James A. Noel, Executive Director
Judicial Standards Commission
Post Office Box 1012
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1012
(505) 841-9438
(505) 841-9431
http://www.fscll.org/JSC/Main.htm

Dear Mr Noel:

Purpose of this letter is to file three prima facie judicial misconduct complaints [all of the evidence of guilt is in writing, mostly in court records] and document our interactions with lawyer Randall D. Roybal.

All three prima facie complaints involve violation of Metro court rule 3-305: Dismissal of Actions by Metro judge Charles Barnhart and State court rule 1-041: Dismissal of Actions by state judge Kenneth G Brown and Robert H Scott.

Improper dismissal of two paid for 12 person prima facie case state jury trial lawsuits and two Metro court criminal complaints violate judges' Oath of Office required under the Constitution.

The State of New Mexico Article XX Section 1. states

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

Therefore, we ask that accused judges be removed from office for violation of oath of their office if the Judicial Standards Commission finds our submitted documents to be authentic.

Cassandra in the elected officials Oath office of the New Mexico secretary of state office [505-827-3621 verified on Tuesday August 10, 2004 that judges W John Brennan, Kenneth G Brown, Robert H Scott and Charles Barnhart had signed Oath of Office pursuant to section 14-14-3 (2) NMSA.

So far we've been defrauded out of $2,179 New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state Constitution.

Constitution of the State of New Mexico
Adopted January 21, 1911
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0

ARTICLE II
BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 12. [Trial by jury; less than unanimous verdicts in civil cases.] The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate. In all cases triable in courts inferior to the district court the jury may consist of six. The legislature may provide that verdicts in civil cases may be rendered by less than a unanimous vote of the jury.

and the 7th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Our civil rights to file lawsuits pro se guaranteed under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution has been revoked in New Mexico Second and Thirteenth Judicial state courts by lawyer Jerry Walz, judge Kenneth G Brown, and perhaps former judge Robert H Scott.

Word "perhaps" was required in Scott's case since the order was not signed, only stamped. See Exhibit P .

This, of course, violates New Mexico District Court rule of civil procedure.

1-058. Orders and judgments; preparation and entry.

A. Preparation of orders and judgments. Upon announcement of the court's decision in any matter the court shall: (1) allow counsel a reasonable time, fixed by the court, within which to submit the requested form of order or judgment; (2) designate the counsel who shall be responsible for preparation of the order or judgment and fix the time within which it is to be submitted; or (3) prepare its own form of order or judgment.

B. Time limit. If no satisfactory form of order or judgment has been submitted within the time fixed by the court, the court shall take such steps as it may deem proper to have an appropriate form of order or judgment entered promptly.

C. Examination by counsel. In all events, before the court signs any order or judgment, counsel shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine the same and make suggestions or objections.

D. Filing. Upon the signing of any order or judgment it shall be filed promptly in the clerk's office and such filing constitutes entry thereof.

As a result of being deprived of our constitutional rights we have been forced to file a prima facie case Rule 22 writ petition with judge Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme. You can view the Rule 22 writ petition at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule21cwrithtml.htm.

You can see our receipts for 12 person jury trial lawsuits in Exhibit A, Exhibt C, Exhibit E, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit K and Exhibit L in our Rule 22 writ petition.

Wrongdoing on the part of lawyer Walz, judge Brown, and possibly former judge Scott involves dismissing two paid for 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits.

As you may know, only a plaintiff can move to dismiss in state court, if a case is timely prosecuted, in a jury trial lawsuits. Here's the New Mexico rule:

1-041. Dismissal of actions. A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Paragraph E of Rule 1-023 and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the q facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 1-052.

Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 1-019, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

E. Dismissal of action with and without prejudice.

(1) Any party may move to dismiss the action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016 or with any written stipulation approved by the court.

(2) Unless a pretrial scheduling order has been entered pursuant to Rule 1-016, the court on its own motion or upon the motion of a party may dismiss without prejudice the action or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim if the party filing the action or asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action in connection with the action or claim within the previous one hundred and eighty (180) days. A copy of the order of dismissal shall be forthwith mailed by the court to all parties of record in the case. Within thirty (30) days after service of the order of dismissal, any party may move for reinstatement of the case. Upon good cause shown, q the court shall reinstate the case and shall enter a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 1- 016. At least twice during each calendar year, the court shall review all actions governed by this paragraph.

(3) The filing of a motion for dismissal pursuant to this rule shall not be taken to be an entry of appearance in said action or proceeding.

F. Applicability. This rule shall apply to all civil cases filed in the district court, including civil cases appealed from the metropolitan or magistrate courts. This rule shall not apply to:

(1) guardianship, receivership, trusteeship or conservatorship cases;
(2) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code;
(3) proceedings commenced pursuant to the provisions of the
Probate Code; or
(4) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Children's Code.

[As amended, effective January 1, 1990.]

Citizens are guaranteed inviolate paid for trials by jury by state and federal constitutions.

Primary Defendant in these two prima facie case jury trial lawsuits is former Second judicial district judge W John Brennan who was sued for breach of contract and harassment for not allowing other prima facie case New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuits to proceed to trial or settlement.

Examine Exhibit K and Exhibit L to verify that Brennan is primary defendant.

This creates the undeniable appearance supported by court documents that lawyer Jerry Walz, judge Kenneth G Brown [Brown apparently signed ORDER seen in Exhibit O] and lawyer Jerry Walz and perhaps former judge Robert H Scott [Scott did not sign order seen in Exhibit P as required in 1-058] illegally dismissed two paid for prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuits to prevent accused felon judge W John Brennan [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm] from receiving justice though settlement or jury trial.

1-088.

Designation of judge.

C. Automatic recusal. If a civil proceeding is filed in any county of a judicial district by or against a judge or an employee of the district, no judge of the district may hear the matter without written agreement of the parties. If within ten (10) days after the proceeding is filed, the parties have not filed a stipulation designating a judge to preside over the matter, the clerk shall request the Supreme Court to designate a judge.

[As amended, effective March 1, 2000.]

As you may know Metro rule 3-305. Dismissal of actions states

A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action.

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Dismissal for failure to prosecute. Any action pending for six (6) months from the date the complaint is filed, in which the plaintiff or defendant asserting a counterclaim has failed to take all available steps to bring the matter to trial, shall be dismissed without prejudice.

E. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

Prima facie evidence shows that Dow fraudulently removes New Mexico state lawsuit to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court and proceeds to file motions in that bogus federal lawsuit.

Prima facie evidence shows Hoses fraudulently removed two New Mexico state lawsuit to federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court thereby establishing pattern of misconduct and harassment against plaintiffs/petitioners.

Exhibit X and Exhibit R show that Barnhart deliberately and intentionally violated his oath of office.

You are quoted in the Albuquerque Journal Thursday July 8, 2004

However, Noel notes there is nothing in that to preclude Brennan from later changing his mind.

"I'm not sure the commission is willing to accept just that (representation)," he said. "With the filing of formal proceedings, the commission retains jurisdiction even after he leaves the bench."

"The whole point," Noel said, "is to tie up the loose strings to protect the public from judicial misconduct."

so it appears that the commission still retains jurisdiction over Scott even though his is currently a federal magistrate judge.

We are concerned about the Commission's confidentiality statements request or requirement.

All of the Exhibits presented to the Judicial Standards Commission have previously been presented and posted in our Rule 22 US Supreme court writ petition so confidentiality of the irrefutable evidence of guilt of accused is impossible.

We will, however, keep confidential the enclosed two judicial misconduct complaints.

Payne spoke to Roybal about the confidentiality requirement or request on July 28, 2004.

Roybal reported that we could be held in contempt by the New Mexico Supreme Court if we released any of the irrefutable evidence of guilt.

Roybal cited 27-305 and Article 6 section 32 to support his argument.

Here's a reference to Article 6, Section 32.

1. Scope, authority and purpose.

A. Scope. These rules and regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Article 6, Section 32 of the constitution of the State of New Mexico. They apply to all proceedings before the Judicial Standards Commission involving the discipline, removal or retirement of justices, judges or magistrates.

B. Statutory authority. Article 6, Section 32 of the constitution of New Mexico and Sections 34-10-1 to 34-10-4 NMSA 1978 provide for the selection, terms and duties of the Judicial Standards Commission and its director.

C. Purpose. The purposes of the Judicial Standards Commission and these rules shall be to protect the public from any improper conduct and behavior of judges; to preserve the integrity of the judicial process; to maintain public confidence in the judiciary; to create a greater awareness of proper judicial behavior on the part of the judiciary and the public; and to provide for the expeditious and fair disposition of complaints of judicial misconduct.

Here's 27-305. Enforcement.

A. Cooperation. If any person willfully fails to cooperate with, obstructs or interferes with any inquiry, investigation or proceeding of the Judicial Standards Commission, counsel for the commission may apply to the Supreme Court for an order to show cause why that person should not be held in contempt for such conduct.

B. Refusal to be sworn; failure or refusal to appear. If any person refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness, or refuses or fails to appear and be examined, counsel for the commission may apply to the Supreme Court for an order to show cause why that person should not be ordered to take the required action. If the person violates a Supreme Court order to take the action, the person may be ordered to show cause why the person should not be held in contempt of Court.

which does not appear to apply to confidentially but rather non-cooperation.

We are aware of

7. Confidentiality, privilege and oath.

A. Proceedings confidential. All papers and pleadings filed with and proceedings before the commission or its masters shall be confidential. Only when a record is filed by the commission with the Supreme Court do the proceedings lose their confidential character.

B. Privileged material. Pursuant to Article 6, Section 32 of the New Mexico constitution, the filing of papers with, or giving of testimony before the commission or its masters, shall be privileged in any action for defamation. A writing which was privileged prior to its filing with the commission or its masters does not lose its privilege by the filing. A record filed by the commission in the Supreme Court continues to be privileged.

C. Oath of witnesses. Every witness in every proceeding under these rules shall be sworn to tell the truth and not to disclose the existence of the proceeding or the identity of the judge until the proceeding is no longer confidential under these rules. Violation of the oath shall be an act of contempt of the commission. …

E. Contempt powers. The misconduct of any person in the presence of the commission while it is performing official duties, resistance to or obstruction of any lawful process, order or rule of the commission, or violation of any rule of confidentiality pertaining to commission proceedings shall constitute contempt. Any participant in a commission proceeding may be cited for contempt of the commission. Contempt hearings shall be conducted before the commission which shall advise the Supreme Court of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to the alleged contempt, and the Supreme Court may impose such penalties or sanctions it deems appropriate.

The illegal dismissing of paid for jury trial lawsuits by Walz, Brown, perhaps Scott, and perhaps other involved several New Mexico judge in appellate court and Supreme Court judges Maes, Minzner, and Serna.

Serna, in fact, is a defendant in the New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima facie case seen at Exhibit P along with Brennan, Walz, and Brown.

"Prima facie" is used because defendants seen at Exhibit P were sued as a result of written documents seen at Exhibit O!

So it appears from the written evidence in the two enclosed complaints and the Exhibit P investigation request that you, Roybal and the Judicial Standards Commission have some very serious judicial misconduct cases.

Keep in mind the $2,179 we spent for prima facie 12 person jury trials lawsuits or settlement but did not receive and are guaranteed inviolate under both New Mexico state constitution and federal constitutions.

We want what we paid for and is guaranteed inviolate by both US and New Mexico constitutions.

We ask that you and Judicial Standards Commission report on status of our complaint within 30 days.

Sincerely

Arthur R. Morales
1734 Soplo Road SE
Albuquerque, NM 87123
505-323-7277

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

Enclosures
3 Judicial misconduct complaints