US Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico

The Iran spy sting story got out because of
State-sanctioned Paranoia
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
Sunday January 13, 2008 07:43
Updated
Thursday March 20, 2008 14:09




Thursday March 20, 2008 14:06

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#dojnm4

Received Thursday March 20, 2008
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



Wednesday March 13, 2008 14:12
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.

Wednesday March 12, 2008 10:43

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.



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#armijo2



Received Friday March 7, 2008


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.

ORDER OF REFERENCE

Defendant's request for hearing relating to the writs of garnishment is referred to United States Magistrate Lorenzo F. Garcia to conduct hearings, as necessary, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the matter concerning the writs.

The Magistrate Judge shall submit his analysis, including findings of fact, and recommended disposition to the undersigned District Judge, with copies provided to the parties. SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2008.

M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE






Wednesday March 12, 2008 10:33

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



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.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

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

NOTICE OF HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO EXEMPTIONS
Notice is hereby given that a hearing will be conducted by the undersigned on Tuesday, March 25,2008 at 9:00 in the Pecos Courtroom, 4th floor, Pete V. Domenici U.S. Courthouse, 333 Lomas Blvd., N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico. -

The United States asserts that Plaintiffs/Debtors, William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales, failed to file objections as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). However, the gamishee, Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union submitted, as an appendix/supplement to it's answer, the Plaintiffs/Debtors' affidavits [Doc. 133].


This matter is before the Court on an Order of Reference [Doc. 141] from the trial judge, the Honorable M. Christina Armijo directing the undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge "to conduct hearings, as necessary, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition" relating to the writs of garnishment in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B).

Accordingly a hearing will be conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3014 (b)(2) on the applicability of any exemptions claimed.

Lorenzo F.Garcia
Chief United States Magistrate Judge








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

Thursday March 13, 2008 14:11

Always be sure to submit an order for the court!


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 4, 2008 13:44


They apparently don't believe in motions.
§ 3014. Exempt property

(b) Effect on Assertion and Manner of Determination.—

(1) Statement.— A court may order the debtor to file a statement with regard to any claimed exemption. A copy of such statement shall be served on counsel for the United States. Such statement shall be under oath and shall describe each item of property for which exemption is claimed, the value and the basis for such valuation, and the nature of the debtor’s ownership interest.

(2) Hearing.— The United States or the debtor, by application to the court in which an action or proceeding under this chapter is pending, may request a hearing on the applicability of any exemption claimed by the debtor. The court shall determine the extent (if any) to which the exemption applies. Unless it is reasonably evident that the exemption applies, the debtor shall bear the burden of persuasion.

...

TITLE 11 § 522. Exemptions


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattarmijo

Received Saturday March 1, 2008






Friday March 7, 2008 07:23
Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

(d) Filing; Certificate of Service. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, but disclosures under Rule 26 (a)

(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing:

(i) depositions,
(ii) interrogatories,
(iii) requests for documents or to permit entry upon land, and
(iv) requests for admission.






Monday March 3, 2008 15:43

Certified return receipt requested, email and posted at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fouratt5

Gregory J Fouratt
Acting United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224
larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Fouratt:

I received your February 28, 2008 letter and UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING postmarked February 20, 2008 by US assistant attorney John Zavitz.


You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:

I received your letter of February 19, 2008. This office's garnishment of your account was taken pursuant to the Court's order awarding sanctions against you and Mr. Morales in this case.

Your office failed to properly serve us in this garnishment action so this action is void.

See docket entries 76 and 77 in case 1:01-cv-00634-WFD.

Here is a PACER pdf of entry 76 and pdf of entry 77.

Then inspect docket entries136 and 137 in case 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG.

There is a PACER pdf of entry 136 and a pdf of 137.

We were also not served court copies for most, if not all, of the 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG entries starting at docket entry 101.

You may or not be aware

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.

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.

You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:

The matters you raise concerning the garnishment should be addressed to the Court.

The court does not have jurisdiction over for a variety of reasons:

First;

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]

Second;

This proceeding is void as a result of defective service.

You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:

As you should be aware, this office has requested a hearing before the Court. You will have an opportunity to raise your concerns at that time. I cannot advise you further

We are aware that we have the authority to request a hearing in a valid garnishment action which this is not.

We are not aware that your office could request a hearing at a valid garnishment hearing which this is not.

UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING postmarked February 20, 2008 appears to be a motion before this court.

We were not contacted 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.

Further, Zavitz failed to sign the certificate of service which is improper service.

You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:

I cannot advise you further.

We advise you and your office to immediately remove garnishments from our assets.

We see that the Albuquerque Journal apparently incorrectly reported that you are the US Attorney for the District of New Mexico.

From 28 USC §546(d) you apparently were appointed by New Mexico judges to serve as an acting US attorney until one is appointed.

Because of your office's continued incompetence and success in making matters worse, we are forwarding a copy of this email/letter to US Department of Justice lawyer James Kovakas.

Kovakas initiated an about 10 year late FOIA/PA response which apparently Kovakas' office thought might get these unfortunate matters peacefully settled.

We hope Kovakas will forward email to the right people in DOJ to see that you are promptly replaced by a US attorney that will promptly help get matters peacefully and justly settled.

Sincerely,


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


Monday March 3, 2008 10:21

Note that we get to do legal battle with SLFCU lawyer Hammar in the NSA lawsuit CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

PACER docket of 01-634.

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].


PACER docket as of Thursday February 29, 2008.

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





Friday February 29, 2008 06:48

Certified return receipt requested, email and posted at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fouratt4

Gregory J Fouratt
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224
larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Fouratt:

I received UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING postmarked February 20, 2008 by US assistant attorney John Zavitz.

This apparently was not properly served since Zavitz did not sign the required certificate of service
Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

(d) Filing; Certificate of Service. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, but disclosures under Rule 26 (a)

(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing:

(i) depositions,
(ii) interrogatories,
(iii) requests for documents or to permit entry upon land, and
(iv) requests for admission.





Sincerely,


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


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.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

not going to file

RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

Will do judicial notice instead becase Zavitz's filing is void




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 RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING was mailed

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz(5).usdoj.gov

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


_________________________

_________________________
Date




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.

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR REASONS OF VIOLATON OF PROCEDURAL RULES



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 RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING was mailed

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz(5).usdoj.gov

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


_________________________

_________________________
Date





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



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 RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING was mailed

JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
E-mail: john.zavitz(5).usdoj.gov

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


_________________________

_________________________
Date



Monday March 3, 2008 14:36

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#fourattletter

It appears that Fouratt is an Acting US Attorney, "to serve until the vacancy is filled."

Received Friday February 29, 2008






February 28, 2008

William H. Payne
13015 Calle De Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87 111

RE: Garnishment in Pavne & Morales v. Minihan. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

Dear Mr. Payne:

I received your letter of February 19, 2008. This office's garnishment of your account was taken pursuant to the Court's order awarding sanctions against you and Mr. Morales in this case. The matters you raise concerning the garnishment should be addressed to the Court. As you should be aware, this office has requested a hearing before the Court. You will have an opportunity to raise your concerns at that time. I cannot advise you further.

Sincerely,

GREGORY J. FOURATT
United States Attorney


Below was emailed from Washington DC as a pdf.



Is this the reason the above was sent?

§ 546. Vacancies

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent. (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—

(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

The vacancy has not yet been filled?



Judges Reject Bid To Dismiss Cases

One critical difference is that other federal appellate courts have ruled on the issue, but the 10th Circuit of Appeals in Denver, which includes New Mexico in its six-state region, has not.

Johnson, at a hearing this week, read out a list of courts that said the congressional act permitting courts to- make interim appointments is constitutional.

But he observed somewhat wearily that he expects the 10th Circuit may yet get to it.

Armijo dismissed the motion in a Feb. 15 opinion in the case of Alfred R. Tafoya..

"It is not this court's role to answer hypothetical questions about the statute's consitutionality or to consider every con- conceivable situation which might possibly arise in its application," Armijo wrote.

Browning late Tuesday filed a 68-page legal treatise on separation of powers in a motion seeking to dismiss the indictment against Roswell contractor Carl Dean Baldwin for immigration law violations.

Browning, a longtime Federalist Society member and mentor, said he shared concerns that "shifting the appointment power to the unelected court dilutes the accountability that United States attorneys have when the political branch chooses them." But he said that didn't make the appointment unconstitutional.

"The reality is that the public will probably blame the court for a while, but the longer Mr. Fouratt remains in office, he becomes the choice, by. acquiescence, of the executive branch," Browning wrote.

Robert Gorence, lawyer, called the opinion "an exceptional treatise on law. The judge obviously shares our concerns about the appropriateness of the judges appointing the very prosecutor who brings the cases they will hear."

Fouratt said the decisions of the judges are consistent with every federal court of appeals to decide the question.

But he said the issue is certain to reach the 10th Circuit, because the odds are good that one of the defendants who's raised the issue will be convicted and use it on appeal.

"We think 10th Circuit will rule the same way, and if for some reason the Supreme Court is interested in it, they'll rule the same way." he said.

Albuquerque Journal Saturday March 2, 2008


Robert Gorence, lawyer, called the opinion "an exceptional treatise on law. The judge obviously shares our concerns about the appropriateness of the judges appointing the very prosecutor who brings the cases they will hear."



Above is posted on Geocities!

Above letter was personally delivered by FBI agents Kohl and Moore to Payne's home.

Moore apologized saying the they were ordered to do this.


Friday February 29, 2008 10:30

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].



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#garica1



Friday February 29, 2008 07:06

Bank of America apparently didn't follow the instructions to check for exempt items before proceeding with garnishment.

We also have to let BOA know what we were not properly served so they can remove garnishment.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#bankamerica

We got three copies of below EACH from the court.


PACER docket as of Thursday February 29, 2008.

Received Thursday February 28, 2008




















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].




Thursday February 28, 2008 10:13

Certified return receipt requested, email and posted at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fouratt3

Gregory J Fouratt
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224
larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Fouratt:

I received UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING postmarked February 20, 2008 by US assistant attorney John Zavitz.

This apparently was not properly served since Zavitz did not sign the required certificate of service
Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

(d) Filing; Certificate of Service. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, but disclosures under Rule 26 (a)

(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing:

(i) depositions,
(ii) interrogatories,
(iii) requests for documents or to permit entry upon land, and
(iv) requests for admission.





Sincerely,


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

Wednesday February 27, 2008 07:47

Pages a posted in the order they were sent.

What is this?



http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#districtcourt3





























Monday February 25, 2008 08:59

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#zavitz135

We're guessing that this is docket entry 135.











Case 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG Document 135 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 2

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.

UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

Plaintiffs William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales, the debtors in this garnishment proceeding, have not filed any objection to the garnishment in the manner provided by 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). However, they have presented affidavits to Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union, the garnishee, claiming that the funds held by the garnishee pursuant to the writ of garnishment are exempt, which the garnishee has filed with the Court. See Docket No. 133. The United States of America as garnishor

Case 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG Document 135 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 2 of 2

objects to any claim of exemption that the debtors may be asserting and requests that a hearing be set pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3014(b)(2) on the applicability of any exemption claimed by the debtors.

Respectfully submitted:
GREGORY J.FOURATT
United States Attorney
/s/ Electronically filed February 20. 2008
JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
(505)224-1414
(505) 346-6884 (facsimile)
E-mail: john.zavitz(5).usdoj.gov
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed,
postage prepaid, on February 20, 2008, to the following non-participants in the
CM/ECF electronic fling system:
William H. Payne at 13015 Calle De Sandias NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 871111-
2924;
Arthur Morales at 1400 Camino Amparo NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107-2608;
Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union, c/o Kevin D. Hammar, Attorney for Garnishee,
1212 Pennsylvania NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.
/s/ JOHN ZAVITZ
JOHN ZAVITZ
Assistant United States Attorney
2

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney

Financial Litigation Unit
Post Office Box
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
607 505/224-1414
FAX 505/346-6884

February 20, 2008

William H. Payne
13015CalleDeSandiasNE
Albuquerque, NM 87111-2924
Re: Civil Court No. 97-266MCA/LFG

Dear Mr. Payne,

Enclosed is a copy of the United States' Objection to Exemption and Request for Hearing pleading that was filed today in U.S. District Court.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact this office in writing, Attention: Financial Litigation Unit.

Sincerely, GREGORY J. FOURATT
United States Attorney
LOISA.AGNES
Paralegal-Specialist
enc.

Friday February 29, 2008 06:52

Let's write US attorney Fouratt and ask why assistant US attorney Zavitz didn't serve us with certificate of service for all of the below filings.
Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

(d) Filing; Certificate of Service. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, but disclosures under Rule 26 (a)

(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing:

(i) depositions,
(ii) interrogatories,
(iii) requests for documents or to permit entry upon land, and
(iv) requests for admission.


Thursday February 21, 2008 13:11

Morales and Payne met to discuss strategy before a visit to Jillson at SLFCU.

Morales suggested looking at PACER.

Augmented PACER docket came as a great surprise.

Note case 634
. We are speculating that the clerk's office was confused by saw the link to Zavitz mistake in 634 and docketed Payne's letter and affidavit under 634 rather than 266.

Now that we know formal rules of civil procedure are being followed in the garnishment rather than some other type of action, we will take appropriate actions.

We left two messages to those involved in WDC. Let's see if we can't get matter settled before they get far worse.

We visited Jillson on Thursday February 21, 2008 11:08. to ask if he received

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#improperservice

Matters are getting worse.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#pacergarnish
PACER docket as of Thursday February 28, 2008.

 
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#improperservice


-----Original Message-----

From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:05 PM
To: 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; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org
Subject: improper service on morales too.

Mr Jillson:

Morales was improperly served as well as Payne.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattmorales

Had SLFCU lawyer Hammer returned both Morales' and Payne's phone calls we could have worked togther with Hammar and SLFCU to evidence of list of exemptions which SLFCU has in its records and identify possible service insufficiencies.

Hammer submitted a suplemental filing on February 13, 2008

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#supplement

but failed to include SLFCU statement records to corroborate our claims of exemptions.

Now that we know that US attorney Zavitz failed to follow proper rules of service with writ of garnishments our saving funds should be returned to normal status immediately.

arthur r morales
william h payne


we're sick of the us legal system ... after 16 years viz.

Morales has mailed his affidavit and an accompanying cover letter to Fouratt and clerk Dykman.

Tuesday February 19, 2008 13:34









Tuesday February 19, 2008 10:30

Certified return receipt requested, email and posted at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fouratt2

Gregory J Fouratt
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224
larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Fouratt:

I received an envelope which appeared to be an attempt to correct service and an acknowledgment that the court had received a copy of my Monday February 9, 2008 letter to you on Thursday February 14, 2008.


Zavitz's second attempt at service appears also to be deficient for the following reasons:

AFFIDAVIT

1 Service was made on Thursday February 14, 2008, not on January 28, 2008 as claimed by Zavitz in his unsigned CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS.

2 Signature of clerk Matthew J Dykman must be timely with correct date of proper service.

3 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GARNISHEE SLFCU must be made timely with proper service so that SLFCU can respond within the required 10 days.


4 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT must be made timely with proper service so that SLFCU can respond within the required 10 days.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of

_____________


________________________________
William H Payne

Verification

Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC § 1746 that material factual statements set forth in above affidavit are true and correct, except as to any matters therein stated to be information and belief of such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that the undersigned verily believes the same to be true. Notary Public

______________________________________








Zavitz instructions for INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANT DEBTOR ON HOW TO CLAIM EXEMPTIONS appears to be incorrect.

Our Friday February 15, 2008 15:26 letter to SLFCU president Mr Chris Jillson shows proof of the correct method to claim exemptions.

Zavitz statements
If you claim an exemption from garnishment, you should do the following promptly: 1. Fill out the attached Claim for Exemption Form.

2. Deliver or mail the form to the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of New Mexico at 333 Lomas Boulevard NW, Suite 270, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-2272.

3. Deliver or mail the forms to the Counsel of the United States, John Zavitz, Assistant United States Attorney at P.O. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607.

appear to be a deliberate attempt to harass us since these are not the instructions send to us or SLFCU by the court.

Zavitz writes
If you elect, you have the right to a hearing within 10 days after the date the request is received by the court, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, from the date you file the completed Claim for Exemption Form with the Clerk, United States District Court, and give notice of the hearing date to all the parties. In order to obtain this hearing, you must check the box provided on the attached Claim for Exemption Form. You will be notified as soon as. possible of the date, time, and place of hearing.

There will be no hearing until we have been properly served.

Zavitz writes
On the day of the hearing, you should come to court ready to explain why your property is exempted, and you should bring any documents which may help you prove your case. If you do not come to court at the designated time and prove that your property is exempt, you may lose some of your rights.

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.
.

We ask that Fouratt/Zavitz discontinue extortion and harassment attempts which are in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Sincerely,


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



 







http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattmorales













http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#moralesslfcu

Zavitz is totally incompetent as evidenced by documents below

sent to Morales.


Monday February 18, 2008 13:50

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#zavitzrefile

Contrary to the last sworn page by Zavitz, service was on Thursday 14, 2008.

Looks like a second insufficient service.
























































INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANT DEBTOR ON HOW TO CLAIM EXEMPTIONS

The United States of America has applied for a Writ of Garnishment to be issued against your property. It will be issued because there is a judgment against you.

The law provides that certain property and wages cannot be taken. Such property is said to be exempted. The attached Claim for Exemption Form lists the exemptions under federal law and New Mexico state law which may be applicable to you. There is no exemption solely because you are having difficulty paying your debts.

If you claim an exemption from garnishment, you should do the following promptly:

1. Fill out the attached Claim for Exemption Form.

2. Deliver or mail the form to the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of New Mexico at 333 Lomas Boulevard NW, Suite 270, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-2272.

3. Deliver or mail the forms to the Counsel of the United States, John Zavitz, Assistant United States Attorney at P.O. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607.

If you elect, you have the right to a hearing within 10 days after the date the request is received by the court, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, from the date you file the completed Claim for Exemption Form with the Clerk, United States District Court, and give notice of the hearing date to all the parties. In order to obtain this hearing, you must check the box provided on the attached Claim for Exemption Form. You will be notified as soon as. possible of the date, time, and place of hearing.

On the day of the hearing, you should come to court ready to explain why your property is exempted, and you should bring any documents which may help you prove your case. If you do not come to court at the designated time and prove that your property is exempt, you may lose some of your rights.

If the listed exemptions on the form are not applicable and you do not claim an exemption, do not complete and file the Claim for Exemption Form. It may be helpful to you to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter.








Monday February 18, 2008 10:38

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#moralesslfcu

Zavitz is totally incompetent as evidenced by documents below sent to Morales.









































Note that below is addressed to Payne, not Morales.





Note below is addressed to Payne, not Morales.





Note below is addressed to Bank of America, not SLFCU.



Zavitz wrote wrong instructions below apparently intentionally.




Monday February 18, 2008 09:10

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#letter1

Let's do some investigation of tolling of time for the below.

Below was received on Thursday February 14, 2008 and opened on Friday February 15, 2008.


case 1cv634?

What is this?


/







Note case number 01 cv 0634 Morales et al v. Baca et al.

More incompetence?

Or they are going bananas since they are getting caught, now with New Mexico crimes of misdemeanor [harassment] and likely felony fraud and perhaps extortion.









US attorney Fouratt's secretary.








Saturday February 9, 2008 13:33

Certified return receipt requested, email and posted at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fouratt

Gregory J Fouratt
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224
larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Fouratt:

January 28, 2008 assistant US Attorney John J Zavitz served me with three writs of garnishment: 1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union, 2 Wells Fargo Bank, and 3 Bank of America.

No NOTICE OF GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBJECTING TO THE ANSWER or CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS for Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union were included in Zavitz's certified mail 7005 1820 0006 5937 6669.

See attached affidavit.

Therefore, I was improperly served in the Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union action.

US attorney John Zavitz has a history of either not understanding or ignoring legal procedures.

In United States District Court - District of New Mexico 01cv00634 Zavitz failed to file entry of appearance before filing motion.
08/22/2001 08/22/2001 44 MOTION by plaintiffs for sanctions against Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Zavitz for violation of Federal Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.4 [270k] [7 pages] RE: [57] ORDER by District Judge William F.... [519k] [22 pages]

For the reason I feel that I must be properly served and that all materials sent to Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union and United States District Court - District of New Mexico on January 28, 2008 are null and void.

I ask that I, Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union and United States District Court - District of New Mexico be served properly again, if you do not wish to settle.

Zavitz's and the New Mexico US attorney's office appears to be demonstrating remarkably poor judgment in these matters not in the interests of the US or its citizens.

How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started enumerates many of the facts associated with these matters.

Others are following progress of these matters on Internet.

We feel peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters is in the best interests.


Therefore, we solicit your help in settlement of these unfortunate matters by February 15, 2008.

Sincerely,


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

Distribution

Certified return receipt requested

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

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

Attachment


Tuesday February 5, 2008 08:46

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#garnish

Morales and Payne visited the credit union to investigate why our atm cards were deactivated.

Ms Fox told Payne how good SLFCU lawyer is. We will see.

New Mexico US attorney office has committed libel [defamation in writing] in perhaps one of the most visible lawsuits in US history : Civil No, 97-266 MCA/LFG

US attorney's office failed to include required notice for Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union but did send to Wells Fargo and Bank of America.

There are two packets reproduced three times: 1 was sent to Sandia laboratories; 2 Wells Fargo Bank; and 3 was sent to Bank of America.

Note defendant John Zavitz name below.


Second packet.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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.

WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

GREETINGS
TO: Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS

Attention: Loss Prevention
3707 Juan Tabo Boulevard NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

An application for a Writ of Garnishment against the property of William H. Payne, Plaintiff, social security number XXX-XX-3281, has been filed with this Court. An Order was entered against the above-named Plaintiff, for Court order imposing sanctions in the I amount of $10,000.00, plus $18.00 lien fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 (A), Garnishor I is entitled to a ten percent (10) surcharge on the total amount owing in the amount of ^ $1,000.00. No payments have been made leaving a balance of $10,018.00 outstanding.

You are required by law to answer in writing, under oath, within ten (10) days, whether or not you have in your custody, control or possession, any property owned by Plaintiff, and to immediately commence withholding bank accounts and or property owned by Plaintiff. You must file the original written answer to this Writ within ten (10) days of your receipt of this Writ with the United States District Clerk at United States District Court, District of New Mexico at 333 Lomas Boulevard NW, Suite 270, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2272. Additionally, you are required by law to serve a copy of this written answer (Answer of Garnishee) upon the Plaintiff at 13015 Calle De Sandias NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111-2924, and upon the United States Attorney, Attention: John Zavitz, Assistant United States Attorney, P.O. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607.

Under the law, there is property which is exempt from this writ of Garnishment. Property which is exempt and which is not subject to this order is listed on the attached Claim for Exemption form which is attached to the Clerk' Notice of Post-Judgment

Garnishment and Instructions to Debtor.

If you fail to answer this writ or withhold property in accordance with this Writ, the United States of America may petition the Court for an order requiring you to appear before the Court. If you fail to appear or do appear and fail to show good cause why you failed to comply with this Writ, the Court may enter a judgment against you for the value of the Plaintiff's non-exempt property. It is unlawful to pay or deliver to the Plaintiff any item attached by this Writ.

You are required by law to withhold bank accounts and or property of the Plaintiff's until further order of this Court. DATED:

MATTHEW J. DYKMAN
Clerk, United States District Court

Deputy Clerk

CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FORM

MAJOR EXEMPTIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW

I claim that the exemption(s) from garnishment or seizure which are checked below apply in this case:

- 1. Social Security benefits and Supplemental Security income (42 U.S. C. § 407).

_ 2. Veterans'benefits (38 U.S. C. §3101).

- 3. Members of armed services (10 U.S.C. § 1440, 38 U.S.C.§ 562).

_ 4. Annuities to survivors of federal judges (28 U.S.C. § 376(n)).

- 5. Longshoremen and Harbor workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. §916).

_ 6. Black lung benefits (30 U.S.C. §^931 (b)(2VF) and 932(a)).

-- 7. .Seaman's, master's or fisherman's wages, except for child support or spousal support and maintenance (46 U.S.C.A. §§ 1108-1109(a-c)).

Exemptions listed under 1 through 6 above may not be applicable in child support and alimony cases (42 U.S.C. § 659).

-- 8. Railroad retirement, pensions, unemployment benefits (45 U.S.C. §§ 231 (m), oo^(e).

-- 9. Compensation for war risk hazards (42 U.S.C. § 1717).

-- 10. Bankruptcy Code Exemptions, Bankruptcy Code (Title 11, United States Code) which generally provides exemptions for: See attached.

NOTE: If you have selected the Bankruptcy Code exemptions (line 10 above) you may not claim the state law exemptions listed below. You may claim Bankruptcy Code exemptions or you can claim exemptions under your state law.

MAJOR EXEMPTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

NOTE: The law of the state where you have been domiciled for at least 180 days governs your rights.

__ 11. see attached listing of relevant state law provisions. The statements made in this claim of entitlement to exemptions and fair market va^ of the pTpeTy designated are made and declared under penalty of perjury that they are true and correct.

DATED: _________

WILLIAM H. PAYNE

PLAINTIFF

Received Tuesday January 29, 2008 15:30

Friday February 1, 2008

Morales visited the Sandia National Laboratory Federal Credit Union on Thursday January 31, 2008.

Morlaes asked to see the president.

The president's assistant talked to Morales.

Morales asked why his atm card had been deactivated.

The assitant gave an apparently unsatisfactory explanation.

Morales and Payne visited the snlfcu on Friday February 1, 2008.

We asked to speak with Ms Girard.

Here's Payne's note

Payne asked for the name and phone number of Ms Girard's supervisor.

We asked Ms Girard why our atm cards had been deactivated.

Ms Girard explained that it was according to rules.

Morales and Payne asked to see a copy of that rule.

Ms Girard departed and returned with her supervisor Ms Fox.

We explained that deactivation our atm cards was not requested the the us attorney's office.

Ms Fox attempt to explain why our atm cards were deactivated.*

Ms Fox proposed a solution to solve the problem. Special accounts were set up and our atm card activated.

Trina did this.

Ms Girard said he would return with the rule book.

She never did.

Morales and Payne returned to Payne's home to compare the contents of the two garnishment envelopes we received.

Payne's address on documents sent to Morales.

Morales's name is mispelled in many of the documents.

We dicovered that the US Attorney's office enclosed

but did not enclose a similar document for slfcu.

Wednesday January 30, 2008 18:41

Looks like US attorney's office is garnishing our bank accounts.

Beverly phoned from the Sandia Labs Credit Union. Kevin Hammer is the labs attorney: 266-8787.

Morales garnish message.

Beverly Sandia Labs Credit Union phone message.

Beverly Sandia Labs Credit Union phone return phone call.

Cashier 318 identified Beverly Girard [237-7254] from screen printout.

Comast change the ip address of the upload label so that mywebpage.comcast.net would not work.

Why would comcast do this on Wednesday January 30, 2008?

We speculate that the government tried to taken down prosefights on comcast. Comcast refused but said that it would make things difficult for us to upload. Speculation, of course.

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Friday February 1, 2008 06:21.

We suspect the US government is responsible.

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Thursday January 31, 2008 17:10

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Wednesday January 30, 2008.

Two service outage reports were filed Andrew and Linda.

We spoke with Duane of Comcast at 18:43.

Duane advised to google "nojeh nsa lawsuit"

Observe that Shirin Neshat's pdf comes in number 1.



Tuesday February 5, 2008 08:46

lucero.htm#garnish

Morales and Payne visited the credit union to investigate why our atm cards were deactivated.

Ms Fox told Payne how good SLFCU lawyer is. We will see.

New Mexico US attorney office has committed libel [defamation in writing] in perhaps one of the most visible lawsuits in US history : Civil No, 97-266 MCA/LFG

US attorney's office failed to include required notice for Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union but did send to Wells Fargo and Bank of America.

There are two packets reproduced three times: 1 was sent to Sandia laboratories; 2 Wells Fargo Bank; and 3 was sent to Bank of America.

Note defendant John Zavitz name below.


Second packet.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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.

WRIT OF GARNISHMENT GREETINGS
TO: Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS

Attention: Loss Prevention
3707 Juan Tabo Boulevard NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

An application for a Writ of Garnishment against the property of William H. Payne, Plaintiff, social security number XXX-XX-3281, has been filed with this Court. An Order was entered against the above-named Plaintiff, for Court order imposing sanctions in the I amount of $10,000.00, plus $18.00 lien fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 (A), Garnishor I is entitled to a ten percent (10) surcharge on the total amount owing in the amount of ^ $1,000.00. No payments have been made leaving a balance of $10,018.00 outstanding.

You are required by law to answer in writing, under oath, within ten (10) days, whether or not you have in your custody, control or possession, any property owned by Plaintiff, and to immediately commence withholding bank accounts and or property owned by Plaintiff. You must file the original written answer to this Writ within ten (10) days of your receipt of this Writ with the United States District Clerk at United States District Court, District of New Mexico at 333 Lomas Boulevard NW, Suite 270, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2272. Additionally, you are required by law to serve a copy of this written answer (Answer of Garnishee) upon the Plaintiff at 13015 Calle De Sandias NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111-2924, and upon the United States Attorney, Attention: John Zavitz, Assistant United States Attorney, P.O. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607.

Under the law, there is property which is exempt from this writ of Garnishment. Property which is exempt and which is not subject to this order is listed on the attached Claim for Exemption form which is attached to the Clerk' Notice of Post-Judgment

Garnishment and Instructions to Debtor.

If you fail to answer this writ or withhold property in accordance with this Writ, the United States of America may petition the Court for an order requiring you to appear before the Court. If you fail to appear or do appear and fail to show good cause why you failed to comply with this Writ, the Court may enter a judgment against you for the value of the Plaintiff's non-exempt property. It is unlawful to pay or deliver to the Plaintiff any item attached by this Writ.

You are required by law to withhold bank accounts and or property of the Plaintiff's until further order of this Court. DATED:

MATTHEW J. DYKMAN
Clerk, United States District Court

Deputy Clerk

Received Tuesday January 29, 2008 15:30

Friday February 1, 2008

Morales visited the Sandia National Laboratory Federal Credit Union on Thursday January 31, 2008.

Morlaes asked to see the president.

The president's assistant talked to Morales.

Morales asked why his atm card had been deactivated.

The assitant gave an apparently unsatisfactory explanation.

Morales and Payne visited the snlfcu on Friday February 1, 2008.

We asked to speak with Ms Girard.

Here's Payne's note

Payne asked for the name and phone number of Ms Girard's supervisor.

We asked Ms Girard why our atm cards had been deactivated.

Ms Girard explained that it was according to rules.

Morales and Payne asked to see a copy of that rule.

Ms Girard departed and returned with her supervisor Ms Fox.

We explained that deactivation our atm cards was not requested the the us attorney's office.

Ms Fox attempt to explain why our atm cards were deactivated.*

Ms Fox proposed a solution to solve the problem. Special accounts were set up and our atm card activated.

Trina did this.

Ms Girard said he would return with the rule book.

She never did.

Morales and Payne returned to Payne's home to compare the contents of the two garnishment envelopes we received.

Payne's address on documents sent to Morales.

Morales's name is mispelled in many of the documents.

We dicovered that the US Attorney's office enclosed

but did not enclose a similar document for slfcu.

Wednesday January 30, 2008 18:41

Looks like US attorney's office is garnishing our bank accounts.

Beverly phoned from the Sandia Labs Credit Union. Kevin Hammer is the labs attorney: 266-8787.

Morales garnish message.

Beverly Sandia Labs Credit Union phone message.

Beverly Sandia Labs Credit Union phone return phone call.

Cashier 318 identified Beverly Girard [237-7254] from screen printout.

Comast change the ip address of the upload label so that mywebpage.comcast.net would not work.

Why would comcast do this on Wednesday January 30, 2008?

We speculate that the government tried to taken down prosefights on comcast. Comcast refused but said that it would make things difficult for us to upload. Speculation, of course.

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Friday February 1, 2008 06:21.

We suspect the US government is responsible.

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Thursday January 31, 2008 17:10

We can't ftp to prosefights at comcast as of Wednesday January 30, 2008.

Two service outage reports were filed Andrew and Linda.

We spoke with Duane of Comcast at 18:43.

Duane advised to google "nojeh nsa lawsuit"

Observe that Shirin Neshat's pdf comes in number 1.




----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: larry.gomez@usdoj.gov
Cc: amorales58@comcast.net ; 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
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: We will not tender $10,000 each because court's Order is void.

From wikipedia

On October 14, 2007, The Albuquerque Journal published a story ("Analyst, Sandia Settle Suit") that stated that Sandia had dismissed its appeal of the verdict. According to the story, the judgment had been accumulating 15 percent interest since the verdict in his favor in February of 2007. The piece also related that Carpenter continues to work in the national security area for clients in the intelligence community, federal agencies and the military.

Sandia knows they likely have the appellate courts in their pocket. So it is likely the Carpenter was forced to settle for a small fraction of the $4M.

We are different for the reason we can file to void and/ FOIA/PA lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Our track record is exemplary. So settle.

Gomez and company.

Saturday January 26, 2008 07:04



Friday January 25, 2008 15:05

Email and posted at
lucero.htm#gomezreply

Larry Gomez
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346-7224

larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Gomez:

You stated in your January 18, 2008 letters to us

RE: Foreclosure of property located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for collection of Judgment Civil No. 97-266 MCA/LFG

I have received your e-mail of January 17, 2008 referencing the letter you received from Mr. Lucero of this office. As you know, the United States Attorney has been ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico to enforce the collection of the sanctions imposed on you and Mr. Morales.

We believe that your office has been ordered to enforce an Order which violated due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void.

See docket entry 08/27/2007 100.

And, as you 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) "" LINK

We believe that your office has been ordered to trespass.

You wrote

This office is not able to settle or waive the amounts imposed by the court.

While your office may not be able to settle, some of those on the distribution list of this email are in a position to order Sandia National Laboratories to settle.

So we have prepared a settlement proposal.

We believe that any actions against us should be held in abeyance pending possible settlement.

These matters have gone on for now 16 calendar years.

The FBI declassified and released the Wayne R Gilbert letter on December 6, 2006 showing that Sandia labs manager James Gosler turned me into the FBI for some alleged national security violation.

Thursday January 24, 2006 I spoked to Mr Larry Taylor of the FBI about receiving copies of the charges Gosler make about me.

Shortly thereafter I received a phone call from Ms Julia Eichhorst informing me that the FBI was in the process of conducting a mandatory declassification review of these documents.

Eichhorst said the documents would be released to me in late February.


My belief is that Gosler was able to deceive judge John Conway and some at the FBI because they lacked the technical background to detect Gosler's hoax.

Receipt and subsequent posting on Internet of the documents Gosler gave to the FBI and judge John Conway could embarrass the US government.

So if the government does not want the documents posted, then I would accept payment of $2,000,000.00 and cancel my request for these documents.

Because of the 16 calender years of delays I will be forced to sue for these documents under a FOIA/PA lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia within the next week or so.

We feel that these matters are extremely serious.

These matters should be addressed and settled to avoid possible retaliation.

Title 18 felony crimes have been committed by Armijo.

You wrote
However, we would be willing to offer to waive any costs incurred, applicable statutory fees, or advances made thus far in collecting your court-ordered debt.

This is an unacceptable offer since it relates to attempted Extortion under New Mexico 30-16-9, C since your office is trespassing.

You wrote

Please let me know no later than January 25, 2008 whether or not you and Mr. Morales will each tender $10,000 per the court's Order. Otherwise, we will be forced to proceed to enforce the court's Order.

We will not tender $10,000 each because court's Order is void.

Sandia National Laboratories need to pay dearly for causing these unfortunate matters.

We await a phone call or email to arrange details of settlement.

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


SETTLEMENT
Tuesday February 12, 2008 08:42


Incident                                                     Settlement amount
                                                       Morales                        Payne
Void judgment lawsuits:
$1,000 per docket line entry
97cv0266                                    $50,000.00                 $50,000.00
92-1452-JC                                                                  $185,000.00
97-350-LH/DJ                          $175,000.00
00 CV 1574                                 $36,500.00                 $36,500.00
00 CV 1677                                                                   $125,000.00
01 CV 0634                                 $38,000.00                 $38,000.00
01 CV 1198                                 $26,000.00                 $26,000.00
01CV 01132                                                                   $42,000.00


Settlement
CV 2000-10289                       $1,000,000.00            $1,000,000.00
                                               
CV 2001-03118                          $500,000.00               $500,000.00                         
CV 2001 06293                          $500,000.00                $500,000.00                                
CV 2000 10278                                                           $4,000,000.00                             
CV 2001 05900                                                     
        $500,000.00 
CV 2002-3425                            $100,000.00                $100,000.00
CV 2001-7794                                                                $100,000.00
 
03CV228                                     $250,000.00               $250,000.00
03CV288                                                                        $500,000.00

Payne asks that his Sandia wages with increments and benefits from the time he was fired on July 27, 1992 until the time he retired on June 11, 2002 plus interest be paid in addition to punitive damage of $16,000,000 as set in precedent of Shawn Carpenter case.

Morales asks for compensation of his Sandia treatment in wages and promotions from the first day he was hired was discriminatory. This caused Morales 20 years of high-tension and assertive action in a quest of just wages and opportunities, not just for himself, but for women and minorities that were victims of this same unfair treatment.

Morales asks for compensation of wages and opportunities missed of $1,000.000 and punitive damages over 20 years of $6,000,000.

Extortion and harassment:                                               $40,000.00
US Marshals                                   $20,000.00
Halverson and Bowman
Friday October 5, 2007.

Extortion and harassment:
January 9, 2008
assistant US Attorney
Manuel Lucero letter                      $40,000.00                  $40,000.00

Extortion and harassment:
January 18, 2.008                             $40,000.00                  $40,000.00
US Attorney Larry Gomez letter

TAX FREE


 
lucero.htm#gomezresponse



Albuquerque Journal Wednesday Jamuary 23, 2008






U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 60 7 505/346- 72 74
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 505/346-7224
FAX 505/346-7296

January 18, 2.008

William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

RE: Foreclosure of property located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for collection of Judgment Civil No. 97-266 MCA/LFG

Dear Mr. Payne:

I have received your e-mail of January 17, 2008 referencing the letter you received from Mr. Lucero of this office. As you know, the United States Attorney has been ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico to enforce the collection of the sanctions imposed on you and Mr. Morales. This office is not able to settle or waive the amounts imposed by the court. However, we would be willing to offer to waive any costs incurred, applicable statutory fees, or advances made thus far in collecting your court-ordered debt.

Please let me know no later than January 25, 2008 whether or not you and Mr. Morales will each tender $10,000 per the court's Order. Otherwise, we will be forced to proceed to enforce the court's Order. Sincerely,

LARRY GOMEZ
United States Attorney

SETTLEMENT DRAFT
Thursday January 24, 2008 14:21


Incident                                                                        Settlement amount
                                                                          Morales                           Payne
Void judgment lawsuits:
$1,000 per docket line entry

97cv0266                                                             $50,000.00                       $50,000.00
92-1452-JC                                                                                                 $185,000.00
97-350-LH/DJ                                                   $175,000.00
00 CV 1574                                                          $36,500.00                       $36,500.00
00 CV 1677                                                                                                   $62,500.00
01 CV 0634                                                           $38,000.00                      $38,000.00
01 CV 1198                                                           $26,000.00                      $26,000.00


Settlement
CV 2000-10289
                                                    
CV 2001-03118                                                     
CV 2001 06293                                                       
CV 2000 10278                                                       
CV 2001 05900                                                     

CV 2002-3425
CV 2001-7794

Morales and Payne want their $625 garnished from Morales wages back and the unjustified and malicious order of garnishment of $1,793.56 voided.
                                                                                       $312.50                         $312.50

Payne asks that his Sandia wages with increments and benefits from the time he was fired on July 27, 1992 until the time he retired on June 11, 2002 plus interest be paid in addition to punitive damage of $16,000,000 as set in precedent of Shawn Carpenter case.




 
lucero.htm#gomezresponse



Albuquerque Journal Wednesday Jamuary 23, 2008






U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 60 7 505/346- 72 74
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 505/346-7224
FAX 505/346-7296

January 18, 2.008

William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

RE: Foreclosure of property located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for collection of Judgment Civil No. 97-266 MCA/LFG

Dear Mr. Payne:

I have received your e-mail of January 17, 2008 referencing the letter you received from Mr. Lucero of this office. As you know, the United States Attorney has been ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico to enforce the collection of the sanctions imposed on you and Mr. Morales. This office is not able to settle or waive the amounts imposed by the court. However, we would be willing to offer to waive any costs incurred, applicable statutory fees, or advances made thus far in collecting your court-ordered debt.

Please let me know no later than January 25, 2008 whether or not you and Mr. Morales will each tender $10,000 per the court's Order. Otherwise, we will be forced to proceed to enforce the court's Order. Sincerely,

LARRY GOMEZ
United States Attorney



Let's get really pointed soon.

lucero.htm#shawn


----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: larry-gomez@usdoj.gov
Cc: 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
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 13:54 PM
Subject: It would save all the parties time and expense if you came prepared to make a specific settlement offer that is responsive to the Government's requirements as outlined above.


----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: larry.gomez@usdoj.gov Sent:
Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Fw: It would save all the parties time and expense if you came prepared to make a specific settlement offer that is responsive to the Government's requirements as outlined above.



Thursday January 17, 2008 15:30

Email and posted at
lucero.htm#gomezletter

Larry Gomez
United States Attorney
U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346-7274
505/346- 7224

larry.gomez@usdoj.gov

Dear Mr Gomez:

We, Arthur R Morales and William H Payne, recieved an unusual letter on from assistant US Attorney Manuel Lucero which has your name as sponser of that letter.

Here is a jpg copy of that letter.

Purposes of this email is to bring Lucero's letter and circumstances to your attention.


Mr. Lucero writes [underlined]
Any settlement must be such the the interest of the United States are adequately satisfied in a timely manner The fact and circumstances of your debt will be considered in evaluating any settlement.

We have offered settlement of these unfortunate matters since 1992.

We continue to believe that prompt settlement is in the "interest of the United States" and nearly everyone.


We agree that settlement should be accomplished in the "timely manner."

Bureaucrats, lawyers and judges have created these messes which could have been easily settled 16 years ago.


Lucero writes
If you would like to avail yourself of the opportunity to settle this claim before litigation, please call me immediately to arrange a settlement conference. It would save all the parties time and expense if you came prepared to make a specific settlement offer that is responsive to the Government's requirements as outlined above.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS TOWARD SETTLEMENT

1 We would like to have a settlement conference but this must be through written correspondence only.


2 What are the "Government's requirements?"

We need to know this to determine if we can comply.

3 If the "Government's requirements" are confidential, then please convey them to us by a confidential method.

Confidentially can be negotiated.


Lucero writes
If you would like to avail yourself of the opportunity to settle this claim before litigation, please call me immediately to arrange a settlement conference. It would save all the parties time and expense if you came prepared to make a specific settlement offer that is responsive to the Government's requirements as outlined above.

We, of course, welcome an opportunity to "settle this claim before litigation."

However we will email you, Mr Gomez, our settlement "specific settlement offer".

We ask that you deliver to us the "Government's requirements" either email, or if these requirement are confidential, in some other manner.

Lucero threatens us with litigation, in writing.


If any litigation is required, we have counter claims which must be heard in a 12 person jury trial in the District of Columbia.

As we know,
RE- Foreclosure of property located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for collection of Judgment Civil No, 97-266 MCA/LFG
is void. Here are the reasons.

Lucero writes
If I do not hear from you within one week from the date of this letter, 1 will assume that you are not interested in a pre-filing settlement, and I will proceed to file the necessary action to resolve this matter.

We believe that it was both unwise and unintelligent for Lucero to approach us for settlement for the following reasons:

1 Lucero is a party to Civil No, 97-266 MCA/LFG

[see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm] without any cause of action.

Look at Lucero's signature for the harassing $1,793.56.

2 Lucero is a defendant in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for Replivin and Harassment

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

3 New Mexico 00:CV:10289 was fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court.

No required affidavit was filed.

Replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

11/08/2000 11/09/2000 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 [207k] [11 pages]

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

11/16/2000 11/17/2000 4 NOTICE by defendants of substitution of party USA in place of Robert Gorence, John Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Mitchell and Don Svet [52k] [3 pages]

4 Lucero's January 9, 2008 letter is prima face evidence of guilt of New Mexico crime 30-16-9. Extortion, a third degree felony, and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

5 We charge that Lucero was involved in sending US Marshals Halverson and Bowman to our homes on Friday October 5, 2007. An act of extortion was photographed a Payne's home.

Therefore, for now, we assume that you did not authorize Lucero's January 9, 2008 settlement letter.

We will post our updated settlement conditions next week at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/settlementconditions/settlementconditions.htm

We will send you an email that they are ready.

We ask what you respond to this email by close of business Friday January 18, 2008 if this procedure is acceptable.

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




Wednesday January 16, 2008 10:36

lucero.htm#manuellucero

lucero.htm#letter

11/16/2000 11/17/2000 4 NOTICE by defendants of substitution of party USA in place of Robert Gorence, John Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Mitchell and Don Svet [52k] [3 pages]

11/08/2000 11/09/2000 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 [207k] [11 pages]

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

Replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

00:CV:10289 was fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court. No required affidavit was filed.

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

Look at Lucero's signature for the harassing $1,793.56!

All rulings in 00cv01574 are void.

Note paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit. This lawsuit resulted from our NSA lawsuit.

 







U.S, Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
505/346-7274
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
505/346- 7224
FAX 505/346-7296

January 9, 2008

CERTIFIED: RETURN RECEIPT REQUEST

William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

RE- Foreclosure of property located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for collection of Judgment Civil No, 97-266 MCA/LFG

Dear Mr. Payne:

This letter is to notify you that the above-referenced case has been referred to the United States Department of Justice by the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office for the District of New Mexico. The District Court has requested this office to initiate, a foreclosure action in Federal Court in order to collect an outstanding indebtedness.

I would like to extend to you the opportunity to settle this matter before litigation, to save you and the Federal Government the burden and expense of litigation. Any settlement must be such the the interest of the United States are adequately satisfied in a timely manner The fact and circumstances of your debt will be considered in evaluating any settlement.

If you would like to avail yourself of the opportunity to settle this claim before litigation, please call me immediately to arrange a settlement conference. It would save all the parties time and expense if you came prepared to make a specific settlement offer that is responsive to the Government's requirements as outlined above.

If I do not hear from you within one week from the date of this letter, 1 will assume that you are not interested in a pre-filing settlement, and I will proceed to file the necessary action to resolve this matter.

Sincerely

LARRY GOMEZ
United States Attorney

MANUEL LUCERO
Assistant U.S. Attorney




We have jury trials too.
Analyst, Sandia Settle Suit

Employee Fired After Backhacking

BY SCOTT SANDLIN
Journal Staff Writer

Shawn Carpenter, the cybersecurity analyst fired by Sandia National Laboratories after backhacking in search of overseas computer intruders, has settled his lawsuit with Sandia. Carpenter won a $4.7 million jury verdict against Sandia in February in Bernalillo County District Court, including more than $2 million in punitive damages.

He testified that after detecting intrusions he believed compromised national security, he took his concerns to his bosses at Sandia, who turned a deaf ear, prompting him to go outside his chain of command to the Army Research Laboratory and ultimately the FBI.

Sandia officials said that Carpenter had violated policy and breached protocols and that he was treated as any other employee would have been.

The judgment has been on appeal by Sandia - and earning 15 percent interest in the meantime. The settlement sends the case back to the district court for dismissal.

Neither side would comment on the specifics of the confidential settlement.

"We're satisfied with the agreement and pleased to put the case behind us," Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said.

Carpenter's attorney Phil Davis had no comment.

Carpenter and his wife, Jennifer Jacobs, moved to the D.C. area in 2005 to take new jobs.

Carpenter is still a forensics analyst in network detection for a private corporation, NetWitness, and teaches at conferences and seminars.

Jacobs, a former Sandia nuclear engineer and one-time White House fellow who was affected by her husband's termination, is a consultant for McKenzie & Co.

"I'm actually having a lot of fun and still feel like I'm having an impact on national security work," Carpenter said Wednesday.

In his new job, he said he is able to have a hand in developing the product. Members of the intelligence community, federal agencies and the military are among clients, he said.

Albuquerque Journal October 14, 2007


Judge upholds $4.3 million jury award to fired Sandia lab analyst

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - A judge has upheld a $4.3 million verdict against Sandia National Laboratories in the case of a fired cybersecurity analyst who went to federal authorities with information alleging national security breaches.

State District Judge Linda Vanzi on Tuesday denied Sandia's motion for a new trial or to reduce the punitive damages to zero.

Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said the lab will appeal.


Sandia Labs President comments of losing Sandia Hacker lawsuit.



Jury Awards Sandia Hacker $4 Million

from PAGE Al

ments, body armor and more but he testified that his bosses told him to concern himself only with Sandia.

After agonizing discussion with his wife, then a Sandi researcher and later a White House fellow, he instead reached out almost immediately to the Army Research Laboratory. He eventually was passed t the FBI and share his findings with that agency during a series of meetings, some of which he recorded.

Although Carpenter had told line supervisors he was working with an unspecified outside agency, Sandia fully learned of his work when the FBI talked to Sandia counterintelligence. Less than three months later, Sandi officials fired him after meetings in which no minutes were taken and no record made until after the fact.

Jury forewoman Alex Scott said jurors were upset by the lack of documentation of the process and by the "reckless behavior on the part of Sandia to not have adequate policies in place for employees about hacking, and the cavalier attitude about national security and global security.

Jurors were not unanimous, however. The civil jury required 10 of the 13 to vote on a question before moving to the next one Juror Elizabeth Bornholdt, a retired home economist, said she did not believe Carpenter had done all he could to secure authorization for backhacking before going outside Sandia with the information. She said the case wasn't as "cut and dried" as some jurors saw it.

She voted against liability for Sandia, but even she said the corporation had been "lax" about following up when Carpenter told his supervisors that he was working with an outside agency. And she said top management "didn't seem to know what was going on."

Juror David Miertschin, architect, said he found "egregious" the comments made by Sandia counterintelligence chief Bruce Held during a meeting to decide Carpenter's fate.

Held told Carpenter that if he'd been working for him and had done such unauthorized work, he would have been "decapitated, or at least would have left the room bloody." Held said the comment was a relic of his earlier CIA career and he was reprimanded for it, but Miertschin said he was disturbed by how Held and subsequent witnesses minimized the comments.

The special verdict form submitted to the jury does not disclose the numerical breakdown of the vote.

Carpenter cried as the verdict was read.

Jurors later hugged Carpenter as he joined his lawyers in the jury room.

Sandia released a statement saying an appeal was under consideration.

"We are disappointed with the verdict but still maintain that when employees step beyond clear boundaries in a national security setting, there should be consequences" Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said.

Carpenter, now working with a top-secret clearance for a State Department contractor is the in the Washington, D.C., area, said he felt a powerful sense of exoneration. But even before the verdict, he said he would be happy to have had his day in court.

"The point for us all along was this is bad for the country to have contractors like Sandia Corp. behaving this way - with impunity," said his wife, Jennifer Jacobs, a nuclear engineer and West Point graduate who testified in the trial.

"And if other citizens don't do this, it's the beginning of the end for our country. That's what we have to do,because it's what we expect of others.

 
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#wellsfargo

Received Friday February 15, 2008












"Yes" incorrectly check instead of "No" in verified statement.