message for william haas
bill payne
bpayne37 at home.com
Thu Jun 14 14:19:37 PDT 2001
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.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list