This arrived in the mail on Thursday August 19, 2004.

It's fairly thick.

Downes again? We can't make them well, but we know how to make them lots sicker.

Judge William F Downes realizes (he has been ranting, babbling) [aka judge Queeg]

Pursuant to the "rule of necessity," the Court declines to recuse itself in the above-captioned matter. As demonstrated above, the Plaintiffs' tactics are to sue any judge who rules adversely to the Plaintiffs' position. Taken to its logical extreme, if every federal judge were to recuse himself or herself upon being sued by these Plaintiffs for allegedly mishandling the Plaintiffs' previous cases to which the judge was assigned, the only judge left would be the Chief Justice of the United States. The Court declines to play this foolish game and, accordingly, declines to recuse itself in this matter.

Note that the chief justice of the United States Rehnquist is now, in fact, involved with a PRIMA FACIE judicial misconduct complaint against clerk Willam K Suter, supervisior Jeffery Atkins, and Ruth Jones who got caught in writing interecpting a complaint about them addresses to Rehnquist.

Contrary to Downes likely psychotic ranting, we are quite systematic. We got crooked judge W John Brennan on two prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuits for breach of contract and harassment.

We got likely crooked and likely pyschotic judge William F Downes on two New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie cases of harassment. And one criminal complaint affidavit for harassment.

And, of course, Downes got himself with downs634/downs634.htm#page6

We got Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson in wiriting on two prima facie case New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for harassment .... which have not been filed yet.

The amazing part of all of this litigation is that they did it to themselves in writing. We love it.

Settlement time yet?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiff

vs CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes/Richard L Puglisi

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH

Defendants

REPLY TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE MINUTE ORDER SIGNED BY ACTING CLERK NORMAN H. MEYER. DOCKET ENTRY 111 FILED 08/10/2004

1 Lawyers Phyllis A Dow and judge William F Downes, time has arrived to

review your legal misconduct in 00 CV 1677.

A Plaintiff Payne pays $297 [see

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm] for a prima facie 12

person New Mexico CV 2000-10278 on October 20, 2000 jury trial lawsuit for

defamation [libel] and harassment for unauthorized publication and distribution

of the false and defaming documents seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm.

B US attorney Norman C Bay and Assistant US attorney Phyllis A

Dow fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 on November 27,

2000 in violation the Judicial Code.

See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm.

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al

v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

Dow's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition which is a

violation of Supreme Court requirement.

In addition harassment and defamation [libel] are not federal questions.

Dow harasses petitioner Payne using federal court as instrument of

harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes.

3A-2. Harassment; penalties.

A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-2, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 2. NMSA 1978.

person jury trial lawsuit CV 2000-10278 given federal number 00 cv 1677 to

Wyoming chief judge William F Downes.

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]

See docket at pacer/dock1677.htm

D Downes is asked to provide an affidavit that defamation [libel] and harassment are federal questions which, of course, neither are.

Downes does not comply.

Here's verification of non-compliance taken from the docket of 00 cv 1677

08/23/2001 08/24/2001 91 NOTICE of Non-Compliance by pltf of Judge Downes to provide anti-injunction affidavit [73k] [4 pages]

E Plaintiff files

03/09/2001 03/12/2001 63 MOTION and Memorandum by pltf to remand to state court for lack of jurisdiction [135k] [6 pages] RE: [74] REPLY by pltf to response to mtn to... [72k] [4 pages] RE: [73] ORDER by Judge William F. Downes... [32k] [2 pages] RE: [67] RESPONSE by deft USA to pltf's motion... [6k] [3 pages]

On April 10, 2001 judge William F Downes rules when Downes does not have

jurisdiction.

F Actions in sections B through E of this reply earn Dow, Downes, and RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB a New Mexico lawsuit.

This 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit is number 2000 CV 05900 for harassment and perjury.

Prima facie is appropriate since all evidence of guilt of defendants is in

writing in exhibits seen in sections A though C of this reply.

G Exhibit seen in sections A though C of this reply also earn Dow, Downes,

and lawyer St. John of RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, and New Mexico chief

judge James A Parker a criminal compliant affidavit for harassment in New

Mexico metro court. See criminal summons at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm.

H Lawyers Dow, Parker, and St. John, from the exhibits seen in sections A through G of this reply appear to have violated New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct, which are part of the New Mexico Statutes IN WRITING as evidence in sections A through G of this reply. Specifically lawyers Dow, Parker, and St. John appear to have violated Rules of Professional Conduct. See http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0

16-804. Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

B. commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

C. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

D. engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

G. knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

COMES NOW Defendant United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel of record, and for its Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Minute Order Signed by Acting Clerk Norman H. Meyer, Docket Entry 111 Filed 08/10/2004 (Doc. No. 113, Motion to Strike) states as follows:

United States of America is not a proper defendant in 00 CV 1677 which is

fraudulently removed New Mexico prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuit

New Mexico CV 2000-10278.

Lawyer Dow wrote motion and judge Martha Vazquez, who did not have jurisdiction

over defamation [libel] and harassment, improperly signed Dows motion.

See dowvazquez/dowvazquez.htm.

This earned New Mexico state judge Theodore C. Baca, US Attorney Norman C. Bay,

Phyllis A. Dow, assistant US attorney Raymond Hamilton, Rodey, Dickason,

Sloan , Akin & Robb PA, and judge Martha Vazquez New Mexico 12 person jury

trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118 for harassment.

3 Dow writes

This matter was dismissed as to Defendant United States by the Court on May 30, 2003. (Doc. No. 105) . Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw May 28, 2003 [sic] Order Granting Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2003. (Doc. No. 107, Motion to Withdraw) Defendant United States responded on June 30, 2003. (Doc. No. 109) . Plaintiff filed his Reply on June 30, 2003. (Doc. No. 110). By direction of the Court, the Acting Clerk entered a Minute Order on August10, 2004, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw. (Doc. No. 111). Plaintiff now moves to strike the entry of the Minute Order on completely unsubstantiated grounds.

Dow's statement, "By direction of the Court" is unsupported since no signed ORDER is offered in evidence.

And Meyer did not sign or date and time stamp MINUTE ORDER as required.

Dow's statement, "Plaintiff now moves to strike the entry of the Minute Order on completely unsubstantiated grounds." is false because plaintiff cited instances where clerk and can sign ORDERs.

See meyermotiontostrike.htm.

Meyer's unsigned MINUTE ORDER is not one of these.

So Dow's conclusion of "unsubstantiated grounds" is clearly false and frivolous.

4 Dow writes

Defendant United States notes that counsel cannot discern upon which rules Plaintiff is relying. Rule 82 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the Clerk of the Court.

appears to be incorrect a seen in the link

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sign+order+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-rule82.1.2.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

titled "Rule 82. - Clerk's Office and Orders by the Clerk."

The correct defendants are SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN, JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER, LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and CAROL LISA SMITH.

5 Dow writes

There is no Rule 77(g) contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

also appears to be incorrect as seen in the link

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=absent+judg+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-rule77.1.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

titled "Rule 77. - Court and Clerk."

The Rules are posted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=rule+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-TITLEVIIGENERALPROVISIONS.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

West Publishing Company 1991 Revised Edition FEDERAL CIVIL JUDICIAL PROCEDURE and RULES list both rule 77 and 82.

Dow's statements in 4 and 5 are incomprehensible since rules exist and have been shown above.

These are the applicable rules by which the court should be abiding.

6 Dow writes

First, the Court directed the Acting Clerk to enter the Minute Order. As provided by 28 U.S.C. § 956, Powers and duties of clerks and deputies:

The clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them by the court.

The clerk cannot be assigned to duty of signing a MINUTE ORDER. Which Meyer

didn't do. The possibly fraudulent not file stamped MINUTE ORDER was stamped,

not signed by any judge.

See meyermotiontostrike.htm.

7 Dow writes

Thus, there is no question but that the Minute Order is a valid exercise of the Acting Clerk as directed by the Court.

is a false statement because Rules 77 and 82 specify what clerks can do and how

to do it.

If Meyer, in fact, authored an unauthorized MINUTE ORDER which is not file

stamped as required, then it should be signed by Meyer so that we know he

committed judicial misconduct.

8 Dow writes

Second, the Minute Order was properly entered electronically on August 10, 2004, as is reflected by the Document Verification contained on the Docket. Therefore, the Acting Clerk complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a) and (b).

Rule 79 (a) seen at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule79.html

states

The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made.

We can all see that the MINUTE ORDER is not file stamped as required.

Rule 79(a) also states

When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word ''jury'' on the folio assigned to that action.

This was done

12/04/2000 12/06/2000 10 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf William H Payne [34k] [2 pages] RE: [30] RESPONSE by deft USA to pltf's demand... [45k] [3 pages]

Bogus 00 CV 1677 is a jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate Rule 38.

Rule 38. - Jury Trial of Right

(a) Right Preserved.

The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate..

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/appendix-rule38.html.

9 Dow writes

Plaintiff's argument that this matter should be decided by a jury is specious. Defendant United States was substituted as the party Defendant in place of its employees Charles Burtner and the Honorable Lorenzo F. Garcia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) (1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671 et sea. (Doc. Nos. 13 and 47). There is no right to a jury trial under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2402. Moreover, the Court properly granted Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 105)

Dow's statement "Defendant United States was substituted as the party Defendant in place of its employees Charles Burtner and the Honorable Lorenzo F. Garcia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)" fails to correctly state "fraudulently

substituted" by Dow and judge Martha Vazquez. See See

dowvazquez/dowvazquez.htm.

So right to trial by jury is in force for bogus 00 CV 1677.

10 Dow writes

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant United States of America respectfully requests the Court for an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Minute Order Signed by Acting Clerk Norman H. Meyer, Docket Entry 111 Filed 08/10/2004, for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

United States of America is not a proper defendant.

United States of America was made a defendant by assistant US Attorney Phyllis A Dow fraudulently removing New Mexico CV 2000-10278 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit for defamation [libel] and harassment.

Dow then conspired with judge Martha Vazquez who did have federal jurisdiction over defamation [libel] and harassment to harass plaintiff in federal court with 00 CV 1677.

Therefore Dows response must be rejected and 00 CV 1677 remanded to New Mexico for trial by jury or settlement.

10 Lawyer Dow and St. John legal misconduct grossly violate New Mexico's

Code of Professional Conduct in writing that plaintiff demands that both Dow

and St. John submit letters of resignation from the New Mexico bar for reasons

stated in sections see sections A though H of this reply so as to save New

Mexico's Disciplinary Review Board the unnecessary activity of investigating

two prima facie cases.

Plaintiff asks to have copies of resignation letters sent to him by September

29, 2004.

Failure to comply will compel plaintiff to file two "complaints about attorneys

licensed in the state of New Mexico to determine whether the attorney has

violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, which are part of the New Mexico

Statutes." http://www.nmdisboard.org/

Severity of punishment by Disciplinary Board should be increased if Dow and St.

John don't willingly resign.

12 So judge Downes, you don't have jurisdiction in 00 CV 1677.

00 CV 1677 is fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 12 person jury

trial prima facie case lawsuit for defamation [libel] and harassment.

Your conduct in 00 CV 1677 amounts to "use of the judge's office to obtain

special treatment for friends" for trying to get federal defendants excused

from a New Mexico state jury trial prima facie case lawsuit with the help of

New Mexico chief judge James A Parker.

For these reason plaintiff asks for resignation of both judge Downes and Parker

from the bench by September 29, 2004.

Please send copies of resignation letter or plaintiff will be forced to file

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT with the Tenth Circuit.

See http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/forms/misconduct_rules.pdf.

You two judges have compiled an about-unparalleled paper trail in court records

of incompetent judicial misconduct. So it is better to save the Tenth Circuit

judge, and appeals judges - if necessary - unnecessary work.

Disrespectfully submitted,

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on September 15, 2004 to

PHYLLIS A DOW
Assistant US Attorney
POB 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Robert M. St.John, Mark A Smith, Larry Montaño
RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN , AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v civ 01 0634 William F Downes

Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez

Defendants

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT OF DOWNES' ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004

Withdraw DOWNES' ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004 as being a violation of Tenth Amendment Constitutional right.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT OF DOWNES' ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004

1 This motion is brought under Rule 52

Rule 52. - Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings (b)

Amendment. Upon motion of a party, or upon its own motion, made not later than 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made an objection in this court to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.

A Plaintiffs Morales and Payne pay $297 for 12 person New Mexico state jury

trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118 against above defendants for Relief from

harassment on May 4, 2001.

See Exhibit E http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibite.htm.

Harassment is not a federal question.

B Private lawyers, not US attorneys, Christina Anaya and Stephen French

fraudulently remove 01 CV 0634 to federal court on June 4, 2001 without US

Supreme Court required verification.

Harassment is not a federal question.

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al

v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

Anaya and French's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition which is a

violation of Supreme Court requirement.

Anaya and French are compelled by federal court to pay $150 filing fee for

their client, Second judicial district New Mexico state judge Theodore C Baca.

See Exhibit F at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

C Plaintiffs file jury demand in 01 CV 0634.

Here's the docket entry

06/11/2001 06/12/2001 15 DEMAND for jury trial by plaintiffs [28k] [2 pages]

D New Mexico chief judge James A Parker assigns 01 CV 0634 aka fraudulently

removed 12 person New Mexico state jury trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118 to Wyoming

chief judge William F Downes.

Here's the docket entry

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]

E Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA lawyer Robert St. John files

motion to dismiss 01 CV 0634 aka fraudulently removed 12 person New Mexico

state jury trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118.

Here's the docket entry

06/13/2001 06/13/2001 18 MEMORANDUM by defendant Rodey,Dickason in support of motion to dismiss pltf's complaint for relief from harassment [17-1] [303k] [12 pages] RE: [17] MOTION by defendant Rodey,Dickason to... [36k] [2 pages]

The docket of 01 CV 0634 is seen at

acer/dock0634.htm but without hotlinks.

You can request an account from http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/web/DCDOCS/dcindex.html so you will be able to access the hotlinks.

F Downes is requested to submit to plaintiffs an affidavit that harassment

is a federal question.

Downes does not comply.

Here's the entry verifying non-compliance in the docket of 00 CV 0634

08/30/2001 08/30/2001 47 NOTICE by plaintiffs of non-compliance of Judge William Downes to provide anti injunction affidavit [221k] [6 pages]

So Downes harasses plaintiffs by ruling in 00CV 0634, a jury lawsuit, when

Downes does not have jurisdiction.

G This earns Downes, Zavitz, and French paid for New Mexico 12 person jury

trial prima facie case lawsuit CV-200106293 for harassment and perjury with

plaintiffs.

See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm.

H Plainly crooked judge William F Downes is now ruling, again, in 00 CV 0634 where French and

Associates and Zavits are representing defendants.

I Lawyers Anaya, French, Zavitz and St. John, from the exhibits seen in

sections A through H of this MOTION appear to have violated New Mexico Rules of

Professional Conduct, which are part of the New Mexico Statutes IN WRITING.

Specifically lawyers Anaya, French, Zavitz and St. John appear to have

violated New Mexico's Rules of Professional Conduct.

See http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0

16-804. Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

B. commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

C. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

D. engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

G. knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

by harassing plaintiffs in bogus, fraudulently removed 00 CV 0634.

This is gross judicial misconduct.

3 Downes writes

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Response to Order on Pending Motions. The Court, having reviewed the materials submitted and being otherwise fully advised, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

is clearly false because The Court aka crooked {see section 2 of this MOTION A

through I for written evidence) judge William F Downes ignores the written

facts which show plaintiffs have not received the New Mexico 12 person jury

trial prima facie case lawsuits they paid for and are guaranteed inviolate

under New Mexico and federal constitutions.

4 Downes writes

On May 27, 2004, this Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against the above-named Defendants with prejudice. The Court also found Plaintiffs' Complaint to be the latest in a series of frivolous lawsuits filed by them over the last few years.

is evidence of continued harassment by judge Downes.

Plaintiffs filed a prima facie New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuit 12

2000 10289 for recovery of $625 taken from Morales and Payne [see prima facie

written evidence at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm] and

a to have an ORDER OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 when there was not cause of

action legally removed.

See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm.

Replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

Plaintiff Payne filed a prima facie New Mexico state 12 person jury trial

lawsuit 12 CV 2000-10278 for relief from defamation [libel] and harassment for

publication and distribution of the false and defaming documents seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm. Publication and

distribution of these document violate the criminal provision of the Privacy

Act. See http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm.

Defamation [libel] and harassment are not federal questions.

Fraudulent removal of these two New Mexico state lawsuits to federal court

without verification required by the US Supreme Court [See

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitb.htm and

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm] and then judge

Downes ruling in these two fraudulently removed New Mexico state lawsuits when

Downes does not have jurisdiction over state replevin, defamation [libel], and

harassment is criminal harassment by Downes which is continue in Downes ORDER

GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004.

Downes, you are disassociated from reality contained in the written evidence.

The "series of lawsuit" you reference are all a result of YOUR and other

crooked lawyers trying to get the original defendants off by obstructing two

New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits.

You are conducting a frivolous defense when you should settle with Morales and

Payne as outlined in our August 27, 2004 letter to you Paul K Charlton seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charltonletter.htm.

4 Downes writes

As a consequence,the Court expressed its intent to enter an Order Granting Injunctive Relief The Court included the language of the proposed injunction in its May 27 Order and provided Plaintiffs 21 days to file an appropriate objection, thereby preserving Plaintiffs' due process rights. Plaintiffs responded in writing on June 14, 2004. Their objections are wholly inadequate.

Again Downes is disassociated with reality by not reading or understanding the

written evidence in plaintiffs' response seen at

downs634/downs634.htm.

Downes statement "Their objections are wholly inadequate." without giving examples supported by writing evidence is intolerable.

Not giving reasons why plaintiffs' objection are false is an admission that plaintiffs' contentions, all supported by writing evidence, are all valid.

6 Downes writes

Despite the Court's efforts to explain to Plaintiffs why their lawsuits cannot be maintained, Plaintiffs continue to assert, amidst a flurry of insults aimed at the Court, that (1) the above-captioned matter and its related matters were fraudulently removed to federal court, and (2) replevin, harassment, and defamation are not federal questions. As the old adage goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Bogus fraudulently removed New Mexico state lawsuits now federal 00 CV 1574, 01

CV 0634, 01 CV 1198, 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1167 ARE NOT OUR LAWSUITS. Our

lawsuits are paid for New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima facie case

lawsuits.

You give no justification to support you contention that replevin, harassment,

and defamation are federal questions. Which, of course, they are not.

And despite written evidence of fraudulent removal
[see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitb.htm,
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm,
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm,
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm, and
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm]

you continue to proceed in your fantasy world of Ignoring the written evidence in your above

paragraph.

You appear to be mad.

7 Downes writes

Having so concluded, the Court hereby ORDERS that William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales are prohibited from initiating a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico raising the same or similar allegations as those described in the current action, Case No. 01-CV-634; Payne v. Sandia Corp. e al., Case No. 00-C V-1677; and Morales and Payne v. Gorence, et al., Case No. 00-CV-1574. The submission to the Clerk of the Court for filing of a complaint raising the same or similar allegations as those described shall be considered as an act in contempt of the Court's order, and Mr. Payne and Mr. Morales may be fined or sanctioned accordingly.

Citizens Morales and Payne have constitutional right of trial by jury guaranteed inviolate under Rule 38 should they choose to file a lawsuit in Us Federal Court.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=rule+38+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-rule38.1.2.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

If, in fact, defendants feel that plaintiffs are harassing them with a lawsuit, then the remedy is simple.

File criminal complaint affidavit New Mexico metro court.

This precisely what plaintiff Payne did to judges William F Downes and James A

Parker for harassing him with these bogus federal court actions. See

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm.

But you continue to criminally harass plaintiffs in your ORDER

GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004.

8 Downes writes

Mr. Payne and Mr. Morales are further prohibited from initiating any civil action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico unless they are represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice in the State of New Mexico and admitted to practice before this Court. Otherwise, they must obtain permission from the Court to proceed pro se. The special procedures Mr. Payne and Mr. Morales must follow to proceed pro se are outlined in Appendix A.

Plaintiff have right both in initiate civil actions in New Mexico court

guaranteed by 7th Amendment and right to represent themselves pro se guaranteed

by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Downes has sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution

[See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=swear+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/453.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match]

which Downes is violating in writing in his ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FILE STAMPED AUG 18 2004.

This order is considered not just a threat but a malicious attempt to remove not only plaintiffs' rights but their ability to protect and defend themselves.

9 Downes writes

The Clerk of the Court shall not accept any pleadings submitted by Mr. Payne or Mr. Morales initiating a civil action unless they are represented by an attorney who meets the proper requirements laid out by this Court or unless they follow the procedure outlined in Appendix A for filing apro se action. The Clerk, in coordination with the Pro Se Law Clerk, shall maintain a file entitled "In the Matter of William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales," which shall contain all documents relating to their claims. The filing of any action in this Court without complying with these procedures will likewise be punishable by contempt.

SO ORDERED.

The above paragraph

A violates plaintiffs' 7th and 10th Amendment civil rights.

B is gross judicial misconduct since Downes is defendant in prima facie New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuits CV-2001 06293 and CV 2001-05900 for harassment.

10 Downes writes

APPENDIX A

Procedures for Petition Seeking Leave to File Pro Se Action

Any documents William H. Payne and/or Arthur R. Morales ("Plaintiffs") wish to submit fir filing in the District of New Mexico shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, United States Courthouse, P.O. Box 689, Albuquerque, NM 87103 333 Lomas Blvd N.W., Suite 270). As a requisite to filing apro se complaint, Plaintiffs must file
three documents:
(1) a petition entitled, "Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File a Pro Se Action." Plaintiffs shall affix a copy of this Order to the petition;
(2) an affidavit in proper legal form as directed below; and
(3) the proposed complaint or claims sought to be filed in this District.

The Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File a Pro Se Complaint must contain the following information:
(1) a statement advising the Court whether any defendant to the lawsuit was a party, or was in any way involved in, any prior lawsuit involving Plaintiffs, and if so in what capacity;
(2) a list of all lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court, and state courts in which Plaintiffs are or were parties; the name and citation of each case, if applicable, including jurisdiction; Plaintiffs' involvement in each lawsuit; the status of each lawsuit; and the disposition;
(3) a list of all federal or state cases in which a judgment was rendered against either or both Plaintiffs, if any; the name and citation of each case; the amount of judgment rendered against them, if any; the amount of the outstanding judgment;
and the reasons the judgment remains outstanding; and (4) a list of all federal or state cases in which a judgment was rendered in favor of either or both Plaintiffs, if any; the name and citation of each case; the amount of judgment rendered in favor of them, if any; the amount of outstanding judgment; and the reasons the judgment remains outstanding;

The affidavit accompanying the Petition shall state the following: (1) that the complaint or claims Plaintiffs wish to present have never before been raised by them and disposed of by any federal or state court;
(2) that to the best of their knowledge the claim(s) are not frivolous or taken in bad faith; that the claim(s) are well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law; that the lawsuit is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, see FED. R. Civ.P. ii; and
(3) that the claims are not meant to harass any individual or entity.

The complaint or claims sought to be filed in this District must comply with this Order, with FED. R. Civ. P. 8 and all other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and with the Local Rules of Practice for this District.

The procedure for review of Plaintiffs' intended filings is as follows. (1) the Clerk of the Court will accept the documents, mark them received, and
immediately forward them pursuant to a United States Magistrate Judge
(2) The Magistrate shall recommend approval or disapproval of the petition after considering the following criteria.
(a) whether Plaintiffs have complied with this Order in all particulars;
(b) whether Plaintiffs' complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;
(c) whether the complaint is frivolous, abusive, harassing or malicious;
(d) whether the claims raised in Plaintiffs' complaint have been raised by
either of them and disposed of by any federal or state court;
(e) whether there has been full compliance with FED. R. Civ. P. 11 and all
pleadings and filings are not violative of 28 U.S.C. § 1927;
(f) whether the complaint alleges claims against individuals or entities that
may have immunity from suit; and
(g) such other reasonable requirements established by the Court or the
Magistrate Judge.

Failure to comply with the procedures and principles mandated by this Order shall be sufficient grounds for denying the petition. The Magistrate Judge may recommend disapproval of the petition upon false recitals in the filings. Upon false recitals in the filings, Plaintiffs may be considered in violation of this Order, and they may be subject to other Orders of the Court, including appropriate sanctions. The provisions contained in FED. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 are incorporated into this Order.

The Magistrate Judge shall not otherwise address the merits of the complaint. The Magistrate Judge shall submit proposed findings and a recommendation as to disposition of the Petition to the proper District Judge. Copies of proposed findings and recommendations shall be mailed to the Plaintiffs and all interested parties. These individuals shall have ten (10) days after service of the proposed findings and recommendations to serve and file written, specific objections to them. If no such objections are filed in a timely manner, the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations may be accepted by the District Judge and appropriate Orders entered without further notice. No provision is made for oral presentation in support of a petition. Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1989).

If the Court enters an Order granting the petition, the Clerk shall cause the complaint and materials to be filed as of the date of the Order. All filings in the matter shall be in strict conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. This Order shall not interfere in any way with pending actions, Orders, or Judgments of any federal court involving Plaintiffs.

must be rejected for the reason this is unconstitutional.

A magistrate cannot ever determine what lawsuits are going to be filed and

which are not.

This would give the courts the ability to make defendants unaccountable, as Downes is to trying to do to himself.

WHEREFORE

A Grant motion

See http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/forms/misconduct_rules.pdf

C Lawyers Zavitz, Anaya, and French resign from New Mexico bar for having

removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case CV-2001-03118 to

federal court without verification required by US Supreme Court and harassing

plaintiffs using bogus civ 01 0634.

D Accept settlement offer outlined in August 27, 2004 letter to Paul K

Charlton seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charltonletter.htm.A

The alternative are prima facie complaints against you and Parker for "Conduct

prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business

of the courts."

E Lawyers Zavitz, Anaya, and French will send copies of letter of

resignation to the New Mexico bar by September 29, 2004.

Failure to comply will compel plaintiff to file two "complaints about

attorneys licensed in the state of New Mexico to determine whether the attorney

has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, which are part of the New

Mexico Statutes." http://www.nmdisboard.org/

Disrespectfully submitted,

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on September 17, 2004 to

French & Associates
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075

John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
P0 Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v civ 01 0634 William F Downes

Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez

Defendants

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF REPLY

1 Review of New Mexico state judge Theodore C Baca's involvement and

suggested remedy.

2 Review of New Mexico chief judge Martha Vazquez'

and suggested remedy.

3-4 Becker used outdated Rule 52(b) which stated 10 days allowed.

New Rule 52(b) allows 30 days.

Plaintiffs' motion filing is timely.

CONTENTS

1 Becker writes

COMES NOW, Theodore C. Baca, by and through his counsel of record, FRENCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. (Robert W. Becker, appearing) and responds to the Motion of the Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne to Amend the Judgment of the Court Granting Injunctive Relief (Doc. 63) as follows:

Let's review why New Mexico state judge Ted Baca got sued for harassment in New

Mexico paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 03118 for relief from

harassment which was fraudulently removed by Christina Anaya and Stephen French

to federal court without required US Supreme Court verification.

Harassment is not a federal question.

See NOTICE OF REMOVAL and filing fee receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

Baca's private citizen lawyers, paid for the State of New Mexico, Anaya and

French are forced by federal court to pay filing fee for this fraudulent

removal of New Mexico paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 03118.

The bogus federal action is civ 01 0634.

Baca was designated judge in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2000-

10278 for relief from Defamation [libel] and harassment for unauthorized

publication and distribution of false and defaming documents seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm.

See receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico

constitution at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm.

Baca's duty required by his oath of office was to oversee a paid for 12 person

jury trial lawsuit.

See NOTICE OF REMOVAL at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm.

Defamation [libel] and harassment are not federal questions.

So now Baca, the state of New Mexico, your crooked employer, Becker, French &

Associates, are making an appeal to crooked Wyoming chief judge William F

Downes, who himself has been sued twice for relief from harassment in New

Mexico CV 2001-05900 and CV-2001 06293.

French and Associates, along with Downes, is defendant in New Mexico 12 person

jury trial lawsuit CV-2001 06293!

This is gross actionable judicial and lawyer misconduct.

Judge Baca did not dismiss CV 2000 - 10278 but rather permitted plaintiff Payne

to be harassed in federal court.

A New Mexico state judge cannot by law dismiss a paid for jury trial lawsuit.

Plaintiffs have filed Judicial Standards Commission complaint to have

judges Kenneth G Brown and Robert H Scott, who dismissed New Mexico jury trial

lawsuits, removed from the bench for violation of their oath of office.

See Judicial Standards Commission complaint cover letter at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/jsccomplaintbrownscott.htm

Judge Baca erred by permitting New Mexico CV 2000 - 10278 12 person jury trial

lawsuit for Defamation [libel] and harassment to be fraudulently removed to

federal court rather than promptly overseeing the trial by jury for the prima

facie case: see written evidence of defamation [libel] at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm.

Plaintiffs can perhaps understand how judge Baca was misled by US attorney

Norman C, Bay, US assistant attorneys Dow and Hamilton, and federal judge

Martha Vazquez.

So

AND

B the state of New Mexico fairly provides plaintiffs Morales and Payne

monetary compensation for their work in response to Baca's pleading in bogus

federal civ 01 0634, then plaintiffs Morales and Payne have agreed to move to

dismiss all claims against judge Baca in civ 01 0634 and will not file a

judicial misconduct complaint against judge Baca with the Judicial Standards

Commission.

2 Becker writes

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to all parties of record as follows this 23rd day of September, 2004: …

[J]ohn W. Zavitz,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103-067
(505) 346-7274

Zavitz represents defendant federal judge Martha Vazquez in New

Mexico paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 03118 which was

fraudulently removed by for relief from harassment which was fraudulently

removed by Christina Anaya and Stephen French to federal court without required

US Supreme Court verification.

See NOTICE OF REMOVAL and filing fee receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

Harassment is not a federal question.

Vazquez ruled in fraudulently removed New Mexico 00 CV 10289 12 person jury

prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuit for Replevin and harassment when

Vazquez did not have jurisdiction.

See docket sheet entry 1 for fraudulent removal at

pacer/dock1574.htm.

See docket sheet entry 19 for Vazquez ruling.

Vazquez ruled in fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2000-10278 12 person jury

prima facie case 12 person jury trial lawsuit for Replevin and harassment when

Vazquez did not have jurisdiction.

See docket sheet entry 1 for fraudulent removal at

pacer/dock1677.htm.

See docket sheet entry 47 for Vazquez ruling.

Vazquez has from written docket court records establish a pattern of conduct of

harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal law

3A-2. Harassment; penalties.

A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-2, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 2. NMSA 1978.

using federal court to deny plaintiffs paid for right to trial by 12 person in

New Mexico state court or settlement.

Plaintiffs offer to move to dismiss charge against Vazquez New

Mexico paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 03118 for relief from

harassment which was fraudulently removed by Christina Anaya and Stephen French

to federal court without required US Supreme Court verification if Vazquez

write letter of apology to plaintiffs, acknowledges her mistakes, and promises not

to repeat her mistakes in the future.

In addition Vazquez writes a letter to attorney general Ashcroft advising the

Department of Justice to accept settlement conditions outlined in our

settlement offer August 27, 2004 letter to Paul K Charlton seen

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charltonletter.htm.

In addition, plaintiffs agree not to file judicial misconduct complaint with

the 10th Circuit for "Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious

administration of the business of the courts."

3 Becker writes

ARGUMENT

The Motion of Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne to Amend the Court's Order Granting Injunctive Relief is untimely. appears to be incorrect.

Becker continues to write

Plaintiffs' Motion is purportedly brought under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See (Doc. 63). Pursuant to Rule 52(b), a motion to amend judgment must be filed no later than ten (10) days after entry of the judgment. See Fed.R.Civ. P 52(b). Under Rule 6, this ten-day period may not be enlarged by the Court on its own initiative, or at the request of a party by way of motion. See Fed.R. .Civ. P. 6(b).

Also, we apparently discovered the problem.

We consulted 1991 Revised Edition of Federal CIVIL PROCEDURE and RULES.

It says 10 days.

However, http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_00000052----000-.html

states 30 days.

Cornell Legal Information Institute claims

This version is generated from the most recent official version made available by the US House of Representatives

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/.

So we supposed Becker was reading from an older version of Rule 52

4 Becker writes

The Order Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne move to amend was entered on August 18, 2004 (Doc. 61). Pursuant to Rule 52(b), (through the computation rule specified by Rule 6(a)), Plaintiffs had until September 1, 2004 to file their motion to amend. Their Motion was not filed until September 17, 2004. (Doc. 63). Therefore, their Motion is untimely and should be denied.

is based on incorrect information.

Plaintiffs' motion is timely and MUST BE GRANTED.

Disrespectfully submitted,

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on September 29, 2004 to

French & Associates
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075

John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
P0 Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v civ 01 0634 William F Downes

Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez Defendants

1 Zavitz writes

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging claims for damages and other relief against defendants Norman C. Bay, Phyllis A. Dow, Raymond Hamilton and The Honorable Martha Vazquez (Federal Defendants), based on actions taken by those defendants in connection with pending litigation in other matters before this Court.

is a misstatement of FACTS.

FACT1: civ 01 0634 is in reality New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie

case lawsuit CV 2001 03118 for relief from harassment.

See Exhibit E at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibite.htm.

FACT 2: New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit CV 2001 03118

as fraudulently removed without US Supreme Court verification from New Mexico

state court by private lawyers Christina Anaya and Stephen French representing

New Mexico state judge Theodore C. Baca.

Baca was forced to pay federal filing fee for this fraudulent removal.

See Exhibit F at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

FACT 3: Zavitz' statement "based on actions taken by those defendants in

connection with pending litigation in other matters before this Court." points

out that the defendants in New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie

case lawsuit CV 2001 03118 for relief from harassment were sued for

fraudulently removing Mew CV 2002-10289 12 person jury trial prima facie case

lawsuit for replevin and harassment to federal court.

See written evidence for prima fact case in Exhibit SVET1 seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm and SVET2 seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm.

See jury trial receipt in Exhibit A at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibita.htm.

See fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL in Exhibit B at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitb.htm.

AND for fraudulently removing New Mexico CV 2000-10278 12 person jury trial

prima facie case lawsuit for defamation [libel] and harassment in violation the

Judicial Code.

See evidence of prima facie case of defamation [libel] and criminal violation

of the Privacy Act in Exhibit CVPA at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm.

Receipt for New Mexico CV 2000-10278 12 person jury trial is seen in Exhibit C

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm.

Fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL is seen in Exhibit D seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm.

These two fraudulently removed New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuits

were assigned to Wyoming chief judge William F Downes who does not have

jurisdiction over subject matter of replevin, defamation [libel] and

harassment.

Replevin, defamation [libel], and harassment are not federal questions.

Continued harassment by Downes, Zavits, and other earn Downes, Zavitz and

others two prima facie case 12 person jury trial New Mexico state lawsuits CV-

2001 06293 and CV 2001 05900 for harassment and perjury.

See 12 person jury trial lawsuit receipts in Exhbit G at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm and exhibit H aat

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm.

So we all must conclude that Zavitz and Downes continue to provide more written

evidence of their guilt of harassment in Zavitz' RESPONSE.

2 Zavitz writes

The Federal Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute Immunity (Doc. 5) and Memorandum in support thereof (Doc. 6) and their Motion to Enjoin Plaintiffs From Filing Further Actions Without Leave of Court and Other Sanctions (Doc. 7) and Memorandum in support thereof (Doc. 8) on June 6, 2001. Plaintiffs responded to each of these motions on June 22, 2001 (Doc. 25 & 26 respectively). Federal Defendants filed their Replies on June 27, 2001 (Doc. 30 & 31 respectively). On May 28, 2004, the Court entered its Order on Pending Motions wherein it granted the Federal Defendants' (and all other defendants') motions to dismiss and the Federal Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief and Other Sanctions with modifications. It also granted Plaintiffs 21 days from date of entry of the Order to object in writing to the entry of the Order Granting Injunctive Relief (Doc. 57). Plaintiffs filed their Response to Order on Pending Motions on June 14, 2004 (Doc. 59). Finding Plaintiffs' response wholly inadequate, the Court entered its Order Granting Injunctive Relief on August 18, 2004 (Doc. 61).

is likely correct.

HOWEVER, civ 01 0634 is in reality New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie

case lawsuit CV 2001 03118 for relief from harassment.

See Exhibit E at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibite.htm.

New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit CV 2001 03118

as fraudulently removed without US Supreme Court verification from New Mexico

state court by private lawyers Christina Anaya and Stephen French representing

New Mexico state judge Theodore C. Baca.

Baca was forced to pay federal filing fee for this fraudulent removal.

See Exhibit F at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

As a result Zavitz' recitation in 2 is just more written evidence of harassment by

Zavitz.

3 Zavitz writes

Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend Judgment of Downes' Order Granting Injunctive Relief File Stamped Aug 18 2004 on September 17, 2004 (Motion to Amend) (Doc. 63).

is correct

Zavitz continues to write

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is Barred by the Time Constraints Provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b).

We believe that Zavitz' above statement is incorrect.

Zavitz continues to write

Plaintiffs brought their Motion to Amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). However, they mistakenly quote the statute as allowing them 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment to file a motion to amend. Rule 52(b) reads as follows:

On a party's motion filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings--or make additional findings--and may amend the judgment accordingly

Emphasis supplied.

We believe that Zavitz has quoted an out-of-date Rule 52(b).

Up-to-date Rule 52(b) reads

Rule 52. - Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings

(b)

Amendment. Upon motion of a party, or upon its own motion, made not later than 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly.

Please consults http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&WORDS=rule+52+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-rule52.1.2.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

Cornell Legal Information Institute claims

This version is generated from the most recent official version made available by the US House of Representatives

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/.

So we suppose assistant US Attorney John W Zavitz was reading from an older

version of Rule 52. And Zavitz continues to provide more written evidence of

harassment which he is charged in New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie

case lawsuit CV 2001 06293.

See your name lawyer Zavitz on receipt for 12 person jury trial New Mexico

lawsuit CV 2001 06293 in Exhibit G seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm.

4 Zavitz writes

As stated above, the Court's Order Granting Injunctive Relief was entered on August 18, 2004. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend that Order was filed thirty days later on September 17, 2004, clearly well beyond the ten days allowed in Rule 52 (b) to file a motion to amend. Even computing the ten days allowed by Rule 52(b), using the computation provided in Fed. R. 6(a) i.e. not counting weekends or holidays, Plaintiffs were well beyond their deadline for filing their Motion to Amend.

Zavitz' above statement is meaningless plaintiffs checked updated law at the

Legal Information Institute to verify 30 day time limit before they file their

prima facie Rule 52(b) motion.

5 Zavitz writes

The ten-day period within which a Rule 52(b) motion must be filed is jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir.. Dep't of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 262 n.7 (1978)(district court lost jurisdiction ten days after entry of judgment to grant relief under Rule 52(b); Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 714 F.2d 1107,1109 (11th Cir. 1982)(Rule 52(b) ten-day period is jurisdictional); Gribble v. Harris., 625 F.2d 11173,1174 (5th Cir. 1980) (ten-day period established by Rule 52(b) is jurisdictional). Furthermore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) the ten-day period may not be extended by the district court. Martin v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 223, 237 (3d Cir. 2001) (court is constrained to reconsider its rulings within the time limits provided by Rule 52 and ten-day time limit cannot be expanded by the district court); Gribble, 625 F.2d at 1174 (ten-day period for the serving of a Rule 52(b) motion cannot be extended in the discretion of the district court); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 56 F.R.D. 82, 85 n.6 (W.D.Penn. 1972) (Rule 52(b) motion [filed some nine months after Order] was incurably untimely under Rule 6(b)).

Zavitz cites v. Dir.. Dep't of Corrections of Ill which was argued in 1997.

Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. was argued in 1983.

And Gribble v. Harris was argued in 1980.

Martin v. Monumental Life Ins. Co was argued in 2000.

Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg was apparently argued in the 1970.

At these dates the time limit for a rule 54(b) filing was 10 days.

But are in 2004 and checked the current rules, unlike lawyer assistant US

attorney John W Zavitz and defendant in New Mexico prima facie case 12 person

jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 06293 in Exhibit G seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm.

So Zavitz' above legal arguments do not apply since plaintiffs' motion was

timely.

6 Zavitz writes

Clearly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, filed thirty days after entry of the Court's Order Granting Injunctive Relief, is fatally untimely pursuant to the provisions of Rule 52(b). Even if the Court were inclined to grant more time to Plaintiffs to file their Rule 52(b) motion, it is constrained from doing so because of the terms of Rule 6(b).

Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend should be denied.

is nonsense since plaintiffs timely filed within the allowed 30 days.

Zavitz' failed to consult 2004 Rule 52(b) statement and but instead used stale

Rule 52(b).

7 Zavitz writes

II. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Does Not Contain the Proper Grounds for a Rule 52(b) Motion

The recognized grounds for a motion to amend under Rule 52(b) include (1) the trial court has made a manifest error of fact or law, (2) there is newly discovered evidence, or (3) there has been a change in the law. Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207,1219 (5th Cir. 1986) (purpose of motion to amend is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or, in some limited situations, to present newly discovered evidence); Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F.Supp.2d 555, 561 (D.N.J. 2003) (same); Dow Chemical Co. and Subsidiaries v. United States, 278 F.Supp.2d 844, 847 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (same); Diebitz v. Arreola, 834 F. Supp. 298 302 (E.D. Wis. 1993) (Rule 52(b)motion is not intended to allow parties to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories or to rehear the merits of a case).

The FACTS supported by written evidence seen in section 1 of this REPLY as required in Diebitz v. Arreola

Recognized ground for motion to amend finding by court include maifest error of fact or law by trial court, newly discovered evidence, or change in the law.

What we have here is harassment using federal court as tool for harassment by denying plaintiffs' their Constitutional right trial by jury in New Mexico state court. See Exhibit E at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibite.htm.

7 Zavitz writes

In this case, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend consists of nothing more than a litany of assertions and allegations that this case was fraudulently removed to federal court, replevin and harassment are not federal questions and more insults directed primarily at the Court and, to a lesser extent, to opposing counsel.

The evidence of fraudulent removal of all cases are in writing, lawyer Zavitz.

See fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL Exhibit F at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm.

See fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL in Exhibit B at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitb.htm.

Fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL is seen in Exhibit D seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm.

It is unbelievable that lawyer Zavitz and others are denying the written evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico state cases to federal court and demands for trials by jury as well as jurisdictional issues.

Look at the FACTS, Zavitz.

Here's the law:

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al

v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file "a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

The above NOTICES OF REMOVAL are not verified petitions for one possible reason

that replevin, defamation, and harassment are not federal questions.

9 Zavitz writes

In fact, portions of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend are lifted directly from previous pleadings filed in this action. Plaintiffs have utterly failed to demonstrate any manifest errors of fact or law, they have alluded to no newly discovered law and there has been no change in the law which would be applicable to this case. Plaintiffs are clearly attempting to relitigate old issues. As has been shown above, this is not a proper basis for a Rule 52(b) motion.

Plaintiffs have not litigated anything yet, Zavitz, since our paid for New Mexico prima

facie case 12 person jury trials have not been settled or heard before the

jury as guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and US constitutions.

There are MANIFEST ERRORS OF FACT which we continue to point out to you and

judge Downes. But either you do not read or understand.

Plaintiffs are not concerned about retrial since there has been no trial - only bogus federal actions -

but seek justice though honest and dedicated court officials that will recognize existing evidence that are a matter of court records.

10 Zavitz writes

CONCLUSION

Since Plaintiffs are not only out of time for filing a Rule 52(b) motion but, in addition, have asserted no proper basis for a Rule 52(b) motion, their Motion to Amend should be denied.

is incorrect on both counts.

Plaintiffs' Rule 52(b) motion was filed timely within 30 day limit.

Manifest errors of fact are evidenced by court documents cited in this REPLY.

11 WHEREFORE it is recommended that:

A Judge Downes recuse himself from all Morales and Payne from all Morales and Payne bogus

00 cv 1574 , 01 cv 0634, and 00 cv 1677 federal actions.

B Judge Downes resigns from the bench.

C Have replacement judge remand 00 cv 1574 , 01 cv 0634, and 00 cv 1677 to

New Mexico for settlement or trial by 12 person jury.

D Lawyer Zavitz resign from New Mexico bar for incompetent and/or dishonest.

E Furnish written proof of compliance or non-compliance of A though D by Tuesday October 26, 2004

so plaintiffs can take appropriate legal actions against noncompliant parties.

Disrespectfully submitted,

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on October 12, 2004 to

Christina E. Anaya, Esq.
Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C.
500 Fourth St. NW, No. 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Stephen G. French, Esq.
French & Associates, P.C.
500 Marquette Ave. NW, No. 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Larry J. Montana, Esq.
Mark A. Smith, Esq.
Robert M. St. John, Esq.
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1888

John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
P0 Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiff

vs CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes/Richard L Puglisi

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH

Defendants

Plaintiff moves for relief from Downes MOTION TO RELIEVE PLAINTIFF OF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE MINUTE ORDER and DEMAND for

Downes removal for bias and prejudice under § 144 since Downes failed to recuse

himself under

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;.

LAW

This motion is brought under Rule 60 Relief from Judgment or Order seen at

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_06000060----000-.html.

Specifically, 60(b)(6)

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

for Downes' failure to publish "finding of fact" required Rule 52.

See below and:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode28&STEMMER=en&
WORDS=rule+52+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/28/appendix-rule52.1.2.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match.

Rule 52. - Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings (b)

Amendment. Upon motion of a party, or upon its own motion, made not later than 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made an objection in this court to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELIEVE PLAINTIFF OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE MINUTE ORDER

1 Plaintiff's reasons for justifying relief from the operation of judgment

under Rule 60 is because Downes chose to ignore Rule 52(b) as invoked by

plaintiff in their previous motion to amend.

Downes' ruling is gratuitous in that he failed to publish "finding of fact"

required by Rule 52.

Downes pontificated in his biased and prejudiced ruling.

Downes MINUTE ORDER has been so issued without a jury trial, as demanded, and

according to Rule 52 the "finding of fact" has not been presented by judge

Downes whereby sufficiency of evidence to support findings and order is

not present.

Downes' statement

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Minute Order Signed by Acting Clerk Norman H. Meyer, Docket Entry 111 Filed 8/10/2004. The Court, having reviewed the materials submitted and being otherwise fully advised, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Adequate grounds for striking the Minute Order have not been stated. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike is DENIED.

does not meet Rule 52 specificity.

On the other hand plaintiff's MOTION TO STRIKE MINUTE ORDER SIGNED BY

ACTING CLERK NORMAN H MEYER, DOCKET ENTRY 111 FILED 08/10/2004 stated

prima facie FACTS not one of which Downes refutes with any findings of

fact.

NOTE! AGAIN IT IS IMPORTANT TO REITERATE THE WRITTEN AND RECORDED FACTS TO

SHOW THAT JUDGE DOWNES HAS NOT ONLY IGNORED THE FACTS BUT IGNORED THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE!

2 FACT 1: Downes' statement

The Court, having reviewed the materials submitted and being otherwise fully advised, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

is inadequate because no concrete finding for fact supports judgment.

2 FACT 2: Plaintiff Payne pays $297 [see

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm] for a prima facie 12

person New Mexico CV 2000-10278 on October 20, 2000 jury trial lawsuit for

defamation [libel] and harassment for unauthorized publication and distribution

of the false and defaming documents seen at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm.

3 FACT 3: US attorney Norman C Bay and Assistant US attorney Phyllis A

Dow fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 on November 27,

2000 in violation the Judicial Code.

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al

v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

Dow's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition which is a

violation of Supreme Court requirement.

3 FACT 4: Bogus and harassing federal civ 00 1677 is a jury trial action,

not a trial by judge. Here's the written evidence see in the docket at

pacer/dock1677.htm.

12/04/2000 12/06/2000 10 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf William H Payne [34k] [2 pages]

4 FACT 5: Harassment and defamation [libel] are not federal questions.

5 FACT 5: FACT 10: Downes refuses to provide anti-injunction affidavit

that defamation [libel] and harassment are federal questions.

Here's the docket entry in fraudulently removed Mew Mexico CV 2002-10278

08/23/2001 08/24/2001 91 NOTICE of Non-Compliance by pltf of Judge Downes to provide anti-injunction affidavit [73k] [4 pages]

seen at pacer/dock1677.htm.

9 FACT 6: Because of continued harassment Downes, Dow, St John and others, two

prima facie case 12 person jury trial New Mexico state lawsuits CV

2001 06293 and CV 2001 05900 for harassment and perjury were filed.

See 12 person jury trial lawsuit receipts in Exhibit G at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm and exhibit H at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm.

So we all must conclude that Downes, Dow, and St John continues to provide more

written evidence of his guilt in the New Mexico crime of harassment.

6 Grant

A motion for relief

B withdrawal of original order by Downes until "finding of fact" is issued

as required by Rule 52

C removal of Downes from all cases associated with plaintiff

D Accept settlement offer extended August 27, 2004 letter to Paul K

Charlton seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/charltonletter.htm.

by November 10, 2004.

Respectfully submitted,

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on October 28, 2004 to

PHYLLIS A DOW
Assistant US Attorney
POB 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Robert M. St.John, Mark A Smith, Larry Montaño
RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103

I heard Alberto Gonzales make this statement with my own ears in a private dinner meeting two years ago.

I was stunned. I was horrified. I was disappointed.

Alberto Gonzales: A Record of Injustice

Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.