District Attorney Kari Brandenburg
2nd Judicial District
Albuquerque, NM


Friday April 7, 2006 06:49
Updated
TuesdayMay 1, 2007 17:16

Saturday May 27, 2006

Ms Kari Brandenburg, esq
kbrandenburg@da2nd.state.nm.us

Dear Ms Brandenburg:


USPS Track and Confirm reports that you received a hardcopy of our electonic complaint on May 24, 2006. Several minutes ago the green recipt card was delivered.

Purpose of the hardcopy is to verify that you got the complaint. The hardcopy is not meant to be used.

Please use the electronic complaint seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/brandenburg/brandenburg.htm#complaint.

If your office needs hardcopy any exhibits or any part of the complaint can be printed or saved to disk.

Our complaint referenced unknown persons at NSA in addition to Gosler and Folley responsible for production of the false, defaming, and libelous documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

Reference to NSA may be incorrect. These may be individuals in the FBI or NSA.

The main individual is identitifyed in redacted documents as (b)(3). Second indivual who was sent copies of documents is identified as (b)(6).


On May 23, 2006 we tried to speak with DOJ FOIA attorney Jim Kovakas.

Kovakas was working at home, but his secretary Jean Kornblut was extremely helpful explaining about the redacted documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.


Kornblut explained that they [DOJ FOIA/PA] received unredacted FOIA documents from NSA after about ten years - which Kornblut acknowleged [we recorded our conversation] about set a record for non-response to a FOIA request.

DOJ FOIA/PA policy is to redact names of any NSA or FBI employees from documents before they are released to a requester.

So Kovakas and Kornbult apparently know identies of (b)(3) and (b)(6).


Attoney David M Glass who authored the memo also knows identies of (b)(3) and (b)(6).

(b)(3) looks to be a guilty as Gosler and Folley. (b)(6) looks to have been copied and may or may not be guilty. But that's what you are to investigate as DA.

Kovakas volunteered that the FBI has 60 pages of documents. The FBI has been unresponsive to Payne's FOIA/PA request for more than ten years.

These documents might shed light on identies of (b)(3) and (b)(6).

Vicki from the FBI FOIA/PA office phoned on the afternoon of May 25, 2006.

Vicki gave Payne the email address of juliaeichhorst@ic.fbi.gov to try to get matters settled.


Implicit in explanation Kornblut gave us is that redactions are for proper classification.

Classification cannot be used to cover-up idenity of criminal (b)(3).

Proper process is to request NARA to do a Mandatory Declassification Review of documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.

We will first reason with Kovakas to give us the names of (b)(3) and (b)(6). Grounds for reason is that Kovakas may not want to get involved in covering-up the names of suspects in the New Mexico criminal complaints your are processing.

New Mexico lawyers and bureaucrats have wasted so much money on crooked, incompetent, and lowly-unintelligent lawyers that these matters have become internationlly highly visible.


Internet and personal computer technology is defeating legal profession and Albuquerque Journal/Tribune ploy of making matters invisible so that lawyers, prosecutors and judges can ignore that law.

We have always sought settlement but your legal colleagues have bilked the taxpayers of well over $1,000,000 in legal bills, rathern than settle, as of 1995 in our cases.

Imagine how much more of the taxpayers' money has been spent. And these issues are still unresolved.


We are in the process of finding out how much more taxpayer money has been squandered on lawyers for legal defense of the criminals you are in the process of prosecuting.

We have always sought settlement. We continue to advocate settlement before this matter gets far worse.

We ask that you and major Chavez help achieve settlement quickly.

But we also insist that the properly prosecute those named in our complaint and (b)(3) and maybe (b)(6).


Please send an ACK if you receive this email.

Sincerely

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037


distribution

jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
thomas.depriest@hq.doe.gov
juliaeichhorst@ic.fbi.gov

iscap@nara.gov
william.bosanko@nara.gov
kristopher.johnson@nara.gov
robert.tringali@nara.gov


tapodaca@doeal.gov

foiofficer@doeal.gov

Mayor Martin Chávez martinchavez@cabq.gov
F James Sensenbrenner Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
Arlen Specter


Message from New Mexico secretary of state office.
Tuesday May 23, 2006

Certified - return receipt requested and email
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/brandenburg/brandenburg.htm

Ms Kari Brandenburg, esq
District Attorney
Second Judicial District
520 Lomas Blvd N. W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
(505) 841-7100
kbrandenburg@da2nd.state.nm.us

Dear Ms Brandenburg:

Cocaine-snorting former New Mexico second judicial district chief judge W John Brennan failed to bring New Mexico paid-for 12 person jury trial prima facie cases [all evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing] lawsuits civ 200010289, 200010278, and 20013118 guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions to trial.

200010278 is a defamation [libel] lawsuit for damages in excess of well over $1,000,000 caused by distribution of false and defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

200010289 is a lawsuit for replevin for $625 being taken from citizens Morales and Payne without due process [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm] and harassment for issuing order of garnishment for $1,793.56 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm] without any cause of action.

Brennan, had he been honest, intelligent and clear-thinking, should have pushed to settle civ 200010289, 200010278, and 20013118 since evidence of guilt of defendants was in writing, with threat of forcing paid for 12 person jury trials if settlement was not forthcoming.

Brennan, however, proved to be dishonest, unintelligent, and not thinking clearly when Brennan was arrested for cocaine possession and DWI on May 29, 2004.

As a result of not getting 12 person jury trial lawsuits we paid for guaranteed inviolate by state and federal constitutions, former second judicial district judge W. John Brennan was sued twice [pattern of conduct] [civ 20023025 and 20010794] with 12 person jury trial lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions for breach of contract for not scheduling jury trials.

Evidence of Brennan's guilt is overwhelming from the receipts seen at 200010289, 200010278, and 20013118.

Instead of reasonable settlement, Brennan apparently hired lawyer Jerry Walz at his own expense to defend against each breach of contract 12 person jury trial lawsuits.

We paid total of $644 for 12 person jury trial lawsuits in 20023025 and 20010794 guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and US constitutions.

New Mexico Statute 41-4-4 only provides state-funded legal defense for tort claims.

Breach of contract is not a tort claim.

Lawyer Walz decided Brennan's best defense was to violate New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions by having judge Kenneth Brown [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm] and apparently judge Robert H Scott dismiss [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm] civ 20023025 and 20010794.

Word apparently must be used in the case of judge Scott because Scott's ORDER was stamped, not signed.

Lawyer Walz, in addition to twice violating New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions, also took Morales and Payne's 10th amendment right to represent themselves pro se in New Mexico court away as seen in http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm.

New Mexico defines
30-16-6. Fraud.

Fraud consists of the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations.

Lawyer Jerry Walz twice [see receipts 20023025 and 20010794] defrauded us of $322 in writing: see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm which is a fourth degree felony.
Whoever commits fraud when the value of the property misappropriated or taken is over two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Other New Mexico elected or appointed state employees apparently conspired with Walz to
defraud us of our money in violation of
30-28-2. Conspiracy.
A. Conspiracy consists of knowingly combining with another for the purpose of committing a felony within or without this state.

B. Whoever commits conspiracy shall be punished as follows:

(1) if the highest crime conspired to be committed is a capital or first degree felony, the person committing such conspiracy is guilty of a second degree felony;

(2) if the highest crime conspired to be committed is a second degree felony, the person committing such conspiracy is guilty of a third degree felony; and

(3) if the highest crime conspired to be committed is a third degree felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing such conspiracy is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

But at real issue is the publication and distribution of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos which violate New Mexico libel law [30-11-1. Libel.]
Libel consists of making, writing, publishing, selling or circulating without good motives and justifiable ends, any false and malicious statement affecting the reputation, business or occupation of another, or which exposes another to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace.

Whoever commits libel is guilty of a misdemeanor.

as well as the criminal provision of the federal Privacy Act and have cost Payne more than $1,000,000 in damages.

Department of Justice Attorney James M Kovakas forwarded documents on November 30, 2005 [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm] implicating New Mexico residents James Gosler and Harold Folley along with NSA employee[s?] as responsible for generation and distribution of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.



As a result of Kovakas' revelation, 30-1-9. Tolling of time limitation for prosecution for crimes, section A, begins for Gosler, Folley, and yet undiscovered National Security Agency employee(s?) on receipt of Kovakas' November 30, 2005 letter with enclosed documents.
30-1-8. Time limitations for commencing prosecution

states
C. for a misdemeanor, within two years from the time the crime was committed;

Tuesday April 12, 2005 New Mexico chief judge Richard Bosson is sent letter and email proving New Mexico judges violated their Oath of Office in writing. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/bossoncleanup/bossoncleanup.htm#bosson.

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is sent copy. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/bossoncleanup/bossoncleanup.htm#richardson.

These documents were posted on Internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Wednesday April 13, 2005 all access to http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm is denied.

Comcast employee Jay phoned on May 4, 2005 and left a message on Payne's cell phone..

Listen to Jay's message: http://www.prosefights.org/comcastabuse/jaymessage.wav.

Apparently some individual[s?] attempted to have Comcast take down our Comcast web pages seen at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm.

Comcast investigated, Comcast employee Severin reported on May 17,005, and found no abuse. See http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#severin.

Severin said that Comcast kept a log of the several complaints that we abused http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm.

Two credit card fraud complaints were filed against Cibola Internet Services at US Bank for not receiving services paid for.

Cibola Internet Services falsely accused us of violating its Terms and Conditions. See accusations at http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#duttaro.

US Bank investigator Mr Lane Gronli accepted our response seen at http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#togronli and credited our account.

Cibola Internet Service CFO Debra Uttaro was approached to settle the false and libelous claim of improprieties made to US Bank with email seen at http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#settle.

Debra Uttaro did not respond.

Cibola Internet Services CEO Louis Uttaro who committed credit card fraud libels Payne in writing with false accusation. See http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#louisuttaro.

Cibola Internet Services co-owner Salvador Chavez who committed credit card fraud also libels Payne in writing with false accusation. See http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/cibolafraud.htm#salchavez.

We then approached the Better Business Bureau to help resolve the credit card fraud/libel issue with Cibola Internet Services [Debra and Louis Uttaro and Sal Chavez]. See http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/bbb/bbb.htm#shipman1.

Better Business Bureau president Jerry Shipman responded

I am sorry but the BBB does not handle complaints alleging fraud or other criminal activities. Suggest you contact legal authorities.

See http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/bbb/bbb.htm#shipmancrime

We, of course, are taking Shipman's advice and contacting you to issue criminal complaints.

REMEDIES

1 New Mexico employees James Gosler and Harold Folley along with yet unidentified National Security Agency employee[s?] have been identified as

A. A person is the maker of a libel who originally contrived and either executed it himself by writing, printing, engraving or painting, or dictated, caused or procured it to be done by others.

originators of the false and defaming documents seen at defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

RECOMMENDED ACTION 1: We ask that you prepare and serve criminal libel complaint affidavit on Gosler, Folley and NSA employee[s?] once we discover identity[ies].

Maximum sentence of 364 days should be given to Gosler, Folley, and NSA employee[s] for having caused this 14 year legal mess which has cost taxpayers more than $1,000,000 in legal fees.

2 New Mexico lawyer Jerry Walz committed two fourth degree felony crimes of fraud, two third degree felony crimes of extortion and four fourth degree conspiracy crimes in writing.

COUNT 1

Payne pays $322 for 12 person prima facie case jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions. See 20010794.

Lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown dismiss 2001794 [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud] in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions thus defrauding Payne of $322.
30-16-6. Fraud.

Fraud consists of the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations. ...

Whoever commits fraud when the value of the property misappropriated or taken is over two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

COUNT 2

Morales pays $322 for 12 person prima facie case jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions. See 20023025 .

Lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott dismiss 20023025 [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud] in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions thus defrauding Morales of $322.
30-16-6. Fraud.

Fraud consists of the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations. ...

Whoever commits fraud when the value of the property misappropriated or taken is over two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

COUNT 3
Lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown sign order GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PROHIBITING WILLIAM H. PAYNE FROM FILIING LAWSUITS IN NEW MEXICO COURT WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OF LICENCED COUNSEL [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion].

30-16-9. Extortion.

Extortion consists of the communication or transmission of any threat to another by any means whatsoever with intent thereby to wrongfully obtain anything of value or to wrongfully compel the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will.

Any of the following acts shall be sufficient to constitute a threat under this section: ...

C. a threat to expose, or impute to the person threatened, or another, any deformity or disgrace;

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.
COUNT 4
Lawyer Jerry Walz signs and judge Robert Scott stamps order GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PROHIBITING ARTHUR R MORALES FROM FILING LAWSUITS IN NEW MEXICO COURT WITH REPRESENTATION OF LICENCED COUNSEL [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

COUNT 5

Lawyer Jerry Walz conspires, a fourth degree felony, with judge Kenneth G Brown to commit fraud See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud.

30-28-2. Conspiracy. A. Conspiracy consists of knowingly combining with another for the purpose of committing a felony within or without this state. B. Whoever commits conspiracy shall be punished as follows: ...

(3) if the highest crime conspired to be committed is a third degree felony or a fourth degree felony, the person committing such conspiracy is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

COUNT 6

Lawyer Jerry Walz conspires, a fourth degree felony, with judge Kenneth G Brown to commit extortion. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion.

COUNT 7

Lawyer Jerry Walz conspires, a fourth degree felony, with judge Robert Scott to commit fraud See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud.

COUNT 8

Lawyer Jerry Walz conspires, a fourth degree felony, with judge Robert Scott to commit fraud See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion.

RECOMMENDED ACTION 2: We ask that you prepare and serve criminal felony affidavit on lawyer Jerry Walz for prima facie criminal felony COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Maximum sentences of

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions. ...

8) for a third degree felony, three years imprisonment; or

(9) for a fourth degree felony, eighteen months imprisonment.

to run consecutively for total of 15 years should be given to lawyer Jerry Walz for attempting to overthrow right of trial by jury guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions, right for a citizen to represent themselves pro se in court guaranteed by the Tenth amendment to the US constitution and conspiring with judges Brown and Scott to commit felonies.

New Mexico laws 30-28-3. Criminal solicitation, 30-28-2. Conspiracy, and Racketeering 30-42-2 felony laws have been broken by some judges with all evidence of guilt in writing.

Former second judicial chief judge W John Brennan and now federal judge W Daniel Schneider solicited lawyer Jerry Walz to commit felony fraud of dismissing 12 person jury trial lawsuit in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions.

Lawyer Walz acknowledges Brennan and Schneider criminal solicitation in writing in filing caption. [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud]

New Mexico judge W John Brennan, Kenneth G Brown, and Patricio Serna criminally solicited lawyer Jerry Walz to commit felony fraud of dismissing 12 person jury trial lawsuit in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions.

Lawyer Walz acknowledges W John Brennan, Kenneth G Brown, and Patricio M. Serna criminal solicitation in writing in filing caption. [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

3 W John Brennan committed two criminal solicitations of fraud and three of extortion.

30-28-3. Criminal solicitation; penalty.

A. Except as to bona fide acts of persons authorized by law to investigate and detect the commission of offenses by others, a person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, commands, requests, induces, employs or otherwise attempts to promote or facilitate another person to engage in conduct constituting a felony within or without the state. ...

E. Any person convicted of criminal solicitation shall be punished as follows: ...

(3) if the highest crime solicited is a third degree felony or a fourth degree felony, the person soliciting such felony is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

COUNT 1 W John Brennan solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown to commit fraud [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud].

COUNT 2 W John Brennan criminally solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown to commit extortion [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion].

COUNT 3 W John Brennan criminally solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit fraud [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

COUNT 4 W John Brennan criminally solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit extortion [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

COUNT 5 W John Brennan committed extortion on June 6, 2002 by ordering [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm#brennanextortion] his administrative assistant Art Gallegos [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm#gallegoscard] and court clerk Ann Carabajal not to accept appeal in 20010794 in which Brennan is defendant after criminal solution of lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown [see yellow highlighted document Gallegos gave Payne at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm#yellowhighlight.

4 W Daniel Schneider committed one criminal solicitation of fraud and one of extortion.

COUNT 1 W Daniel Schneider solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown to commit fraud [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud].

COUNT 2 W Daniel Schneider solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown to commit extortion [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion].

5 Patricio Serna committed one criminal solicitation of fraud and one of extortion.

COUNT 3 Patricio Serna solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit fraud [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

COUNT 4 Patricio Serna solicited lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit extortion [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

RECOMMENDED ACTION 3 [covers items 3, 4, and 5 above]: We ask that you prepare and serve criminal felony affidavit on W John Brennan for counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; W Daniel Schneider for count 1 and 2, and Patricio Serna for counts 1 and 2.

Maximum sentences of nine years for Brennan and three years each for Schneider, and Serna crimes should be imposed as a lesson to judges not to commit felony crimes in an attempt try to save themselves as opposed to settling.

6 Kenneth G Brown conspired, a fourth degree felony, with lawyer Jerry Walz to commit one criminal act of fraud and one criminal act of extortion, committed one third degree felony of extortion, and committed one fourth degree fraud felony.

COUNT 1 Judge Kenneth G Brown conspired with lawyer Jerry Walz, judge Brennan and judge Schneider to commit fraud [See signature http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud].

COUNT 2 Kenneth G Brown conspired, fourth degree felony, with lawyer Jerry Walz Judge Kenneth G Brown conspired with lawyer Jerry Walz, judge Brennan and judge Schneider to commit fraud to commit extortion [See signature http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion].

COUNT 3 Judge Kenneth G Brown committed fourth degree felony fraud [See signature http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#fraud].

COUNT 4 Judge Kenneth G Brown committed third degree felony extortion [See signature http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#extortion].


COUNT 5 Defendant Kenneth G Brown solicited, a fourth degree felony, lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit fraud [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

COUNT 6 Defendant Kenneth G Brown solicited, a fourth degree felony, lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Robert Scott to commit extortion [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

7 Robert H Scott conspired with lawyer Jerry Brown to commit one criminal act of fraud and one criminal act of extortion.

COUNT 1 Robert H Scott conspired, fourth degree felony, with lawyer Jerry Walz to commit fraud [See stamp http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

COUNT 2 Robert H Scott conspired, fourth degree felony, with lawyer Jerry Walz to commit extortion [See stamp http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

COUNT 3 Robert H Scott committed fourth degree felony fraud [See stamp http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#fraud].

COUNT 4 Robert H Scott committed third degree felony extortion [See stamp http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#extortion].

RECOMMENDED ACTION 4 [covers item 6 and 7 above]: We ask that you prepare and serve criminal felony affidavit on Kenneth G Brown for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and Robert H Scott for counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for criminal conspiracy..

Maximum sentence of years ten and one half years should be given to Brown for attempting to overthrow 12 person trial by jury guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions and right for citizen to represent themselves pro se guaranteed by tenth amendment to US constitutions.

Scott should receive the maximum sentence of seven and one half years.

Judges must learn not to dismiss 12 person jury trials in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions and that trials by jury are guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions.

8 New Mexico citizen Don Svet commits two third degree felony acts of extortion in writing.

COUNT 1 Svet orders $625 being taken from citizens Morales and Payne without due process [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm].

COUNT 2 Don Svet issues order of garnishment for $1,793.56 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm] without any cause of action.

COUNT 1 third degree felony extortion crime occurred March 10, 1998.

COUNT 2 third degree felony extortion crime occurred April 20, 1999.

Svet and others were sued in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit 2000-10289 guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions on October 20, 2000 for replevin and harassment for return of the $625 taken without due process hearing.

New Mexico 2000-10289 was fraudulently removed to federal court on November 8, 2000 without required certification stating under oath that replevin and harassment were federal questions.

Replevin, of course, is a state, not federal, issue.

Thus Svet and accomplices began to attempt to conceal himself [NMSA 30-01-09 A] from justice and New Mexico 2000-10289 was quashed by fraudulent removal to federal court [NMSA 30-01-09 B(3).

Therefore, tolling of time [NMSA 30-01-09] to bring felony extortion charges against Svet on COUNT 1 stopped 2 years and 8 months into the 5 year statute of limitations specified in NMSA 30-01-08].

Tolling of statute of limitations to bring felony extortion charges against Svet on COUNT 2 stopped 1 years and 7 months into the 5 year statute of limitations specified in NMSA 30-01-08].

RECOMMENDED ACTION 6: We ask that you prepare and serve criminal felony affidavit on Svet for prima facie [evidence in writing] case of felony extortion.

Svet should be given maximum sentence for two consecutive sentences of 3 years for each count for total of six years in prison
.

Following criminal activities which led to dismissal of civ 20023025 and 20010794 12 person jury trial lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions in violation of New Mexico statute 1-041: Dismissal of actions, Brennan then attempts to prevent Payne from filing appeal in 20010794. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm#gallegos.

Brennan's attempt to thwart an appeal in 20010794 sets into motion an unfortunate series criminal actions by judges Bosson, Wechsler, Alarid, Pickard, Castillo, Minzner, Maes, attorney general Patricia Madrid, New Mexico attorney general lawyers David Joseph Tourek, Kathleen K. O'Dea and Michael R. Jones which eventually involves may judges at the Tenth circuit and US supreme court.

Evidence of emails sent to governor Richardson and New Mexico chief judge Richardson suggest that that one or both were responsible for criminal solicitation of Cibola Internet Service to commit credit cards fraud.

New Mexico statutes defines

30-42-3. Definitions. As used in the Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]:

A. "racketeering" means any act that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of New Mexico and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, involving any of the following cited offenses: ...

(6) fraud, as provided in Section 30-16-6 NMSA 1978; ...
(12) extortion, as provided in Section 30-16-9 NMSA 1978; ...
(16) criminal solicitation, as provided in Section 30-28-3 NMSA 1978; ...

These are precisely the crimes committed in writing above. And all indicate a "pattern of racketeering activity"

30-42-5. Enforcement authority. The attorney general and the district attorneys of New Mexico shall each have authority to enforce the criminal provisions of the Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978] by initiating investigations, assisting grand juries, obtaining indictments, filing informations and complaints and prosecuting criminal cases.

According to 30-42-5 you are the appropriate individual to take appropriate action.

We, of course, wish to settle these unfortunate matters so we would appreciate your and mayor Chavez' help before matters get worse.

We will have to proceed to the US supreme court to get a writ to void Brown, Scott, Downes, and Benson's judgments if you do not respond affirmatively. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal\pacer\CITES%20BY%20TOPIC%20void%20judgment.htm.

We would appreciate your response on these matters by June 7, 2006.

Should you require more information, then please phone 292-7037.

Sincerely

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037


distribution

Mayor Martin Chávez martinchavez@cabq.gov

F James Sensenbrenner Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
Arlen Specter













New Mexico Criminal and Traffic Law Manual applicable statutes

Co-conspirators

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 addition to New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF
408 Galisteo St.,
PO Drawer 1508,
Santa Fe 87504
Information ........................................................... 827-6000

We really need to get these matters settled before they get far worse.

harassment


Brandenburg was elected.

New Mexico secretary of state office employee Tricia [elected officials 505-827-3621] reported on March 1, 2005 that both you and Bosson signed required oath of office.

Section 1. [Oath of officer.]

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.


We have a racket going on in the legal and judicial system in New Mexico and at the Tenth circuit. So let's try to do something about it. Legally, of course.


We continue to warn you.

Our legal project works because of Internet. The legal establishment wants to make invisible victims. The media helps the legal establishment.

Think of deficient education [along with stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and complacency] as basis for these problems whether lawyer or liberal arts educated bureaucrat or media person.

These guys wielded, before Internet, media information power. Now they are losing their media information power and having Internet information power used against them.

New Mexico supreme court chief judge Richard Bosson scheduled appeal to New Mexico appeals court for Morales and Payne two prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuits for breach of contract against former second judicial chief judge W John Brenman.

Bosson, of course, should have voided judgments of judges Brown and Scott.

Bosson, of course, is now personally involved in New Mexico felony crimes as a result of his involvement with former second judicial chief judge W John Brenman.



Albuquerque Journal

Bosson's misteps [pattern and practice, pattern of conduct - that why Morales and Payne always do TWO] at not voiding judgments have ensnared lots more judge in felony crimes.

Bosson, of course, is a prime suspect, along with New Mexico governor Bill Richardson [or his office] of criminal solititation of Cibola Internet Services to take-down pro se fights.

Let's see what Bosson, Brandenburg and Nakamura do?

Sent.

We really need to get matters settled before we write a specially-selected judge at the us supreme court [not scalia] for a rule 22 writ to void judgments.

Morales and Payne realized that working with lawyers was not going to get our money and legal remedy.

So that's what we are doing in the way we are doing it.

Pro se litigation is guaranteed by the 10th amendment to the us constitution so you don't have to use lowly-unintelligent, incompetent, and poorly-educated lawyers.



sent

Jeff Brinker, Jim Gosler appointed Sandia Fellows

By Neal Singer

Jim Gosler (5901) and Jeff Brinker (1846) have been appointed Sandia Fellows by Laboratory Director C. Paul Robinson.

They are the fifth and sixth Sandians so honored since the Laboratories were founded 57 years ago, and they already have plans to use their new positions -- which correspond to director of a line organization -- and distinctive capabilities to perform work that wouldn't have occurred to them before their appointments.

Says Jeff, "Maybe Gordon [Osbourn (1001), the only other active Fellow], Jim, and I will come up with a common denominator to find and work critical problems that would be of importance to the Laboratories. Maybe we can do something interesting instead of being disconnected entities."

Ordinarily, he said, "My world doesn't intersect with Jim's at all. But he has major issues he's identified. Maybe Gordon can provide modeling, I do the materials work, and Jim identifies the threats."

Jim is a widely recognized expert in areas of information security that are generally classified as "dark" areas. Jeff is an internationally recognized expert in materials science, particularly in the area of sol-gel processing of ceramics and self-assembling nanostructures.

Says Jim, "One of the loves of my life is what has historically been known as blackhatting. In the past, I've pulled together a collection of diverse technical people looking for vulnerabilities in weapons components that bad guys might attempt to exploit, with the idea of getting there before they do. Over the last 15 years, I've been deeply involved with the operational world and finding novel applications of technology to support that world. I suppose that broadens the definition of Sandia Fellow in the Labs; I don't fit the Brinker-Osbourn scientist mold. So we agreed that the three of us get together on problems of national interest where the blend of our expertise could be useful in finding solutions to these problems and perhaps provide seed material for others within the lab."

Gordon, Jim says, was one of the first to e-mail him congratulations and suggest further talks upon learning of his appointment.

Says Pace VanDevender, VP 1000, who supported Jeff's nomination and saw it through the intensive scrutiny required, "Jeff, who has been a Senior Scientist in Materials & Process Sciences Center 1800, is an internationally recognized materials scientist, and is best known as one of the founding fathers of the field of sol-gel processing. Jeff's work in the new field of nano-engineering has substantially contributed to establishing Sandia's credibility as a leader in the National Nanotechnology Initiative."

Open research vs. classified world

Sandia VP for Nonproliferation and Assessments Al Romig (5000) proposed both Jeff's and Jim's nomination.

"This award is given to honor Sandia researchers who have had a significant impact on the nation and their community," says Al. "While Jeff and Gordon have had a visible impact on the scientific community, Jim has done the same -- less visibly, obviously -- on national security for the intelligence community. Frankly, it's easier to measure papers, awards, and citations for scientists. Measuring impact in the classified world is based on our evaluation of the large impact that Jim's information technology applications have in the nation's intelligence community. That impact was highlighted in George Tenet's [Director of Central Intelligence] presentation of a major award to Jim in a private ceremony a few years ago. That was only one of many praises from senior intelligence people. These endorsements were used in supporting Jim's selection as a Sandia Fellow."

Jim, an expert in vulnerability assessment, "is mysterious for what he's done, and boy, has he done it well," quipped Al, who hired into Sandia on almost the same day as Jim and shared the same uncleared office in 1979.

Re Jeff, Al said, "One of the things Paul [Robinson, Labs President] likes to say is that Jeff almost owns Science and Nature magazines. It's true that Jeff has been a very prolific author there. In professional journals, he's one of the most highly cited authors we have at Sandia. He's almost without peer. He's also the only Sandian with the rights of a Sandia Fellow and at the University of New Mexico of a full professor. In addition to his extraordinary accomplishments, he is also more than ready, willing, and able to apply his expertise to solve problems that are critical to Sandia. There have been a number of issues critical to the national security enterprise when DOE looked across its labs and Jeff was the only one who could do it, and he did it."

Exhilarated, honored

Says Jim, "One thing I want to do with the remaining parts of my career is to take all that I have learned technically, programmatically, and operationally and apply that as best I can helping the people back East solve problems relating to the war on terrorism, and help Sandians apply their wonderful technical capabilities in supporting those efforts. The three of us are pretty different in our background, so we may get a lot done.

"I'm really exhilarated and honored to have this opportunity; I had an opportunity to work with Gus Simmons [a retired Sandia Fellow] in my early years. He had a significant impact on me at the Lab. He took the time to provide input and guidance. He helped me along the way. So it's particularly delightful for me to now hold the same position." ...


Gosler and Simmons: Sandia labs involvment in the spy string on Iran.

We tried to get Gosler and Folley in 1996 for high tech terrorism.


New Mexico Statute 41-4-4. Granting immunity from tort liability; authorizing exceptions.

A. A governmental entity and any public employee while acting within the scope of duty are granted immunity from liability for any tort except as waived by the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act [28-22-1 NMSA 1978] and by Sections 41-4-5 through 41-4-12 NMSA 1978. Waiver of this immunity shall be limited to and governed by the provisions of Sections 41-4-13 through 41-4-25 NMSA 1978, but the waiver of immunity provided in those sections does not waive immunity granted pursuant to the Governmental Immunity Act [41-13-1 NMSA 1978].

B. Unless an insurance carrier provides a defense, a governmental entity shall provide a defense, including costs and attorney fees, for any public employee when liability is sought for:

(1) any tort alleged to have been committed by the public employee while acting within the scope of his duty; or

(2) any violation of property rights or any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States or the constitution and laws of New Mexico when alleged to have been committed by the public employee while acting within the scope of his duty.

C. A governmental entity shall pay any award for punitive or exemplary damages awarded against a public employee under the substantive law of a jurisdiction other than New Mexico, including other states, territories and possessions and the United States of America, if the public employee was acting within the scope of his duty.

D. A governmental entity shall pay any settlement or any final judgment entered against a public employee for:

(1) any tort that was committed by the public employee while acting within the scope of his duty; or

(2) a violation of property rights or any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States or the constitution and laws of New Mexico that occurred while the public employee was acting within the scope of his duty.

E. A governmental entity shall have the right to recover from a public employee the amount expended by the public entity to provide a defense and pay a settlement agreed to by the public employee or to pay a final judgment if it is shown that, while acting within the scope of his duty, the public employee acted fraudulently or with actual intentional malice causing the bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage resulting in the settlement or final judgment.

F. Nothing in Subsections B, C and D of this section shall be construed as a waiver of the immunity from liability granted by Subsection A of this section or as a waiver of the state's immunity from suit in federal court under the eleventh amendment to the United States constitution.

G. The duty to defend as provided in Subsection B of this section shall continue after employment with the governmental entity has been terminated if the occurrence for which damages are sought happened while the public employee was acting within the scope of duty while the public employee was in the employ of the governmental entity.

H. The duty to pay any settlement or any final judgment entered against a public employee as provided in this section shall continue after employment with the governmental entity has terminated if the occurrence for which liability has been imposed happened while the public employee was acting within the scope of his duty while in the employ of the governmental entity.

I. A jointly operated public school, community center or athletic facility that is used or maintained pursuant to a joint powers agreement shall be deemed to be used or maintained by a single governmental entity for the purposes of and subject to the maximum liability provisions of Section 41-4-19 NMSA 1978.

J. For purposes of this section, a "jointly operated public school, community center or athletic facility" includes a school, school yard, school ground, school building, gymnasium, athletic field, building, community center or sports complex that is owned or leased by a governmental entity and operated or used jointly or in conjunction with another governmental entity for operations, events or programs that include sports or athletic events or activities, child-care or youth programs, after-school or before-school activities or summer or vacation programs at the facility.

K. A fire station that is used for community activities pursuant to a joint powers agreement between the fire department or volunteer fire department and another governmental entity shall be deemed to be operated or maintained by a single governmental entity for the purposes of and subject to the maximum liability provisions of Section 41-4-19 NMSA 1978. As used in this subsection, "community activities" means operations, events or programs that include sports or athletic events or activities, child care or youth programs, after-school or before-school activities, summer or vacation programs, health or education programs and activities or community events.

Contracts in a nut shell

Claude D Rowher
Anthony M Skrocki

CHAPTER 15

A FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEW

The following sequence of analysis is offered as a suggested approach to a contracts problem.

A. Was a contract formed? 1. Initial analysis looks for manifestation of assent to a bargain by the parties, usually including offer, acceptance and consideration.

a) Was there an offer?
b) Was it accepted?

Did the parties manifest mutual assent in another fashion? (e.g., “A and B signed a written contract.” In which case, neither is technically an offeror nor an offeree.)

c) Was there consideration?

2. Alternative analysis (if no sure contract found above) looks for enforcement of a promise based upon promissory estoppel.

a) Was there a promise calculated to induce reliance, etc. (Rest. § 90)

b) Did the other party in fact reasonably rely?

c) To what extent do the circumstances require or justify enforcement of the promise or some lesser remedy?

B. Is the contract within the statute of frauds?

1. If so, is there a sufficient writing?

2. If not, is there another basis for complying with the statute? (e.g., part performance)

3. If not, is the party seeking to rely upon the statute of frauds estopped from doing so?

C. Contract Modification

1. Did the parties mutually agree to modify their contract?

2. Was consideration present or was the requirement of consideration excused by statute or by another established exception? If neither, can promissory estoppel be used to enforce the promise to modify?

3. Was the contract as modified within the statute of frauds and if so, was it satisfied? (See B supra).

4. Did the contract contain a writing requirement? Was it waived or satisfied?

5. If the agreement is not enforceable as a modification of the contract, can it still be effective as a waiver of a condition in the contract?

D. Interpretation

1. What are the express terms of the contract?

a) Is one party attempting to add to or modify terms of a writing by use of extrinsic evidence of a prior agreement thereby creating a parol evidence rule issue?

b) Is one party attempting to influence the meaning of terms in a writing by offering evidence as to the parties stated intentions as to the meaning of that term?

c) Apply general rules of interpretation to determine meaning of language in writing.

2. What are the implied terms of the contract?

a) Implied from the parties’ course of performance of this contract or course of prior dealings in similar contracts or from general usages of the trade.

b) Implied by parties conduct or implied from other circumstances in the case.

3. What terms will the court construe to be part of the contract without regard to the parties intentions?

a) Constructive conditions.

b) An obligation of good faith or good faith and fair dealing.

E. Defenses

Do the facts indicate the presence of any legitimate issue concerning a possible defense or basis for reforming a contract? (Note that one may have defense issues relating to the original contract and possibly separate defense issues relating to a contract modification.) Defenses for which you should check include:

1. Lack of capacity

2. Duress

3. Undue influence

4. Mistake

5. Misrepresentation

6. Illegality or violation of public policy

7. Unconscionability (procedural and substantive)..

8. Bad faith. While included on the list, bad faith is not generally recognized as a defense to contract formation in the absence of some fiduciary relationship. Bad faith is relevant as an issue in contract performance and enforcement where the obligation to act in good faith can impact upon duties of performance and the presence or absence of breach. ....


Torts in a nutshell
Edward J. Kionka

PART I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

PROLOGUE: ORIGINS, OBJECTIVES, AND OVERVIEWS OF TORT LIABILITY

§ 1-1. The Definitional Dilemma

“Tort” is an elusive concept. The word is not used in common speech. Although it describes one of the major pigeon-holes of the law, the concept has defied a number of attempts to formulate a useful definition. The dilemma is that any definition which is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass all torts is so general as to be almost meaningless.

Closely related to the definitional dilemma is the classic question, is there a general principle of tort liability? Or are there only the laws of the individual “tarts,” a miscellaneous and more or less unconnected collection of nominate civil actions grouped together merely for convenience of reference? Legal scholars have debated this issue for more than a century, without resolving it satisfactorily.

If there is any such general principle, it has yet to be adopted by Anglo—American courts and legislatures. The common law developed as a system of individual named torts—trespass, deceit, slander, and later assault and battery, conversion, and so on—each with its own more or less unique rules. In fact, until 1859 there was no legal treatise bearing the name “torts.” As yet, except for the tort called “negligence,” there has been little synthesis of the nominate torts into larger categories.

The one common element of all torts is that someone has sustained a loss or harm as the result of some act or failure to act by another. Beyond this, accurate generalization becomes impossible. Virtually all of the infinitely diverse forms of human activity—driving a vehicle, engaging in business, speaking, writing, owning and using real or personal property, making love—may be a source of harm and therefore of tort liability. This diversity of conduct resists broad generalizations, and so does the tort liability on which it is based.

Tort law is perhaps the last bastion of the common law. Even in this age of legislation, with its proliferation of codes and uniform acts, tort law remains uncodified and in large part unaffected by statute. This may tell us something about its fundamental nature. In any event, in view of the fact that it evolved a posteriori, inductively, from particular cases, and not a priori, it is not surprising that a number of diverse and independent torts emerged. And perhaps this very diversity results, overall, in a If there is any such general principle, it has yet to be adopted by Anglo—American courts and legislatures. The common law developed as a system of individual named torts—trespass, deceit, slander, and later assault and battery, conversion, and so on—each with its own more or less unique rules. In fact, until 1859 there was no legal treatise bearing the name “torts.” As yet, except for the tort called “negligence,” there has been little synthesis of the nominate torts into larger categories.

The one common element of all torts is that someone has sustained a loss or harm as the result of some act or failure to act by another. Beyond this, accurate generalization becomes impossible. Virtually all of the infinitely diverse forms of human activity—driving a vehicle, engaging in business, speaking, writing, owning and using real or personal property, making love—may be a source of harm and therefore of tort liability. This diversity of conduct resists broad generalizations, and so does the tort liability on which it is based. ....

One might also ask whether our law would be appreciably different even if such a general principle were announced. The codes of the European and other civil law countries usually contain a provision such as § 1382 of the French Civil Code:

Every act whatsoever of an individual which causes injury to another obliges the one by whose fault [faute] it has occurred to make reparation for it.

Yet the tort law of these countries is remarkably similar to ours. The California Civil Code includes some general tort liability provisions (e.g. §§ 1708, 1709, 1714), but the structure and rules of California tort law are indistinguishable in form from those of other states. If a definition of “tort” is necessary, it will have to be something in the nature of this:

A civil wrong, wherein one person’s conduct causes a compensable injury to the person, property, or recognized interest of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law. Obviously, this does not tell us very much. To say that the breach of a law-imposed duty creates tort liability begs the question. Moreover, not all violations of legal duties are torts. This does not even distinguish tort from breach of contract, ....