|
Judge Michael W. McConnell
Re RULE 21(c) WRIT TO VOID ALL JUDGMENTS IN FRAUDULENT NEW MEXICO FEDERAL CASES 00 CV 1574, 00 CV1677, 01 CV 634, 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1198 and New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuits CV 2001 07794 and CV 2002 3425 HISTORY Seven bogus federal cases 00 CV 1574, 00 CV1677, 01 CV 634, 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1198 have been challenged as to federal court jurisdiction. All are New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits that were fraudulently removed to federal court. Written evidence in court records is shown below. Non-response and disregard to the facts shown in the evidence by the courts as to jurisdiction affirms the courts do not have jurisdiction. The common questions are: Are replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment federal questions or not. All of the judges and court officials assigned or responsible for this question were asked in writing to respond to the question of "Are replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment federal questions." NONE RESPONDED. Therefore, their non-response is admission that they do not have jurisdiction. New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuits CV 2001 07794 and CV 2002 3425 were dismissed without 12 person jury trials guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitution in violation court rule 1-041: Dismissal of Actions since New Mexico judges did not have jurisdiction to dismiss a paid for jury trial lawsuit. SUMMARY OF LAW Rule 21(c) allows selection of judge to resolve issues. Rule 3 requires any appeal from federal district court to court of appeals must be filed in district court. Rule 42(a) states When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. All of the cases below can be consolidated since the common question of lack of jurisdiction is central. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES Plaintiffs, vs CIVIL NO. 00-1574 William F Downes ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J. Defendants THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WILLIAM H. PAYNE Plaintiff vs CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes/Richard L Puglisi SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL Defendants and THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Arthur R Morales Plaintiffs v civ 01 0634 William F Downes Theodore C. Baca Defendants and THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT William H. Payne Plaintiff v 01 cv 01132 Dee Vance Benson PHYLLIS A. DOW, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants and THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants and SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTCOUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER CV 2001 07794 William H Payne Plaintiff v W John Brennan Defendants and SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER CV 2002 3425 Arthur R Morales Plaintiffs v W John Brennan Defendants 1 New Mexico state judge Kenneth Brown prohibits petitioner Payne from filing in New Mexico state courts. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#nocanfile. 2 New Mexico state judge Robert H Scott prohibits plaintiff Morales from filing in New Mexico state courts. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm. 3 Wyoming chief judge William F Downes prohibits petitioners Morales and Payne from filing in New Mexico federal court. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/queeg12022004.htm#nocanfile. 4 Rule 3 of Appellate Procedure states Rule 3. Appeal as of Right-How Taken (a) Filing the Notice of Appeal. Since petitioner can't file in New Mexico federal court, petitioner are even unable to appeal Downes' ruling. 5 Wyoming chief judge William F Downes transfer control of 00 CV 1677 to Tenth Circuit chief judge Tacha on November 18, 2004 see docket entry at http://www.prosefights.org/mcconnell/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm when Downes turns himself in for judicial misconduct "pursuant to 28 USC 351." 6 Wyoming chief judge William F Downes transfer control of 00 CV 1574 to Tenth Circuit chief judge Tacha on November 18, 2004 see docket entry at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm. 7 Petitioners are given no proper legal recourse for relief in either New Mexico state court or New Mexico federal court. Therefore the Tenth Circuit has proper jurisdiction and judge Deanell Tacha or her replacement [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule144/rule144.htm#nsa] has proper jurisdiction. MOTION FOR RELIEF SOUGHT Suspend rules under Rule 2 and VOID ALL JUDGMENTS in NEW MEXICO FEDERAL CASES 00 CV 1574, 00 CV1677, 01 CV 634, 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1198 and New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuits CV 2001 07794 and CV 2002 3425 for lack of jurisdiction. MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORT FOR MOTION FOR RELIEF SOUGHT 8 Rule 21(c) of Appellate Procedure states
Because of 28 USC 351 allegations of gross judicial misconduct of judging fraudulently removed to federal court New Mexico state 12 person jury prima facie case lawsuits on the part of Wyoming chief judge William F Downes and Utah Chief judge Dee Vance Benson who do not have jurisdiction over replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment compelled petitioners to remove these judges with 28 USC § affidavits [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule144/rule144.htm#af1574, http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/rule144.htm#af1677, http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule144/rule144.htm#af634, http://www.prosefights.org/mcconnell/rule144/nmlegal/rule144.htm#cantfile and http://www.prosefights.org/mcconnell/rule144/nmlegal/rule144.htm#af228]. Correcting these judges misconduct requires immediate resolution by the Tenth Circuit or, in the alternative the Tenth Circuit does not act according to law, the US Supreme Court. LAW 9 The law is exceptionally clear about Void judgments: A Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) 10 00 CV 1574 is a fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for replevin and harassment. See fraudulent removal NOTICE at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/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: 00 CV1677 is a fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for defamation [libel] and harassment. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm. 01 CV 634 is a fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for harassment and perjury. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitf.htm. 01 CV 1132 is a fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for harassment. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm. 01 CV 1198 is a fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit for harassment. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm. Rule 42(a) states Consolidation; Separate TrialsSee http://www.wvnb.uscourts.gov/frcp.htm#rule42. The common question is if harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] are federal questions? They are not because all the judges and
court officials assigned or responsible for Therefore 00 CV 1574, 00 CV1677, 01 CV 634, 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1198 are consolidated in this VOID AB INITIO action. 11 Downes was removed as judge from 00 CV 1574 [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/rule144.htm#af1574] with a 28 USC § 144 affidavit. Downes was removed as judge from 00 CV 1677 [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/rule144.htm#af1677] with a 28 USC § 144 affidavit. But then Downes struck both affidavits [see docket entry 122 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1677.htm and docket entry 71 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1574.htm]. Downes prevented petitioners from filing 28 USC § 144 removal affidavit in 01 CV 634 ["refuse acceptance of any further pleadings" see docket entry 122 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm] and Payne affidavit at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule144/rule144.htm#cantfile. The automatic 28 USC § 144 Downes removal affidavit in 01 CV 634 is seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/rule144/rule144.htm#af634. Downes was asked to provide an anti-injunction act jurisdiction justification in affidavit that replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment were federal questions and refused. Written evidence in affidavits shows fraudulent removal of New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits to federal court which were assigned to Downes by New Mexico chief judge James A Parker. 12 Utah judge Dee Vance Benson was removed by 28 USC § 144 from both fraudulent 01 CV 1132, and 01 CV 1198. See affidavit at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/rule144.htm#af228 and docket entry 30 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/benson144affidavit.htm. Benson was asked to provide an anti-injunction act jurisdiction justification in affidavits that harassment was a federal question and refused. Written evidence in affidavits shows fraudulent removal of New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits to federal court which were assigned to Benson by New Mexico chief judge James A Parker. 13 Petitioner Payne pays $322 [see receipt at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitl.htm] for New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuit CV 0200107994 against former New Mexico second judicial district judge and now convicted felon W John Brennan et al [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm]for breach of contract and harassment. New Mexico thirteenth district judge Kenneth G Brown dismisses CV 0200107994 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm]. Brown does not have jurisdiction to dismiss 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions. [See New Mexico law details at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/jsccomplaintbrownscott/jsccomplaintbrownscott.htm] 14 Petitioners Morales and Payne pay $322 [see receipt at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitk.htm]for New Mexico 12 person jury trial prima facie lawsuit CV 0200203425 against former New Mexico second judicial district judge and now convicted felon W John Brennan et al [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm] for breach of contract and harassment. Then New Mexico second judicial district judge Robert H Scott, now US federal court magistrate judge, dismisses CV 0200107994 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm#dismiss]. Scott does not have jurisdiction to dismiss 12 person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions. [See New Mexico law details at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/jsccomplaintbrownscott/jsccomplaintbrownscott.htm]. 15 Dismissal of CV 0200107994 and CV 0200203425 were appealed. Former judge John Brennan and his assistant Art Gallegos attempted to prevent filing on appeal on CV 0200107794 [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm#Gallegos] so an appeal was sent directly to then New Mexico appellate chief judge Richard Bosson. Bosson apparently arranged to have the CV 0200107794 appeal docketed. See June 26, 2002 NOTICE OF COMPLETION & TRANSMISSION OF RECORD PROPER at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/alaridpickardwechsler/alaridpickargwechsler.htm. Despite the fact that petitioner appellant Payne was in Alaska on his retirement trip and notified courts of his unavailability, appellate judges Alarid, Pickard, and Wechsler affirmed judge Scott's decision which was illegal under New Mexico constitution and federal constitutions. See ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/alaridpickardwechsler/alaridpickargwechsler.htm. CV 0200203425 was appealed as well. Appellate judges Wechsler, Pickard, and Castillo affirmed judge Brown's decision which was illegal under New Mexico and federal constitutions. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/wechslerpickardcastillo/wechslerpickardcastillo.htm. Petitioners then tried to appeal both CV 0200107794 and CV 0200203425 to New Mexico supreme court. However, New Mexico supreme court clerk Kathleen Jo Gibson refused to docket either appeal. So petitioners wrote certified return receipt complaint letter to supreme court judge Minzner and Maes. Neither Minzner nor Maes responded. 16 As a result of inactions on the part of Gibson, Minzner, and Maes petitioners attempted to force New Mexico state court to demand our right guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions to our paid for 12 person prima facie cases jury trial lawsuits by securing writs from judge Dee Benson in Utah. See dockets of Utah 03-CV-228 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegalmcconnell//pacer/morales03cv0228final.htm and docket of Utah 03-CV-288 at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/payne03cv0288final.htm. Benson falsely wrote that we filed an appeal to have our civil rights restored. This is false, we filed a WRIT. See docket entry 1 in about PACER docket records. So as it stands http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm#nocanfile. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm. are in effect even though Brown and Scott lacked jurisdiction to dismiss paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuits against convicted felon former New Mexico district 2 chief judge W John Brennan [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/johnbrennan/johnbrennan.htm]. 17 Benson, of course, does not have jurisdiction in either 01 CV 1132 or 01 CV 1198. Harassment is not a federal question. Benson issue two void judgments. Benson and New Mexico chief judge James Parker were ask to provide anti-injunction act affidavits in 01 CV 1132. See docket entry 14 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1132.htm docket. Benson and Parker fail to provide anti- injunction act affidavits since harassment is not a federal question. See docket entry 15. Benson and New Mexico chief judge James Parker were ask to provide anti- injunction act affidavits in 01 CV 1198. See docket entry 9 http://www.prosefights.org/mcconnell/nmlegal/pacer/dock1198.htm docket. Benson and Parker fail to provide anti- injunction act affidavits since harassment is not a federal question. See docket entry 16. Benson issues two void judgments since Benson does not have jurisdiction as evidenced at docket sheet entry 40 seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1132.htm. Look at docket sheet entry 52 seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/pacer/dock1198.htm. But Benson is issuing the above ORDER in Utah Case No. 2:03CV00228 TS:DB!See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/mcconnell/bensonvoid.htm#benson. This creates the appearance that judge Benson is knowingly and maliciously attempting to circumvent his lack of jurisdiction in 01 CV 1132 and 01 CV 1198. And Benson does not provide Rule 52 "finding of fact" as required. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/bensonvoid.htm#rule52. 18 WHEREFORE A Grant motion B Notify New Mexico federal court, New Mexico Supreme Court, New Mexico Appellate Court, New Mexico districts state courts, Albuquerque Metro court and petitioners are free to exercise their rights to file pro se. C Notify US Marshals Service [http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/] that two US Marshals shall be assigned to accompany petitioners Morales and Payne to court in event of non-compliance by any court. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was served by first US mail certified return receipt required on December 10, 2004 to William F. Downes
Judge Dee Vance Benson
Kenneth G. Brown
Robert H Scott
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed first class on December 10, 2004 to PHYLLIS A DOW Robert M. St.John, Mark A Smith, Larry Montaño Christina E. Anaya, Esq. Stephen G. French, Esq. Larry J. Montano, Esq. John W Zavitz Richard G Patrick Michael H Hoses Robert W. Becker
|
