UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARTHUR R. MORALES
WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs

vs CIVIL NO. 00-1574 William F Downes

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO,
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants

1 Plaintiffs Morales and Payne invoke

§ 144. Bias or prejudice of judge Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

Reasons for are stated in sections 2 through 6 of this affidavit.

2 This prima facie case affidavit is obvious from the written evidence made

in good faith as demonstrated in the following affidavit.

Furthermore, a good cause for delay in filing this affidavit is as follows:

A Judge Downes should have disqualified/recused himself under rule 455

since 8/30/2001.

See docket entry 47 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm.

B Judge Downes continued to adjudicate while his jurisdiction was in doubt

and questioned by petitioners:

1 Because harassment and replevin are not federal questions;

2 Because cases were fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court to

federal court.

3 Downes never verified or attested to his proper jurisdiction in these cases.

C Downes has now establish a pattern and practice of bias and/or prejudice

against plaintiffs and/or in favor of defendants.

3 New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV - 2000 10289 [See receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibita.htm] for replevin

and harassment [see prima facie case evidence at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/svet1.htm and

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/svet2.htm] was fraudulently

removed to federal court, given number 00 CV 1574, and eventually assigned to

Wyoming chief judge William F Downes.

See docket of 00 CV 1677 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm.

See fraudulent removal NOTICE at

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

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 NOTICE OF REMOVAL is not verified petitions for one possible reason

that replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

Downes was instructed to provide anti-injunction affidavit that replevin and

libel were federal questions.

Downes did not respond because, of course, replevin and harassment are not

federal questions.

Here's the docket entry showing that Downes did not respond.

08/30/2001 08/30/2001 47 NOTICE by plaintiff Arthur R Morales of non-compliance of Judge William Downes to provide anti injunction affidavit [302k] [10 pages]

and here's the docket http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm.

Downes, of course, knows that he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

facts concerning the proceeding as to whether federal court has jurisdiction

over replevin and harassment.

Downes should have disqualified himself under rule 455 but did not.

§ 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;.

4 Downes embarked in pattern of conduct of harassment by judging and ruling

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

lawsuit CV 2002-10278 for defamation and harassment and judging fraudulently

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

for harassment.

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV 2002-10278:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV 2002-10278:

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV 2002-10289

to federal court without required verification:

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

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibite.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

the two fraudulent removal notices!

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

and

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV-2001-03118

to federal court without required verification.

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

by private attorneys Stephen French and Christina Anaya for New Mexico judge

Theodore C Baca.

Docket sheets showing judge William F Downes ruling in federal court of

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

CV-2001-03118 [see docket at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock0634.htm], CV 2002-10289 [see docket

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm] and CV - 2000 10278 [see

docket at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm] is prima facie

evidence to show that Downes "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

party."

5 Downes' established "pattern of conduct" of harassing Morales and Payne

using federal court as instrument of harassment.

This earned harassing judge Downes New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima

facie case lawsuit CV-2001-05900. See receipt at

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

And a second New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuit CV-2001-06293.

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

As well as a criminal complaint affidavit by payne for violation of New Mexico

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.

See criminal complaint affidavit at

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

in good faith.

WHEREFORE, Downes should be removed from all cases that Morales and Payne are plaintiffs.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________

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

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

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

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

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

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

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. Reasons for are stated in sections 1, 2, and 3 of this affidavit.

2 This prima facie case affidavit is obvious from the written evidence made

in good faith as demonstrated in the following affidavit.

Furthermore, a good cause for delay in filing this affidavit is as follows:

A Because Downes should have disqualified/recused himself under rule 455

since 08/23/2001.

See docket entry 91 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm.

B Judge Downes continued to adjudicate while his jurisdiction was in doubt

and questioned by plaintiff:

1 Because harassment and defamation [libel] are not federal questions;

2 Because cases were fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court to

federal court.

3 Downes never verified or attested to his proper jurisdiction in these

cases.

C Downes has now establish a pattern and practice of bias and/or prejudice against plaintiffs and/or in favor of defendants.

3 New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV - 2000 10278 [See receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm] for defamation

and harassment [see prima facie case evidence at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/cvpa.htm] was fraudulently removed to federal court, given

number 00 CV 1677, and eventually assigned to Wyoming chief judge William F Downes.

See docket of 00 CV 1677 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm.

See fraudulent removal NOTICE at

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

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 NOTICE OF REMOVAL is not verified petitions for one possible reason

that defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

Downes was instructed to provide anti-injunction affidavit that defamation and libel were federal questions.

Downes did not respond because, of course, defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

Here's the docket entry showing that Downes did not respond.

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

and here's the docket http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm.

Downes should have disqualified himself under rule 455 but did not.

§ 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;.

2 Downes embarked in pattern of conduct of harassment by judging and ruling in fraudulently removed New

Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit CV 2002-10289 for replevin

and harassment and judging fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial

prima facie case lawsuit CV-2001-03118 for harassment.

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV 2002-10289:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibita.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV 2002-10289:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/svet1.htm and

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV 2002-10289

to federal court without required verification:

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

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibite.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

the two fraudulent removal notices!

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

and

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV-2001-03118

to federal court without required verification

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

by private attorneys Stephen French and Christina Anaya for New Mexico judge

Theodore C Baca.

Docket sheets showing judge William F Downes ruling in federal court of

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

CV-2001-03118 [see docket at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock0634.htm], CV 2002-10289 [see docket

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm] and CV - 2000 10278 [see

docket at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm] is prima facie

evidence to show that Downes "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

party."

3 Downes' established "pattern of conduct" of harassing Payne using federal

court as instrument of harassment.

This earned harassing judge Downes New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima

facie case lawsuit CV-2001-05900. See receipt at

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

And a second New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuit CV-2001-06293.

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

As well as a criminal complaint affidavit for violation of New Mexico

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.

See criminal complaint affidavit at

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

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________

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

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing affidavit was mailed first class on Novwember 11, 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

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 Plaintiffs Morales and Payne invoke

§ 144. Bias or prejudice of judge

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. Reasons for are stated in sections 2 through 6 of this affidavit.

2 This prima facie case affidavit is obvious from the written evidence made

in good faith as demonstrated in the following affidavit.

Furthermore, a good cause for delay in filing this affidavit is as follows:

A Because Downes should have disqualified/recused himself under rule 455

since August 20.

See docket entry 47 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock0634.htm.

B Judge Downes continued to adjudicate while his jurisdiction was in doubt

and questioned by plaintiffs:

1 Because harassment and prejury are not federal questions;

2 Because case was fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court to

federal court.

3 Downes never verified or attested to his proper jurisdiction in these

cases.

C Downes has now establish a pattern and practice of bias and/or prejudice

against plaintiffs and/or in favor of defendants.

3 New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118 [See receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibite.htm] for harassment [see

prima facie case evidence at

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

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm were fraudulently

removed to federal court, given numbers 00 CV 1574 and 00 CV 1677, and

eventually assigned to Wyoming chief judge William F Downes.

New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV-2001-03118 was fraudulently removed

to federal court and given number 01 CV 634, this case.

Here's the evidence of fraudulent removal to federal court

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm by non-federal

government lawyers Christina Anaya and Stephen French.

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 NOTICE OF REMOVAL in 01 CV 634 is not verified petitions for the

reason that harassment and perjury are not federal questions.

Downes was instructed to provide anti-injunction affidavit that harassment and

perjury are federal questions.

Downes did not respond because, of course, harassment and perjury are not

federal questions.

Here's the docket entry showing that Downes did not respond.

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]

and here's the docket http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock0634.htm.

Downes, of course, knows that he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

facts concerning the proceeding as to whether federal court has jurisdiction

over harassment and perjury.

Downes should have disqualified himself under rule 455 but did not.

§ 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;.

4 Downes embarked in pattern of conduct of harassment by judging and ruling

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

lawsuit CV 2002-10278 for defamation and harassment and judging fraudulently

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

for harassment.

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV 2002-10278:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV 2002-10278:

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV 2002-10289

to federal court without required verification:

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

Here's receipt for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibite.htm guaranteed inviolate

by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Here's prima facie evidence of guilt of defendants in New Mexico CV-2001-03118:

the two fraudulent removal notices!

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

and

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

Here's prima facie evidence of fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV-2001-03118

to federal court without required verification

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

by private attorneys Stephen French and Christina Anaya for New Mexico judge

Theodore C Baca.

Docket sheets showing judge William F Downes ruling in federal court of

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

CV-2001-03118 [see docket at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock0634.htm], CV 2002-10289 [see docket

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm] and CV - 2000 10278 [see

docket at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm] is prima facie

evidence to show that Downes "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

party."

5 Downes' established "pattern of conduct" of harassing Morales and Payne

using federal court as instrument of harassment.

This earned harassing judge Downes New Mexico state 12 person jury trial prima

facie case lawsuit CV-2001-05900. See receipt at

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

And a second New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuit CV-2001-06293.

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

As well as a criminal complaint affidavit by payne for violation of New Mexico

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.

See criminal complaint affidavit at

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

WHEREFORE, Downes should be removed from all cases that Morales and Payne are

plaintiffs.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________

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

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

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing affidavit was mailed first class on Novembber 19, 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. Montano, 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

Payne screwed-up and forgot the verification, so Mike Mix came up with the fix.

Markus Zimmer
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2180
(801) 524-6100
Markus_Zimmer@utd.uscourts.gov

Dear Clerk Zimmer:

Enclosed are an original and two copies of AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT 28 USC § 144 THAT DEE VANCE BENSON HAS A PERSONAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND FAVORS DEFENDANTS AND IS THUS REMOVED AS JUDGE IN Case No. 2:03CV00228.

We ask that you return a file stamped copy to us.

Sincerely

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm

Benson 144 affidavit progess.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

ARTHUR MORALES and WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Petitioners,

v Case No. 2:03CV00288 consolidated with Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB

KATHLEEN JO GIBSON, Clerk of New Mexico Supreme Court
PAMELA B. MINZER, Judge of
New Mexico Supreme Court

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT 28 USC § 144 THAT DEE VANCE BENSON HAS A PERSONAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND FAVORS DEFENDANTS AND IS THUS REMOVED AS JUDGE IN Case No. 2:03CV00228

1 Plaintiffs Morales and Payne invoke

§ 144. Bias or prejudice of judge

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. Reasons for are stated in sections 2 through 6 of this affidavit.

2 This prima facie case affidavit is obvious from the written evidence made

in good faith as demonstrated in the following affidavit.

Furthermore, a good cause for delay in filing this affidavit is as follows:

A Because Benson should have disqualified/recused in 01cv 01198 himself

under rule 455 since 11/08/2001.

See docket entry 9 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1198.htm.

B Because Benson should have disqualified/recused in 01cv1132 himself

under rule 455 since 11/08/2001.

See docket entry 14 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1132.htm.

and questioned by plaintiffs:

1 Because harassment and perjury are not federal questions;

2 Because cases were fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court to

federal court.

3 Benson never verified or attested to his proper jurisdiction in these

cases.

D Benson has now establish a pattern and practice of bias and/or prejudice

against plaintiffs and/or in favor of defendants.

3 New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV-200106293 [See receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm]for harassment

and perjury [see prima facie case evidence at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm] of prima facie cases

of fraudulent removal of the New Mexico state cases of replevin and harassment.

Second New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001-05900 [See receipt at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm]for harassment

and perjury [see prima facie case evidence at

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm of prima facie cases

of fraudulent removal of the New Mexico state cases of harassment and perjury.

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 harassment and perjury are not federal questions.

Benson was instructed to provide anti-injunction affidavit that harassment and

perjury were federal questions.

Benson did not respond because, of course, harassment and perjury are not

federal questions.

Here's the docket entries showing that Benson did not respond IN TWO

fraudulently removed Mew Mexico state cases for relief from harassment and

perjury

11/29/2001 11/30/2001 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal [85k] [5 pages]

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1198.htm.

And here second example that Benson did not respond

11/29/2001 11/29/2001 15 NOTICE by plaintiff of non response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker to provide anti-injunction affidavit for anti-injunction act justification for removal of New Mexico case Civ 2001-05900 to Federal Court [152k] [6 pages]

See docket entry 15 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1132.htm.

Benson, of course, knows that he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

facts concerning the proceeding as to whether federal court has jurisdiction

over harassment and perjury.

Benson should have disqualified himself under rule 455 but did not.

§ 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;.

4 Benson embarked in pattern of conduct of harassment by judging and ruling

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

lawsuits CV-200106293 and CV 2001-05900 for harassment and perjury.

5 Benson established "pattern of conduct" of harassing Morales and Payne

using federal court as instrument of harassment in two cases.

Harassment is a New Mexico crime.

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.

CV 1132.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on November 18, 2004 to United States Attorney General

RICHARD G. PATRICK
Special Attorney
Arizona State Bar No. 5148
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408
Telephone: (602) 514-7500

Christina E. Anaya
French & Associates, P.C.
500 Marquette, NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque New Mexico 87102

Peggy K. Stone, Esq.
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL' S OFFICE
LITIGATION UNIT
160 K 300 S 6TH FL
P0 BOX 140856
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0856

Michael R. Jones, Esq.
NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG STE 1508
P0 BOX 1508
SANTA FE, NM 87504-1508

David Joseph Tourek, Esq.
NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
P0 DRAWER 1508
BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG
SANTA FE, NM 87504

Kathleen K. O'Dea, King.
NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
P0 DRAWER 1508
BATAAN MEMORIAL BLDG
SANTA FE, NM 87504

WILLIAM H. PAYNE Plaintiff - Appellant,

No. 94 - 2205 SANDIA CORPORATION, a corporation, and individually,
et al., Defendant-Appellees.

ORDER

Filed: November 14. 1994

Before TACHA and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

This appeal is before the court based on the parties' responses to an order directing them to advise the court why the documents in this case should not be unsealed and based on the motion by Plaintiff Payne "to compel delivery of documents, ask court clerks to follow rules, and for leave to exceed page limit on brief."

Upon consideration whereof, all documents filed in this appeal shall remain under seal and all documents to be filed in this appeal will be placed under seal.

All documents filed in this appeal must be placed in sealed envelopes. The parties must affix to the outside of each envelope a securely affixed label setting forth the caption of the appeal, the appeal number, the name of the document, and the statement "Document Under Seal."

The parties are reminded that the August 19, 1993 Amended Protective Order of the district court remains in effect.

Upon further consideration, the motion by Plaintiff Payne "to compel delivery of documents, ask court clerks to follow rules, and for leave to exceed page limit on brief" is DENIED.

Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER
Chief Deputy Clerk