We believe that this is an potentially explosive situation

perhap should have been

We believe that this is a potentially explosive situation

board_of_directors@slfcu.org
pporter@slfcu.org
cjillson@slfcu.org
mayor@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
mainewayne@msn.com
pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,
                           Plaintiffs,

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

PACER docket as of  Tuesday March 18, 2008: see to the left of blue square.



Further evidence is PACER docket as of Thursday March 20, 2008: see date/time to left of green square. Note entries 144 and 145.



Note posted date of Mrach 30, 2008 for MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                M Cristina Armijo
                                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

Dee Vance Benson
Born 1948 in Sandy, UT
Federal Judicial Service: U. S. District Court, District of Utah
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 16, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089;
Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1991, and received commission on September 16, 1991.
Served as chief judge, 1999-present.
Education: Brigham Young University, B.A., 1973 Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, J.D., 1976

Assistant US attorney John Zavitz is a defendant in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 6293 which was fraudulently removed to federal court.
FISC judge Dee Vance Benson is in the matter and has issued to void judgements.

Here is the first 01CV 1198.

The person that emailed the Fouratt appointment document visited with Morales and Payne for several hours Friday March 14, 2008.

Lots of people who are upset with the legal and law enforcement systems are sharing information and strategies.

Senate vote. 12. M. Christina Armijo, NM -Nov 6th, 2001 – vote 100-0

10.3 Filing of Non-Conforming Papers.

(a) Acceptance of Papers. The Clerk will not refuse to file any paper because it is not in proper form.

(b) Signature. Any paper filed without signature will be stricken unless it is signed within fourteen (14) calendar days after the omission is called to the party's attention.

(c) Non-Conforming Papers. The Clerk will give to the submitting party written notice of a deficiency and deadline for correcting the deficiency. The Clerk will also provide any applicable forms and instruction sheets. Failure to remedy a deficiency or to show good cause for non-compliance within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of notice may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 41.2.

1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

1 Judge M Christina Armijo ORDER
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#armijo2

2 Magistrate judge Garcia Hearing scheduling
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#garcia2

Distribution

Certified return receipt requested

Matthew J Dykman,Clerk
United States District Court
333 Lomas Blvd. N.W.
Albuquerque New Mexico 87102

board_of_directors@slfcu.org
pporter@slfcu.org
cjillson@slfcu.org
mayor@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
mainewayne@msn.com

01/17/2007 24 REPLY to Response to Motions to seal and for mandatory judicial notice filed by Robin K Carman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1# 2 Exhibit A2# 3 Exhibit A3)(vv) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

06/14/2007 87 ORDER of Reference by Judge Martha Vazquez (jmg) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

-----Original Message-----
From: john s Williamson [mailto:thewellguy@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:12 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: writ of mandamus

Mr. Payne,

Thank you for making contact this afternoon by phone and again by e-mail. Judge Black has ordered us not to file any more papers in any court for any reason which, exceeds his authority. A writ of mandamus is one of the extraordinary writs like the writ of habeas corpus. So, I'm hoping he will not be coming back at us again for contempt of court.

Yes, my wife Nancy(BS RN, NCSN) and I have met Bob Carmen and his wife Robin.

Mr. Carmen is also in touch with a number of other people fighting other big issues with our corrupt courts. Mr. Carmen and I confer regularly on various issues.

He has earned his para-legal certificate.

In our battles, we have been claiming 28 USC 1691 violations on all orders and papers coming out of the court that do not have the required seal of the court and signature of the court clerk. Even the initial summons they tried to serve upon us lacked the seal of the court and the clerks signature.

How sloppy can they get? (I don't know if any of this might apply to your case)

Case law supporting 28 USC 1691 holds that all process, all orders etc. issued must have the seal of the court and the signature of the clerk to verify that it is a valid order. Something akin to our having to go get papers notarized. Just one more of the myriad of miss-behaviors we have to watch them for.

Well I guess it's going to get cold tonight and maybe even snow a little here in the city. Stay warm and if I can help with anything please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,
John Williamson, BS IAED, MGWC (well driller)

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:54 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: RE: Statute of Limitations

I don't know how I received your email (below) but I'm sure glad I did.

I too have a case pending before Judge M.C. Armijo, and the following might interest you.

1. I FOIA'd her (4) statutorily required credentials (presidential commission, senate confirmation, etc.) and she has NONE.

2. The DOJ atty's have no Power of Atty to represent any entity known as United States of America (see 28 USC 1344 and 1345 for the statute = only entity is United States, period. "Statutes conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed".

3. She has also told me to stop filing pleadings that disclose their fraud, or be sanctioned... !

I wish you guys the best of luck. Perhaps it's time to do a RICO action in STATE court... states have concurrent jurisdiction per the RICO statute. I can send you the US Supreme Court case citations if you wish (Rotella v. Wood comes to mind)

I am not an attorney, just a concerned Citizen trying to shine some light on the dark forces controlling our country... I am a paralegal, and have been studying this fraud for at least ten years. My main beef is w/the IRS, and the Judiciary that allows them to rip us all off.

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:02 AM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: writ of mandamus

Mr. Payne,

Information about your issues with M C Armijo was forwarded to me.

I am a water well driller, my name is John Williamson, I am a certified Master Ground Water Contractor, you can verify my information at ngwa.org by the link to contractors and wellowener.org and the link to contractors.

I have not yet fully digested the information about your issues but, have not yet read that you have used a writ of mandamus to compel Armijo and others to do their jobs.

I just filed a writ of mandamus with the 10th circuit against USDC NM judge Black to compel him to obey the law and void his orders and judgments for lack of jurisdiction, fraud etc.

Also we have all the USDC judges credentials and M C Armijo is missing (I believe, I'll have to double check) all 4 required credentials to hold her seat.

If I'm not of any assistance, please forgive my intrusion. Sincerely,

The pleading should not have been accepted for filing, as it is in violation of the Court’s earlier order directing that no further pleadings be accepted in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ pleading [#101] is stricken from the record.

WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,
                           Plaintiffs,

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

1 US District Court did not send plaintiffs copies of documents 103 - through 135entered on the docket, either by electronic transmission or by mail, in NSA lawsuit CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG as required by LOCAL CIVIL RULES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.

5.6 Service by Electronic Transmission.

(a) By the Court. The Court or Clerk may serve and give notice by electronic transmission, in lieu of service and notice by mail, to any person who has a written request, on file with the Clerk, to receive service and notice by electronic transmission.

As the court may know

Violation of procedural rules.

A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; ²² that is, where proper rules of practice have not been followed, or where some necessary act has been omitted or has been done in an improper manner.²³ Directory rules of procedure are limited to what is required to be done, and simply regulate the orderly manner in which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Mandatory rules, however, prescribe, in addition to specific required actions, the result that will follow if those requirements are not met, and failure to comply with a mandatory rule renders a judgment void. ²⁴

Rules relating to service of process are mandatory, and the failure to comply with them, if a judgment is rendered against a party who was not served in accordance with those rules (and who did not waive service of citation or appear voluntarily) renders the judgment void.²⁵

¹⁷ See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17.

¹⁸ As to the opportunity to be heard as a requisite of due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 839 et seq.

¹⁹ See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645.

²⁰ See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630.

²¹ See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Moore v. Smith, 177 Va 621, 15 S.E.2d 48; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630.

²² See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841.

²³ See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386.

²⁴ See Autry v. Autry (Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 830 S.W.2d 140, in which the trial court’s failure to formally comply with a rule of the judicial District Courts of Harris County regarding the regulation of the docket did not make the judgment void.

²⁵ See Fuller v. Hurley (WD Va) 559 F Supp 313; Blume v. United States (DC SD) 40 BR 551; Ex parte Wilson Lumber Co. (Ala) 410 So.2d 407, appeal after remand (Ala App) 440 So.2d 1093; Beam v. Adams (Alaska) 749 P.2d 366; Barragan v. Banco BCH (4th Dist) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 232 Cal.Rptr. 758; Henry v. Hiwassee Land Co., 246

As a court may know

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

"...without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ""

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

2 Plaintiffs were not properly served garnish write documents by assisant US attorney John Zavitz.

See Payne frist affidavit entered as docket entries 76 and 77 in case 01-634 and second affidavit 2 correctly entered as docket entry 136 in case 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG.

Morales affidavit of improper service is posted by PACER and at docket entry 137 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

3 Zavitz "UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING" is appparently a motion; however, Zavitz did not contact plaintiffs as required by

LOCAL CIVIL RULES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.

4 Opposed Motions Where Any Party Appears Pro Se.

(a) Movant must request concurrence of each party, at least three (3) working days before filing a motion. Movant must recite that concurrence was refused or explain why concurrence could not be obtained. A motion that omits recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence may be summarily denied.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

There can be no fair hearing in New Mexico since then federal chief magistrate judge William Deaton told Payne and Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow at a meeting on 3/22/01 that it would be impossible to have fair hearings in New Mexico.

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Magistrate William Deaton; Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 3/22/01 at 11:00 am in Albuquerque, NM; provisional discovery plan and IPTR due 3/12/01 (cc: counsel*) [12k] [3 pages]

Therefore then federal chief judge James A Parker ordered in all five fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuits.

1 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 42 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that this case has been reassigned to Judge William F. Downes (cc: all counsel by dm) [21k] [1 page]

2 06/12/2001 06/12/2001 16 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico; and reassigning this case to the Hon. William F. Downes, Chief U.S. District Judge District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel*) [7k] [1 page]

3 10/25/2001 10/26/2001 6 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Judge James A. Parker reassigning case to Chief Judge Dee V. Benson for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) [8k] [1 page]

4 03/27/2001 03/29/2001 69 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of NM and reassigning case to Chief U.S. District Judge William F. Downes of District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel) [23k] [1 page]

5 10/24/2001 10/26/2001 13 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico recuse in this action, and this case is reassigned to the Honorable Dee V Benson, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) [8k] [1 page]

Conclusion is clear that "all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico" are recused for the reason stated by former chief magistrate judge William Deaton that Morales and Payne cannot get a impartial hearing in New Mexico.

WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,
                           Plaintiffs,

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                Martha Vazquez
                                                                CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date