CDR: zinni on wdms

bill payne billp at nmol.com
Thu Oct 19 19:22:51 PDT 2000


cypherpunks

I was looking-up one of my former phd students, Lou Banderet, on google
and found

http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1998.03.02-1998.03.08/msg00025.html

This former phd student of mine http://www.mhpcc.edu/general/john.html
lives several miles away.

Sobolewski help implement the hardware for Banderet's phd thesis work.

Morales and I are going to attack tomorrow. I attach.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/
http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/
http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/

Did you hear Zinni predict a wdm terrorist attack on TV tonight?  Zinni
may be right.

Keep up-wind
THEY ARE PISSED!  For between 1/8 to 3/4 million good reasons.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html

There are better things to do.  And more fun too.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/load1.html

I'm still smarting over looking up biru gomez on google.

But I think it's true.

Public key was broken in about 1990 without factoring.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/rsa2.htm

nsa, I learned at sandia, started pulling-out public key from all its
weapons products.  Ron Kulju told me.

best
b
-------------- next part --------------
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT     
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO     
STATE OF NEW MEXICO      
     
		CASE NUMBER      
     
William H Payne     
      
Plaintiff      

v
   
Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories   
American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation						    
Lockheed Martin Corporation 
Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn  
   
John A. Bannerman   
R. C. Bonner   
Charles Burtner   
C. W. Childers    
M. B. Courtney     
R. B. Craner   
D. B. Davis   
R. L. Ewing   
Lorenzo F. Garcia   
W. R. Geer   
J. D. Giachino		    
G. H. Libman    
Linda Vigil Lopez    
J. D. Martin    
J. J. McAuliffe   
D. S. Miyoshi    
Michael G. Robles   
Carol Lisa Smith   
A. M. Torneby   
    
Defendants    
    
Complaint for      

Relief from DEFAMATION [libel] and HARASSMENT       
      
1	Citizen Richard Gallegos gives documents in Exhibit A to citizen Arthur Morales.    
   
Morales gives documents to Payne on Saturday March 22, 1997.  
   
Exhibit A 4 show that the documents clearly refer to plaintiff  W. H. Payne since    
   
his signature is affixed to that document.   
   
Payne had not seen Exhibit A documents before March 22, 1997.   
   
The documents contain false and defaming information.     
   
Release of  documents like those seen in Exhibit A without written consent is a criminal    
   
violation of the Privacy  Act,   5 USC § 552a,  Records Maintained On Individuals    
   
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm   
   
5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states,   
   
   	CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE -  No agency shall disclose any record which is    
	contain in a systems of records by any means of communications to any person, or    
	to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior    
	written consent of, the individual to who the 	record pertains, ...   
   
5 USC 552a(i)1 applies.   
   
   	CRIMINAL PENALTIES. -  Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue    
	of his employment or official position, has  possession of, or access to, agency    
	records which contain  individually identifiable information the disclosure of which    
	is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations  established thereunder, and    
	who knowing that disclosure of  the specific 	material is so prohibited, willfully    
	discloses of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed the material in    
	any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a    
	misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.   
   
Further,    
   
	The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency denies access to a    
	record or refuses to amend a record. An individual may sue an agency if the    
	agency fails to maintain records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and    
	completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination   
  	and the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the 	individual. An    
	individual may also sue an agency if the agency fails to comply with any other    
	Privacy Act provision in a manner that has an adverse effect on the individual.   
   
    	An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the Federal District Court in    
	which the individual lives, in which the records are situated, or in the District of    
	Columbia. A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date on which the   
  	basis for the lawsuit arose.   
   
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/citizens_guide_93.html   
   
	EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES   
   
  	I. Generally   
   
	In recent years the trend has become for employers not to give detailed or even    
	meaningful employment references when asked to do so. Most employers today    
	either give no employment reference information or merely confirm that the    
	(former) employee worked for the employer during  specified dates and at a certain    
	rank or position. The rationale for the unwillingness to provide more complete or    
	specific information is that employers must minimize their risk of  exposure to     
	workplace defamation liability.   
   
	Generally, an employer is liable to an employee for defamation if the employer    
	publishes a false statement about the employee that harms the employee's    
	reputation and that is not privileged.   
     
	Each element of a defamation action is examined briefly below.   
   
	First, employers cannot make false statements about an employee. Employers can    
	now be held liable for false statements only if they are responsible for the falsity.    
	This means that the employer can be held liable for a false statements only if they    
	were negligent in attempting to ensure the truthfulness of the statement. In other    
	words, employers are not liable for a false statement if  they were not negligent in    
	their attempts to ensure that the statement was true before they published  it.   
   
  	RISK-FREE HIRING: How to Interview, Check References and Use Pre-   
	employment Testing without Triggering Liability   PRESENTED TO: COUNCIL    
	ON EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO      
	JUNE 25, 1997   
   
  	PRESENTED BY:  DEBRA  J. MOULTON, ESQ.  KAREN KENNEDY &    
	ASSOCIATES, P.C. 6400 UPTOWN BLVD., NE, SUITE 630-E     
	ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87110 (505) 	884-7887   
	_____   
   
	7-1	Defamation Defined   
   
	The test for defamation is not merely a statement that hurts one's reputation.    
	Defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement of  fact. When defamation    
	occurs in written form it is called libel. When the defamation is an oral    
	communication, it is called slander.  In order to prove that one has been defamed,    
	the New Mexico courts rely on proof of the  following facts:   
   
  	1. that there was a defamatory statement of fact concerning  another (i.e. a    
	statement, as opposed to an opinion, that tends to lower the employee in the    
	esteem of the community or other respectable individuals);   
     
 	 2. the statement must be published; that is it must be spoken or  otherwise    
	communicated to at least one person, usually a "third party," other than the    
	complaining party;   
     
  	3. fault amounting at least to negligence (should have known it  was false) on part    
	of the publisher, or, if the employer is a public official, the statement must have    
	been made with the knowledge  that it was false or with reckless disregard for the    
	truth; and   
   
  	4. that the statement was the proximate cause of actual injury to the employee.   
   
	It is imperative that employers take action to stop all defamatory  actions by their    
	employees, even in the realm of horseplay, since there exists in New Mexico both    
	criminal, and civil liability for such actions.   
   
  	LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT IN  NEW MEXICO:   A Complete Desktop    
	Guide to Employment Law,  ERIC SIROTKIN  Butterworth, 1994.   
   
While it may seem obvious to readers of Exhibit A that both Sandia National Laboratories    
   
and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission got caught in writing    
   
violating both the criminal and civil portion of the Privacy Act and should settle, the    
   
federal government decided to fight in federal court relying on cooperation of  federal    
   
judges to protect it.   
   
However, in this case the federal judge violated New Mexico state law in by mounting a     
   
campaign of harassment instead of administering a fair jury trial his zeal to protect the US    
   
government from liability.   
   
Therefore, legal remedy reverts to state court.   
   
2  	Payne brought suit CIV 99-270 against defendants and others on March 12,    
   
1999 in US District Court for  the District of New Mexico for violation of  the Privacy    
   
Act,   5 USC § 552a,  Records Maintained On Individuals and pendant Defamation.     
   
Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 1.   
   
3 	Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia presides.   
   
4	May 12, 1999  Payne moves in CIV 99-270  for summons service by US marshal    
   
for defendants Larry Trujillo, R A Polansacz, and C A Searles.  Exhibit B page 8 docket    
   
entry 12.   
   
5	Garcia denies service in CIV 99-270  May 24, 1999 claiming that Payne can only    
   
use US  marshal service in a in forma pauperis case.  Exhibit C,  Exhibit B page 8 docket    
   
entry 18.   
   
Payne never claimed he filed in forma pauperis and can, in fact, use US marshal service if    
   
he pays about $25 per summons.   
   
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.   
   
6	On 8/4/99 in CIV 99-270 defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,  

 Smith and Bannerman file    
   
	MOTION by defts R A Poloncasz, C A Searls, and E Dunckel |to dismiss this    
	action against them without prejudice| (rd) 	Re:MEMORANDUM, OPINION,    
	AND ORDER dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and ... [87]   
   
Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 58.   
   
7	On 11/12/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia grants   
   
	MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F.    
	Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss this action against them without prejudice    
	[59-1] dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and R A Poloncasz without    
	prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (11k)    
	Re: MOTION to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59]   
   
Exhibit B page 3 docket entry 87.   
   
Garcia gives as reason that Dunckel, Searls and Poloncasz have not been properly    
   
served.   
   
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.   
   
8	Payne in CIV 99-270  files Docket entry 34 Exhibit D.  Exhibit B page 7 docket    
   
entry 34.     
   
	6/8/99	34	AFFIDAVIT of William H. Payne to remove Magistrate Judge   
			Lorenzo F. Garcia from this action (rd)   
			[Entry date 06/09/99]   
   
9	Garcia falsely identifies Payne's AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia as a "motion" and    
   
denies it.   Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 35.   
   
	 6/9/99	35	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying motion   
			to disqualify (affidavit to remove Judge Garcia) [34-11   
			(cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) [Entry date 06/10/991   
   
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.   
   
10  	Payne gives Garcia opportunity to correct AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia.   
   
	6/16/99	37	MOTION by Payne to alter or amend order denying 	   
				motion	to disqualify (sl)   
   
	Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 37.   
   
Garcia's refuses to obey law.   
   
	6/16/99	38	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying 	   
				pltf's motion to alter or amend order denying motion to 	   
				disqualify [37-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd)   
   
Citizen Garcia continues to harass Payne  in violation of  New Mexico state law,   
   
11	May 25, 1999 Payne left for an extended business trip.  Payne informed the court.     
   
Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 20.   
   
12	On 06/02/99 in CIV 99-270  Defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,  

Smith and Bannerman file   
   
	MOTION by Sandia defts |for sanctions due to violations of Rule 11(b)(2)| (rd)    
	Re: RESPONSE [76] MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER [52]    
	MEMORANDUM [24]   
   
Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 23.   
   
13	 June 18, 1999 Payne files for Motion for time extension of 90 days to answer   
   
Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 39.   
   
14  On  08/05/99 in CIV 99-270  Garcia files   
   
	 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia assessing costs in favor of Sandia    
	defts and against pltf in the amount of $912.50 to be paid within twenty (20) days    
	[55-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) (8k) Re: NOTICE [55]   
   
Garcia was removed from CIV 99-270 on 6/8/99 and, therefore, has no authority to order    
   
sanctions against Payne.   
   
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.   
   
15	On August 12, 1999 Payne files for writ of prohibition by certified mail with judge    
   
Antonin Scalia.   
   
	Payne wrote   
   
	I sued under the Privacy Act as a result of false and defaming documents about   
	my self distributed by Sandia Labs and EEOC.   
   
	These are seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/congress/8327/robles.htm   
   
	Exhibit B shows that magistrate judge Garcia dismisses my air-tight Privacy Act   
   
	Defamation lawsuit.   
   
	Exhibit C shows that judge Garcia has the gall to attempt to assess me with fees.   
	  
2	I ask that you issue a writ of prohibition to judge Garcia to stay his   
	   
	August 5 ORDER ASSESSING COST IN FAVOR OF SANDIA DEFENDANTS    
	   
	AGAINST PLAINTIFF WILLIAM H. PAYNE because written evident seen at   
   
	http: //www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/robles.htm   
   
	controverts Garcia' s claims.   
   
Scalia does not respond.   
   
Garcia, of course, was removed from case on  June 8, 1999 and had no authority to rule.   
   
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.   
   
13 	Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file lien again Payne's and 

wife property on January 19, 2000. Exhibit D.   
   
Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman, knowing that Garcia was removed 

by affidavit harass Payne by  filing illegal  lien.   
   
Rule 11(b)(2) states   
   
	Rule 11.  Signing of Pleading, Motions, and other Papers; Representations to   
	Court; Sanctions   
   
	(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,--   
	   
	(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;   
   
Evidence in documents in Exhibit A clearly violate the both the criminal and civil provision    

of the Privacy  Act.  These documents are obviously defaming too.   
   
CIV 99-270 is not frivolous.     
   
Citizens Garcia, Smith and Bannerman law firm Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn  

 harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.   
   
14	Payne files DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL in CIV 99-270 on March 24, 1999.     
   
Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 3.   
   
On  03/17/99 paid the filing fee for this jury trial guaranteed him by the Constitution and    
   
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   
   
Garcia, however, judged case without a jury trial.   
   
Citizen Garcia denied Payne's right for jury trial and thereby harasses Payne in violation of    
   
New Mexico state law.   
   
15	New Mexico state law, ARTICLE 3A, defines      
                    
            Harassment and Stalking       
      
	 30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.       
      
	 A.  Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is      
	intended to annoy,  seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which serves      
	no lawful purpose. The conduct  must be such that it would cause a reasonable      
	person to suffer substantial emotional distress.       
      
	 B.   Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.      
      
17	15	Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of Garcia's, Smith's and    
   
Bannerman's harassment acts by certified letter on  February 26, 2000.     
     
Administrative settlement of these and other misconduct was proposed.     
     
Deaton is asked to respond by  March 4, 2000.     
     
Deaton does not respond.     
   
WHEREFORE       
      
18	Order Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Bannerman and Smith to pay Payne $912.50 

to satisfy lien.   
   
19	Payne asks  for punitive damages of $300,000 from Garcia for disallowing service    
   
by US marshal, failure to remove himself from CIV 99-270 after affidavit was file,     
   
ordering Payne to pay $912.50 after Garcia was removed from case, and denying trial by    
   
jury which Payne paid for and was guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal Rules of     
   
Civil Procedure.   

Garcia  is engaged in pattern and practice of harassment to deny rights due Payne under 

the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Payne asks  for punitive damages of $300,000 from Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn for 

allowing lawyers Smith and Bannerman to harass him.  

Smith and Bannerman have engaged in pattern and practice of harassing Payne. 
   
20	Punitive damages of $1,000,000 each from Sandia Corporation - Sandia National    
   
Laboratories,  American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Lockheed Martin    
   
Corporation for the preparation and distribution of libelous and  defaming false documents    
   
distributed without Payne's knowledge seen in Exhibit A.   
     
21	Punitive damages of  $50,000 each from citizens R. C. Bonner, Charles Burtner,    
   
C. W. Childers, M. B. Courtney, R. B. Craner, D. B. Davis, R. L. Ewing, W. R. Geer, J.    
   
D. Giachino, G. H. Libman, Linda Vigil Lopez , J. D. Martin, J. J. McAuliffe, D. S.    
   
Miyoshi, Michael G. Robles, and A. M. Torneby for authoring and distributing the false,    
   
libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A.   
   
22	No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law.    
   
	Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for     
    
prosecution of citizens Lorenzo Garcia, John Bannerman, and Carol Smith, for violation    
   
of the New  Mexico state laws on harassment.     
   
23	Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.       
   
    
      
I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified - return receipt requested mail.  
 
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
 
_________________________________ 

Date 
 
 
 
 
 
William H Payne 
13015 Calle de Sandias NE 
Albuquerque, NM 98111 
505 292 7037 

-------------- next part --------------
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO 
STATE OF NEW MEXICO  
 
		CASE NUMBER  
 
Arthur R Morales 
William H Payne 
  
Plaintiffs  

v
  
Robert J Gorence  
John J Kelly 
Manuel Lucero 
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell 
Don F Svet  
  
Defendants   

Complaint for
  
Writ of REPLEVIN and Relief from HARASSMENT   
  
1  	Citizens Morales and Payne file pro se Freedom of Information Act lawsuit  
 
97cv0266 against the  National Security Agency  in New  Mexico District federal court on   
 
February 27, 1997.  
  
Magistrate judge Don J. Svet was assigned case.  
  
US attorney John J Kelly assigns assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell to defend  
 
National Security  Agency.  
  
2	FBI agents Moore and Kohl hand-deliver May 29, 1997 at 08:29  harassment letter  
 
authored by  First  Assistant US Attorney Robert J Gorence on May 19, 1997.  Exhibit A.  
  
3 	01/28/98 Svet issues   
 
	ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet granting defendant's motion to strike any and  
	all  of plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions to various employees of the  
	National Security  Agency & to various employees of Sandia National Laboratory  
	(see order for further specifics re sanctions  & communication) [28-1] (cc: all  
	counsel, electronically) (dmw) (7k)   
  
4 	02/09/98 Mitchell submits  
 
	AFFIDAVIT of attorney fees by Jan Elizabeth Mitchell in accordance  with court  
	order [37-1] (dmw)   
	  
BILL OF  COSTS is submitted to US District Court on Jun 12, 1998.  Exhibit B.  
  
On June 30, 1998 Mitchell places liens on both Payne's and Morales personal properties.  

Exhibit L.  
  
5	Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on   
 
March 18, 1998  to halt attempted sanctions.    
  
Scalia does not reply.  
  
6	On April 30, 1998 court order (docket #42) removes Morales as plaintiff in this case.

7	US Attorney John J Kelly orders initiates garnishment against Morales on February  
 
2, 1999.   Exhibit C1.  
  
8	US Attorney John J Kelly and  US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file  
 
CERTIFICATION OF  DOCUMENTS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR  with US District  
 
Court on February 2, 1999.  Exhibit C2.

Clerk notifies Morales of right to hearing in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT 

GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR.   Exhibit D.
  
9	Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly and  US District Court Clerk Robert  
 
March of his  request for hearing on February 12, 1999 delivered by Payne.  Exhibit E.   
  
10	WRIT OF GARNISHMENT is received at Sandia National Laboratories on  
 
February 17, 1999.   Exhibit G and H.  
  
11	Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly, US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero,   
 
US District  Court Clerk Robert March, and Sandia employee Mary Resnick on February  
 
22, 1999 DEMAND that  garnishment proceeding be held in abeyance pending requested  
 
hearing.  Exhibit F.  
  
12	$625 is garnished from Morales wages without due process in Sandia pay period  
 
02/12/1999 to 03/25/1999  and  02/26/199  through 03/11/1999.  Exhibit I.  
  
13	Payne pays Morales $312.50 for his share of expenses in NSA lawsuit.  
  
14	US Attorney John J Kelly and  US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file ORDER  
 
OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don F Svet on April 20,  
 
1999. Exhibit J. 
  
There is no cause of action before the court for such order of garnishment.  
  
15	Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on   
 
April 27, 1999 to  halt attempted unwarranted garnishment.  
  
Scalia, again, does not respond.    
  
But no money has yet been garnished from Morales' wages by Sandia.  
  
16	 On July 21, 1999 Rio Grande Title refunds Morales' $625 [Exhibit M]  which was 

taken from  escrow account from property lien being held since November 25, 199.  

Exhibit L.

17	Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of the these and other illegal  
 
acts on  February 26, 2000.  
  
Morales and Payne offer administrative settlement of these and other misconduct.  
  
Deaton is asked to respond by  March 4, 2000.  
  
Deaton does not respond.  
  
18	Citizens John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell,  
 
and Don F Svet  have broken New Mexico state laws by garnishing $625 from Morales'  
 
wages without due process.   Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L. 
  
	ARTICLE 11   
  
            Magistrate Court; Replevin   
  
	Sec.  
	35-11-1. Replevin; grounds.  
	35-11-2. Replevin; special provisions.   
	35-11-3. Judgment.   
  
	35-11-1. Replevin; grounds.   
  
	Whenever any personal property is wrongfully taken or detained, the person  
	having a right to  immediate possession may bring a civil action of replevin for  
	recovery of the property and for damages sustained from the wrongful taking or  
	detention. However, in replevin actions,  magistrate courts shall not issue any writs  
	of replevin or any other orders providing for a seizure of property before  
	judgment.  
 
  
19 	Citizens Robert J Gorence harassed William Payne by Sending FBI agents to 

Payne's  home to deliver threatening letter in Exhibit A. 
 
Don F Svet, John J Kelly, and  Manuel Lucero harassed Arthur Morales by attempting to  
 
garnish $1,793.56 from Morales wages when there was no legal cause of action for such  
 
writ.  Exhibit J. 
 
	ARTICLE 3A  
                
            Harassment and Stalking   
  
	 30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.   
  
	 A.  Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is  
	intended to annoy,  seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which serves  
	no lawful purpose. The conduct  must be such that it would cause a reasonable  
	person to suffer substantial emotional distress.   
  
	 B.   Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.  
  
WHEREFORE   
  
20	Morales and Payne ask for their $625 taken from them without due process.  
  
21	Morales and Payne ask for the $1,793.56 since this can be taken from Morales  
 
wages or file an property lien at any time.  
  
22	Payne asks for punitive damages $300,000 from Gorence for harassment for  
 
illegally sending FBI agents to  family residence to deliver harassment letter.  
  
23	Illegal garnishment of Morales' salary jeopardized Morales' security clearance and  
 
employment at Sandia National Laboratories. 
 
Morales and Payne ask for punitive damages from citizens John  J Kelly  $300,000, Don F  
 
Svet $300,000, Manuel  Lucero $100,000, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell $100,000 , and so that 

citizens and federal  employees  are sent a message to obey the laws they are tasked to 

upheld rather than abuse.  
 
24	No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law. 

Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for  
 
prosecution of citizens Robert J  Gorence, John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth  
 
Mitchell, and Don F Svet for violation of New  Mexico state laws.  
  
25	Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.   
 
  
  


I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified - return receipt requested mail.  



_________________________________


__________________________________
Date





Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 3451381





William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 292 7037




2





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list