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

Rule 60(b)(3) Relief from Judgment or Order
...

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

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
Office of the United States Attorney
Dated: February 28, 2008

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)

We respond with mandatory judicial notice 2.

You don't respond directly to a kangaroo court.

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

vs. Civil No. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant.

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

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.

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].

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

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

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

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                Martha Vazquez
                                                                CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

§ 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

Received Saturday March 1, 2008

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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: ____________________

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.

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: ____________________

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.

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: ____________________

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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.

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

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.