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 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 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. 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 |
| Wednesday March 13, 2008 14:12 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. 03/05/2008 141 ORDER re: Writs of Garnishment by Judge M. Christina Armijo (jm) (Entered: 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
WILLIAM H. PAYNE and vs. Civil No. 97-266 MCA/LFG NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, 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. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
| 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 WILLIAM H. PAYNE and ARTHUR R. MORALES, Plaintiffs, vs. CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL 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 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
| Friday March 7, 2008 13:43 Full email: -----Original Message----- Partial quote of email received -----Original Message-----Another partial email. We are in cell phone contact with John Williamson author of below. -----Original Message-----Contrary to Armijo's order docket entry 102 The pleading should not have been accepted for filing, as it is in violation of the Courts earlier order directing that no further pleadings be accepted in this case. 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 v.
CIVIL NO. 97-266
MCA/LFG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 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. As the court may know
17 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17. As a court may know
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
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.
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: ____________________ 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 v.
CIVIL NO. 97-266
MCA/LFG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 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. ____________________________ |
| Tuesday March 4, 2008 13:44 They apparently don't believe in motions. § 3014. Exempt property http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattarmijo Received Saturday March 1, 2008 |
![]() ![]() |
Friday March 7, 2008 07:23Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers ![]() ![]() ![]() |
| 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:
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. 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
You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:
The court does not have jurisdiction over for a variety of
reasons: 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. Second; This proceeding is void as a result of defective service. You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:
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
Further, Zavitz failed to sign the certificate of service which is improper service. You wrote in your February 28, 2008 letter:
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, Distribution Certified return receipt requested Matthew J Dykman,Clerk board_of_directors@slfcu.org |
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.
|
| 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 Sincerely, Distribution Certified return receipt requested Matthew J Dykman,Clerk board_of_directors@slfcu.org |
|
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v.
CIVIL
NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION JUDICIAL NOTICE RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND
REQUEST FOR HEARING
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 v.
CIVIL
NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR REASONS OF VIOLATON OF PROCEDURAL RULES
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 v.
CIVIL
NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
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.
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 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 (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (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. 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 Sincerely, Distribution Certified return receipt requested Matthew J Dykman,Clerk board_of_directors@slfcu.org |
| 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 v. CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG 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: U.S. Department of Justice Financial Litigation Unit February 20, 2008 William H. Payne 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 |
| 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 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] 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. |
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: 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 _____________ 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.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] 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, Distribution Certified return receipt requested Matthew J Dykman,Clerk board_of_directors@slfcu.org
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattmorales |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#moralesslfcu sent to Morales. ![]() |
|
Monday February 18, 2008 13:50 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#zavitzrefile Looks like a second insufficient service. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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: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 |