuit cv - 2000 10289 and federal harassing lawsuit 00-1574 mv/wwd. New Mexico state lawsuit is still active jury trial matter. Svet's signature is judicial misconduct because he is involved as defendant in plaintiffs' federal and state lawsuits. 3 ORDER is docket entry 10 filed 06/08/01. Exhibit B. Case is reassigned from judge Bruce Black to chief judge James A Parker on June 7, 2001, docket entry 4 filed 06/07/01. Exhibit B. Svet was presumably removed along with Black on June 7, the day before he signed ORDER on June 8. 4 Magistrate judge Don F. Svet has established, along with some in federal court's clerk office, a pattern and practice of court document fraud as seen in attach, Exhibit C, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORT TO CORRECT DOCKET: (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE DENOMINATED INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY; with electronic filings. The gross and incompetent publication of two digital file stamp documents with the same digital file stamp but one dated December 06, 200 10:19 and the other dated December 04, 2000 10:39 show that digital file stamping can and has been defeated. Electronic filing in courts cannot work for the reason that digital documents are too easy to fake, as seen in Exhibit C. 5 The cases involving Morales and Payne are largely a result of the US government misconduct involving hardware and software "spiking" of computers. Some references on Internet are http://orlingrabbe.com/speccoll.htm http://jya.com/nsasuit.txt http://www.caq.com/CAQ/caq63/caq63madsen.html http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html The US government has the financial resources to fund such modification of computer hardware and software. And has established an unfortunate track record of having spiked computers and gotten caught. 6 WHEREFORE ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING must be stricken from the docket as an improperly filed document by two defendants. In addition, electronic filing cannot be made to work because it is too easy for an organization with financial resources to fake. The US federal government has both the financial resources and demonstrated history of 'spiking' computer hardware and software. 7 Harassment is not a federal question. New Mexico state court employees are no longer fooled by fraudulent removal of the Morales and Payne cases to federal court. New Mexico second judicial chief judge W John Brennan along with clerk Bennina Armijo-Sisneros have forwarded harassment complaint to chief justice Patricio M. Serna to appoint a judge to preside over a state jury trial plaintiffs Morals and Payne have paid for. And is guaranteed under the constitution of the State of New Mexico. Exhibit D. The act of Morales and Payne having to file this document is therefore another act of harassment using the US federal court system. Discontinue harassment. Remand to state court this and other two state lawsuits for harassment and replevin and harassment and defamation. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to Stephen G French 500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque, NM 87102 505 843 7075 John W Zavitz Assistant US Attorney PO Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 this June 14, 2001 _____ We filed these this afternoon.