But one was out on the hills away,
Far off from the gates of gold.
Away on the mountains wild and bare.
Away from the tender Shepherd’s care.
Away from the tender Shepherd’s care.

LDS elders may have a visit with brother Benson to discuss what should be done about his SO ORDERED blunder.

Here's the final!

Morales got screwed over by New Mexico judge Leroy Hansen.

Hansen ruled in a Morales case without finding of fact.

Benson is doing this too.

So look what Morales added!

Look how we've got brother judge Benson for a 10th Circuit judicial misconduct complaint - actually, of course, Benson got himself!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION ARTHUR MORALES and WILLIAM H. PAYNE Petitioners, v Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB KATHLEEN JO GIBSON, Clerk of New Mexico Supreme Court PAMELA B. MINZER, Judge of New Mexico Supreme Court, et al. Respondents MOTION TO AMENDMENT JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF NEW MEXICO OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO This order has been so issued without a jury trial, as demanded, and according to Rule 52 the "finding of fact" has not been presented by judge Benson whereby sufficiency of evidence to support findings and order is not present. Therefore the order must be withdrawn until finding of fact is issued. Withdraw DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF NEW MEXICO OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO signed by judge Dee Benson on September 13, 2004 and file stamped September 14, 2004 for reason of Benson gives no reasons only signs SO ORDERED stamped above Benson's signature. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF NEW MEXICO OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 1 Furthermore the evidence presented in this case is a matter of written record and therefore considered fact. They include the following: A Federal CIV-01-1132 is New Mexico CV 2001 5900 which was fraudulently removed to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court. See Exhibit J at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm. B New Mexico CV 2001 5900 is a paid for twelve person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit for relief from harassment. See Exhibit H at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibith.htm. C Federal CIV-01-1198 is New Mexico CV 2001 06293 which was fraudulently removed to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court. See Exhibit I at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm. D New Mexico CV 2001 06293 is a paid for twelve person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit for relief from harassment. See Exhibit G at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm. E Harassment is not a federal question. F Judge Dee Vance Benson was asked to provide anti-injunction act justification for removal of both New Mexico CV 2001 5900 and CV 2001 06293 to federal court. Benson did not respond. G 03CV0228 was closed on 1/20/04 -- Case closed per order no. 21 (kvs) [Entry date 01/22/04]. See docket at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm 2 Lawyers Ashcroft and Patrick DID NOT reply to refute any assertions made in 8/17/04 26 Response by William H. Payne, Arthur R. Morales to [24-1]motion for entry of judgment and for docketing order to clerk of the court, District of New Mexico, [25-1] support memorandum (kvs) [Entry date 08/19/04] 3 Benson does not refute any assertions made in 8/17/04 26 Response by William H. Payne, Arthur R. Morales to [24-1]motion for entry of judgment and for docketing order to clerk of the court, District of New Mexico, [25-1] support memorandum (kvs) [Entry date 08/19/04] which are all supported by written evidence. Therefore all assertions must assumed to be true because each assertion was supported by written evidence. 4 So Bensons signing stamped SO ORDERED is a reckless, capricious, and arbitrary act of judicial misconduct. 5 Permitting arbitrary judgments unsupported by fact endangers the legal contract. A crooked judge could size property arbitrarily. WHEREFORE A Grant motion to withdraw order. B If order is not withdrawn and "finding of fact" is not issued by October 13, 2004, then we can only conclude that Dee Benson has decided to ignore the evidence and therefore we demand the following: 1 Resign from federal bench by October 20, 2004 for reason "use of the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends" and "Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." See http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/forms/misconduct_rules.pdf 2 Lawyers Patrick resigns from Arizona bar for having participated in removing New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie cases CV 2001 06293 and CV 2001-05900 against judge Downes and others to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court and harassing plaintiffs using bogus CIV 01 1198 and CIV 01-1132. 3 Accept settlement offer outlined in August 27, 2004 letter to Paul K Charlton seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/charltonletter.htm. The alternative are prima facie complaints against you and Parker for "Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." 4 Lawyer Patrick will send copy of letter of resignation to the New Mexico bar by October 13, 2004. Failure to comply will compel plaintiffs to file a complaint "The State Bar gets its authority to investigate complaints against lawyers from the Arizona Supreme Court. Lawyer discipline is funded by annual dues paid by all members of the Bar, not by tax dollars. The State Bar's jurisdiction is limited to investigating matters that would violate the Rules of the Supreme Court, particularly the Rules of professional conduct contained in Rule 42." See http://www.azbar.org/Discipline/ACAPComplaintForm.pdf Disrespectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1734 Soplo Road SE Albuquerque, NM 87123 505-323-7277 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on September 29, 2004 to JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General RICHARD G. PATRICK Special Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 5148 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Christina E. Anaya French & Associates, P.C. 500 Marquette, NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 Peggy K. Stone, Esq. UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL' S OFFICE LITIGATION UNIT 160 K 300 S 6TH FL P0 BOX 140856 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0856 Michael R. Jones, Esq. NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG STE 1508 P0 BOX 1508 SANTA FE, NM 87504-1508 David Joseph Tourek, Esq. NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE P0 DRAWER 1508 BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG SANTA FE, NM 87504 Kathleen K. O'Dea, Esq. NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE P0 DRAWER 1508 BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG SANTA FE, NM 87504 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION WILLIAM H. PAYNE and ARTHUR MORALES, Petitioners, v Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB KATHLEEN JO GIBSON, Clerk of New Mexico Supreme Court PAMELA B. MINZER, Judge of New Mexico Supreme Court, et al. Respondents RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF NEW MEXICO OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DOWNES' MOTION FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 1 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MOTION Defendant William F. Downes, by the undersigned Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, hereby moves pursuant to Rule 7(b) and Rule 58(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., that the Court direct the entry of judgment in the ahove-captioned action (which includes the disposition of New Mexico dockets CIV-01-1132 and CIV-0l-1198). 1 Movant further requests an order instructing the Clerk of the Court District of New Mexico to docket the entries at docket numbers 21 through 23 in the above-captioned action into the New Mexico docket sheets for CIV-01-1132 and CIV-0l-1198. A supporting Memorandum of Points And Authorities is filed herewith. 1 The United States Attorneys Office for the District of New Mexico, which represents the other federal defendants in CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-0l-1198, joins in this motion. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this motion be granted. must be unconditionally denied for the following reasons. A Federal CIV-01-1132 is New Mexico CV 2001 5900 which was fraudulently removed to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court. See Exhibit J at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm. B New Mexico CV 2001 5900 is a paid for twelve person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit for relief from harassment. See Exhibit H at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibith.htm. C Federal CIV-01-1198 is New Mexico CV 2001 06293 which was fraudulently removed to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court. See Exhibit I at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm. D New Mexico CV 2001 06293 is a paid for twelve person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit for relief from harassment. See Exhibit G at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm. E Harassment is not a federal question. F Judge Dee Vance Benson was asked to provide anti-injunction act justification for removal of both New Mexico CV 2001 5900 and CV 2001 06293 to federal court. Benson does respond. Here's the proof in federal court record. 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 15 NOTICE by plaintiff of non response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker to provide anti-injunction affidavit for anti-injunction act justification for removal of New Mexico case Civ 2001-05900 to Federal Court [152k] [6 pages] 11/29/2001 11/30/2001 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal [85k] [5 pages] In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-05900 [Federal CIV 01 1132] G Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB was closed on 01/20/04 so Ashcroft and Patrick's MOTION is improper. In addition, Utah court improperly docket items 22 and 23 in 0cCv0228. See http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB was a writ petition - NOT AN APPEAL. Both Federal CIV-01-1198 and Federal CIV-01- 1132 are TRIAL BY JURY lawsuits which held inviolate by both state and federal constitutions. Here's the demand from the docket in Federal CIV-01-1198 10/25/2001 10/26/2001 8 DEMAND for jury trial by pltfs [34k] [2 pages] which is seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/dock1198.htm. Here's the demand from the docket in Federal CIV-01-1132 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 4 DEMAND for jury trial by plaintiff [33k] [2 pages] which is seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/dock1132.htm. I Judge Dee Vance Benson presumably signed 28 USC 453 Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _ _ _ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.' seen at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=453+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/453.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match when he was appointed federal judge. So Benson's duty is to uphold the law which states Rule 38. - Jury Trial of Right (a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. and not harass Morales and Payne in violation of New Mexico state law 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 that 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. History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-2, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 2. NMSA 1978. which earned defendant judge William F Downes a criminal complaint affidavit filed in New Mexico court. See Exhibit Q at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm. 2 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM Defendant William F. Downes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, is a named defendant in civil actions CIV-01-1132 and CIV-01-1198, which actions are pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. is a mistatment. Downes is a defendant in New Mexico paid for 12 person jury trial prima facie harassment lawsuits New Mexico CV 2001 5900 and New Mexico CV 2001 06293. See Exhibit H at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibith.htm. See Exhibit G at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm. These two New Mexico lawsuit were fraudulently removed to federal court with US Supreme Court required verification by assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses. See Exhibit J at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm. See Exhibit I at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm. These fraudulent removal of New Mexico state harassment jury trial lawsuits to federal court earned both Downes and Hoses criminal complaint affidavits for New Mexico crime of harassment. See Exhibit Q at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm. 3 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM Those civil actions were the subject of a transfer order to this Court and were disposed of by this Court's January 20, 2004 Memorandum Opinion And Order (docket 21) and subsequent March 15, 2004 Order (docket 23) denying the petitioners (plaintiffs) motion for reconsideration. Docket order 21 and 23 in 2:03CV00228 have nothing whatever to do with harassing federal CIV-01-1198 and CIV-01-1132. See docket of 2:03CV00228 http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm is a petition to have our civil rights to represent ourselves pro se and file New Mexico state laswsuits restored. So Ashcroft and Patrick are given Rule 11 notice to correct the above statement with in 14 days. 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. See details at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule11.1.html. 4 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM While the Court's January 20, 2004 Memorandum Opinion and Order specifically dismissed the petitioners' claims against defendant Downes in New Mexico CIV-01-1132 and CIV-01-1 198 (as well as petitioners' claims against all co-defendants in those cases), no entry of judgment under Rule 58 appears on the docket in the above-captioned consolidated cases nor on the District of New Mexico dockets in CIV-0l-l132 or CIV-01-l198. is another unintelligent and incompetent lie! Respondents in 2:03CV00228 are Gibson, Minzner, and Maes, not Downes! See docket of 2:03CV00228 http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm. So Ashcroft and Patrick are given Rule 11 notice to correct the above statement with in 14 days. 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. See details at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule11.1.html. Furthermore, the petitioners' motions for reconsideration and this Court denial thereof (dockets 22 and 23) do not appear on the New Mexico District Court's docket in CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198. Pursuant to Rule 58(d), the Court is requested to cause the entry of judgment, consistent with its January 20, 2004 disposition order, in the above-captioned action, as well as on the New Mexico docket in CIV-0l-l132 and CIV-0l-1198. 5 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM Furthermore, the petitioners' motions for reconsideration and this Court denial thereof (dockets 22 and 23) do not appear on the New Mexico District Court's docket in CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198. There is no reason for denial of 2:03CV00228 to appear on CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198. CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198 are completely unrelated jury trial lawsuits. The above statement is frivolous so Ashcroft and Patrick are given Rule 11 notice to correct the withdraw the above statement with in 14 days. 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. See details at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule11.1.html. 6 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM Pursuant to Rule 58(d), the Court is requested to cause the entry of judgment, consistent with its January 20, 2004 disposition order, in the above-captioned action, as well as on the New Mexico docket in CIV-0l-l132 and CIV-0l-1198. Pursuant to Rule 7(b), the Court is further requested to order the Clerk of the Court, District of New Mexico, to docket the petitioners' motions for reconsideration (docket 22) and this Court's denial thereof (docket 23)on the docket in CIV-01-1132 and CIV-01-1198. is at best incompetent, lowly-unintelligent and likely-psychotic for the reason that ruling in Utah 2:03CV00228 are for a writ petition which has nothing to do with Downes. See docket of 2:03CV00228 at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm. The above statement is frivolous so Ashcroft and Patrick are given Rule 11 notice to correct the withdraw the above statement with in 14 days. 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. See details at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule11.1.html. 7 Ashcroft and Patrick write in their MEMORANDUM A granting of this motion will promote judicial economy and cause the correction of the various Clerks' dockets to accurately reflect the Court's disposition of the issues/cases resolved by the Court's January 20, 2004 and March 15, 2004 orders. is false. A granting of this motion to transfer ruling from unrelated Utah 2:03CV00228 writ petitions which Downes has no involvement to jury trial CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198 which Downes is a prima facie guilty party is frivolous. The above statement is frivolous so Ashcroft and Patrick are given Rule 11 notice to correct the withdraw the above statement with in 14 days. 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. 8 So judge Benson, petitioners gave you opportunity to help get these matters settled in Utah Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB and, as a result, did not file criminal complaint affidavit against you as was done with New Mexico chief judge Parker and Downes. See Exhibit Q at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm. We believe that you are becoming involved in very serious legal misconduct which prima facie violates your Oath of Office: 28 USC 453. We ask that you A deny Ashcroft and Patrick's incompetent, lowly-unintelligent, and likely- psychotic MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FOR DOCKETING ORDER TO CLERK OF NEW MEXICO OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO B remand CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198 to New Mexico state court for settlement or paid for trial by jury. Or in the alternative, schedule the jury trials for CIV-0l-1132 and CIV-01-1198 as dmenanded. C initiate Rule 11 violation sanctions against Ashcroft and Patrick (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. D and accept our settlement offer for being harassed in your court. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1734 Soplo Road SE Albuquerque, NM 87123 505-323-7277 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on August 12, 2004 to JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General RICHARD G. PATRICK Special Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 5148 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Christina E. Anaya French & Associates, P.C. 500 Marquette, NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on August 11, 2004 to JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General RICHARD G. PATRICK Special Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 5148 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Christina E. Anaya French & Associates, P.C. 500 Marquette, NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 / Benson appears to have violated the Code of Conduct for US federal judges. A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. (5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court. (3) A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; Touch N' Go Systems on Code of Conduct.