 Sunday August 22, 2004 8:40 AM PAUL K. CHARLTON Dear Mr Charlton: Purposes of this letter are to respond about great concerns to a letter that assistant US attorney Richard G Patrick wrote us on August 17, 2204. That letter contains written evidence of judicial negligence or misconduct on the Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson. And to make a settlement overture to our legal disputes. . Let's make use of Internet technology to reduce the amount of paper sent through the mail. Patricks August 17,2004 letter is posted at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charlton082104.htm#p1. Patrick wrote Re: Case No. 2.03-CV-0028 DB consolidated with: Case No. 2:03-C V-00228 TS is corrected to read Re: Case No. 2.03-CV-00288 DB Patrick wrote I have reviewed your response to Defendant Downes' motion for entry of judgment and for docketing order in the above-entitled consolidated case. This letter is in response to your suggestion that the pleadings filed on Judge Downes' behalf violated Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. Here's pages 4 and 5 of Benson's ruling: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charlton082104.htm#p4 But the problem with what Patrick's letter and thinking behind it is that judge Downes IS NOT A RESPONDENT in either 2.03-CV-0288 or 2.03-CV-0228! As you can see from the first page of the writ petitions posted at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charlton082104.htm#p5 - this is PACER docket entry number 1 seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/payne03cv0288final.htm http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charlton082104.htm#p6 - this is PACER docket entry number 1 seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm respondents in these two writ petitions are Gibson, Minzner, and Maes. We've placed red star to the left of the responds names. No Downes! Patrick wrote Based upon the enclosed Memorandum Opinion And Order, the factual representations made in the recent motion on Judge Downes' behalf are correct; that is, Judge Benson's ruling says precisely what I represented it to say. While you may disagree with Judge Benson's ruling, I fail to see how you can maintain, for Rule 11 purposes, that I misrepresented what Judge Benson said. Our intention to file for Rule 11 sanctions on both Patrick and Ascroft stand if requests in our response are not met. While we feel that no one would be as careless as Ashcroft and Patrick to make a motion in a closed case to move two fraudulently removed New Mexico jury trial prima facie cases into Benson's court in a writ petition.We continue to be amazed at the inappropriate and nonsensical correspondence and actions from your office. Look at page 6: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charlton082104.htm#p7 And, as you see from the Internet documents, we have a prima facie case of judicial negligence or misconduct on the part of Utah judge Dee Vance Benson. So we ask that you properly punish Patrick for authoring his August 17, 2004 letter to us. Dee Benson, if the signature is authentic, signed the ruling on the 20th day of January 2004. If Benson's signature is authentic, then this is gross negligence or gross judicial misconduct which may warrant a formal misconduct complaint. Things have gone badly for the Department of Justice for our five New Mexico paid for prima facie case jury trial fraudulent removed to federal court without required US Supreme Court verification. But rather than have the Department of Justice continue to fight our legal battles, we believe that settlement is in the best interest of all parties.Here's what we ask 1 Monetary compensation for work we did on fraudulent federal cases 00 CV 1574, 01 CV 0634, 01 CV 1198, 01 CV 1677, and 00 CV 1132. 2 Our filing fees and summons service fees returned for New Mexico paid for jury trial lawsuits CV 2000-10289, CV 2001-03118, CV 2001 06293, CV 200 10278, and CV 2001 05900 provided we settle. Otherwise we must proceed with the jury trials guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico state constitution. 3 Morales and Payne want their $625 garnished from Morales wages back and the order of garnishment of $1,793.56 legally removed. 4 Payne asks for a letter of apology from the Secretary of Energy for publication and distribution of the false and defaming documents see at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos which violate the criminal provision of the Privacy Act causing Payne from being unjustly fired from Sandia labs. 5 Payne asks that his Sandia wages with increments and benefits from the time he was fired in 1992 until the time he retired on June 11, 2002 plus interest be paid. 6 In return, we ask that the five bogus federal actions be remanded to New Mexico state court. We will then, under New Mexico Rule 1-041 move for dismissal of our state lawsuits. We ask that you contact one of us of week on August 29, 2004 by phone to inform us whether settlement negotiations should begin. Or we take our next legal steps. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne |