The Hearing


The Iran spy sting story got out because of
Electronic Engineering Times, January 22, 1996, p. 84.

How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started viz

Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008


First posted
Wednesday March 12, 2008 15:23
Updated
Tuesday November 11, 2008 06:57

Tuesday November 11, 2008 06:56

We converted Lay letter to text on Monday November 10, 2008.

We need to study NCUA rules.


NCUA loss claim page.

NCUA letter arrived on Thursday November 7, 2008.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#ncua












National Credit Union Administration.
REGION V
October 31, 2008


Sam Felix, Chairperson
Supervisory Committee
Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
3707 Juan Tabo Blvd., NE Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Felix:

Enclosed is a letter of complaint from William H. Payne concerning issues related to the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

Please:
o Review Mr. Payne's complaint in accordance with the instructions and suggestions set forth in the enclosed copy of Section 4.12 of the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions (Guide).
o Reply directly to Mr. Payne (this is a change from section 4.12(1) of the Guide).
o Send us a copy of your reply within the next 25 business days along with the
documentation supporting your review and conclusion.

By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. Payne that:
o You will handle the complaint.
o We will review your reply to determine if further action by this office is needed.
o He should submit any further correspondence on this matter directly to you at the above address.

To be of assistance, I am enclosing information on the National Credit Union Administration and the complaint process. In addition, we have forwarded the original email from Mr. Payne to your email address due to the size of the files/links included.

If there are questions, please contact the Division of Supervision at 602-302-6000.

                                                                   Sincerely,


                                                                    Kelly Lay
                                                                    Director, Division of Supervision
V/DOS/MMA:ma
FCU 05851-K6
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Bill Payne

1230 West Washington Street, Suite 301- Tempe, A2 85281 - Office (602) 302-6000 - Fax (602) 302- 6024 - E-mail: region5@ncua.gov

CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

Who is NCUA?

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is an independent agency under the Executive Branch of the United States Government. NCUA charters, regulates, examines, and supervises federal credit unions. We also insure member accounts in all federal credit unions and in most state-chartered credit unions. You can identify a federally insured credit union by the NCUA logo displayed at teller stations and in advertisements. The Federal Credit Union Act, accessible on our website at www.ncua.gov sets forth the authority and responsibilities of NCUA and the powers of federal credit unions.

Where is NCUA's Region V?

The regional office is in Tempe, Arizona, and supervises federal credit unions in Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

What is a credit union?

Credit unions are not-for-profit, democratically controlled, member-owned, financial institutions serving members who share a common bond of employment, association, or residence. Credit unions were established to meet the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means. Credit unions are organized as cooperatives. The manager and staff are paid, but the board and other officials are volunteers elected to office by the members.

The board of directors directs and controls the credit union and hires or elects officials, management, and staff to run the day-to-day operations. If the federal credit union has a credit committee, the committee is responsible for acting on loan applications and appointing loan officers. If the federal credit union does not have a credit committee, the board of directors appoints loan officers.

As a regulator, NCUA does not own, operate, or control credit unions, nor do we establish their operating policies and procedures. We do not have the authority to overturn individual lending decisions made by federal credit unions. We also cannot dictate the range of services they offer.

How can I tell if a credit union has a federal or state charter?

By the name. Federal credit unions have the word "federal" in their names. State chartered credit unions do not. For example, XYZ Federal Credit Union would be a federal charter; XYZ Credit Union would be a state charter.

Who is responsible for investigating member complaints in federal credit unions?

The Federal Credit Union Act mandates the appointment of a supervisory committee in each federal credit union.

The supervisory committee consists of volunteers. They are responsible for the annual audit, the verification of members' accounts, and the investigation of member complaints.

What do I do if I have a problem with a federal credit union?

Start by asking the credit union to correct the problem. You can do this orally or in writing. If you believe the credit union's staff is unresponsive to your inquiry or complaint, address your concerns in writing to the president/chief executive officer of the credit union or to the chairperson of the supervisory committee. You do not need the names of these officials to write them. Address your correspondence by title and send it to the credit union address shown on your statement of account.

How can NCUA help me with my complaint?

Each region has staff available to answer questions, offer guidance, and assist with member complaints. We do not have the resources or expertise to offer legal or accounting assistance. How do I contact Region V staff if I have a question?

Call us at 602-302-6000                           Write to us at:

                                                                   Director, Division of Supervision
                                                                   1230 W. Washington Street, Suite 301
                                                                   Tempe, AZ 85281


Fax correspondence to us at 602-302-6024 Email us at R5DOSMail@ncua gov.

How do I file a complaint with NCUA?

If you are unsuccessful in resolving your complaint directly with the federal credit union, you may file a formal complaint by writing us at the address shown above. No special form is required. You may also fax or email your complaint to us at the fax number or website shown above.

Your letter, fax, or email message needs to identify the full name and address of the credit union, explain the problem clearly and briefly, and state what action you want the credit union to take to resolve the problem. If you send documentation supporting your complaint, use legible photocopies. Do not send us your original statements or other documents. If you have already communicated with the federal credit union in writing, enclose a copy of the correspondence along with the reply you received. Be sure to include your name and postal address in the letter or email message.

What will NCUA do when you receive my written complaint?

Our standard procedure is to acknowledge receipt of your complaint, log it into our records, and ask the federal credit union's supervisory committee to conduct an investigation. We ask the supervisory committee to reply directly to you, or delegate staff to reply, and send a copy to us. The process generally takes from 2 to 6 weeks.

Depending on the credit union's response or the type of complaint, we may take additional steps or use a different approach. If we do, we will notify you in writing.

What consumer protection laws does the National Credit Union Administration enforce in federal credit unions?

We enforce the following laws in federal credit unions:

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation B. This law prohibits discrimination in credit granting based on the applicant's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract). It also prohibits discrimination against an applicant because all of his or her income derives from a public assistance program or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. In addition, the law requires creditors to notify applicants of action taken on their applications and to report credit history in the names of both spouses on an account.

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation E. This law establishes the basic rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of consumers who use electronic fund transfer services and of financial institutions offering these services.

The Expedited Funds Availability Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation CC. This law establishes rules and timeframes for financial institutions to make deposits available for withdrawal. The law also requires each financial institution to disclose its funds availability policies to customers or members when they open their account.

The Truth in Lending Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z. This law promotes the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and costs. The regulation also gives

2
consumers the right to cancel credit transactions secured by a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling, regulates certain credit card practices, and provides a means for fair and timely resolution of credit billing disputes.

The Truth In Savings Act, which requires financial institutions to disclose fees, dividend rates, and other terms concerning accounts to members or potential members before they open their share accounts. Part 706 of the National Credit Union Administration's Rules and Regulations. This law prohibits a number of unfair credit practices, including the pyramiding of late charges, and requires a notice of disclosure to cosigners before they become obligated on a loan.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, This law primarily governs credit-reporting agencies, whose regulator is the Federal Trade Commission. However, the law requires credit unions and other creditors to: (1) notify consumers when they take adverse action on the basis of information in consumer reports; and (2) supply customers with the name and address of the consumer-reporting agency used.

Part 716 of the National Credit Union Administration's Rules and Regulations, This law: (1) requires a credit union to provide notice to members about its privacy policies and practices; (2) describes the conditions under which a credit union may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties; and (3) provides a method for consumers to prevent a credit union from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by "opting out" of that disclosure.

In federal credit unions, NCUA is also the enforcement authority for:

o Consumer Leasing, Regulation M. This regulation implements the consumer leasing portions of the Truth in Lending Act, and requires meaningful disclosures to lessees for comparing consumer lease terms with other leases and credit transactions.

o Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This law was enacted to regulate debt collection practices and eliminate abusive practices by debt collectors.

NCUA cannot represent consumers in settling claims or recovering damages. However, if your complaint brings a violation to our attention, we will take steps to ensure the federal credit union complies with applicable laws and regulations.

What if the complaint is not resolved to my satisfaction?

Complaints caused by error or misunderstanding is often resolved voluntarily by federal credit unions. However, many complaints stem from factual or contractual disputes between the federal credit union and the member. If you and the credit union are unable to reach a mutually agreeable settlement in such a situation, only a court of law can impose a remedy and award damages. We recommend you consult an attorney for guidance if you want to consider pursuing a legal remedy.

Who should I contact if my complint involves a financial institution other than a federal credit union? ?

If your complaint concerns a state chartered credit union, please see our web page for:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

3

If your complaint concerns a federal savings and loan (S&L) or a federally chartered savings banks (F.S.B.), you should contact:

The Office of Thrift Supervision
Office of Consumer Programs
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20552
(202) 906-6237 1-800-842-6929
E-mail: Costumer.cpmplaints@ots.treas.gov
Internet: http://www.ots.treas.gov

If your complaint concerns a national bank, you should contact:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Customer Assistance Group
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3710
Houston, TX 77010
1-800-613-6743
FAX: 1-713-336-4301
E-mail: customer.assistance@occ.treas.gov
Internet: http://www.occ.treas.gov

If your complaint concerns a state bank regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, you should contact:

Federal Reserve Board
Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
Washington, D. C. 20551
(202) 452-3946
Internet: www.federalreserve.gov

If your complaint concerns a federally insured state bank not regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, please contact:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429
(202) 942-3100 1-800-934-FDIC
E-mail: consumer@fdic.gov
Internet: www.fdic.gov

If your complaint concerns a credit reporting agency or a lender other than a credit union, a bank, or a savings and loan, you should contact:

Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20580
(202) 326-2222
E-mail: consumerline@ftd.gov
Internet: www.ftc.gov

4


Monday November 10, 2008 12:32

"SLFCU lawyer apparently wrote a very threatening letter which Morales opened."

Morales appears to be correct.


Phil Sisneros psisneros@nmag.gov

We've met Phil Sisneros. He offered to set up a meeting with Gary King.
Morales reported by phone that this is a lawyer threat letter.

We're going to make every effort to get our money back, then send Jillson, Hammar, Zavitz, Armijo, and Garcia to prison for felony theft of $22,036.00. And get notaries Strong and Martinez notatary licences removed too.

NCUA loss claim page.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hammarthreat






Hammar keeps sending bogus court order with no FILED stamp.










Thursday November 6, 2008 15:43

We'll be posting the Hammar threatening letter soon. But we have other business to attend to.

Morales and Payne signed Herrera letter.

Thursday November 6, 2008 13:56

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#herrera

Honorable Mary Herrera
Secretary of State
New Mexico State Capitol
325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300
Santa Fe, NM 87503
MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us

Dear Ms Herrera:

New Mexico Notary Public Handbook states
VI. Removal from Office (14-12A-26) A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he: ...

E. commits a malfeasance in office.

Tuesday afternoon September 23, 2008 a Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] notary public attempt to persuade William H Payne to sign an affidavit of "forged endorsement" in apparent in violation of (14-12A-10) Avoidance of Influence.

Thursday afternoon October 23, 2008 a second SLFCU notary public refused to notarize fraud loss claim affidavits submitted by Arthur R Morales and William H Payne in apparent violation of (14-12A-8) Refusal to notarize.

Certification of a Notary Public’s Acts (14-12A-22) states
K. Official Misconduct. “Official misconduct” means: 1. a notary public’s performance of an act prohibited, or failure to perform an act mandated ...

Removal from Office (14-12A-26) states
A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he
...
E. commits a malfeasance in office.

$22,036.00 was fraudulently removed from our retirement-protected SLFCU saving accounts using a bogus federal court order as justification.

Our SLFCU savings accounts are federally insured by NCUA.

Manager at New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union and NCUA fraud investigator David told us to submit loss claim through SLFCU.

But, of course, SLFCU refuses to process our affidavits which where notarized at the New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union on Thursday afternoon October 23, 2008

Who investigates for the State of New Mexico our two notary malfeasance prima facie [all evidence of guilt is in writing or in mp3 audio recordings] complaint and then forwards the recommendation to Governor Richardson that the two SLFCU notary publics be removed for malfeasance in office.

We feel that this is a best way to proceed to file our fraud loss claims with NCUA [ NCUA loss claim page] to get our money back within three days of receipt of our claims.

Please respond email by close of business on Friday October 7, 2008.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,


Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@comcast.net

distribution

dft@newmex.com
Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us
James.Flores@state.nm.us
angel.espinoza@state.nm.us
region5@ncua.gov
mayor@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov
kmccabe@cabq.gov
mcastro@cabq.gov
mcallaway@cabq.gov
dbowdtch@cabq.gov
rshultz@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil
board_of_directors@slfcu.org









Thursday November 6, 2008 11:02

Phil Sisneros psisneros@nmag.gov

FFWe've met Phil Sisneros. He offered to set up a meeting with Gary King.

Looks like we have a prima facie case of attempted cover-up of fraud because evidence of guilt is in writing an mp3 recordings.
National Credit Union Administration Legal Opinion Letters
Nothing in the FCU Act or the National Credit Union Administration's (NCUA) regulations, however, precludes an FCU from restricting the availability of certain services to members, provided the FCU has a rational basis for doing so and member have notice of the policy.

Denial of notary services captured in mp3. NCUA Directory

As a Notary Public you are a state official serving an important function. Your role as an impartial witness to the signatures on documents and the affixing of your seal plays an important role in the prevention of fraud and protection of the parties involved. It is your responsibility to determine that a person signing a document is the person he or she claims to be.

New Mexico Notary Public Handbook
(14-12A-13) Intent to Deceive. A notary shall not perform any official action with the intent to deceive or defraud. Strong.

(14-12A-10) Avoidance of Influence.

A. A notary public shall not influence a person either to enter into or avoid a transaction involving a notarial act by the notary public, except that the notary may advise against a transaction if the notary public knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or the associated transaction is unlawful.

Strong tried to get Payne to sign "forged endorsement" affidavit.

X. Certification of a Notary Public’s Acts (14-12A-22)

K. Official Misconduct. “Official misconduct” means:
1. a notary public’s performance of an act prohibited, or failure to perform an act mandated, by this act or by any other law in connection with a notarial act by the notary public; or
2. a notary public’s performance of an official act in a manner found by the governor to be negligent or against the public interest.

Martinez is guilty of 1 for refusing to notarize Morales' and Payne fraud loss affidavits.

VI. Removal from Office (14-12A-26) A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he:
A. submits an application for appointment as a Notary Public which contains a false statement; B. is or has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor arising out of a notarial act performed by him;
C. engages in the unauthorized practice of law;
D. ceases to be a New Mexico resident; or
E. commits a malfeasance in office.

Strong committed malfeasance in office in writing.

Martinez committed malfeasance in office verbally in mp3 recordiing

From:bpayne37@comcast.net
To:amorales58@comcast.net (art morales)
CC:bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject:herrera or ncua first
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:41:23 AM

We have two notary problems.

1 Strong for trying to get me to sign false forged endorcement affidiavit.
2 Martinez for refusing to notarize NCUA loss claim affidavits.

We probably should do the secretary of state notary complaints

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/sos-notary.html

before filing the NCUA loss claim for the reason that these complaints will explain SLFCU's malfeasance in either settling or forwarding our fraud loss claim to NCUA?

Let me know your thoughts.

Morales reported by phone that this is a lawyer threat letter.

We're going to make every effort to get our money back, then send Jillson, Hammar, Zavitz, Armijo, and Garcia to prison for felony theft of $22,026.00. And get notaries Strong and Martinez notatary licences removed too.

NCUA loss claim page.



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hammarthreat





Tuesday November 4, 2008 14:09

This is envelope a. It arrived in mail on Thursday October 30, 2008












Friday October 31, 2008 07:41



This is envelop a. It arrived in mail on Thursday October 30, 2008









Wednesday October 29, 2008 10:58

Morales insisted that a hand-delivered copy of our email to the SLFCU board be delivered.

Morales also insisted, like he was doing with SLFCU lawyer Hammer, to get an affidavit of delivery.

At about 09:35 Payne asked SLFCU receiptionist for notary service. It was denied.

Here the denial conversation in mp3 format.




Payne left the affidavits and Board of Directors email with George Castillo.

Payne then went to New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union to tell manager what happened.

Manager responded that Payne is a member/owner of SLFCU [a credit union, not a bank] and therefore has rights which include complaining to the Board of Directors.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#handdelivery
AFFIDAVIT

HAND DELIVERY OF


1 Tuesday October 28, 2008 16:54

Hand carried hard copy and notarized on October 23, 2008.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#board

2 Payne fraud loss affidavit

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#paynencua

3 Morales faud loss affidavit notarized on October 23, 2008.

Eight page affidavit in MS Word format.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moralesncua


to SLFCU on Wednesday October 29, 2008 TIME ________________


____________________________________________
William H Payne
NOTARIZED






Thursday October 30, 2008 06:58

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:17 PM
To: board_of_directors@slfcu.org
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; rshultz@cabq.gov; dbowdtch@cabq.gov; mcallaway@cabq.gov; mcastro@cabq.gov; kmccabe@cabq.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov; region5@ncua.gov; angel.espinoza@state.nm.us; James.Flores@state.nm.us; Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us; dft@newmex.com; MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us; admin@torraco4da.org
Subject: Fraud loss claim



Tuesday October 28, 2008 16:54

Hand carried hard copy and

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#board

Dear board_of_directors@slfcu.org



Purpose of this email ask the Board of Directors help to ensure proper processing of two fraud loss claims.



refused to notarize two fraud loss claims on Thursday afternoon October 23, 2008.

Robert Chavez, executive vice president of Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union, entered Martinez's cubical and confirmed the refusal to notarize.

Here is an mp3 recording of that refusal
.

Manager at New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union and NCUA fraud invesitgator David told us to submit loss claim through SLFCU.

Within a half hour of the Martinez and Chavez refusal, New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union notary public performed mandatory notarizing of our two fraud loss claims affidavits for recovery of $22,036.00 [$11,018 for each count of fraud] seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#paynencua

and
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moralesncua

from the protected savings accounts of William H Payne and Arthur R Morales.

Two outcomes of our request to SLFCU are possible:


1 We receive cashier's checks for these amounts by close of business on Wednesday October 29, 2008.

2 If SLFCU's decision is not to return our money, then we ask that SLFCU forward our loss claim to
REGION V (TEMPE)
Regional Director
National Credit Union Administration
1230 West Washington Street,
Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Telephone: 602-302-6000
Fax: 602-302-6024
region5@ncua.gov

by close of business on Thursday October 28, 2008.

We ask for proof in writing of the NCUA action.

Sincerely,



Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.Net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@comcast.net

distribution

admin@torraco4da.org
MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us
dft@newmex.com
Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us
James.Flores@state.nm.us
angel.espinoza@state.nm.us
region5@ncua.gov
mayor@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov
kmccabe@cabq.gov
mcastro@cabq.gov
mcallaway@cabq.gov
dbowdtch@cabq.gov
rshultz@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil



Tuesday October 28, 2008 08:43

We consulted with the manager of a credit union who previously advised to file our loss claim with SLFCU. on Monday October 27, 2008.

We told the manager of SLFCU's refusal to notarize our two affidavits by Wendy Martinez and Robert Chavez, executive vice president of Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit.


He responded, "Whew!"


The manager said if a document is submitted for notarization and the submitter has the proper identification, then notarizing is mandatory.

The manager agreed that for the next step SLFCU's Board of Directors should be contacted to try to remedy the problem.

Google Albuquerque DA Kari Brandenburg. Look at entry number 1. Without Internet our legal project would not work.

We're going to make contact with her opponent Lisa Torraco.

We visited Avicenna tomb websites on Sunday. This is located in Hamedan, Iran. And posted a comment at one.



Sunday October 26, 2008 06:09

Blogging Stocks theft from our of $11,018 comment.

Note photo of Avecinna Tomb, Hamedan.

Eid-e shoma mubarak.

50 years ago to the University of Colorado in the summer of 1958.

Algebra knowledge acquired from professor Zirakzadeh.

---Original Message-----
From: Iran Defence Forum [mailto:support@irandefence.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:01 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Happy Birthday from Iran Defence Forum

Hello billp37,

We at Iran Defence Forum would like to wish you a happy birthday today!



Friday October 24, 2008 06:09

SLFCU refused to notarize affidavits.

But they got notarized anyway.
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#slfcuncua

New Mexico Secretary of State
Mary Herrera
Contact information

MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us
dft@newmex.com
Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us
James.Flores@state.nm.us
angel.espinoza@state.nm.us


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#refusal


New Mexico Notary Public Handbook.

VI. Removal from Office (14-12A-26)
A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he:
A. submits an application for appointment as a Notary Public which contains a false statement;
B. is or has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor arising out of a notarial act performed by him;
C. engages in the unauthorized practice of law;
D. ceases to be a New Mexico resident; or
E. commits a malfeasance in office.

(14-12A-8) Refusal to notarize.

A. A notary public shall not refuse to perform a notarial act based on the principal’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, health or disability or status as a non-client or non-customer of the notary public or the notary public’s employer.

B. A notary public shall perform a notarial act for a person requesting such an act who tenders the appropriate fee, unless:
1. the notary public knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or the associated transaction is unlawful;
2. the act is prohibited; or
3. the number of notarial acts requested practicably precludes completion of all acts at once, in which case the notary public shall arrange for later completion of the remaining acts.




Thursday October 23, 2008 16:08

Let's see what happens!



refused to accept this letter.

Martinez would not write that she refused to notarize.




Thursday October 23, 2008 13:03

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#slfcuncua

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
Credit Union Center
3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-293-0500

We have submitted two fraud affidavits for recovery of $22,036.00 [$11,018 for each count of fraud] seen
at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#paynencua

and
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moralesncua

from the protected savings accounts of William H Payne and Arthur R Morales.

We ask to receive cashier's checks for these amounts by close of business on Tuesday October 28, 2008.

If SLFCU's decision is not to return our money, then we ask that SLFCU forward our loss claim to


REGION V (TEMPE)
Regional Director
National Credit Union Administration
1230 West Washington Street,
Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Telephone: 602-302-6000
Fax: 602-302-6024
region5@ncua.gov

on Friday October 24, 2008.

We ask for proof in witing of this action.

Sincerely,



Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.Net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@comcast.net

distribution

region5@ncua.gov
mayor@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov
kmccabe@cabq.gov
mcastro@cabq.gov
mcallaway@cabq.gov
dbowdtch@cabq.gov
rshultz@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil
board_of_directors@slfcu.org




Tuesday October 28, 2008 16:08

Hand carried hard copy and

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#board

Dear board_of_directors@slfcu.org



Purpose of this email ask the Board of Directors help to ensure proper processing of two fraud loss claims.



refused to notarize two fraud loss claims on Thursday afternoon October 23, 2008.

Robert Chavez, executive vice president of Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit entered Martinez's cubical and confirmed the refusal to notarize.

Here is an mp3 recording of that refusal
.

Manager at New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union manager and NCUA fraud invesitgator David told us to submit claim through SLFCU.

Within a half hour of the Martinez and Chavez refusal, New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union notary public performed mandatory notarizing of our two fraud loss claims affidavits for recovery of $22,036.00 [$11,018 for each count of fraud] seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#paynencua

and
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moralesncua

from the protected savings accounts of William H Payne and Arthur R Morales.

Two outcomes of our request to SLFCU are possible:


1 We receive cashier's checks for these amounts by close of business on Wednesday October 29, 2008.

2 If SLFCU's decision is not to return our money, then we ask that SLFCU forward our loss claim to
REGION V (TEMPE)
Regional Director
National Credit Union Administration
1230 West Washington Street,
Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Telephone: 602-302-6000
Fax: 602-302-6024
region5@ncua.gov

by close of business on Thursday October 28, 2008.

We ask for proof in writing of the NCUA action.

Sincerely,



Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.Net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@comcast.net

distribution

admin@torraco4da.org
MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us
dft@newmex.com
Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us
James.Flores@state.nm.us
angel.espinoza@state.nm.us
region5@ncua.gov
mayor@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov
kmccabe@cabq.gov
mcastro@cabq.gov
mcallaway@cabq.gov
dbowdtch@cabq.gov
rshultz@cabq.gov
bill.leonard@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil



Tuesday October 28, 2008 08:43

We consulted with the manager of a credit union who previously advised to file our loss claim with SLFCU. on Monday October 27, 2008.

We told the manager of SLFCU's refusal to notarize our two affidavits by Wendy Martinez and Robert Chavez, executive vice president of Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit.


He responded, "Whew!"


The manager said if a document is submitted for notarization and the submitter has the proper identification, then notarizing is mandatory.

The manager agreed that for the next step SLFCU's Board of Directors should be contacted to try to remedy the problem.

Google Albuquerque DA Kari Brandenburg. Look at entry number 1. Without Internet our legal project would not work.

We're going to make contact with her opponent Lisa Torraco.

We visited Avicenna tomb websites on Sunday. This is located in Hamedan, Iran. And posted a comment at one.

Sunday October 26, 2008 06:09

Blogging Stocks theft from our of $11,018 comment.

Note photo of Avecinna Tomb, Hamedan.

Eid-e shoma mubarak.

50 years ago to the University of Colorado in the summer of 1958.

Algebra knowledge acquired from professor Zirakzadeh.

---Original Message-----
From: Iran Defence Forum [mailto:support@irandefence.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:01 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Happy Birthday from Iran Defence Forum

Hello billp37,

We at Iran Defence Forum would like to wish you a happy birthday today!


Below


in included in


This was filed as a response to a summer of 2007 post on Wikipedia.


Nojeh Coup

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski LINK of the United States met Jordan's King Hussein [LINK] in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar LINK, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. However, Khomeini LINK learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr LINK quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup.[5] Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980. 1 2

We feel that the SLFCU Board of Directors should be made aware of how Sandia National Laboratories and Albuquerque, New Mexico became involved in Iran matters.














Thursday October 23, 2008 16:00

Let's get our money.

And, in the process, send SLFCU CEO Christopher Jillson , SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammer, Assistant US attorney John J Zavitz, federal magistrate MALDEF judge Lorenzo F Garcia, and MALEF judge M Christina Armijo to prison.




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#paynencua


 


1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of William H. and Patricia L. Payne on July 22, 2008.

See Yellow star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule
Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud William H. and Patricia L. Payne of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT


Tuesday October 28, 2008 16:28

"Pattern and practice" of criminal activity.

There is a reason we do things in pairs.


Let's get our money.

And, in the process, send SLFCU CEO Christopher Jillson , SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammer, Assistant US attorney John J Zavitz, federal magistrate MALDEF judge Lorenzo F Garcia, and MALEF judge M Christina Armijo to prison.


Eight page affidavit in MS Word format.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moralesncua


 



1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales on July 22, 2008.

See green star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule
Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT

Monday October 20, 2008 11:58

Hand delivered Friday October 17, 2008.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#moraleshammar







Tuesday October 14, 2008 13:28

Note that there is no FILED stamp on ORDER ADOPTING ....

This is a bogus court order used to steal our SLFCU saving money which is insured against loss by NCUA.

So let's file a claim with NCUA.



Below letter was hand delivered to Hammar by Morales.



Morales said he spoke with Hammmar.

Hammar, Morales reported, appears to be upset.








BOGUS COURT ORDER






Thursday October 2, 2008 15:48

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#morales
Caroline Strong writing at top of yellow paper.

Morales writing below on yellow paper
.



Morales immediately wrote the request which is seen on the background white.

Morales said he showed Strong Payne affidavit with FRAUD printed on it.

Strong told Morales that he can't do that, Morales said.

Morales that Strong looked upset.

We will see.


Wednesday September 24, 2008 08:56

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#strong



cstrong@slfcu.org

Wednesday September 24, 2008 06:06

Dear Ms Strong:

Purpose of this email is to document the contents of my meeting with you on Tuesday afternoon September 23, 2008.


I told you that I had talked to a manager of another credit union and an investigator at National Credit Union Administration about the proper process for return of our $11,018.00 which was fraudulently stolen from our SLFCU savings account.

I told you that I wished to start the paperwork to file a complaint with SLFCU's insurance company.

You then left your cubical for an extended time.

When you returned you apologized for your extended absence.

You then asked from my driver license from which you logged information into your notary public log.

You then presented the below AFFIDAVIT for me to sign.



I responded that our money was stolen as a result of fraud, not a forged document.

You told me that you did not have a affidavit for money stolen from a savings account as a result of fraud.


I asked you who SLFCU's insurance company is. You responded by handing me the below booklet.




I thanked you and left.

If you feel that any part of the above naration is incorrect, then I ask you to respond to me by email so that we can resolve any misperceptions. Otherwise, the above naration accurately reflects our communications.

Regards
bill
 

Inside the pamphlet







page 9 below


Tuesday September 23, 2008 16:48

Office of the Board 703-518-6300 703-518-6660 703-518-6319 boardmail@ncua.gov
Executive Director 703-518-6320 703-518-6661 703-518-6319 oedmail@ncua.gov
Equal Opportunity Programs 703-518-6325 703-518-6681 eeomail@ncua.gov
Public and Congressional Affairs 703-518-6330 703-518-6671 703-518-6409 pacamail@ncua.gov
Inspector General 703-518-6350 703-518-6670 703-518-6349 oigmail@ncua.gov
General Counsel 703-518-6540 703-518-6667 703-518-6569 ogcmail@ncua.gov
Examination and Insurance 703-518-6360 703-518-6666 703-518-6499 eimail@ncua.gov
Human Resources 703-518-6510 703-518-6668 703-518-6539 ohrmail@ncua.gov
Chief Financial Officer 703-518-6570 703-518-6664 703-518-6439 ocfomail@ncua.gov
Small Credit Union Initiatives 703-518-6610 703-518-6680 703-518-6619 ocudmail@ncua.gov
Corporate Credit Unions 703-518-6640 703-518-6665 703-518-6439 occumail@ncua.gov

Chief Information Officer 703-518-6440 703-518-6669 703-518-6489 ociomail@ncua.gov
Ombudsman 703-518-6572 703-837-2804 ombudsman@ncua.gov
Inspector General: 800-778-4806 oigmail@ncua.gov



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#ncua




We talked on David on Tuesday September 23, 2008.

No response from David as of Tuesday 05:47.

NCUA fraud hotline phone message.

National Credit Union Administration

How Your Accounts Are Federally Insured

NCUA Fraud Hotline

telephone line established solely for the reporting of suspicious or illegal activity committed by credit union employees, members, or officials in federally insured credit unions.

800-827-9650

5851 ALBUQUERQUE, NM SANDIA LABORATORY

We have a new strategy for getting the $11,018 back.

We have to research the process to file insurance claims for the disappeared $11,018.

This guy

worked processing cd FDIC claims during the savings and loan crisis.

Money returned in 2 to 3 weeks he said on the phone.

Failure of the insurance company to pay will, of course, generate further complaints. Promptly settle, of course.

We received an email from pnm electric ipr architect Evlin Wheeler which we have not read yet.

We saw the same foils. And we looked at other energy sites on the web. We, however, differ in our interpretation of the data.

Garcia compiled a good list of crooked judges and what they did.

We did what we needed to do to keep "in the ring."

Note Garcia's references to former judge W John Brennan.

The legal system's objective, according to lawyer Steve Aarons, is to toss you "out of the ring."

Garcia comments that we are unsuccessful litigants.

We dispute this.

We are still "in the ring."

Now we have written evidence of $22,036 felony extortion, all in wrting, from us using bogus federal court orders. No file stamps. Even on PACER!




Sunday September 14, 2008 15:12

Scalia is inolved in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG.


Scalia apparently didn't do anything.


And now Scalia is here:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2
Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday September 12, 2008 15:34

Docket entry 156
Docket entry 155
Docket entry 154

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#scaliawinik


Lyric Wallwork Winik.



-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: Reader Services
To: bill payne
Subject: PARADE has received your Message
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:41:34 +0000

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to contact PARADE. Hearing from you helps us publish a better magazine and website.

This e-mail confirms that PARADE Reader Response has received your message successfully. Our team will review and address accordingly.

Thanks again for your message and interest in PARADE.

Warm Regards

PARADE Reader Services


Friday September 12, 2008 10:46

Surprised? We are.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2








Sunday September 14, 2008 15:54

Something very strange appears to be happening to docket in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG .

Pacer garnishment docket
as of Friday September 12, 2008 15:34

Docket entry 156
Docket entry 155
Docket entry 154


An ORDER from a magistrate judge with no file stamp too. Oh dear. Pattern and practice.


Us cats are on the move. Including a LIVE dead cat.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#strike












IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM H. PAYNE and ARTHUR R. MORALES,

Plaintiffs,

V. No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Gamishor, and

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

Gamishee.

ORDER STRIKING REPLY

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the filing of Plaintiff William H. Payne ("Payne")'s Reply' [Doc. 155] in connection with his Motion to Void and Amend Judgments [Doc. 152]. The Reply will be stricken as untimely.

Payne filed his Motion to Void and Amend Judgments on August 1,2008. He certified that he served the Motion on the United States Attorney on July 14,2008; however, the Motion that was mailed to this Court for filing was postmarked July 31,2008. There is no explanation why Payne


1 The Reply carries the title, "Motion to Void All Rulings in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG For Violation of Due Process Right and/or Fraud and Reply to United States' Response to Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments (Doc. 152)."
waited over two weeks to file the Motion after having served it on Defendant. The United States's Response to the Motion was electronically filed and served on August 11,2008. Payne's Reply was filed on September 3,2008. The deadline for filing the Reply expired on August 28,2008. D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.6(a). Payne did not seek an extension of the deadline for filing his Reply, and it is thus untimely.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Reply [Doc. 155] filed by Plaintiff Payne on September 2,2008 is hereby stricken from the record as untimely.

Lorenzo F. Garcia
Chief United States Magistrate Judge




Friday September 5, 2008 12:52

Statutory Bounty Hunter. Looks to apply to IRS illegal seizures.






We waited until the last day.




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)

MOTION TO VOID ALL RULINGS IN CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND/OR FRAUD AND REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAYNE'S'
MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS (Doc. 152)

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Plaintiff Payne's improperly and illegally garnished Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] were removed from savings account without due process on July 22, 2008.

See yellow star

received on August 7, 2008


2 Former plaintiff Morales' improperly and illegally garnished Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] were removed from savings account without due process on July 22, 2008.

See green star


The illegal and improper seizing of Morales' savings occurred even though Morales was dismissed as a defendant in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

II. BASIS OF MOTION

3 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6. Time

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation....

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5 (b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

III. ISSUES

4 Order was mailed July 14, 2000 in envelope seen below

5 ORDER, which as also sent mailed to us by SLFCU on July 23, 2008, was not FILE stamped by clerk of court as seen below.



See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

Clerk rules state

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

Rule 79 was violated by New Mexico federal court clerk Matthew Dykman on August 10, 2008. See underline in above quote.

6 Plaintiff had until August 29, 2008 to file under Rule 59(e) a motion to alter or amend judgment.

7 Plaintiff did file timely Rule 59(e) motion on July 31, 2008



See HTML posting at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid.

Additional Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) filing has no time limit.

8 If Armijo's not-FILE-stamped ORDER perhaps signed on July 11, 2008 was intentionally not mailed until July 14, 2008, then this constitutes

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

9 Since plaintiff's $11,018 was removed from his wife's [redacted in red name in 1 is not plaintiff's name] SLFCU savings account without due process on July 22, 2008, all proceedings in No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

10 Chief magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia stated in March 25, 2008 hearing without jurisdiction

[T]he case was closed for years, at which point, but Plaintiffs commenced filing numerous pleadings seeking to re-assert dismissed claims. ...

To the contrary, one reason for reopening the case was two Wikipedia spring 2007 posts, one of which starts

Nojeh Coup

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski LINK of the United States met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar LINK, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. ...

to attempt to bring to justice those in the United States involved in starting the Iraq/Iran war.

Wikipedia post was news to plaintiff.

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Proper processing of the allegation

would show the world that the US is able investigate, then bring to justice Brzezinski if the allegation is corroborated.

Damages of the alleged crime includes:

In the end, neither Iran nor Iraq would win a clear victory, but the suffering was enormous on both sides. Conservative estimates place the death toll at 367,000-262,000 Iranians and 105,000 Iraqis. An estimated 700,000 were injured or wounded on both sides, bringing the total casualty figure to over one million.

and

Iran weakened by the revolution was invaded by Iraq in September, 1980. By November the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day and 6.5 million barrels per day less than a year before. As a consequence worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.

The combination of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War cause crude oil prices to more than double increasing from from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.

Twenty-six years later Iran's production is only two-thirds of the level reached under the government of Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran.

Iraq's production remains about 1.5 million barrels below its peak before the Iraq-Iran War.

Possible consequences of failure to take legal and settlement actions should be considered.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Judge M Christina Armijo issued

06/12/2007 85 STRICKEN from the record pursuant to 100 Order - REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales. (pz) Modified docket text on 8/28/2007 (ln). (Entered: 06/12/2007)

in violation of her Oath of Office which states, in part, "that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter ... ."

See judge Martha Vazquez oath of office document copy.

Docket entry 24, A1 and A2, of MC 06-24 MCA, USA, et al v. Carman, suggests that judge Armijo does not have required credentials of
1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

to have jurisdiction in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

Support of these allegations is perhaps the reason Armijo did not sign

Issue of proper processing of criminal complaint affidavit against Zbigniew Brzeninski is, again, before a federal court and should be promptly processed according to law.

11 Summary of essential judicial wrongdoing which voids all rulings in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG includes:

A   Magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia is a defendant in paid for 12 person New Mexico state jury trial lawsuit cv 2000-10278 for relief of DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT.

B   New Mexico state lawsuit cv 2000-10278 was fraudulently removed to federal court and given number 00cv01677. Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT are not federal questions.

C   An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process of law. Garcia, for reasons stated in A and B, is neither competent or impartial.

D Plaintiffs file notice that the Court was not following rule of the court.  
03/06/2008 144 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re service of documents 103 - 135 (sl) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

Html of filing. PACER pdf of filing.


E   A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 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. 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.
SLFCU does not follow rules of law by determining whether plaintiffs' savings accounts contain exempt fund or not.

Plaintiffs file Mandatory Judicial Notice 1 containing affidavits stating funds are exempt with Sandia Federal Credit Union is required by law.

SLFCU lawyer files affidavits with court on February 13, 2008 which is docketed as entry 133. Here is PACER pdf of docket entry 133.
D   Response to
03/05/2008 142 NOTICE of Hearing on Objections to Exemptions set for 3/25/08 at 9:00 before Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. (clm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

stated by affidavit
03/21/2008 146 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re 119 122 123 121 118 120 Writ of garnishment (sl) (Entered: 03/21/2008)

that plaintiff plaintiff Payne was not properly served.

Here is PACER pdf of filing.

Garcia ignores affidavit.


F   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.

G Nonetheless Garcia conducts hearing without jurisdiction
03/25/2008 148 Clerk's Minutes for hearing on United States' objection to exemptions held before Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia on 3/25/2008. (Court Reporter Julie Sanchez.) (mw) (Entered: 03/25/2008)

Here is PACER pdf of minutes.

H   "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) "
" LINK.

13 Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes in his response mailed August 11, 2008

To the extent this motion is a request for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed July 11, 2008 (Doc. 151) under FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it was not filed within ten days after entry of the Order and is therefore untimely. Any such motion was due July 25, 2008, and this motion was not filed until August 1, 2008.

Plaintiff did file on time.

Zavitz does not compute time properly for 10 day of less response.

14 Zavitz writes

Thus, this motion can only be treated as one for relief from an order under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, extraordinary, and warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Yapp v. Excel Corp.. 186 F,3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 1999); Cashnerv. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); Farr v. Int'l Fin. and Trading Network. 175 F.R.D. 333, 336 (D. Kan. 1997). Further, a motion under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not intended to rehash issues that have already been finally determined. Cashner. 98 F.3d at 577; VanSkiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 828 (1992) ("revisiting the issues already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider" filed under Rule 60(b)).

Motion was filed under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

Zavits appears to be unaware that

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1

3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2

4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3

5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5

6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4

7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7

8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9

9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11

10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. 12

11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion. 13

12 An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice 14 is one of the essential elements of due process of law. 15

13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 16 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.17

14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.18

15 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, 19 lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, 20 or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.21

16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, 22 and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 23

Our SLFCU exempt savings monies totally $22,036 was stolen in an act of extortion before we could exercise our legal right to file under Rule 58(e).

15 Zavitz writes
Plaintiff Payne apparently asserts that the order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and is void. FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) & (4). However, he does nothing more than restate his prior arguments about alleged insufficient service and errors in the notice of the garnishment proceeding. Doc. 152, pp. 2-3, 52. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have already rejected those arguments. Doc. 150, pp. 6-10; Doc. 151, pp. 1-2. Reargument of issues that have been decided is not a proper basis for relief under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as noted above. Plaintiff Payne also calls the hearing before the Magistrate Judge a "Kangaroo court" and asserts that this Court , is engaged in extortion. Doc. 152, pp. 2, 5. Such frivolous assertions do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and, if anything, provide a new basis for further sanctions or contempt against Plaintiff Payne.

Documentation presented in sections 1-12 of this pleading support the claims of extortion, kangaroo court, judicial misconduct, incompetence, and placing the American public at risk of retaliation for not investigating and possibly processing a the crime of genocide.

16 Zavitz writes
Finally, Plaintiff Payne notes that Arthur Morales was dismissed as a plaintiff in 1997. Doc. 42. However, Mr. Morales continued to join in the frivolous motions and other documents filed in this case which formed the basis of the sanctions previously imposed by the Court. See Doc. 95, p. 2, referencing Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85 and 91; see also Doc. 100, pp. 2-3, referencing Docs. 93, 94. Thus, this provides no basis for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition.

This court has unsuccessfully attempted to cover up the crime of genocide which has taken roughly twenty-eight year and the efforts of many individuals bring to the story of how the Iraq/Iran war got started and the spy sting on Iran to light.

This court has not gotten itself caught in writing committing New Mexico felony extortion to the amount of $22,036.

17 Zavitz writes
WHEREFORE, the United States requests that Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, be denied.

Zavitz's above request must be denied, relief sought quickly implemented to achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.


Many rules of the court were not followed as shown in written evidence in 1-12 of the pleading.

This voids all judgments in CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS.

IV RELIEF SOUGHT

18 RECUSE all New Mexico judicial officers and MOVE  CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

19 VACATE Order seizing our $11,018 for failure to allow due process Rule 59(e) file and failure to file stamp order. See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

20 ORDER SLFCU to restore $11,018 to Morales' and Payne's savings accounts within 14 days of clerk file stamp of this motion. Alternative is that plaintiff will file to void judgment in 00cv01677.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID ALL RULINGS IN CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND/OR FRAUD AND REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAYNE'S' MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS (Doc. 152) was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date



Thursday August 28, 2008 09:15

xxxx has a law degree and a phd.

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "xxxx"
To: "bill payne"
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and yyy
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:10:24 +0000

sickness. i owe you a big apology. incidentally, nice pic on your passport. you look canadian! just joking. my treat when we meet. sick today/tomorrow. let me know if friday is good and maybe a place closer to you. i'll email ya. thanks, and apologies again, xxx :-/

On 8/27/08, bill payne wrote:
I was there at 09:28.
I waited until 09:50.
What happened?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and xxx

xx and i will see you then. invite morales. xxx ;-)

On 8/26/08, bpayne37@comcast.net wrote:

Let's do xxx at yyy on zzz.

this is me.

http://www.prosefights.org/funpics/bill2007passport.jpg


Tuesday August 26, 2008 06:55

Keeping our posting skills sharp while enhancing our viz too, of course.


Friday August 15, 2008 10:25

"people" is important to include too as well as SLFCU sending Armijo ORDER.

CNN to the rescue on Thursday August 14, 2008.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Absolutely brilliant. We didn't do it.

But we did write

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Morales phoned at about 12:15 Thursday August 14, 2008 to arrange a meeting to to provide a copy of his SLFCU statement showing the improper and illegal seizing of his $11,018 saving account money.

We were told on Tuesday August 12, 2008 that SLFCU [Jillson] may have violated some Security and Exchange Commission rules by removing the $11,018 on July 22, 2008. Informant is seeking further details.

We are also checking

The NCUA reviews all its existing regulations every three years. The NCUA Office of General Counsel maintains a rolling review schedule that identifies one third of NCUA’s existing regulations for review each year and provides notice to the public of those regulations under review so the public may have an opportunity to comment.

NCUA will review the following regulations in 2008:

748 Security Program, Report of Suspected Crimes, Suspicious Transactions, Catastrophic Acts, and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance. ...

Comments may be e-mailed to OGCMAIL@NCUA.GOV or mailed to Regulatory Review (2008), Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

Jillson is hopefully in some real trouble.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2

Sunday September 14, 2008 15:44

Note no file stamp.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#strike


















Case: l:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG Document: 154 Filed: 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,

Plaintiffs, vs.

CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

Defendant.

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Gamishee.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND1
THIS MATTER is before the Court on William H. Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14,2008 and filed August 1,2008 [Doc. 152].2 The Court considered fhe Motion and Response and determines that oral argument is not necessary. For the reasons herein stated, the motion should be denied and the Plaintiff, William H. Payne ("Payne"), admonished.

The undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation on March 27, 2008 [Doc. 150]. No objections were filed within the time permitted by law under either 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The trial judge adopted the Findings and Recommended


1 Within ten (10) days after a party is served with a copy of this analysis and recommended disposition, that party may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), file written objections to such analysis and recommendation. A party must file any objections within the ten-day period allowed if that party wants to have appellate review of the analysis and recommendation. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed. 2 The Court earlier issued its Order of Reference [Doc. 89] referring Payne's earlier motions to set aside judgments for lack of jurisdiction. As the present motion is directly related to the Court's earlier reference, the Court will proceed by way of report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Disposition and Orders of Garnishment on July 11,2008 [Doc. 151]. Payne did not appeal nor did he timely seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Payne served his Motion to Void and Amend on July 14,2008; however, he did not file it until August 1,2008. A motion under Rule 59(e) must be filed within ten days; Payne's motion was not, and is therefore untimely. The motion can only be considered as one for relief from an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. ^(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F ^176^ 7fi4 (l n^ Fir i QQ7) Payne's motion simply seeks to resurrect arguments the Court previously rejected. Nothing in the motion demonstrates that the Court misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law. Rather, this motion simply reargues Payne's previous rejected claims.

A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) may not be used to simply reargue positions previously presented to and rejected by the court. Cashner v. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572,577 (1 Oth Cir. 1996); Van Skiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991)(revisiting the issues os^' already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider filed under Rule 60(b)).

Payne's motion is a frivolous pleading in a string of prior frivolous pleadings that seek only to abuse the court process. The Court's earlier Order to Show Cause [Doc. 92] and Report and Recommendation [Doc. 95] outlined Payne's abusive litigation history. Payne filed multiple lawsuits which name judges, U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, private attorneys, law firms, government entities, government officials, corporations, corporate officers and others as defendants. (See Appendices, Order to Show Cause, Doc. 92, July, 2007). In each case, defendants were forced

to retain counsel and expended significant amounts of time and money to defend themselves against frivolous and specious allegations.

Payne's litigation activities tax judicial resources in that many judges, both within and without the District ofNew Mexico, were compelled to spend inordinate amounts of time reviewing, analyzing and deciding Payne's motions, none of which had any merit.

Payne is not a successful litigant. To the contrary, he lost each and every claim in each and every lawsuit. Of those cases he appealed, his appeals were either rejected for non-compliance with appellate rules, or the appellate court sustained the trial court's decisions in dismissing his cases. His multiple requests for extraordinary relief filed in various appellate courts or the United States Supreme Court met similar fates. Thus, he lost each appeal he prosecuted.

In addition to his abusive litigation efforts in state and federal courts, Payne has unsuccessfully sought to have criminal complaints filed and arrest warrants issued against a number of federal judges and assistant U.S. Attorneys. Indeed, Payne is currently appealing the City of Albuquerque's refusal to process criminal complaints against the district's Chief Judge, the Honorable Martha Vazquez, the trial judge, the Honorable M. Christina Armijo, and the undersigned magistrate judge on allegations of extortion and fraud.

Not only are Payne's most recent pleadings frivolous, but he continues with his blatant disrespect for the Court, court officers and the Court's process. In his most recent filing, he refers to the prior court hearings as "kangaroo proceedings," and he accuses the trial judge of committing criminal acts of fraud and extortion. The Court will not tolerate this abuse. m an effort to quell his litigation tactics, Payne was permanently enjoined from filing any new lawsuit in any New Mexico state court unless he is represented by counsel.3 He has similarly


Morales and Pavne v. Judge Bremian et pi 202-Civ. 2001-07794 (2nd Judicial District Court).

been enjoined in the United States District Court from filing aaypro se lawsuit unless he complies with certain filing restrictions.4

State and federal courts condemned his abusive practices, censured him and warned that his litigation abuses could result in sanctions.5 None of those efforts proved successful and they have done little to stem the tide of Payne's abusive litigation. In an effort to bring an end to these practices and to lessen the financial and time burdens imposed on those individuals who have incurred Payne's wrath, the Court entered an order imposing substantial sanctions on Payne [Doc. 151]. Indeed, it is that very sanction order that now forms the basis of Payne's present motion.

Even though those sanctions were paid to the United States, it appears that they were ineffective in stopping Payne's abusive practices. Accordingly, the Court will again give Payne a warning that if he continues with his misconduct by filing any further pleadings in this case, or violating the injunctions imposed in prior cases, the Court will issue a new order to show cause why additional substantial monetary sanctions should not be imposed.6

Recommendation

5Morales and Pavne v. Judge Baca et al.. No. CIV 01-634.

6 Pavne and Morales v. MiniTian et a1 , No. CIV 97-266, Payne was sanctioned for misconduct and ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $625.00 [Doc. 41]. As a result of ongoing frivolous filings and abuse, Payne was further sanctioned in the amount of $10,000.

In Pavne v. EEOC. No. CIV 99-270, Payne was warned and ultimately sanctioned for misconduct and order to pay Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions in the amount of $912.50 [Doc. 60].

In Morales and Pavne v. United States et al.. No. CIV 00-1574, Judge William F. Downes warned Payne of his "indiscriminately" suing the various judges assigned to their [Morales and Payne] cases, as well as suing the attorneys and law firms representing opposing parties [Doc. 64].

In Pavne v. Sandia Corn. et al.. No. CIV 00-1677, Judge William F. Downes referred to Payne's litigation history as "frivolous" [Doc. 105, p. 7]. So, too, m Morales and Pavne v. Judge Ted Baca. et al.. No. CIV 01-634, the trial court found that Payne's conduct was frivolous and his pleadings constituted "ranting diatribe grounded in unbridled contempt for law." [Doc. 57, p. 15].

6 The restriction on further filings in this case will not preclude proper and timely objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).


For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments be DENIED; and, farther, that Payne be admonished that continued frivolous litigation in this case or litigation in violation of existing injunctions will result in imposition of new sanctions and/or contempt of court.

Lorenzo F. Garcia
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Friday September 5, 2008 10:08

Statutory Bounty Hunter statutes.






We waited until the last day.




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)

MOTION TO VOID ALL RULINGS IN CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND/OR FRAUD AND REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAYNE'S'
MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS (Doc. 152)

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Plaintiff Payne's improperly and illegally garnished Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] were removed from savings account without due process on July 22, 2008.

See yellow star

received on August 7, 2008


2 Former plaintiff Morales' improperly and illegally garnished Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] were removed from savings account without due process on July 22, 2008.

See green star


The illegal and improper seizing of Morales' savings occurred even though Morales was dismissed as a defendant in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

II. BASIS OF MOTION

3 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6. Time

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation....

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5 (b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

III. ISSUES

4 Order was mailed July 14, 2000 in envelope seen below

5 ORDER, which as also sent mailed to us by SLFCU on July 23, 2008, was not FILE stamped by clerk of court as seen below.



See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

Clerk rules state

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

Rule 79 was violated by New Mexico federal court clerk Matthew Dykman on August 10, 2008. See underline in above quote.

6 Plaintiff had until August 29, 2008 to file under Rule 59(e) a motion to alter or amend judgment.

7 Plaintiff did file timely Rule 59(e) motion on July 31, 2008



See HTML posting at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid.

Additional Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) filing has no time limit.

8 If Armijo's not-FILE-stamped ORDER perhaps signed on July 11, 2008 was intentionally not mailed until July 14, 2008, then this constitutes

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

9 Since plaintiff's $11,018 was removed from his wife's [redacted in red name in 1 is not plaintiff's name] SLFCU savings account without due process on July 22, 2008, all proceedings in No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

10 Chief magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia stated in March 25, 2008 hearing without jurisdiction

[T]he case was closed for years, at which point, but Plaintiffs commenced filing numerous pleadings seeking to re-assert dismissed claims. ...

To the contrary, one reason for reopening the case was two Wikipedia spring 2007 posts, one of which starts

Nojeh Coup

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski LINK of the United States met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar LINK, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. ...

to attempt to bring to justice those in the United States involved in starting the Iraq/Iran war.

Wikipedia post was news to plaintiff.

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Proper processing of the allegation

would show the world that the US is able investigate, then bring to justice Brzezinski if the allegation is corroborated.

Damages of the alleged crime includes:

In the end, neither Iran nor Iraq would win a clear victory, but the suffering was enormous on both sides. Conservative estimates place the death toll at 367,000-262,000 Iranians and 105,000 Iraqis. An estimated 700,000 were injured or wounded on both sides, bringing the total casualty figure to over one million.

and

Iran weakened by the revolution was invaded by Iraq in September, 1980. By November the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day and 6.5 million barrels per day less than a year before. As a consequence worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.

The combination of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War cause crude oil prices to more than double increasing from from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.

Twenty-six years later Iran's production is only two-thirds of the level reached under the government of Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran.

Iraq's production remains about 1.5 million barrels below its peak before the Iraq-Iran War.

Possible consequences of failure to take legal and settlement actions should be considered.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Judge M Christina Armijo issued

06/12/2007 85 STRICKEN from the record pursuant to 100 Order - REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales. (pz) Modified docket text on 8/28/2007 (ln). (Entered: 06/12/2007)

in violation of her Oath of Office which states, in part, "that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter ... ."

See judge Martha Vazquez oath of office document copy.

Docket entry 24, A1 and A2, of MC 06-24 MCA, USA, et al v. Carman, suggests that judge Armijo does not have required credentials of
1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

to have jurisdiction in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

Support of these allegations is perhaps the reason Armijo did not sign

Issue of proper processing of criminal complaint affidavit against Zbigniew Brzeninski is, again, before a federal court and should be promptly processed according to law.

11 Summary of essential judicial wrongdoing which voids all rulings in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG includes:

A   Magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia is a defendant in paid for 12 person New Mexico state jury trial lawsuit cv 2000-10278 for relief of DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT.

B   New Mexico state lawsuit cv 2000-10278 was fraudulently removed to federal court and given number 00cv01677. Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT are not federal questions.

C   An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process of law. Garcia, for reasons stated in A and B, is neither competent or impartial.

D Plaintiffs file notice that the Court was not following rule of the court.  
03/06/2008 144 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re service of documents 103 - 135 (sl) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

Html of filing. PACER pdf of filing.


E   A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 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. 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.
SLFCU does not follow rules of law by determining whether plaintiffs' savings accounts contain exempt fund or not.

Plaintiffs file Mandatory Judicial Notice 1 containing affidavits stating funds are exempt with Sandia Federal Credit Union is required by law.

SLFCU lawyer files affidavits with court on February 13, 2008 which is docketed as entry 133. Here is PACER pdf of docket entry 133.
D   Response to
03/05/2008 142 NOTICE of Hearing on Objections to Exemptions set for 3/25/08 at 9:00 before Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. (clm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

stated by affidavit
03/21/2008 146 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re 119 122 123 121 118 120 Writ of garnishment (sl) (Entered: 03/21/2008)

that plaintiff plaintiff Payne was not properly served.

Here is PACER pdf of filing.

Garcia ignores affidavit.


F   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.

G Nonetheless Garcia conducts hearing without jurisdiction
03/25/2008 148 Clerk's Minutes for hearing on United States' objection to exemptions held before Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia on 3/25/2008. (Court Reporter Julie Sanchez.) (mw) (Entered: 03/25/2008)

Here is PACER pdf of minutes.

H   "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) "
" LINK.

13 Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes in his response mailed August 11, 2008

To the extent this motion is a request for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed July 11, 2008 (Doc. 151) under FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it was not filed within ten days after entry of the Order and is therefore untimely. Any such motion was due July 25, 2008, and this motion was not filed until August 1, 2008.

Plaintiff did file on time.

Zavitz does not compute time properly for 10 day of less response.

14 Zavitz writes

Thus, this motion can only be treated as one for relief from an order under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, extraordinary, and warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Yapp v. Excel Corp.. 186 F,3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 1999); Cashnerv. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); Farr v. Int'l Fin. and Trading Network. 175 F.R.D. 333, 336 (D. Kan. 1997). Further, a motion under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not intended to rehash issues that have already been finally determined. Cashner. 98 F.3d at 577; VanSkiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 828 (1992) ("revisiting the issues already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider" filed under Rule 60(b)).

Motion was filed under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

Zavits appears to be unaware that

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1

3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2

4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3

5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5

6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4

7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7

8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9

9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11

10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. 12

11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion. 13

12 An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice 14 is one of the essential elements of due process of law. 15

13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 16 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.17

14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.18

15 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, 19 lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, 20 or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.21

16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, 22 and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 23

Our SLFCU exempt savings monies totally $22,036 was stolen in an act of extortion before we could exercise our legal right to file under Rule 58(e).

15 Zavitz writes
Plaintiff Payne apparently asserts that the order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and is void. FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) & (4). However, he does nothing more than restate his prior arguments about alleged insufficient service and errors in the notice of the garnishment proceeding. Doc. 152, pp. 2-3, 52. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have already rejected those arguments. Doc. 150, pp. 6-10; Doc. 151, pp. 1-2. Reargument of issues that have been decided is not a proper basis for relief under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as noted above. Plaintiff Payne also calls the hearing before the Magistrate Judge a "Kangaroo court" and asserts that this Court , is engaged in extortion. Doc. 152, pp. 2, 5. Such frivolous assertions do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and, if anything, provide a new basis for further sanctions or contempt against Plaintiff Payne.

Documentation presented in sections 1-12 of this pleading support the claims of extortion, kangaroo court, judicial misconduct, incompetence, and placing the American public at risk of retaliation for not investigating and possibly processing a the crime of genocide.

16 Zavitz writes
Finally, Plaintiff Payne notes that Arthur Morales was dismissed as a plaintiff in 1997. Doc. 42. However, Mr. Morales continued to join in the frivolous motions and other documents filed in this case which formed the basis of the sanctions previously imposed by the Court. See Doc. 95, p. 2, referencing Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85 and 91; see also Doc. 100, pp. 2-3, referencing Docs. 93, 94. Thus, this provides no basis for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition.

This court has unsuccessfully attempted to cover up the crime of genocide which has taken roughly twenty-eight year and the efforts of many individuals bring to the story of how the Iraq/Iran war got started and the spy sting on Iran to light.

This court has not gotten itself caught in writing committing New Mexico felony extortion to the amount of $22,036.

17 Zavitz writes
WHEREFORE, the United States requests that Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, be denied.

Zavitz's above request must be denied, relief sought quickly implemented to achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.


Many rules of the court were not followed as shown in written evidence in 1-12 of the pleading.

This voids all judgments in CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS.

IV RELIEF SOUGHT

18 RECUSE all New Mexico judicial officers and MOVE  CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

19 VACATE Order seizing our $11,018 for failure to allow due process Rule 59(e) file and failure to file stamp order. See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

20 ORDER SLFCU to restore $11,018 to Morales' and Payne's savings accounts within 14 days of clerk file stamp of this motion. Alternative is that plaintiff will file to void judgment in 00cv01677.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID ALL RULINGS IN CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND/OR FRAUD AND REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAYNE'S' MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS (Doc. 152) was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date



Thursday August 28, 2008 09:15

xxxx has a law degree and a phd.

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "xxxx"
To: "bill payne"
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and yyy
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:10:24 +0000

sickness. i owe you a big apology. incidentally, nice pic on your passport. you look canadian! just joking. my treat when we meet. sick today/tomorrow. let me know if friday is good and maybe a place closer to you. i'll email ya. thanks, and apologies again, xxx :-/

On 8/27/08, bill payne wrote:
I was there at 09:28.
I waited until 09:50.
What happened?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and xxx

xx and i will see you then. invite morales. xxx ;-)

On 8/26/08, bpayne37@comcast.net wrote:

Let's do xxx at yyy on zzz.

this is me.

http://www.prosefights.org/funpics/bill2007passport.jpg


Tuesday August 26, 2008 06:55

Keeping our posting skills sharp while enhancing our viz too, of course.


Friday August 15, 2008 10:25

"people" is important to include too as well as SLFCU sending Armijo ORDER.

CNN to the rescue on Thursday August 14, 2008.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Absolutely brilliant. We didn't do it.

But we did write

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Morales phoned at about 12:15 Thursday August 14, 2008 to arrange a meeting to to provide a copy of his SLFCU statement showing the improper and illegal seizing of his $11,018 saving account money.

We were told on Tuesday August 12, 2008 that SLFCU [Jillson] may have violated some Security and Exchange Commission rules by removing the $11,018 on July 22, 2008. Informant is seeking further details.

We are also checking

The NCUA reviews all its existing regulations every three years. The NCUA Office of General Counsel maintains a rolling review schedule that identifies one third of NCUA’s existing regulations for review each year and provides notice to the public of those regulations under review so the public may have an opportunity to comment.

NCUA will review the following regulations in 2008:

748 Security Program, Report of Suspected Crimes, Suspicious Transactions, Catastrophic Acts, and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance. ...

Comments may be e-mailed to OGCMAIL@NCUA.GOV or mailed to Regulatory Review (2008), Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

Jillson is hopefully in some real trouble.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid2

Friday August 29, 2008 08:19

Bogus court order and Iran.

Redline New Mexico local rules.
7.64 Timing of and Restrictions on Responses and Replies. [Amended 3/5/07]

(a) Timing. A response must be served and filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the motion. A reply must be served and filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the response. These time periods are computed in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) and (e) and may be extended by agreement of all parties. For each agreed extension, the party requesting the extension must file a notice identifying the new deadline and the document (response or reply) to be filed. If an extension of time is opposed, the party seeking the extension must file a separate motion within the applicable 14-day period. In all cases, upon completion of briefing, the movant must file a notice certifying that the motion is ready for decision and identifying the motion and all related filings by date of filing and docket number. An extension of briefing time must not interfere with established case management deadlines.

(b) Surreply. The filing of a surreply requires leave of the Court.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Wednesday August 13, 2008 09:44


We will not open or read below until we have finish filing MOTION TO VOID ALL RULINGS IN CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND/OR FRAUD

Docket entry 153


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#dojnm7


 









IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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,

V

Garnishee.

UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PAYNE'S'
MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS (Doc. 152)

The United States opposes the Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, filed by Plaintiff William Payne1 (Doc. 152).

To the extent this document is intended as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27, 2008 (Doc. 150), it is


' The United States notes that former Plaintiff Arthur Morales has not joined in this motion. 1
untimely under FED. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and should be disregarded. Any objection was required to be filed within ten days and over four months has passed.

To the extent this motion is a request for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed July 11, 2008 (Doc. 151) under FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it was not filed within ten days after entry of the Order and is therefore untimely. Any such motion was due July 25, 2008, and this motion was not filed until August 1, 2008.

Thus, this motion can only be treated as one for relief from an order under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, extraordinary, and warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Yapp v. Excel Corp.. 186 F,3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 1999); Cashnerv. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); Farr v. Int'l Fin. and Trading Network. 175 F.R.D. 333, 336 (D. Kan. 1997). Further, a motion under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not intended to rehash issues that have already been finally determined. Cashner. 98 F.3d at 577; VanSkiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 828 (1992) ("revisiting the issues already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider" filed under Rule 60(b)).

Plaintiff Payne apparently asserts that the order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and is void. FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) & (4). However, he does nothing more than restate his prior arguments about alleged insufficient service and errors in the notice of the garnishment proceeding. Doc. 152, pp. 2-3, 52. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have already rejected those arguments. Doc. 150, pp. 6-10; Doc. 151, pp. 1-2. Reargument of issues that have been decided is not a proper basis for relief under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as noted above. Plaintiff Payne also calls the hearing before the Magistrate Judge a "Kangaroo court" and asserts that this Court ^, is engaged in extortion. Doc. 152, pp. 2, 5. Such frivolous assertions do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and, if anything, provide a new basis for further sanctions or contempt against Plaintiff Payne.

Finally, Plaintiff Payne notes that Arthur Morales was dismissed as a plaintiff in 1997. Doc. 42. However, Mr. Morales continued to join in the frivolous motions and other documents filed in this case which formed the basis of the sanctions previously imposed by the Court. See Doc. 95, p. 2, referencing Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85 and 91; see also Doc. 100, pp. 2-3, referencing Docs. 93, 94. Thus, this provides no basis for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition.


2 Doc. 152 contains no page 4.

WHEREFORE, the United States requests that Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, be denied.

Respectfully submitted, GREGORY J. FOURATT /f United States Attorney ////

Isl Electronically filed August TiC^^y
JOHN ZAVITZZ7-
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
(505) 224-1414
(505) 346-6884 (facsimile)
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed, postage
prepaid, on August 11, 2008, to the following non-participant in the CM/ECF electronic
fling system:
William H. Payne\at 130/15 Calle De Sandias NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111- 2924. / /!
/s/ JOHN ZA\ATZ ^f f JOHN ZAVITZ^[/[/f Assistant United States Attorney N:\JZavitz\FLU\Payne\Response to Motion to Void ch.wpd 4




Monday August 12, 2008 06:38

Deaton is now involved in attempting to cover-up felony extortion for the amounts of $22,036 with all evidence of his guilt in writing.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#policecomplaints

Morales phoned on Saturday August 9, 2008to inquire if Payne received below email.


Morales' money was apparently extorted too.

-----Original Message-----
From: amorales58@comcast.net [mailto:amorales58@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:05 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: ???

YES IT WAS TAKEN ON JULY 22


Lawyer and friend phoned Friday afternoon August 8, 2008.

Lawyer said that she filed a New Mexico lawsuit and tried to pay for a 12 person jury trial.

Clerk's office refused her money and said that judge Ted Baca must rule on whether she can have a jury trial or not.

Ted Baca is a defendant in one of our paid-for 12 person jury trial lawsuit which was fraudulently removed to federal court. All of the judgments in these cases are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We must file to void if we don't settle, of course.


Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday August 8, 2008 11:15

Docket entry 152

The US federal government took our money on July 22, 2008 without due process Rule 59 and 60 properly processed. See yellow star.


This is now a full-blown case of criminal extortion of at least $11,018.00

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid







Red blanked name is is not William H Payne.



Tuesday August 5, 2008 13:20





Delay from March 28, 2008 of recommentations to Armijo's July 14, 2008 ORDER may be been a ploy to try to get us to respond without a rule to support our response?

Docket as of August 1, 2008 11:02:13.

NO FILE STAMP ON ENTRY 151. We should get matters settled before they get even worse.

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.


Docket entry 151.

Armijo apparently, no file stamp, signed the order on July 11, 2008 so technically the ten days allowed under 59(e)may have expired on July 30, 2008. However, the court did not mail the order until July 14.

But Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) has no time limit.


Let's see what the incompetents do.

Keep in mind that Armijo and Garcia have violated their oaths of office in writing in a very serious matter.

We enter a new phase in our legal project.

Opposition participants MADDEF Armijo, MALDEF Garcia, lawyer Zavitz, lawyer Hammar are not following rules of law.

So we have to try to do something about this.






Pages 1-5 with links posted below.










http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)and Rule 59(e)

MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008

1 Armijo writes

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied.

No rule in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to cover a response to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

Further, plaintiff cannot find an rule specifying a time to respond to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

On the other than, Rule 59(e) allows

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.

Further, Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) motion can be filed at any time.

2 Armijo writes

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

This is a false statement in view of title of

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes.

Title "Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions" obviates statement "Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, ... ."

Fact is that magistrate Lorenzo Garcia scheduled hearing when plaintiff Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz.

This omission, of course voids all ruling in under rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

Plaintiffs objected by not attending kangaroo hearing on March 26, 2008 09:00.

3 Armijo writes

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

must be altered under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) to read

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are not accepted for the reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

4 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are sustained;

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are dismissed for reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

5 Armijo writes

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

must be altered to read

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

must be altered to read

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied.

must be altered to read

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied
is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

7 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.
under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

M Christina Armijo has
committed felony violation of

A New Mexico 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. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

because the Armijo does not have jurisdiction is acting as a private citizen outside the scope of her judicial jurisdiction.

See
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

8 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

9 Morales was dismissed as a defendant.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008 was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date

Friday August 1, 2008 06:11

Armijo apparently, no file stamp, signed the order on July 11, 2008 so technically the ten days allowed under 59(e)may have expired on July 30, 2008. However, the court did not mail the order until July 14.

But Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) has no time limit.


Let's see what the retards do.

Keep in mind that Armijo and Garcia have violated their oaths of office in writing in a very serious matter.

We enter a new phase in our legal project.

Opposition participants MADDEF Armijo, MALDEF Garcia, lawyer Zavitz, lawyer Hammar are not following rules of law.

So we have to try to do something about this.




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)and Rule 59(e)

MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008

1 Armijo writes

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied.

No rule in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to cover a response to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

Further, plaintiff cannot find an rule specifying a time to respond to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

On the other than, Rule 59(e) allows

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.

Further, Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) motion can be filed at any time.

2 Armijo writes

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

This is a false statement in view of title of

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes.

Title "Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions" obviates statement "Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, ... ."

Fact is that magistrate Lorenzo Garcia scheduled hearing when plaintiff Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz.

This omission, of course voids all ruling in under rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

Plaintiffs objected by not attending kangaroo hearing on March 26, 2008 09:00.

3 Armijo writes

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

must be altered under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) to read

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are not accepted for the reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

4 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are sustained;

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are dismissed for reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

5 Armijo writes

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

must be altered to read

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

must be altered to read

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied.

must be altered to read

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied
is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

7 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.
under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

M Christina Armijo has
committed felony violation of

A New Mexico 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. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

because the Armijo does not have jurisdiction is acting as a private citizen outside the scope of her judicial jurisdiction.

See
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

8 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

9 Morales was dismissed as a defendant.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008 was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date



Thursday July 31, 2008 14:37


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)and Rule 59(e)

MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008

1 Armijo writes

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied.

No rule in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to cover a response to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

Further, plaintiff cannot find an rule specifying a time to respond to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

On the other than, Rule 59(e) allows

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.

Further, Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) motion can be filed at any time.

2 Armijo writes

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

This is a false statment in view of title of

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes.

Title "Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions" obviates statement "Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, ... ."

Fact is that magistrate Lorenzo Garcia scheduled hearing when plaintiff Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz.

This ommission, of course voids all ruling in under rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

Plaintliffs objected by not attending kanagroo hearing on March 26, 2008 09:00.

3 Armijo writes

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

must be altered under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) to read

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are not accepted for the reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

4 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are sustained;

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are dismissd for reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

5 Armijo writes

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

must be altered to read

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

must be altered to read

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied.

must be altered to read

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied
is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

7 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.
under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

M Christina Armijo has
committed felony violation of

A New Mexico 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. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

because the Armijo does not have jurisdiction is acting as a private citizen outside the scope of her judicial juridiction.

See
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

8 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

9 Morales was dismissed as a defendant.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008 was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date

Thursday July 31, 2008 14:37


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff,

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)and Rule 59(e)

MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008

1 Armijo writes

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied.

No rule in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to cover a response to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

Further, plaintiff cannot find an rule specifying a time to respond to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

On the other than, Rule 59(e) allows

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.

Further, Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) motion can be filed at any time.

2 Armijo writes

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

This is a false statment in view of title of

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes.

Title "Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions" obviates statement "Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, ... ."

Fact is that magistrate Lorenzo Garcia scheduled hearing when plaintiff Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz.

This ommission, of course voids all ruling in under rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

Plaintliffs objected by not attending kanagroo hearing on March 26, 2008 09:00.

3 Armijo writes

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

must be altered under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) to read

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are not accepted for the reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

4 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are sustained;

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are dismissd for reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

5 Armijo writes

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

must be altered to read

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

must be altered to read

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied.

must be altered to read

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied
is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

7 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.
under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

M Christina Armijo has
committed felony violation of

A New Mexico 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. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

because the Armijo does not have jurisdiction is acting as a private citizen outside the scope of her judicial juridiction.

See
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

8 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

9 Morales was dismissed as a defendant.

04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID AND AMEND JUDGMENTS IN ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MAILED JULY 14, 2008 was mailed to

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date


Thursday July 31, 2008 13:18

Under what rule could we file?
Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

We can now to BOTH rules 59 and 60 filings.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#rule59

Wednesday July 23, 2008 07:36

Rule 6. Time
(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation....

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5 (b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

Armijo's order was postmarked July 14, 2008.

Therefore, if we file a rule 59 motion, then it must be mailed by July 31, 2008 for the reason that the reason that the response time of ten days is less than eleven day which means Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are not included. Three day are added because service was by mail.

In legal matters never respond before required for the reason that you might think of something new!

Armijo ruled Morales reported.

We could not make a legal move until this happens.

Now we can.

Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.


Thursday July 31, 2008 09:24


Order scanned and OCR processed.















IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,
Plaintiffs,

V. No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

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

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
AND ORDERS OF GARNISHMENT

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

The Court accepts the findings and recommended disposition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are sustained;

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

SO ORDERED mis 11th day of July, 2008, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO
United States District Judge



Tuesday July 29, 2008 06:39

Morales reported at noon on Monday July 28, 2008 that he did not receive a similar document.

What could be the reason?

Morales also reported that he has been prevented by his family from further communication in this legal project.


Received Thursday July 24, 2008.

Let's try to do something about this corruption.












Thursday July 31, 2008 16:01

Scan and OCR hearing.

Tuesday April 1, 2008 17:18

Do not attend hearing when judge does not have jurisdiction for reason that it may give credence to the proceeding.

Non-attendance is a strong form of objection.


Objection is legal matters is very important for the reason that if you do not object, then it means to accept.

Docket entry 149


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes


















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Clerk's Minutes

Before the Honorable Lorenzo F. Garcia

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

COURT'S RULINGS/DISPOSITION: Report and Recommendation to issue Writs of Garnishment.

ORDER CONSISTENT WITH COURT'S RULING TO BE PREPARED BY; Government will provide revised Writs to Court

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF(S): ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):

Neither pro se Plaintiff was present John Zavitz

Kevin Hammar, for Gamishee Greg Fouratt

PROCEEDINGS:

Court in Session: 9 a.m.

Court: Calls case; asks for appearances of counsel Asks if either Plaintiff is present. Neither responds. Court Security Officer directed to check outside courtroom for Plaintiffs. Neither located.

Court: Summarizes procedural history of case. Plaintiffs were previously ordered to pay sanctions. Doc 41. Judge Campos, originally assigned to the case, dismissed the lawsuit initiated by Plaintiffs. That decision was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. The case was closed for years, at which point, but Plaintiffs commenced filing numerous pleadings seeking to re-assert dismissed claims. Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85, 91. Judge Annijo was assigned to the case and issued an order of reference in this case. Pursuant to that Order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause. Doc. 92. Neither Payne nor Morales responded. In a Report and Recommendation, this Court recommended sanctions be assessed for Plaintiffs' abusive and frivolous pleadings, and directed the United States Attorney to proceed to enforce and collect the sanctions imposed on Plaintiffs. Doc. 95. Plaintiffs filed no objections. Judge Armijo adopted the report and recommendation and imposed sanctions on each Plaintiff. No appeal was taken from that Order. The United States initiated collections proceedings to enforce judgment. Writs of garnishment were issued, including on Sandia Credit Union, where Plaintiffs each held accounts. Notices of writs of garnishment were issued to Plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs contacted the credit union to complain of the garnishment proceeding. However, neither Plaintiff filed objections with Court. Sandia Credit Union filed affidavits from Plaintiffs in the proceeding. Doc. 133. United States filed objections to the claimed exemption and sought a hearing. Doc. 135. Judge Armijo issued a new order of reference [doc. 141]directing the magistrate judge to conduct a hearing and issue a report and recommendation.

Zavitz: Explains that the United States' objection is being heard today. While Plaintiffs have filed pleadings, they did not file objections to the garnishment, nor did Plaintiffs request hearing. Plaintiffs indicated they did not want a hearing and objected to a hearing. Debtor/Plaintiff has burden to show exemption applies, but the only evidence presented by debtors/Plaintiffs are the affidavits filed by the credit union. Plaintiffs came forward with no other information on their behalf. Government clarified that Plaintiffs may be able to claim an exemption under state law if they could prove monies in credit union accounts are retirement proceeds. However, Plaintiffs did not show that all monies in these accounts were from retirement sources. Hammar: On behalf of Sandia Credit Union, the credit union filed, in an abundance of caution, the affidavits Plaintiffs submitted to the credit union. Plaintiffs/debtors incorrectly claimed that credit union had burden to show that the funds were not subject to garnishment. Credit Union informed Plaintiffs/debtors otherwise on numerous occasions. Court: Garnishee (credit union) has obligation only to respond to Court's Writ and to state whether garnishee holds funds, firedit Union is then required to freeze those assets if held in accounts and await Court's determination on exemptions, if any, and the Court's disposition under federal and state garnishment laws. Credit Union is under no obligation to adjudicate this matter, or to determine applicability of exemptions.

Zavitz: Tenders writs of garnishment for District Court to sign. Court: Makes findings. Plaintiffs were aware of today'shearing and proceeding, and Debtors/Plaintiffs have chosen not to attend the hearing. Court finds that debtors were served with the appropriate pleadings and notice of this hearing. Plaintiffs/debtors sent emails and other correspondence to the U.S. Attorney acknowledging receipt of the relevant information. Court rejects debtors' claims of improper service and finds that service was proper. Court acknowledges Plaintiffs'/Debtors' claim that funds in pertinent accounts should not be garnished because they are retirement funds or wages of a spouse. The monies in both Payne's and Morales' accounts were commingled with other funds in those accounts. It was the burden of debtors to demonstrate the source of the funds and any legitimate claim of exemption. They have wholly failed to do so. Thus, under the pertinent law, garnishment may proceed. Court looks at New Mexico law to determine if there are exemptions under state law and federal law. Garnishment may be made from communal mnds, to the extent the laws of New Mexico permit. Debts incurred during course of marriage may be garnished. Community property may be used to satisfied communal debt. Court recognizes that retirement funds may not be garnished. However, if those retirement funds are paid to the retiree and then commingled with other funds, they are subject to garnishment. Plaintiffs must demonstrate which funds are retirement funds. Plaintiffs failed to do so.

Zavitz: Tenders writs to Court which Court reviews. Court: In addition to the amounts ordered to be paid by Plaintiffs, the garnishee is entitled to attorney's fees related to responding to the writs. There are funds sufficient and there is no showing of an applicable exemption. Based on these determinations. Court concludes that the writs of garnishment should issue directing gamishee to pay the amounts to the United States. Once Sandia Credit Union makes payments to the United States, the garnishee is discharged and free of any other obligations in this matter. A report will issue recommending entry of an order directing payment.

Zavitz: Will submit revised Writs to correct typographical error.

Hammar: Nothing further. Credit Union seeks reimbursement for attorney's fees related to this matter.

Zavitz: Amount of attorney's fees will be added to the amounts to be paid.

Court: In recess, 9:30 a.m.



Tuesday April 1, 2008 09:24

Extortion attempt.

Docket entry 150


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#extortion





Friday March 28, 2008 15:53

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran viz.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#docketinfo



Garcia, without jurisidction, recommends that judge M Christina Armijo commit extortion.
We ask that APD send officers to 333 Lomas, Pecos courtroom at 09:00 Tuesday March 25, 2008 to be ready to arrest Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia for 30-3A-2 Harassment and 30-28-1, Attempt to commit a felony, and 30-16-9 Extortion if, in fact, they sign order to seize our exempt savings of $22,036.00.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday March 28, 2008 14:19

Docket entry 150
Docket entry 149
Docket entry 148
Docket entry 147


DOCKET OF  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

PACER docket records

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacergarnish/pacergarnish.htm


Hearing scheduled for March 25, 2008 09:00 [Docket entry 142] should have cancelled for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs were not properly served and garnishment rules were not followed as a result of written evidence presented in MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 which contains evidence of docket fraud, plus


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 March 30, 2008 for MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.


plaintiffs are allowed 14 days, plus 3 for service by mail, to reply to assistant US attorney Zavitz's response of MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.

See docket entry 145 above.

Friday March 28, 2008 14:07

Note postmark date of March 25, 2008.




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#envelope25







Remainder of MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 follows.

Friday March 28, 2008 14:00

Note postmark date of March 24, 2008.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#envelope24







Remainder of MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 follows.


Friday March 28, 2008 13:30


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#withdrawba















Friday March 28, 2008 13:26

Response to
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#mandatory2


We have 14 + 3 days because of service by mail to REPLY.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#responsemandatory2













Friday March 28, 2008 10:44

Below was sent from Del Rio, TX.

We were in a rush to send about 08:30 mountain standard time

We believe that this is an potentially explosive situation

perhap should have been

We believe that this is a potentially explosive situation
So what happened in abq? We don't know.

Let's all hope for peaceful settlement quick.

This is posted from Brownsville, TX. Spring break.

We're on an essential non-gas-wasting energy survey trip.

Lots of energy is consumed around El Paso, Laredo, McAllen-Harlengen-Brownsville.

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:33 AM
To: jhamman@cabq.gov; kmccabe@cabq.gov; mcastro@cabq.gov; mcallaway@cabq.gov; Dbowdtch@cabq.gov; rshultz@cabq.gov
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; pacer@psc.uscourts.gov; mainewayne@msn.com; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; mayor@cabq.gov; cjillson@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org

Subject: Urgent help required - We believe that this is an potentially explosive situation

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearng/hearing.htm#apd

Tuesday March 25, 2008 08:19
Albuquerque Police Department
505 - 242 - 2677
rshultz@cabq.gov

Dbowdtch@cabq.gov
mcallaway@cabq.gov
mcastro@cabq.gov
kmccabe@cabq.gov
jhamman@cabq.gov

Dear APD:

Purpose of this email is to report several crimes and ask for protection.

Albuquerque citizens Arthur R Morales and William H Payne have been subjected to repeated acts of criminal harassment by US government employees.

The latest act of harassment was to schedule a hearing at 333 Lomas, Pecos courtroom, March 25, 2009 09:00 to take Sandia National Laboratory Credit Union exempt savings accounts totalling $22,036.00 when Morales and Payne had not been properly served or garnishment rules followed.


These acts have now morphed into violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Lawyers John Zavits, Kevin Hammar, and Lorenzo Garcia along with complicity of lawyers M Christina Armijo and Martha Vazquez.

Written evidence of wrong-doing by the accused is posted at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearng/hearing.htm#armijocancel.


We ask to file a formal criminal complaint affidavit against Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia.

We are frightened because the matter involves cryptographic work done at Sandia Labs by manager James Gosler's group and the National Security Agency applied to a spy sting on Iran.

Loring Wirbel's Electronic Engineering Times, January 22, 1996, p. 84 article State Sanctioned Paranoia got the words "DOE, Bill Payne, NSA, Crypto AG, Hans Buehler, Iranian prison, Crypto/NSA sting against that country, .." all in an article read by Iranian engineers.

We believe that this is an potentially explosive situation and should be settled legally as soon as possible.

New Mexico legal establishment appears to believe that it can do anything it want to citizens irrespective of the law.

But this time we believe that lawyers Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia have gone too far in that they has broken both misdemeanor and felony laws in a very visible case.

We ask that APD send officers to 333 Lomas, Pecos courtroom at 09:00 Tuesday March 25, 2008 to be ready to arrest Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia for 30-3A-2 Harassment and 30-28-1, Attempt to commit a felony, and 30-16-9 Extortion if, in fact, they sign order to seize our exempt savings of $22,036.00.

We wish to press charges.

We will send a written notarized complaint shortly.

Sincerely

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

distribution

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

Monday March 24, 2008 17:37

Always be sure to submit an order for the court!


mcaproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us

We received a 1.5 hour phone call from a member of Center for Family Justice on Thursday February 28, 2008

We learned that judge Martha Vazquez and magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia, but not M Christina Armijo, are on a tentative list of 1,000 individuals who may be members of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF].


M Christina Armijo is a MALDEF judge, we were told because the list we first saw was old.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearng/hearing.htm#armijocancel


-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:40 PM
To: mcaproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; pacer@psc.uscourts.gov; mainewayne@msn.com; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; board_of_directors@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; cjillson@slfcu.org; mayor@cabq.gov
Subject: proposed order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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.

ORDER

1 Hearing scheduled for March 25, 2008 09:00 [Docket entry 142] is cancelled for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs were not properly served and garnishment rules were not followed as a result of written evidence presented in MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 which contains evidence of docket fraud, plus


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.


plaintiffs are allowed 14 days, plus 3 for service by mail, to reply to assistant US attorney Zavitz's response of MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.

See docket entry 145 above.


2 All judicial officers of the District of New Mexico are recused in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.


3 CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG is transferred to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.



                                                                ____________________________
                                                                M Cristina Armijo
                                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

Saturday March 22, 2008 10:16

Evidence of docket fraud.

Alert PACER too. See distribution list.


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



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 MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.




5 Plaintiffs submit MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 to New Mexico federal court clerk Matthew Dykman on March 5, 2008.


6 MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 is received in the clerk's office on March 7, 2008.



So MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 is file stamped day before it was apparently received and did not appear on the docket until Thursday 3/20/2008.

We received on Friday March 21, 2008 mail.


Note mailing date of March 20, 2008.

This contained



we're not posting the remainder of the notice. And





We did some checking.

Here's the postal receipt.



Note mailing time of 3:57:27 PM.

We checked usps.com on Friday March 21, 2008



So maybe it did arrive on March 6, 2008? Or maybe above is digital fraud?

But this still doesn't help the oppostion for the reason we got them on many other counts.


All judgments and order in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

Time to settle before matters get lots worse?

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#clerkfraud



Thursday March 20, 2008 12:15

Certified return receipt requested

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


Dear clerk Dykman:

Enlosed is MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 in accord with New Mexico local rules.

We ask that it be file stamped, docketed, and submitted to PACER.

Sincerely,



William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111


Arthur R. Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW,
Albuquerqu
e, New Mexico 87107-2608

distribution - modified Friday March 21, 2008 08:43

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
pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

Satuday March 22, 2008 06:59

Morales and Payne got a 10 - 13:30 hour lecture from a principal of Center for Family Justice on Wendesday March 19, 2008.

There looks to be a conspiracy within the legal system in the US ... and we were told it is about money for lawyers.

Principal gave us a reference to EyeOnAlbuquerque.

M Christina Armijo is a MALDEF judge, we were told.

Two crimes were committed, in writing, in court records. Amd more crimes may be committed at 09:00 Tuesday March 25, 2008 in the Pecos room, 333 Lomas NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

Above evidence suggests Tuesday March 25, 2008 hearing will be a kangaroo court hearing designed to harass us and extort money from us in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Can we stop these crimes from occuring? We will see.

 CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG garnishment entries PACER docket as of Thursday March 20, 2008.






http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#mandatory2



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2

1 Docket of CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG entry 143, section 2, contains an DECLARATION OF GARNISHMENT DOCUMENTS SENT TO DEBTOR which incorrectly states

I, LOIS A. AGNES, declare the following to be true and correct:

2 Agnes' statement

3. Debtor, William H. Payne, asserts in a letter filed by him in another case, Morales et al v. Baca. CIV 01-634 WFD (Docket No. 76), that the package he received did not actually include the Notice of Garnishment and Instructions for Objecting to the Answer. Consequently, the Debtor, William H. Payne, was re-served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 13, 2008, with the complete garnishment package which included a copy of the Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letters and return receipts signed by Mr. Payne are affixed hereto as Attachments 1 and 2.

is incorrect that for reason that claimed document was sent to plaintiff Morales instead of plaintiff Payne.

4







5 Plaintiffs submit MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 to New Mexico federal court clerk Matthew Dykman on March 5, 2008.


6 MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 is received in the clerk's office on March 7, 2008.


7 MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 for CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG has not been docketed as of Tuesday March 18, 2008.

This is a violation of by LOCAL CIVIL RULES, Rule 10.3(a)

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.

8 Thursday March 20, 2008 PACER shows

03/06/2008 144 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re service of documents 103- 135 (sl) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
with FILE STAMP March 6, 2008 which is one day before United States Post Office green card indicates MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 was received.

Thursday March 20, 2008 PACER transaction receipt Notice transaction receipt 03/20/2008 12:12:09 shows that MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 was not properly docketed with posting on PACER until March 20, 2008.

These data are evidence of violation of Rule 60(b)(3)

Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
which voids all judgments and order in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

9 Plaintiff Morales wrote Ms Marsha Urioste, SLFCU, Chair of the Board of Directors, Wednesday March 19, 2008

My social security # in the writ, it is not mine. The court has made critical legal errors and the writ is void.



10 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

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 also 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 orders and judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void as dictated by Rule 60(b)(3)(4)

Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;
.
11 Docket entry 142 shows magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia scheduling a hearing on March 25, 2008, 09:00.

We did not request a hearing.

There is no need or justification for a hearing since we have enumerated and submitted errors within the writ of garnishment that voids the writ.

Therefore no hearing is needed for the following reasons:

Copied with notice of this hearing is Assistant US attorney John Zaviz and Sandia National Laboratory Credit Union lawyer Kevin Hammar.

Judge Garcia is a defendant in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 10278 which was fraudulently removed to federal court.

The federal case, 00 CV 1677, is void for lack subject matter jurisdiction. DEFAMATION AND HARASSMENT are not federal questions.

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.


The federal case, 01 CV 1198, is void for lack subject matter jurisdiction. HARASSMENT AND PERJURY are not federal questions.

SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar never returned our calls which would have corroborated our funds exempt status and thereby advised FLCU not to freeze our savings accounts and notifying the court of the determined exempt status.

Hammar did not follow garnishment proceeding rules by ascertaining that our attests were exempt before freezing our savings accounts for a total of $22,036.00.



12 Judge Lorenzo Garcia who is defendant in CV 2000-10278 and was presiding judge in voidable 99 cv 270.

Garcia flaunts disregard for 28 USC
§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ...


13 An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice 14 is one of the essential elements of due process of law. 15
14 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17.

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

14 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4

4 Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994).

15 11, 12, and 13 above suggests Tuesday March 25, 2008 hearing will be a kangaroo court hearing designed to harass us and extort money from plaintiffs in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107-2608

Date: ____________________


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 was mailed

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date


Friday March 21, 2008 14:39

New Mexico federal court judge page.

The Administrative Office for the United States Courts.

Mr Richard Jaffe [202-502-1700] of above reported that judge Armijo was commissioned on November 12, 2008 but his office does not have on record copies of
1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

Mr Jaffe was very helpful.

Checked PACER Tuesday March 18,m 2008 06:23. MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1not on docket.

No messages from judge Vazquez by 12:00 Monday March 17, 2008.

Required Credentials for United States Judges

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












-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:26 PM
To: mvproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us; VazquezChambers@nmcourt.fed.us
Cc: 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; Eichhorst, Julia E.; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; mainewayne@msn.com; Amorales58@Comcast.Net
Subject: Docketing, judge armijo, and venue problems




Friday March 14, 2008 14:58

Email mvproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us; VazquezChambers@nmcourt.fed.us and certified mail

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#vazquezletter

Judge Martha Vazquez
United States District Court
Santiago E. Campos Courthouse
106 South Federal Place Second Floor
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

(505) 988-6330

Dear judge Vazquez:

As of Friday March 14, 2008 14:58 we do not see on PACER that MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 for CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG has been docketed.

This, of course, is a violation of by LOCAL CIVIL RULES., Rule 10.3(a)

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.

We have been informed that judge M Christina Armijo may be an impostor.

Evidence in a September 18, 2006 from missing credentials request sent to judge Armijo Paul Andrew Mitchell and confirmation letter dated November 16, 2006 written by DOJ OIP director Daniel J Metcalf confirming that judge Amijo credential were apparently missing

Above and similar exhibits are seen at docket entry 24, A1 and A2, of MC 06-24 MCA, USA, et al v. Carman, suggests that judge Armijo does not have required credentials of
1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

to have jurisdiction in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

Support of these allegations is perhaps the reason Armijo did not sign




was to prevent the above document appointing Gregory Fouratt acting US attorney might be invalidated as a result of a possible fraudulent endorsement.

We are extremely concerned that our MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 is docketed for the reason assistant US attorney John Zavitz and magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia at the order of judge Armijo
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

appears to want to rule of whether we were properly served in a Tuesday March 25, 2008 as opposed to the court accepting our MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE supported by our affidavits to void orders and judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

We are further concerned that assistant US attorney Zavits, judge Garcia, and Sandia Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] attorney Kevin Hammar will attend this hearing.


Judge Garcia is a defendant in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 10278 which was fraudulently removed to federal court.


The federal case, 00 CV 1677, is void for lack subject matter jurisdiction. DEFAMATION AND HARASSMENT are not federal questions.

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.


The federal case, 01 CV 1198, is void for lack subject matter jurisdiction. HARASSMENT AND PERJURY are not federal questions.

SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar never returned our calls which would have corroborated our funds exempt status and thereby advised FLCU not to freeze our savings accounts and notiftying the court of the determined exempt status.

Hammar did not follow garnishment proceeding rules by ascertaining that our attests were exempt before freezing our savings accounts for a total of $22,036.00.


Above evidence suggests Tuesday March 25, 2008 hearing will be a kangaroo court hearing designed to harass us and extort money from us in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

FIRST, we ask that you abide by your Oath of Office to see that clerk Matthew Dykman sees that our MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 is docketed and we are sent a copy of the file stamped copy as required by court rules.

SECOND, we ask that you send us copies of judge M Christina Armijo's 1 Senate Confirmation, 2 Presidential Commission, 3 Oath of Office, and 4 Appointment Affidavit or confirm that these four documents do not exist for judge Armijo.

THIRD, we ask you to sign order so that these unfortunate matters can promptly be settled before they get worse.

This order was submitted to the clerk with our MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.


We ask that you send your responses to bpayne37@comcast.net and amorales58@comcast.net to the two above requests by Monday March 17, 2008 12:00 for the reason that we must take immediate legal action to protect ourselves.

This includes filing Morales's affidavit that New Mexico US attorney's office paralegal Lois A Agnes is incorrect about her declaration of proper service to Payne.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Sincerely,


William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
bpayne37@comcast.net


Arthur R. Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107-2608
amorales58@comcast.net

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

Friday March 14, 2008 07:20

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#carman

Question has been raise as to whether judge M Cristina Armijo has proper judicial credentials for jurisdiction.

The case is USA, et al v. Carman
Assigned to: District Judge M. Christina Armijo

We found the references by Carman to Armijo's possible lack of judicial credentials.

See exhibits A1 and A2.
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)

Note that we have New Mexico chief judge Martha Vazquez signed oath of office in A1 which she violated in writing.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#vazquezdocs

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijonodocs




Looks like Mitchell was making sure that a mistake was not made with Armijo documents.




Judge Martha Vázquez documents.







Thursday March 13, 2008 14:14
DOCKET OF  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG


MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 not docketed as of Wednesday March 12, 2008 13:48.

Note that MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 has not been docketed. This, of course, is a violation of by LOCAL CIVIL RULES., Rule 10.3(a)

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.


03/05/2008 141 ORDER re: Writs of Garnishment by Judge M. Christina Armijo (jm) (Entered:

03/05/2008) 03/05/2008 142 NOTICE of Hearing on Objections to Exemptions set for 3/25/08 at 9:00 before Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. (clm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

03/06/2008 143 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by USA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Lois Agnes# 2 Exhibit B - Payne Web Pages)(Zavitz, John) (Entered: 03/06/2008)


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#pacergarnish


PACER docket as of Monday March 10, 2008.

Thursday March 13, 2008 12:44

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#carman


Question has been raise as to whether judge M Cristina Armijo has proper judicial credentials for jurisdiction.

The case is USA, et al v. Carman
Assigned to: District Judge M. Christina Armijo

We found the references by Carman to Armijo's possible lack of judicial credentials.

See exhibits A1 and A2.
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)

Note that we have New Mexico chief judge Martha Vazquez signed oath of office in A1which she violated in writing.

Thursday March 13, 2008 12:33

We would settle for matters are certain to get LOTS WORSE soon.


New Mexico chief judge Martha Vazquez is a defendant.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#vazquez3118




HARASSMENT is not federal a question. Therefore, the frauduently removed federal lawsuit 01 CV 0634 judgments and orders are void on subject matter jurisdiction.

Paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by US and New Mexico consitutions.



Then there is the threat when Vazquez did not have jurisdiction which violated her oath of office of which we now have a signed copy.




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

Above was posted at Cryptome.

Thursday March 13, 2008 12:05

We would settle for matters are certain to get LOTS WORSE soon.


Assistant US attorney John J Zavitz is a defendant.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#zavitz2639




HARASSMENT AND PERJURY are not federal questions. Therefore, the frauduently removed federal lawsuit 01 CV 1198 judgments and orders are void on subject matter jurisdiction.

Paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by US and New Mexico consitutions.



Thursday March 13, 2008 12:36

We would settle for matters are certain to get LOTS WORSE soon.


Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia is a defendant.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#garcia10278



DEFAMATION AND HARASSMENT are not federal questions. Therefore, the frauduently removed federal lawsuit 00 CV 1677 judgments and orders are void on subject matter jurisdiction.

Paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by US and New Mexico consitutions.


Wednesday March 12, 2008 13:36

We respond with mandatory judicial notice 2.

You don't respond directly to a kangaroo court.

The Iran spy sting story got out because of
State-sanctioned Paranoia
Electronic Engineering Times, January 22, 1996, p. 84.


The lawsuit went into some of the details:  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG garnishment entries PACER docket as of Thursday February 28, 2008.

The details are still emerging:


How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started viz

Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008


Armijo and Garcia are making matters worse rather than trying to get them settled.


Links to
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



3 Assistant US attorney Zavitz long filing


The entire filing is seen at


http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/clegal/lucero/dojnm3/dojnm3.htm#zavitzlong


Text http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/clegal/lucero/dojnm3/dojnm3.htm#zavitztext

 

Wednesday March 12, 2008 08:07

We believe the rule is that in a court document, only a verified signed document, as opposed to a notarized document will work. But, of course, Agnes' declaration is not verified.

Garcia and Armijo would almost certainly rule that the Agnes declaration was correct.


Docket entry 137.

We don't really need the text of Zavitz stuff since we are going void judgment for a variety of reasons.

Monday March 10, 2008 14:44

Zavitz filing is very long so will only post the first several pages at pro se fights main page.

The entire filing is seen at

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/clegal/lucero/dojnm3/dojnm3.htm#zavitzlong


http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/clegal/lucero/dojnm3/dojnm3.htm#moralesaffidavit

Morales pointed out by bringing a slip of paper written on it:
Rule 60(b)(3) Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

And they did it all in writing while harassing us and attempting extort $22,036.00 out of us.


















IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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.

DECLARATION OF GARNISHMENT DOCUMENTS SENT TO DEBTOR

I, LOIS A, AGNES, declare the following to be true and correct:

1. I am a Paralegal Specialist in the office of the United States Attorney, Financial Litigation Unit, District of New Mexico.

2. On January 28, 2008, the Debtor, William H. Payne, to the best of my belief, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, with the following garnishment documents: Writ of Garnishment; Clerk's Notice of Post-Judgment Garnishment and Instructions To Debtor which included Claim For Exemption Form

EXHIBIT A

Major Exemptions Under Federal Law, Major Exemptions Under State Law, Bankruptcy Code Exemptions Claim Form, and Instructions To Defendant Debtor On How To Claim Exemptions; Request For Hearing Form; and Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer.

3. Debtor, William H. Payne, asserts in a letter filed by him in another case, Morales et al v. Baca. CIV 01-634 WFD (Docket No. 76), that the package he received did not actually include the Notice of Garnishment and Instructions for Objecting to the Answer. Consequently, the Debtor, William H. Payne, was re-served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 13, 2008, with the complete garnishment package which included a copy of the Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letters and return receipts signed by Mr. Payne are affixed hereto as Attachments 1 and 2.

4. On January 28, 2008, the Debtor, Arthur R. Morales, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, with the following garnishment documents: Writ of Garnishment; Clerk's Notice of Post-Judgment Garnishment and Instructions To Debtor which included Claim For Exemption Form Major Exemptions Under Federal Law, Major Exemptions Under State Law, Bankruptcy Code Exemptions Claim Form, and Instructions To Defendant Debtor On How To Claim Exemptions; Request For Hearing Form; and Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letter and return receipt signed by Mr. Morales are affixed hereto as Attachment 3.

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.

LOIS.A AGNES

Paralegal Specialist
Office of the United States Attorney
Dated: February 28, 2008

Monday March 10, 2008 09:34

The Iran spy sting story got out because of
State-sanctioned Paranoia
Electronic Engineering Times, January 22, 1996, p. 84.


The lawsuit went into some of the details:  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG garnishment entries PACER docket as of Thursday February 28, 2008.

The details are still emerging:


How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started viz

Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008


Armijo and Garcia are making matters worse rather than trying to get them settled.



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#armijo2



Received Friday March 7, 2008







Monday March 10, 2008 09:34

The Iran spy sting story got out because of
State-sanctioned Paranoia
Electronic Engineering Times, January 22, 1996, p. 84.


The lawsuit went into some of the details:  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG garnishment entries PACER docket as of Thursday February 28, 2008.

The details are still emerging:


How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started viz

Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008


Armijo and Garcia are making matters worse rather than trying to get them settled.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#garcia2



Received Saturday March 87, 2008










Friday March 7, 2008 13:43

Full email:
-----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)



Partial quote of email received

-----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.

Another partial email. We are in cell phone contact with John Williamson author of below.

-----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,

Contrary to Armijo's order docket entry 102
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.

We see that our pleadings are being docketed but many not sent to us by the court.

This fraudulent harassing attempt at extortion is having very bad effects on Morales and his family.

And it is upsetting Payne.

 CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG garnishment entries PACER docket as of Thursday February 28, 2008.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#mandatory1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1

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.

4 Letters written by magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia on February 25, 2008 to Assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell and plaintiffs


and Acting US attorney Gregory Fouratt on February 29, 2008 to Judge M Christina Armijo



constitute improper ex parte communication not part of the docket of in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

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

5 All judicial officers in the District of New Mexico were recused by former judge James A Parker:
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.


RELIEF SOUGHT

6 TRANSFER CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

7 VOID all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

8 ORDER Sandia Federal Credit Union to remove garnishments on Plaintiffs accounts.

9 ORDER Bank of America to remove garnishment on plaintiff Payne's safe deposit box.

10 ORDER CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG to be promptly settled or to trial by jury as demanded.

11 ISSUE injunctions against New Mexico Acting US attorney Gregory Fouratt, magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia, and judge M Christina Armijo to prevent further extortion and harassment attempts which are in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107-2608

Date: ____________________


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 was mailed

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

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
c/o Kevin D. Hammar
Attorney for Garnishee
1212 Pennsylvania NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.


_________________________

_________________________
Date

Wednesday March 5, 2008 14:47

Always be sure to submit an order for the court!







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

Above was posted at Cryptome.



We received a 1.5 hour phone call from a member of Center for Family Justice on Thursday February 28, 2008

We learned that judge Marth Vazquez and magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia, but not M Christina Armijo, are on a tentative list of 1,000 individuals who may be members of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF].

We were informed that there may be some organized lawyer/state and federal judge misconduct.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#vazquezorder

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF 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.

ORDER

1 CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG is transferred to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

2 All judicial officers of the District of New Mexico are recused in this CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                Martha Vazquez
                                                                CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

Tuesday March 11, 2008 09:23

Morales and Payne have two outstanding 12 person jury trial lawsuits against Brennan for Breach of Contract which were unlawfully dismissed by judges Scott [now a federal magistrate] and Kenneth G Brown.

See Exhibit O and Exhibit P


Morales and Payne met at McDonald's at San Mateo and Academy.

Note that Brennan is before judge Julie Altwies.

Altwies made a void judgment because there is not statute of limitations in a void judgment action in fellow former judge Charles Barnhart criminal complaint.

Alwies never responded to the Dow void judgment action.


Morales opined that the New Mexico legal system need some intense scrutiny.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm



Officers Had To Kick Open Ex-Judge's Door

from PAGE Al

turned out to be Brennan's house, they approached the front door and heard a woman scream, "Please let me go" and "Ouch, you are hurting me." They also heard a male curse at the woman and say, "Because of you and your big mouth, the cops are going to come."

The woman responded, "Why are you doing this? Please let me go. You're hurting me" as country music blared in the background.

The officers then heard what sounded like the woman escaping and heard her scream, "Help! Help!"

Two officers then peeked through a set of French doors and saw Brennan with his hand over the woman's mouth and his arm wrapped around her throat.

The officers drew their guns, kicked open the door, ordered Brennan to let go of the woman and placed the former judge in handcuffs. At the same time, a third officer was forcing his way through a back door.

"I immediately recognized the male subject as former 2nd Judicial District Judge John Brennan," one of the officers wrote in a report.

The woman told police that Brennan was upset because he wanted her to have sex with a prostitute and she refused.

He then chased her through the house and grabbed her by the hair and neck several times, she told police. At one point, the woman locked herself in a bedroom and removed a window screen in an attempt to escape, but the window was too high.

The woman told police that Brennan grabbed her hair and was going to "snap" her neck.

She told police that she thought

Brennan was going to kill her.

When questioned by police, Brennan said, "I didn't touch her" several times. He also told officers, "I would never hurt a woman."

"Mr. Brennan did emit an extremely strong odor of alcoholic beverage and his eyes were blood shot and watery and his speech was slurred," one officer wrote in his report.

Brennan was chief judge in the 2nd Judicial District in

Albuquerque for nearly 20 years. On Memorial Day weekend 2004, he was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and cocaine possession. He resigned from the bench shortly afterward.

Brennan pleaded guilty to the charges and received a year of probation and two days of house arrest. He also surrendered his state bar license.

He checked himself into the Betty Ford Clinic in Palm Springs, Calif., for treatment of substance abuse problems.

Brennan worked as a consultant for the local Second Chance rehabilitation program.

Joy Westrum, the program's president, said Brennan works for the nonprofit daily on judicial affairs and in educating courts about the program's alternative sentencing.

"John has helped a lot of people, and we wish him the best," Westrum said. "We are going to reserve judgment and not make any decisions until all of the facts are known. Right now, we are respecting his need to focus on his private affairs."

Albuquerque Journal Tuesday March 11, 2008

Monday March 10, 2008 24:47

Morales and Payne have two outstanding 12 person jury trial lawsuits against Brennan for Breach of Contract which were unlawfully dismissed by judges Scott [now a federal magistrate] and Kenneth G Brown.

See Exhibit O and Exhibit P


Morales and Payne met at McDonald's at San Mateo and Academy.

Morales opined that the New Mexico legal system need some intense scrutiny.

Former Judge Accused Of Aggravated Battery

from PAGE Al

She also told the officer that she "was battered and held against her will by John, her boyfriend, because John wanted her to 'be with a prostitute.'"

She told police she was allegedly "choked and chased by him," Walsh said. He said she was treated for injuries at the house and released.

Brennan was the chief judge in the 2nd Judicial District in Albuquerque for nearly 20 years. On Memorial Day weekend 2004, he was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and cocaine possession. He resigned from the bench shortly afterward.

Brennan pleaded guilty to the charges and received a year of probation and two daysof house arrest. He also surrendered his state bar license.

He checked himself into the Betty Ford Clinic in Palm Springs, Calif., to treat what he has in later interviews called substance abuse problems.

As of a year ago, Brennan worked as a consultant for the local Second Chance rehabilitation program.

In a September 2006 interview with the Journal, Brennan discussed the DWI and cocaine possession charges.

"I, like ,every other person, have problems and make mistakes. I made a serious mistake. I wasn't dealing with some personal problems I had. It ended up with my being involved in substance abuse, mostly alcohol," Brennan said.

Walsh said the woman told police she was afraid for her life during the incident and, at one point, thought about jumping from a second-story window.

The kidnapping charge results from suspicion that Brennan held the woman against her will and moved her within the home against her will, Walsh said.

Brennan was released from the Metropolitan Detention Center on Sunday after posting a $25,000 bond.

He is to be arraigned today at 1:30 p.m.

Albuquerque Journal Monday March 10, 2008

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:41 PM <<<<<-------------
To: board_of_directors@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; cjillson@slfcu.org
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; mainewayne@msn.com; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov
Subject: Lawyer Hammar, by the court's admonition, has improperly seen that SLFCU garnished our saving accounts


Hammar realized he erred and trys to correct.

Jillson's physical appearance reminds us of



Readers,

Payne first saw the instructions to Sandia about exemption but then Morales pointed out the instructions to US.

That's why we used the original quote.


Good news may be that we have an open communications line with Jillson

Jim Rogers interview by Dr Paul Kedrosky, Yahoo Finance, February 12, 2008.

Somebody knew that Iraq and Iran were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008

Brzezinski knew when the Iraq/Iran war would start.

Likely others in the Carter administration knew this too.

Who?
Contrary to lawyer Hammar's above statement, SLFCU has not followed the proper writ of garnishment procedures the court sent it and, along with lawyer Hammar appears to have committed extortion by denying us access to our exempt saving accounts.


was removed.


Friday February 15, 2008 15:26

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#jillson3

cjillson@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org

Chris Jillson, president
Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
Credit Union Center
3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-293-0500


Dear Mr Jillson:

Thank you for meeting with us today.

We received lawyer Hammar's letter after meeting with you.

You stated to us that you believe that we have differences on how SLFCU should have processed the attempted garnishments.

Let us try to make our position clear because it was our fault for not including a second exhibit.

We stated
SLFCU garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR.

Page 2 states



in our February 7, 2008, February 8, 2008, and February 13, 2008 letters you.

We tried to inform SLFCU's lawyer Hammar by telephone but Hammar did not return our calls.
Morales phoned SLFCU'S attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call.

Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call.

But what we failed to include was the court's instructions to SLFCU.

Here they are:


We outline the the court's admonition to SLFCU in red which was included to ensure that SLFCU would not garnish exempt funds.



SLFCU with the advice of its attorney Kevin Hammar apparently decided to ignore the court's instructions as well as Morales' and Payne's phone calls and submitted affidavits.


Instead of, returning our phone calls, or acting on our affidavits in an effort not to garnish our exempt savings accounts, or verifying claims of exemptions made in those affidavits, thereby SLFCU proceeded with an illegal garnishment process.

We believe that if SLFCU lawyer Hammar reads the instructions to SLFCU then he will see that we followed properly procedure and SLFCU did not.

And Hammar's submitting SUPPLEMENT TO FILE appears to indicate that Hammar realized he made a mistake and was trying to correct it.

Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008.
As you may know, this law firm represents Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union. You may also know the Credit Union was served with two (2) Writs of Garnishment, issued out of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, against each of your accounts at the Credit Union. I earlier mailed to you copies of the answers to those Writ of Garnishment which I submitted on behalf of the Credit Union. In addition, Chris Jillson, Chief Executive Officer of the Credit Union, has also written to you informing you as to the proper procedure whereby you might claim the funds in your accounts are exempt from garnishment. You have, however, submitted directly to the Credit Union two (2) affidavits asserting that some part, if not all, of the funds otherwise placed under administrative hold (or freeze) in response to the Writ of Garnishment are exempt.

Your cover letter asserts that the Credit Union makes the determination as to whether those funds are exempt. As you know, the Credit Union and yourselves have a different opinion about that matter.

Hammar apparently failed to read the instructions to SLFCU outlined in red above.

We followed the instructions given to us by the court and even tried to phone Hammar to advise him of exemptions but Hammar did not return our phone calls.

Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008:
Nonetheless, in an effort to address your claimed exemptions, we have electronically filed, with the District Court, your affidavits. With this filing the Credit Union makes notice in the Court's tile that you each have claimed some part, if not all, of your funds on deposit at the Credit Union as being exempt funds.

Lawyer Hammar, by the court's admonition, has improperly seen that SLFCU garnished our saving accounts which were declared by affidavit as exempt.

Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008:

This letter is to caution you. This effort by the Credit Union is done to protect your interests as best the Credit Union can. However, by law, each of you are the only ones empowered to authorize to file such claims of exemption. I enclose copies of the-two relevant rules, of procedure. The first being federal rule of procedure the second being the state rule of procedure, addressing garnishments.

Please note that Morales and Payne had individual instructions from the court for the process of garnishment.

Morales and Payne followed their instructions by submitting individual affidavits to SLFCU in declaration of the status of their funds being held by SLFCU.

SLFCU has on file records to validate or refute Morales's and Payne's affidavits.

It is very clear that SLFCU received its own instructions from the court which informed them to garnish funds only it these funds were non-exempted by using the table enclosed by the court to determine status of the funds.

Those rules contain certain phrases which are in bold face. These bold face sentences describe your duties and your rights with respect to claiming your funds as exempt. Please note that the rules require each of you to file these claims with the court. I thus would encourage you to comply with the letter of these statutes and assert your claims. The Credit Union cannot assure you that by submitting the attached documents for the Court's attention that it will in fact result in any judgment or order upholding your claim of exemptions.

Contrary to lawyer Hammar's above statement, we have followed the rules.

SLFCU has not followed the rules.

You wrote in your February 13, 2008 letter:

The law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt".

We believe in view of the graphic evidence present in this email that you are incorrect.

Our efforts to expedite and provide appropriate affidavits declaring our savings exemption status of our accounts were hand-delivered to SLFCU on February 5, 2008.

It was our best effort to send it to SLFCU. Who better than SLFCU is better to affirm or refute the affidavits since it has all of the document to confirm the affidavits?

The courts assigned SLFCU the task in its written instructions to determine whether the savings accounts were exempt or not.

The court does not have the documentation to show whether the savings account are exempt or not.

SLFCU has this information.

Then, and only then if the saving accounts were not exempt to proceed with the garnishment.

So we ask that you to see that SLFCU immediately makes our garnished saving accounts available to us.

However, we feel that it is in the best interests of everyone to settle these unfortunate matters.

Sandia National Laboratories has cause all of these unfortunate situations and, therefore, should pay to get them settled.

Since we now have communications with you, we solicit your help in settlement of these unfortunate matter by Tuesday February 19, 2008.

Sincerely,

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277
amorales58@comcast.net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@ comcast.net

Distribution

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


Sunday March 16, 2008 17:14


Thursday August 14, 2008 06:28

We regret to inform you.

Train headed east near Belen, NM Wednesday noon August 13, 2008.

Army ambulances, support containers, and loaders.

Something up?

Clay bird shooting practice for start of dove season is reason for visit.

Friday September 5, 2008 10:28

posted


-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:20 AM
To: bill payne
Subject: Re: FW: TRUTH ATTACK--NEWS FROM THE FRONT--YOUR HELP NEEDED!

Thanks Bill. Been listening to Mr. Tom Cryer for some time now. He's
done a lot of interviews on talk radio. You might want to look at Bob
Graham's site at-
www.feartheirs.com
also of interest will be-

http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/homepage.htm

http://www.livefreenow.org/

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/

http://www.billconklin.com/

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

You might find some information that can help in your quest. At least you'll find encouragement as many others now know the truth.