     |
Metro court Payne criminal
complaints
Wednesday October 29, 2003
10:54
Moved from Cibola Internet Service to prosefights
Wednesday March 22, 2006 16:13
Thursday October 23, 2003 15:17
Morales moved.
Payne went fishing in Idaho
and Montana.
Look for the elk.
We're had a very busy summer. But now it's time to get serious about litigation.
Morales and Payne met this morning to formulate a plan for the Metro court judges.
Keep the goal in mind. Settlement or trial by jury.
Morales and Payne made a list of 6 respondents for the supreme court ... if this become necessary, of course.
The ball is literally in the court of judge brother
Dee Vance Benson in Utah.
We're going to push Benson a bit. And made
the plans.
Pro se fights always recommends getting a process server.
Reason is that there are technical details you can
screw up. The defendants can get the case thrown out for insufficient
service.
Here's the service on Wyoming court chief William F
Downes.
|
Downes will be one of the respondents in the supreme
court writ, of course.
Judge
James A[moco] Parker is another.
Bother Parker and Downes are crooked and incompentent judges who committed their crimes in writing. Downes might even be psychotic too.
Fun!
Thursday October 10, 2003 11:16
Shepherd is not reading, or is not acknowledging she has read, the evidence of the prima facie case of harassment against judge James Parker.
The judge apologized to him, saying the government's handling of the case "embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it."
The judge is James Parker who is trying to evade an indictment for a prima facie case of harassment for improper removal of prima facie New Mexico state cases of harassment, replevin, and defamation to federal court.
| Reporters Must Reveal Lee Story Sources Fired
Scientist sues Fed Agencies
By ROBERT GEHRKE WASHINGTON - A federal judge has ordered five eporters, including one from The Associated Press, to reveal their sources for stories that portrayed Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist, as a chief suspect in a Chinese epionage investigation. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the reporters to answer questions about their sources and to provide Lee's attorneys with notes and other documents from their reporting. "It does not detract from the importance of the First Amendment principle at stake to conclude, in the instant case at least,", that making possible evidence of government leaks available for trial outweighs the interest of keeping sources confidential, wrote Jackson. Lee is suing the Energy Department and Justice Department, alleging government officials provided private information about him to reporters and suggested he was a suspect in an investigation into the possible theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamas National Laboratory. Lee was indicted in December 1999 on 59 felony counts alleging he mishandled nuclear weapons information. He was held in solitary confinement for nine months, then was released in September 2000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count. The judge apologized to him, saying the government's handling of the case "embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it." The journalists ordered to give depositions under Jackson's order are James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times, H. Josef Hebert of the AP and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN. Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, now the governor of New Mexico, has said in a deposition that he did not recall whether he talked to the reporters. Other Energy and Justice Department officials also said they did not recall such discussions or did not provide the reporters with the information. Dave Tomlin, AP's assistant general counsel, said the parties are deciding whether to appeal the order. "Before the First Amendment lets you compel reporters to reveal sources, we think you have to do more than get a small handful of government officials to~ shrug their shoulders and claim they don't knew or can't remember," he said. Lucy Daiglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, "I think it would be highly unusual if the order stands, and secondly, if it stands, I would be very, very surprised if the reporters complied with it." The reporters could be fined or imprisoned for contempt of court if they failed to comply with Jackson's order. Albuquerque Journal Wednesday October 15, 2003 |
Depending of the contents of the above two letter, 7-111(2) might apply?
7-111. Contempt.Statute text
A. Jurisdiction. A metropolitan judge has jurisdiction to punish for contempt only for:
(1) disorderly behavior in the presence of the court or close enough to the court that it obstructs the administration of justice;
(2) misconduct of court officers in official transactions;
(3) disobedience or resistance to any lawful order, rule or process of the court.
B. Disposition upon notice and hearing. A contempt, except as provided in Paragraph C of this rule, shall be punished only after notice and hearing. The notice shall state the essential facts constituting the contempt charged. The notice may be given:
(1) orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant;
(2) by a summons;
(3) by a bench warrant; or
(4) by an order to show cause.
The defendant shall be entitled to bail as provided in these rules. The defendant shall be given sufficient notice of hearing to permit the preparation of a defense. If the defendant is found guilty of contempt, the court shall enter judgment and sentence within the limits of its jurisdiction.
C. Direct contempt. A direct contempt may be punished summarily if the judge by written order certifies to having seen or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the presence of the court. The written order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.
D. Appeal. Any person found guilty of contempt may appeal to the district court pursuant to the rules of procedure governing appeals from the metropolitan court in criminal cases.
History
[As amended, effective January 1, 1996.]
Tuesday September 30, 2003 20:19
Payne is off tomorrow to fish Henry's lake and the Madison river.
Payne has an abq email contact with Arricks!!!
Never lose sight of the ultimate goal!
Morales edited.
If you attempt to protect these criminals in view of the written evidence, then this would have a chilling effect on the legal process.
It is your duty to review the evidence that Mr Ross's argument is not supported.
If Ross is allowed to protect these criminals without appropriate evidence, then this would have a chilling effect on the legal process
It's alway best to let an experienced litigant edit your filings.
But keep in mind the real goal.
The Master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist Text
| Tuesday 9/30/03 1:49 PM
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Judge Charles Barnhart Dear Judge Barnhart: Purpose of this letter is to ask you to conduct proper arraignments in the two prima facie criminal cases CR 12310-03, Phyllis Dow defendant, and CR 12311-03, Michael Hoses defendant. All of the evidence of guilt of both parties is IN WRITING IN COURT RECORDS! When I arrived at your court room on Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 1:30, your court clerk told me that both criminal complaints were dismissed the previous week. I then went to window 9 in the criminal division to get a copy of your ruling. On the Dow complaint someone wrote 9/4/03 -Dismissal for failure to state a claim within our jurisdiction followed followed by hard-to-read initials. I believe a mistake has been made. Reason is that Robert St John and William F Downes were arraigned in judge Jaramillo's court for the same offense on Thursday September 11, 2003 at 08:30. And James Parker was assigned in judge Shepherd's court at 10:30 for the same offense. On the apparent Hoses complaint, the clerk gave me only the page 2, is hand written 8/26/03 Dismissed w/o prej There is no signature or initials. This leads me to believe that the Hoses complaint was improperly processed by Metro court. And the above statement is simply not true. Both judges Jaramillo and Shepherd agreed that there is a claim of harassment by scheduling arraignments. Dow was not acting within the scope of her employment when she participated in fraudulently removing CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278, to federal court in violation of federal rules for removal of state cases. CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278 are claims for relief from defamation and harassment. The false and defaming documents are seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/. Harassment and defamation [libel] are not federal questions. All of the evidence of guilt of defendants IS IN WRITING IN COURT RECORDS! Hoses was not within the scope of this employment when he fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-5900 to federal court. CV-2001-5900 is a prima facie paid for jury trial lawsuit for harassment. Harassment is not a federal question,. Hoses also participated in the fraudulent removal of New Mexico CV-2001-06293, Arthur R Morales and William H Payne plaintiffs - John W Zavits, William F Downes, and French and Associates, defendants, to federal court without required verification. "Pattern of conduct" for Hoses also has clearly been establish as required by 30-3A-2. So I ask that your read both the complaints and associated motions in CR 12310-03and CR 12311-03 to verify my allegation that both are prima facie cases of harassment. If you do not agree with me, then please write me and tell me where I am wrong. If you find that I am correct, then I ask to please schedule arraignments for Dow and Hoses. In order to make work easier for you, I've posted the complaints and associated motions at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm. I'll send you an email link at cbarnhart@metrocourt.state.nm.us. If you attempt to protect these criminals in view of the
written evidence, then this would have a chilling effect on the legal process.
Sincerely, William H. Payne Tuesday 9/30/03 12:20 PM CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Judge Denise Barela Shepherd Dear Judge Shepherd: Purposes of this letter are: 1 To ask that you reschedule arraignments for CR 12315-03, defendant James A Parker first held in your chamber on Thursday September 11, 2003 for the reason that assistant district attorney Pete Ross made written false material statement that "This statement of facts fails to show a "pattern of conduct," in documents he gave you, but not me, at the arraignment. Ross, at the arraignment, told me that he mailed me copies of the documents. I received a signed copy of the Parker STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI on Friday September 12, 2003. Had I seen the documents he gave you, I could have immediately objected to Ross's false material statement. I did object to you stating the cases were prima facie. Both cases are prima facie cases in that repeated harassment of removing two New Mexico state paid for jury trial lawsuits, CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278, to federal court in violation of federal rules for removal of state cases. All of the evidence of guilt of defendants IS IN WRITING IN COURT RECORDS! CV-2000-10278 is a complaint for defamation and harassment for release of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm. CV-2001-5900 is a complaint for harassment for removing CV-2000-10278 to federal court in violation of federal rules. Defamation and harassment are not federal questions. So we conclude that the State of New Mexico had no justification under the rules for invoking 7-108. Non-attorney prosecutions. Statute text I wrote Ross a certified September 16, 2003 requesting that he correct his mistake. I copied you by email at dshepherd@metrocourt.state.nm.us. Ross did not respond. So the written evidence has, contrary to Ross's false written
statement, established a clear pattern of defendant's conduct designed to
prevent paid for trial by jury for two prime facie cases involving defamation
and harassment. 2 Ask that you read both the complaint in CR 12315-03 and associated motion to verify my allegation that Ross made a false material statement of fact in an effort to avoid arraignment of criminal Parker. You appeared to be trying to read the complaint during the arraignment. I attach a copy of both the complaint and motion for you convenience. I have also posted both at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm. My belief is that the court's procedure of accepting advice from the District Attorney's office failed in criminal case CR 12315-03 for the reason that lawyer Ross was trying to protect defendant lawyer Parker. The legal importance of properly arraigning Parker is that all of the evidence of their guilt is IN WRITING IN COURT DOCUMENTS! So please read the complaint and motion. If I am incorrect then I ask to write me and inform me why I am incorrect. Otherwise, I ask that the court reschedule the arraignments. Parker's crime is particularly egregious because Parker is involved in removing to other paid for state jury trial prima facie lawsuits to federal court in violation of federal rules. These two additional cases are CV 2000-10289 and CV 2001-03118. CV 2000-10289 and CV 2001-03118 are lawsuit for replevin and harassment. Replevin and harassment are, of course, not federal questions. Paid for state jury trial lawsuits CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278 are to undo some the damage to my reputation for distribution of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm, get compensation for having to respond to two sham federal lawsuits, and recover about $1,000,000 relief from defamation and harassment starting the 1992.I paid for jury trial lawsuits guaranteed inviolate under both New Mexico and federal constitution for two prima facie cases. All evidence of guilt of defendants is IN WRITING. So far I have not gotten the jury trials I paid for the reason the defendants removed the cases to federal court in violation of federal rules. It is your duty to review the evidence that Mr Ross's
argument is not supported. I ask that you respond to my request by October 11, 2003. Sincerely, William H. Payne Tuesday 9/30/03 10:17 AM CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Judge Christina Jaramillo Dear Judge Jaramillo: Purposes of this letter are: 1 To ask that you reschedule arraignments for CR 12313-03, defendant William F Downes, and CR 12314-03, defendant Robert St John first held in your chamber on Thursday September 11, 2003 for the reason that assistant district attorney Pete Ross made a written false material statement that "This statement of facts fails to show a "pattern of conduct," in documents he gave you, but not me, at the arraignment. Ross, at the arraignment, told me that he mailed me copies of the documents. I received a signed copy of the Downes STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI on Friday September 12, 2003 and an unsigned and undated copy of the St John similar document on Saturday September 13, 2003. Had I seen the documents he gave you, I could have immediately objected to Ross's false material statement. I did object to you stating the cases were prima facie. Both cases are prima facie cases in that repeated harassment of removing two New Mexico state paid for jury trial lawsuits, CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278, to federal court in violation of federal rules for removal of state cases. All of the evidence of guilt of defendants IS IN WRITING IN COURT RECORDS! CV-2000-10278 is a complaint for defamation and harassment for release of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm. CV-2001-5900 is a complaint for harassment for removing CV-2000-10278 to federal court in violation of federal rules. Defamation and harassment are not federal questions. So we conclude that the State of New Mexico had no justification under the rules for invoking 7-108. Non-attorney prosecutions. Statute text I wrote Ross a certified September 16, 2003 requesting that he correct his mistake. I copied you by email at cjaramillo@metrocourt.state.nm.us. Ross did not respond. So the written evidence has, contrary to Ross's false written
statement, established a clear pattern of defendants' conduct designed to
prevent paid for trial by jury for two prime facie cases involving defamation
and harassment. 2 Ask that you read both the complaint in CR 12313-03 and CR 12314-03 and associated motion to verify my allegation that Ross made a false material statement of fact in an effort to avoid arraignment of criminals Downes and St. John. I attach a copy of both the complaint and motion for you convenience. I have also posted both at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm. My belief is that the court's procedure of accepting advice from the District Attorney's office failed in criminal cases CR 12313-03 and CR 12314-03 for the reason that lawyer Ross was trying to protect defendant lawyers Downes and St. John. The legal importance of properly arraigning Downes and St John is that all of the evidence of their guilt is IN WRITING IN COURT DOCUMENTS! So please read the complaint and motion. If I am incorrect then I ask to write me and inform me why I am incorrect. Otherwise, I ask that the court reschedule the arraignments. Paid for state jury trial lawsuits CV-2001-5900 and CV-2000-10278 are to undo some the damage to my reputation for distribution of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm, get compensation for having to respond to two sham federal lawsuits, and recover about $1,000,000 relief from defamation and harassment starting the 1992.I paid for jury trial lawsuits guaranteed inviolate under both New Mexico and federal constitution for two prima facie cases. All evidence of guilt of defendants is IN WRITING. So far I have not gotten the jury trials I paid for the reason the defendants removed the cases to federal court in violation of federal rules. It is your duty to review the evidence that Mr Ross's
argument is not supported. I ask that you respond to my request by October 11, 2003. Sincerely, William H. Payne |
Thursday September 25, 2003 14:04
Do everything you can to try to possibly resolve a matter at the lowest level.
| Dawn Branch 841-7119
NOTES 1 I'm phoning you because you were at arraignments of William Downes and Robert St John Thursday September 11, 2003. 2 At the arraignment Pete Ross gave judge Jarmillo some papers. 3 Ross told me he sent copies to me in the mail. 4 I received the Downs copy of Ross's filing on Friday September 12 with Ross's signature. 5 I received the St John copy of Ross's filing on Saturday September 13 with no signature. 6 Ross statement in his filings claimed "No pattern of conduct" was the reason for NOLO PROSEQUI. Ross's statement was false. There are two instances where my civil right to paid for trial by jury for state matters of defamation and harassment have been violated by defendants Downes and St. John. 7 I phoned Ross on Monday September 15 and informed him of his error. 8 I offered to bring the written evidence that Ross had made a mistake to Ross's office. Ross refused. 9 Ross told me that he wasn't going to do anything about the mistake. 10 I wrote Ross a certified letter on Tuesday September 16 documenting the contents of our conversation. 11 I asked Ross for a response by Tuesday September 23, 2003. Ross did not respond. 12 I ask that the DA's office look into this matter so that we may be able to resolve what must be done to correct Ross's error at the DA's level. Left message on recorder at 15:50 1:53 PM Left message on recorder at 15:50 |
Wednesday September 24, 2003 14:09
No letter from Ross today.
If we think about
it, the multiple violations of New Mexico statute 30-3A-2 NMSA 2003 in
writing in much like a contract.
We can't have lawyers reporting to a judge that there is no contract when, in fact, there is a contract in writing. And the judge tossing out a lawsuit.
So we have to fight Ross big time.
Tuesday September 23, 2003 14:03
No letter from Ross.
I ask that you write both judges Jaramillo and Barela Shepherd to correct your false statement about me failing to show a "pattern of conduct," and withdraw your STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI with an apology to the court for your essential material error of fact by Tuesday September 23, 2003.
Monday September 22, 2003 08:23
Assistant DA Ross has until tomorrow to withdraw his false documents from Metro court.
What will Ross do?
What will Morales and
Payne do?
What will judges Jaramillo and Shepherd do?
Always get proof of delivery.
Thursday September 18, 2003 08:26
Let's see what Ross, Jaramillo and Shepherd do.
And let's hope Jaramillo and Shepherd read the prima
facie complaint and motion.
Payne suspects what happened is that
Jaramillo and Shepherd were relying on the DA's office to read the complaint
and motion and tell them what to do.
They didn't figure that Ross was either incompetent or a criminal. Or both!
Tuesday 9/16/03 2:44 PM CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pete Ross Dear Mr Ross: Purposes of this letter are: I phoned to explain that I declined your offer to talk made in judge Jaramillo's courtroom because I wanted to see the document you showed to Jaramillo. In the courtroom you told me you mailed me a copy. I told you that you made a false statement in your STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI as explained below. Specifically, I read you "This statement of facts fails to show a "pattern of conduct ," as required by Statute 30-3A-2 NMSA 2003." then told you this statement was false. I asked if you had read my MOTION TO IMPOSE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR HARASSMENT ON DEFENDANTS PARKER, DOWNES, DOW, AND ST. JOHN FOR REPEATED HARASSMENT filed 03 SEP -8 PM 2:56. Your answer appeared evasive so I cannot attest whether you answered YES or NO. I told you that I had written evidence that Parker, Downes, and St John has established a "pattern of conduct." I offered to bring this written evidence to your office so that we could resolve whether or not Parker, Downes, and St John had established a pattern and practice of harassment. You refused my offer to visit you. You told me I could complain to the judges. I asked if you were going to do anything to correct your error. You said NO. Our conversation terminated. If you feel that I have incorrectly documented the contents of our conversation, then I ask you to write me so that we can resolve any problems. If I do not hear from you by Tuesday September 23, 2003 then I will assume that you agree with my impression of the points of our conversation. I ask that you write both judges Jaramillo and Barela Shepherd to correct your false statement about me failing to show a "pattern of conduct," and withdraw your STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI with an apology to the court for your essential material error of fact by Tuesday September 23, 2003. If you do not correct, withdraw, and apologize by this date,
then I must assume that you deliberately lied with the intent of joining a
conspiracy with defendants to continue to harass me in violation of New Mexico
statute 30-3A-2 NMSA 2003. I, of course, could have immediately corrected your error had I access to your STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI which would have likely compelled Parker, Downes and St. John to enter a plea of not guilty, guilty or no contest. Sincerely, William H. Payne Distribution |
Ross either demonstrated incomptence or managed to commit three [pattern of conduct] violations of New Mexico statute 30-3A-2 NMSA 2003 in writing.
|
|
Last Thursday assistant DA Dawn Branch 505-841-7036 was in judge Jaramillo's court room presenting cases to the judge as a prosecutor.
Branch has an uncanny resemblance to Demi Moore who has played lawyers in the movies.
When it came time to arraign St John, Branch said she has nothing to do with Payne's case. Others in the DA's office were handling Payne's case.
This turned out to be Ross.
In legal matters,
hit the opposition about once a week. More than this will confuse
them.
We are dealing with lawyers.
What letter? Do you have any proof that you sent and I received that letter?
We continue to deny that we are having too much fun.
Without computer technology, this project would NOT have been impossible! And also anywhere else in the US.
Morlales' modified and approved version of the Ross letter is seen below.
dshepherd@metrocourt.state.nm.us
cjaramillo@metrocourt.state.nm.us
cbarnhart@metrocourt.state.nm.us
Ross
Only essential material errors of fact count in legal proceedings.
Read the US Code Annotated, Title 18. It's hilarious.
Lawyers get the caliber of the gun wrong, the spelling of the killer's
name wrong, the color of the car wrong ... But none of these gets the
defendants off because they are not essential material errors of
fact.
Fortunately, Ross blew it when he clandestinely
submitted a document containing an essential material error of fact in writing
to both judges Jaramillo and Barela Shepherd.
THREE TIMES! Pattern and
practice established in writing.
Settlement time yet. Things can, and probably will, get worse.
Payne just talked to JoLynn at Metro court. She said that there are over 300 clerks in Metro court!
Payne is refining his letter to Ross.
We have four cases where judges Parker and Downes have violated Statute 30-3A-2 NMSA 2003 all in writing trying to get crooked lawyers and judges off.
Let's hope Metro court does the right things and helps get these unfortunate matters settled.
Ross has made a false statement which materially influenced a criminal proceeding where all the evidence of guilt is in writing.
It was moderately apparent that judge Jarmillo may have not read the complaint or motion.
It was absolutely apparent that judge Barela Sheperd very likely did not read the complaint or motion since she was thumbing through it when Payne was trying to explain to her that this was a prima facie case with all evidence of guilt in writing.
So the plan about what to do about Ross has been formulated. Now for action.
In legal matters it is always best to think through as many scenarios as possible.
Payne and Morales did not expect District Attorney's office to pull such a blatant move.
But we've been surprised before.
Always give the opposition a chance to correct their mistakes. If they don't, then unload on them.
And always take you time to think strategies through. It is best to wait until last in legal matters. You might think of something else!
Monday September 15, 2003 10:22
Other citizens are reviewing Ross's STATE'S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
We continue to deny that we are having too much fun.
Payne just received a phone call from Susan Salinas of Good News process servers.
Downes did not return the correct form. Salinas is phoning to insist that Downes follow the rules.
We're coming up with an action plan. But this is secret!
Ross failed to send a state entry of appearance and nolle prosequi for lawyer St John with those for judges Downes and Parker.
Note also the mistake referring to Parker, not St John, in 1.
But this mailed on Friday, the day following the arraignment, and arrived on Saturday, see below, without signature or mailing date.
Payne's motion clearly shows a "pattern of conduct" in that Parker assisted in fraudulently removing 4 New Mexico state cases, replevin, defamation, and harassment to federal court.
One Payne's neighbors knows Ross.
Payne pointed out that Ross made a false statement, in writing, in the below documents.
The neighbor responded that someone must of have made Ross do it.
But the point is, that Ross lied in writing and Payne
has written evidence, which you see on this page, to back up the assertion that
Ross lied in order to protect criminals.
Let's us point out that while
the criminal complaint affidavit was an interesting exercise it still is not
getting our paid for trials by jury for four prima facie cases of replevin,
defamation, and harassment that we are guaranteed inviolate by state and
federal constitutions.
Now that summer is over, its time to focus on the
real problem.
Saturday September 13, 2003 07:44
Number 1 appears to be a lie in
writing. The Brown/Walz exhibit is included with of Ross's two
filings.
Payne opened this Friday afternoon.
Scalia and Benson are not doing their jobs. This is why the Walz and Brown civil rights violation order is included.
So now what to do next?
It appears we're headed for the supreme court for a writ.
Friday September 12, 2003 10:25
The opposition has another
problem.
Downes and Parker were in an arraignment hearing with
judges Jaramillo and Barela Sheperd with the exact same complaint as was for
Hoses and Dow.
But Barnhart did something different than Jaramillo and
Barela Sheperd.
So it looks like Payne appeals while we move on to judge Dee Vance Benson and a supreme court for a writ.
If we don't settle, of course.
Ross of the District Attorney's office asked Payne if he wanted to talk. Payne declined.
Let's wait for Ross's document.
  |
Here's Morales flow chart for the arraignments.
Here's the James A[moco] Parker motion.
     7-306. Joinder; consolidation; severance. Statute text A. Joinder of offenses. Two or more offenses shall be joined in one complaint with each offense stated in a separate count, if the offenses: (1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or (2) are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts either connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. B. Consolidation for preliminary examination or trial. The court may order two or more complaints against a single defendant to be tried or heard on preliminary examination together if the offenses could have been joined in a single complaint. The court may consolidate for preliminary examination or trial two or more defendants if the offenses charged are based on the same or related acts. C. Motion for severance. If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or consolidation of defendants for trial, the court may order separate trials of offenses, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court may order the prosecutor to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by the defendants which the prosecution intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. History [As amended, effective January 1, 1987; September 1, 1990; September 15, 1997.] Parker took away Wen Ho Lee's civil rights 1, 2, so lets try to do it to AMOCO Parker.  |
Thursday September 11, 2003 17:41
----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: pross@da2nd.state.nm.us
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: Your filing
Ross
I didn't receive a copy of your filing in the mail today.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm
Wednesday September 17, 2003 19:20
And the arraignment of James A[moco] Parker in the court room of Denise Barela Sheperd. This took from 08:30 until 11:00
What happened is that
invoked 7-108 E and took over Payne's case. Then Ross informed judges Shepard and Jarmillo that the state was not going to proceed.
Payne, of course, objected.
You might want to email Pete Ross pross@da2nd.state.nm.us to express your concern about him and the state of New Mexico aiding and abetting criminals.
Morales and Payne had lunch together to begin to plan out next legal effort.
7-108. Non-attorney prosecutions.
Statute text
A. Peace officers and private citizens.
Peace officers and individual private citizens acting in their own behalf may file criminal complaints against persons in the metropolitan court that has jurisdiction over the alleged offense. Criminal complaints shall be limited to charges within the trial jurisdiction of the court.B. Other authorized appearances. A governmental entity may appear and prosecute any misdemeanor proceeding if the appearance is by an employee of the governmental entity authorized by the governmental entity to institute or cause to be instituted an action on behalf of the governmental entity.
C. Trial procedures. Peace officers, government employees appearing on behalf of a governmental entity as provided in Paragraph B, and individual private citizens acting in their own behalf, on complaints they have filed, shall be authorized to testify and present evidence to the court. In the court's discretion, such parties may also ask questions of witnesses, either directly or through the court, and may make statements bringing pertinent facts and legal authorities to the court's attention.
D. Special prosecutor. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to allow an attorney licensed to practice law in this state to prosecute a case for any party without first having been duly appointed as a special prosecutor by the district attorney for the judicial district in which the court is located.
E. District attorney. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to prevent the district attorney in the judicial district in which the complaint is filed from dismissing the case or entering an appearance and assuming prosecutorial control over the case. History
[As amended, effective March 15, 1986 and July 1, 1988.]
Then we refine the complaint and COUNTER ATTACK.
Legally, of course.
7-105. Assignment and designation of judges.
Statute text A.
Procedure for replacing a judge upon excusal or recusal.
Upon receipt of a notice of excusal or upon recusal, the judge or clerk of the court shall give written notice to the parties to the action. Within ten (10) days after service of a notice of excusal or notice of recusal, the parties or their counsel may agree to another judge of the metropolitan court to try the case. If the parties fail to agree upon a new judge, the chief metropolitan court judge shall, by random selection, assign another metropolitan court judge to try the case. If all metropolitan court judges in the district have been excused or have recused themselves, within ten (10) days after service of the last notice of excusal or recusal, the chief judge of the metropolitan court shall certify that fact by letter to the district court of the county in which the action is pending and the district court shall designate another judge to conduct any further proceedings. The district court shall send notice of its designation to the parties or their counsel and to the metropolitan court.
Barnhart may have goofed.
So let see how
Barela Sheperd and Jarmillo do. We find out tomorrow.
The first counter attack is against Barnhart in Metro court.
Payne phoned Barnhart's office let them know what I would be at the arraignment at 13:30 baring any unforseen events.
The lady who answered the phone said that Barnhard reviewed the complaints and dismissed them last week.
Payne said he was not informed of this.
Morales and Payne will go nonetheless.
Morales and Payne will meet at about 12:30 to discuss strategy. Both wearing suits.
Be very careful when in a court of law.
Let's
hope, finally, the judges uphold rules of the court and
laws.
Tuesday September 9, 2003 17:19
We
know there are mistakes on this blog. But we are doing lots of things.
You can't do it all yourself.
And we need to focus on three bond arraignments.
We will post the remainder of the Parker, Downes, Dow St. John motion before the first arraignment tomorrow. And you can compare it to the draft seen in text below. Something very important was missing! Then!
Morales and Payne spoke this morning. We've never done a bond arraignment before. But about everything else in court.
But there is a first time for everything. And a last time too!
Monday September 8, 2003 15:55
The Parker, Downes, Dow,
and St John motion increased from three to five pages.
The Hoses increased by one page.
All five motions and orders got filed super smooth.
The clerk returned two of the original and three copies of the motion file stamped. The clerk kept two ORDERs and returned on file stamped.
Here's a danger. The defendants plead guilty or no contest ... which is not good for them in the harassment lawsuit Benson is sitting on.
The judge then says, "Okay. You are ordered to pay a $50 fine."
Welcome to the real world of law.
We will not be posting the refinement to motion for the reason that we don't want the defendants to know how we are sharpening it to help insure some jail time for them. But you can read about economic problems.
If things work as they should in court, defendants have three choices.
1 guilty
2 no contest
3 innocent
But you can't count on things working as they should.
Wednesday September 10, 2003 13:30 Charles Barnhart 505 841 8285 - Defendants Michael H Hoses and Phyllis A Dow
Thursday September 11, 2003 08:30 Christina Jarmillo 505 841 8225 - Defendants Robert M St. John and William F Downes
Thursday September 11, 2003 10:30 Denise Barela Shepherd 505 841 8263 - Defendant James A Parker
Saturday
September 6, 2003 17:59
Payne, with the help of
others, sees what the problem is and will fix it.
The punishment must be proportional to the damage caused by the crime!
Grabbe's table of articles he wrote disappeared from his archives.
is one of Grabbe's better articles in Payne's opinion. Other than, of course, NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran Conflict .
Payne isn't entirely satisfied with either the motions or order.
Lawyers who attempt to subvert both state and federal constitution by fraud need some pretty harsh words said about them.
So hopefully we will fix any problems by Monday.
Lawyers are after your pension funds too. They make try illegal tactics similar to what we are dealing with here so you need to know what strategies are available to you.
Friday September 5, 2003 15:10
Now to make
copies!
All ORDERS finished.
Simple, isn't it?
| STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF BERNALILLO IN THE METROPOLITAN COURT Case N. CR 12315-03 James A Parker, defendant William H Payne, complainant ORDER James A Parker is sentenced under 31-19-1 to a term of 364 days in county jail and fine of $1,000 for repeatedly harassing complainant illegally in federal court thus denying complainant paid for right of trial by jury guaranteed by New Mexico and federal constitutions inviolate for prima facie case for the crime of HARASSMENT 30-3A-2. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Denise Barela Shepherd Date |
The receipts are critical to this project.
If you don't pay the filing fees, then you are going to lose.
You may lose anyway, but at least you have a chance.
Payne got the cashier's check but Morales and Payne split costs on our joint ventures.
Hoses got done in two pages!
| STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF BERNALILLO IN THE METROPOLITAN COURT Case N. CR 12311-03 Michael H Hoses, defendant William H Payne, complainant MOTION TO IMPOSE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR HARASSMENT ON 1 This motion is brought under Rule 7-304. 2 Complainant moves to have Michael H Hoses sentenced under 31-19-1 to a term of 364 days in county jail and fine of $1,000 for repeatedly harassing complainant illegally in federal courts thus denying complainant paid for right of trial by jury guaranteed by New Mexico and federal constitutions inviolate for prima facie case for the crime of HARASSMENT 30-3A-2. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO IMPOSE MAXIMUM PENALTY
FOR HARASSMENT ON 3 Defendant Hoses fraudulently removed without required verification New Mexico cv 2001 06293 to federal court where it where it is numbered civ 01 1198. 4 Michael Hoses filed second fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL on October 16, 2001. NOTICE OF REMOVAL is attached and labeled Exhibit H. Exhibit H does not have required verification. 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" justifying removal. See Exhibit B. 5 Citizens Arthur R Morales and William H Payne paid for trial by 12 jury for prima face New Mexico case of harassment. Receipt for New Mexico cv 2001 06293 is attached as Exhibit I. 6 Hoses attempts to deny Morales and Payne their paid for right to trial by jury guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and United States constitutions he and others including judges James A Parker and William F Downes. This attempt to subvert the constitution is most serious and deserves the extreme punishment asked for in this motion. All lawyers must be put on notice not too attempt to violate
state and federal constitutions directed right to trial by jury,
Respectfully submitted, William H. Payne I certify that on this September 8, 2003 a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION was mailed first class to Michael H Hoses |
Thanks to computer technology, all four motions have been produced.
Three pages!!! A final, with Morales' approval, of course.
And here's the receipt for 10278. Money paid for trial by jury guaranteed inviolate under both state and federal constitutions for prima facie case but not yet received!
Pattern and practice is one of the reason Morales and Payne are running parallel lawsuits.
Fortuntely for us, defendants continue to make the same illegal mistakes over and over.
We'll post as we develop the motions.
Morales is a stickler for separating the motion from the memorandum in support. You should do this too.
There must be a separate motion for all defendants but the text can be similar if not the same. This is the case for Parker, Downes, and Dow.
Hoses will be different. And we'll have to see how to fit St John in.
| STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF BERNALILLO IN THE METROPOLITAN COURT Case No. CR 12315-03 James A Parker, defendant William H Payne, complainant MOTION TO IMPOSE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR
HARASSMENT ON DEFENDANTS PARKER, DOWNES, DOWNES, DOW, AND ST.JOHN FOR REPEATED
HARASSMENT 1 This motion is brought under Rule 7-304. 2 Complainant moves to have James A Parker sentenced under 31-19-1 to a term of 364 days in county jail and fine of $1,000 for repeatedly harassing complainant illegally in federal courts thus denying complainant paid for right of trial by jury guaranteed by New Mexico and federal constitutions inviolate for prima facie case case for the crime of HARASSMENT 30-3A-2. . MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO IMPOSE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR HARASSMENT ON DEFENDANTS PARKER, DOWNES, AND DOW FOR REPEATED HARASSMENT 1 Defendants Parker, Downes, and Dow have harassed complainant before by fraudulently removing New Mexico CV 2000 10278, complaint for relief of defamation and harassment to federal court without required verification. Defamation are harassment are not federal questions. 2 Phyllis Dow filed fraudulent NOTICE OF REMOVAL on November 27, 2000. NOTICE OF REMOVAL is attached and labeled Exhibit E. Exhibit E does not have required verification. 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" justifying removal. See Exhibit B. 5 James Parker transfers fraudulently removed case to William 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 entry 69 Exhibit F. 6 Downes is given opportunity to show that he is not violating the anti-injunction act. Anti-Injunction Act is a complete prohibition against a federal court injunction of state court proceeding unless the injunction fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. 28 USC Sec. 2283. Specifically, Sec. 2283. - Stay of State court proceedings A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments Downes does not respond. And complainant files affidavit to his effect with court. 08/23/2001 08/24/2001 91 NOTICE of Non-Compliance by pltf of Judge Downes to provide anti-injunction affidavit [73k] [4 pages] 7 Downes rules over the objection of complainant that Downes does not have jurisdiction which culminates with 05/30/2003 06/02/2003 105 ORDER by District Judge William F. Downes granting deft USA's motion to dismiss [78-1] and further ordered that pltf's claims against defts Charles Burtner and Magistrate Judge Garcia are dismissed w/prejudice dismissing case (cc: all counsel) [164k] [8 pages] RE: [78] MOTION by deft USA to dismiss and/or... [36k] [2 pages] See docket entry 105 in Exhbit F. 8 Robert St. John is a party to sham federal 00cv1677 11/29/2000 11/30/2000 2 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendants by Robert M. St. John and Larry Montano [32k] [2 pages] See docket entry 2 in Exhibit F. 9 Complainant paid $297 on October 20, 2000 for a twelve person jury trial for prima facie case of relief from defamation and harassment which he is guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions. Receipt labeled Exhibit G. 10 Dow, Parker, Downes, and St. John harass complainant with fraudulently removed 00cv1677 as evidenced by the 109 entries seen in Exhibit F. 11 Instead of upholding the law, these lawyers have violated New Mexico criminal law of HARASSMENT 30-3A-2. And they did this all in writing archived in both New Mexico and federal courts. And this is a SECOND EXAMPLE OF HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF 30-3A-2! 12 Lawyers Dow, Parker, Downes, and St. John must be punished to the fullest extent of the law as a lesson for all lawyers to uphold the law and follow rules of the courts. I certify that on this September 5, 2003 a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION was mailed first class to James A Parker Chief judge United States District Court 333 Lomas NW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 |
31-19-1. Sentencing authority[;] misdemeanors; imprisonment and fines; probation. (1984)
Statute text
A. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or to the payment of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.
B. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a petty misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term not to exceed six months or to the payment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.
C. When the court has deferred or suspended sentence, it shall order the defendant placed on supervised or unsupervised probation for all or some portion of the period of deferment or suspension.
History
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-4, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 29-4; and recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-35, by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 16; 1981, ch. 18, § 1; 1984, ch. 106, § 1.
Judge James Parker has 4 [four] separate possible charges of harassment with all evidence in writing for fraudulent removal of New Mexico state cases to federal court.
Payne was asked to check whether New Mexico habitual offender laws apply to Parker.
31-18-19. Habitual offender; duty of district attorney to prosecute. (1977)
Statute text
If at any time, either after sentence or conviction, it appears that a person convicted of a noncapital felony is or may be a habitual offender, it is the duty of the district attorney of the district in which the present conviction was obtained to file an information charging that person as a habitual offender. History History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-32, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 8.
They do not. Habitual offender must commit felony offenses. Parker committed four criminal misdemeanor offenses in writing.
However, Parker has been charged with a Title 18 federal violation of law for violation of civil rights.
You must submit three copies of a motion and three copies of an order to the lawyer window in the violations section of metro court.
The court keeps two and you get one set back. Then you make copies and mail to the defendants.
Guys, if the judge likes and can't see anything wrong with the ORDER, then the judge signs.
Wednesday September 3, 2003
11:41
We're hot for speed jury trial
for a prima facie case of harassment. Or settlement, of
course.
[Amendment VI]
[Right to Speedy Trial, Witnesses, etc.]
Statute text
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
New Mexico state courts just switched from Lexis/Nexis to American Legal publishing corporation.
Without all of this high tech, this project would be impossible!
We have plans to subpoena two lawyers for testimony on the preparation of the fraudulent NOTICES OF REMOVAL.
If we don't settle, of course.
7-606. Subpoena. Statute textA. Form; issuance.
(1) Every subpoena shall:
(a) state the name of the court from which it is issued;
(b) state the title of the action and action number;
(c) command each person to whom it is directed to attend a trial or hearing and give testimony or to produce for trial or hearing designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that person;
(d) state the time and date of the hearing or trial, the name of the judge before whom the witness is to appear or produce documents; and
(e) be substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court.
(2) All subpoenas shall issue from the court for the court in which the matter is pending.
(3) The judge or clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete it before service. The judge or clerk may issue a subpoena duces tecum to a party only if the subpoena duces tecum is completed by the party prior to issuance by the judge or clerk. An attorney authorized to practice law in New Mexico and who represents a party, as an officer of the court, may also issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of the court in which the case is pending.
(4) Proof of service when necessary shall be made by filing with the clerk of the court a return substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court.
B. Service.
(1) A subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to such person and, if that person's attendance is commanded:
(a) if the witness is to be paid from funds appropriated by the legislature to the administrative office of the courts for payment of state witnesses or for the payment of witnesses in indigency cases, by processing for payment to such witness the fee and mileage prescribed by regulation of the administrative office of the courts;
(b) for all persons not described in Subparagraph (1)(a) of this paragraph, by tendering to that person the full fee for one day's expenses provided by Subsection A of Section 10-8-4 NMSA 1978 as per diem for nonsalaried public officers attending a board or committee meeting and the mileage provided by Subsection D of Section 10-8-4 NMSA 1978. The fee for per diem expenses shall not be prorated. If attendance is required for more than one (1) day, a full day's expenses shall be paid prior to commencement of each day attendance is required. When the subpoena is issued on behalf of the state or an officer or agency thereof, fees and mileage need not be tendered. Prior to or at the same time as service of any subpoena commanding production of documents and things or inspection of premises before trial, notice shall be served on each party in the manner prescribed by Rule 7-209 NMRA;
(2) Proof of service when necessary shall be made by filing with the clerk of the court a return substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court.
C. Protection of persons subject to subpoenas.
(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee.
(2)
(a) Unless specifically commanded to appear in person, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things need not appear in person at the hearing or trial.
(b) Subject to Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph D of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within fourteen (14) days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than fourteen (14) days after service, serve upon all parties written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded.
(3)
(a) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it:
(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance,
(ii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or
(iii) subjects a person to undue burden.
(b) The court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena if a subpoena:
(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information,
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than one hundred (100) miles to attend trial.
If the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.
D. Duties in responding to subpoena.
(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.
(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.
E. Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court punishable by fine or imprisonment.
History
[As amended, effective January 1, 1994; May 1, 1994; May 1, 2002.]
Let's do a jury trial.
But let's also continue to hope for settlement of these unfortunate matters.
Keep in mind that if matters are not resolved at the level, then we are off to the supreme court. But not for writ of certiorari!
7-602. Jury trial.Statute text
A. Petty misdemeanor offense. When authorized by law, either party to the action may demand a trial by jury. The demand shall be made:
(1) orally or in writing to the court at or before the time of entering a plea; or
(2) in writing to the court within ten (10) days after the time of entering a plea and at least twenty-four (24) hours before any time set for trial on the merits. If demand is not made as provided in this paragraph, trial by jury is deemed waived.
B. Misdemeanor offense. If the offense is a misdemeanor or other offense or combination of offenses where the potential or aggregate penalty includes imprisonment in excess of six (6) months, the case shall be tried by jury unless the defendant waives a jury trial with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.
History
[As amended, effective October 1, 1992.]
Defendants lawyers committing multiple crimes in writing make us wonder at their arraignments they might invoke.
7-507. Insanity or incompetency; transfer to district court; evaluation. Statute textA. Transfer to district court. If the defendant pleads "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty, but mentally ill", action shall be transferred to the district court for further proceedings pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts.
B. Competency to stand trial.
(1) The issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial may be raised by motion, or upon the court's own motion, at any stage of the proceedings.
(2) The issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial shall be determined by the judge, unless the judge finds there is evidence which raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial. If a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial is raised prior to trial, the court shall order the defendant to be evaluated as provided by law. The court shall hold a hearing to determine the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial:
(a) within ten (10) days after the filing of the diagnostic evaluation if the defendant is incarcerated; or
(b) within thirty (30) days after the filing of the diagnostic evaluation if the defendant is not incarcerated.
(3) If a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial the court may:
(a) dismiss the charges; or
(b) transfer the proceedings to the district court.
(4) If the finding of incompetency is made during the trial, the court shall declare a mistrial.
C. Mental examination. Upon motion and upon good cause shown, the court shall order a mental examination of the defendant before making any determination of competency under this rule.
D. Statement made during psychiatric examination. A statement made by a person during a psychiatric examination or treatment subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime shall not be admissible in evidence against such person in any criminal proceeding on any issue other than that of the person's competency to stand trial.
History
[As amended, effective September 1, 1990; October 1, 1996.]
Clearly defendants are incompetent.
This would all be hilarious if what defedants are trying to do was no so serious. Trying to overturn both US and state constitution right of trial by jury inviolate for two prima facie cases.
Tuesday September 2, 2003
16:09
Read the rules!
Here's
Metro court pertinent rules.
| 7-501. Arraignment; first appearance.
Statute text A. Explanation of rights. Upon the first appearance of the defendant in response to a summons, warrant or arrest, the court shall determine that the defendant has been informed of the following: (1) the offense charged; (2) the maximum penalty and mandatory minimum penalty, if any, provided for the offense charged; (3) the right to bail; (4) the right, if any, to the assistance of counsel at every stage of the proceedings; (5) the right, if any, to representation by an attorney at state expense; (6) the right to remain silent, and that any statement made by the defendant may be used against the defendant; (7) the right, if any, to a jury trial; and (8) in those cases not within the court's trial jurisdiction the right to a preliminary examination. The court may allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to make telephone calls and consult with counsel. B. Offense within the court's trial jurisdiction. If the offense charged is within the court's trial jurisdiction, the court shall require the defendant to plead to the complaint, pursuant to Rule 7-302, and if the defendant refuses to answer, the court shall enter a plea of "not guilty" for the defendant. If, after entry of a plea of "not guilty", the defendant remains in custody, the action shall be set for trial as soon as possible. If the defendant pleads "not guilty by reason of insanity", after setting conditions of release, the action shall be transferred to the district court. C. Waiver of arraignment or first appearance. With prior approval of the court, an arraignment or first appearance may be waived by the defendant filing a written waiver. A waiver of arraignment and entry of a plea of not guilty or a waiver of first appearance shall be substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court. A. Pleas. A defendant who elects to waive the right to a trial may enter: (1) a plea of guilty; (2) a plea of no contest, subject to the approval of the court; or (3) after an adverse determination of a pretrial motion on a dispositive issue, enter a conditional plea of guilty or no contest, reserving in writing the right to appeal the adverse determination of the specified pre-trial motion. A conditional plea is subject to approval of the court. A defendant who prevails on appeal shall be allowed to withdraw a conditional plea of guilty or no contest. B. Advice to defendant. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the following: (1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered; (2) the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law for the offense to which the plea is offered; (3) that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty, or to persist in that plea if it has already been made; and (4) that if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest (a) there will not be a trial in this case, so that by pleading guilty or no contest the defendant waives the right to a trial or, (b) if the plea is a conditional plea, that the defendant waives a trial unless the defendant prevails on appeal. C. Ensuring that the plea is voluntary. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also inquire as to whether the defendant's willingness to plead guilty or no contest results from prior discussions between the government and the defendant or the defendant's attorney. D. Plea agreement procedure. (1) The government or its agent and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty or no contest to a charged offense or to a lesser or related offense, the government or its agent will move for dismissal of other charges, or will recommend or not oppose the imposition of a particular sentence, or will do both. The court shall not participate in any such discussions. (2) If a plea agreement has been reached by the parties which contemplates entry of a plea of guilty or no contest in the expectation that a specific sentence will be imposed or that other charges before the court will be dismissed, it shall be reduced to writing substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court, and the court shall require the disclosure of the agreement in open court at the time that the plea is offered. Thereupon, the court may accept or reject the agreement, or may defer its decision as to acceptance or rejection until there has been an opportunity to consider the presentence report. (3) If the court accepts the plea agreement, the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement. (4) If the court finds the provisions of the agreement unacceptable after reviewing it and any presentence report, the court will allow the withdrawal of the plea, and the agreement will be void. If the plea is withdrawn, neither the plea nor any statements arising out of the plea proceeding shall be admissible against the defendant in any criminal proceedings. (5) Except for good cause shown, notification to the court of the existence of a plea agreement shall be given at the arraignment or at such other time, prior to trial, as may be fixed by the court. (6) Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of no contest, or of an offer to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. E. Determining accuracy of plea. Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment upon such plea without making such inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea. History [As amended, effective May 1, 1986; May 1, 1997.] 7-503. Disposition without hearing. Statute text A. General. The metropolitan court may establish, by rule, procedures governing disposition of cases within metropolitan court trial jurisdiction without a hearing. Any such rule shall specify the offenses to which the rule applies. B. Procedure. An offense shall not be disposed of without a hearing unless the person charged signs an appearance, plea of no contest and waiver of trial. Prior to signing the document, the person charged shall be informed of the right to trial and that the warrant will constitute a plea of no contest and will have the effect of a judgment of guilty by the court. Provision may be made for the person charged to enter an appearance and plead no contest and remit the appropriate scheduled penalty to the court by mail. If such provision is made, the charging law enforcement officer will deliver the warnings required under this paragraph, provide a form to the person charged for an entry of appearance and plea of no contest, inform the person charged of the scheduled penalty and provide a business reply envelope addressed to the metropolitan court. A. Voluntary dismissal. The prosecution may dismiss a citation or criminal complaint by filing a notice of dismissal. The notice of dismissal shall be substantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice. A notice of dismissal shall be filed: (1) prior to commencement of the trial if the charges are within metropolitan court trial jurisdiction; or (2) prior to the commencement of a preliminary examination in the metropolitan court, if the charges are not within metropolitan court trial jurisdiction. B. Bail bond. The filing of a notice of dismissal under Paragraph A of this rule shall not exonerate a bond prior to the expiration of the time for automatic exoneration pursuant to Subparagraphs A(1) or A(2) of Rule 7-406 of these rules. If the dismissed charges are later filed in the district court, the state shall notify the metropolitan court and the metropolitan court shall transfer any bond to the district court. C. Refiled complaints; cases within metropolitan court trial jurisdiction. If a citation or complaint is dismissed without prejudice and the charges are later refiled, at the time of refiling the charges, the prosecutor shall notify the metropolitan court of: (1) the court in which the original charges were filed; (2) the case file number of the dismissed charges; (3) the name of the assigned judge at the time the charges were dismissed; and (4) the reason the charges were dismissed. D. Time for trial. If criminal charges are dismissed without prejudice and later refiled, the trial on the refiled charges shall be commenced within the unexpired time for trial pursuant to Paragraph E of this rule, unless the court, after notice and a hearing, finds good cause for the trial to commence within one hundred eighty-two (182) days. E. Dismissal for failure to prosecute. Any criminal citation or complaint within metropolitan court trial jurisdiction which is pending for more than one hundred eighty-two (182) days from the date of the arrest of the defendant or the filing of a complaint or citation against the defendant, whichever occurs later, without commencement of a trial by the metropolitan court shall be dismissed with prejudice unless, after a hearing, the judge finds that the defendant was responsible for the failure of the court to commence trial. After a complaint is dismissed pursuant to this paragraph, a criminal charge for the same offense shall not be filed in any court. History [As amended, effective August 1, 1999.] 7-302. Pleas allowed. Statute text A. Pleadings. The pleadings shall consist of the complaint and the plea. The plea shall be one of the following: guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity and no contest. No other pleas or pleadings shall be permitted. A plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity shall not operate as a waiver of any defense or objection. If the defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, the metropolitan court shall transfer the action to the district court. Defenses and objections not raised by the plea shall be asserted in the form of motions to dismiss or for appropriate relief. B. Failure or refusal of defendant to enter a plea. If the defendant refuses to enter a plea, or stands mute, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of such defendant. C. Rejection of pleas. The court shall reject a plea of guilty or nolo contendere if justice would not be served by acceptance of such plea. MOTIONS A. Defenses and objections which may be raised. Any matter that is capable of determination without trial of the general issue, including defenses and objections, may be raised before trial by motion. B. How made. Motions may be made orally or in writing, unless the court directs they be in writing. C. Suppression of evidence. In cases within the trial court's jurisdiction: (1) a person aggrieved by a search and seizure may move for the return of the property and to suppress its use as evidence; (2) a person aggrieved by a confession, admission or other evidence may move to suppress such evidence. D. Notice and hearing. No motion shall be heard without a hearing following prior notice to all parties. History [As amended, effective January 1, 1987; September 1, 1990.] |
Morales and Payne discussed how to respond to these two letters.
We are preparing for the arraignments.
Look at this interesting rule.
The court may dismiss the complaint at anytime during the life of the case.
REASONS:
Failing to fill out the complaint form properly according to law. Statute of limitations has expired. Limitations may be found in the Public Libraries, UNM Law School, many public school libraries, etc. refer to introduction of this brochure.
Complainant failed to appear.
Court determines the complaint was filed in bad faith. Complaint may also be dismissed by the complainant at any time before trial or before the end of the trial. Complainant may also appear at arraignment and petition the court for dismissal.
We should get these unfortunately matters settled before they get worse.
Payne got a lecture from John Soboleski on how to handle the bond arraignment hearings.
Sobolewski is moving back to Seattle this morning. Last ABQ jpg of Sobolewski is seen here.
Defendants gambled with their professional careers. Disbarment is possible.
So Payne has to be very careful.
Friday August 29, 2003 13:05
The letter from Cox is likely a response to Payne's settlement letter
of Wednesday 7/23/03 2:06 PM seen below.
Let's wait until Tuesday to open these?
Payne just scanned Dow's response in preparation for a reply.
Without computer technology this legal project would have never been possible. But since we have this technology, it sure is lots of fun to apply to the legal system. Something needs to be done to the legal industry. It's not working properly.
Notice that each of the defendants got a separate case number.
Payne phoned metro court to ask if pre arraignment motions were allowed. Payne was advised to contact the judge.
1677 was fraudulently removed from New Mexico state court by Phyllis Dow without required verification. And judge William Downes is ruling on this case where he doesn't have jurisdiction.
Another prima facie case of harassment.
Note the incorrect WFD/RLP [magistrate judges william deaton and richard puglisi].
Payne will issue a REPLY [motion, response, reply, surrelpy with permission of court]. It is late [summer time] but Downes and Dow have even more problems.
Payne made copies of Dow's case law citations.
We haven't even mentioned the harassment of 1677 to
metro court yet.
Pattern and practice.
Settlement, of course, should have happened many years ago. Now things are getting even worse.
     |
Tuesday August 26, 2003
08:48
Susan Salinas reported late
Monday that judge
James Amoco Parker and assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses
had been served.
The summons is in the mail to a sheriff in Casper, WY for service on judge William F Downes.
This is almost as fun as litigation.
Morales advises that we should not reveal our next moves until after the arraignments.
Monday August 25, 2003 10:52
Morales and Payne are planning the next step.
On September 10 and 11 the defendants, in theory of course, must plead not guilty, no contest or innocent. If they plead innocent then the judge must determine a bond value and schedule a trial.
If the defendants plead guilty or no contest, then the judge can immediately sentence the defendants.
Judges Parker Downes have their names on all four
fraudulently removed to federal court New Mexico state cases.
Assistant US
attorneys Dow and Hoses have their names on two fraudulently removed to federal
court New Mexico state cases.
And assistant US Attorney Raymond Hamilton has his name on one fraudulent removal to federal court.
Ricardo Gonzales talked to Hamilton.
Hamilton told Gonzales that the US attorney office management forced him to do what he does.
So we have to get prepared for court on September 10 and 11. Using Internet, course.
Chapter 31, Article 18 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Criminal Sentencing Act". History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-26, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 1; 1994, ch. 24, § 1.
B. Whenever a defendant is convicted of a crime under the constitution of New Mexico, or a statute not contained in the Criminal Code [30-1-1 NMSA 1978], which specifies the penalty to be imposed on conviction, the court shall set as a definite term of imprisonment the minimum term prescribed by the statute or constitutional provision and may impose the fine prescribed by the statute or constitutional provision for the particular crime for which the person was convicted; provided, that a person sentenced as a serious youthful offender or as a youthful offender may be sentenced to less than the minimum term of imprisonment prescribed by the statute or the constitutional provision.
D. Any other crime for which the sentence to be imposed upon conviction is not specified shall constitute, for the purpose of the sentence, a petty misdemeanor. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-27, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 2; 1993, ch. 77, § 4.
59A-52-24. Penalty for violation of law or regulations. Violation of any of the provisions of this article or of any of the regulations lawfully enacted pursuant thereto shall constitute a misdemeanor for which the punishment shall be a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). Each day any such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. History: Laws 1984, ch. 127, § 970.
Sunday August 24, 2003 17:19
Payne checked the counter at the bottom of this page.
It went up lots.
LDS members, we hope, are reading this.
LDS is a proselytic religion. Their kids are sent on missions to recruit throught the world.
LDS members are likely to view killing of Iranian kids as a missed opportunity.
LDS members, from Payne's experience, would be absolutely horrified about the spy sting on Iran.
And LDS members might actually do something about this.
Judge Dee Vance Benson is in danger of having a New Mexico criminal complaint filed against him for 1132
and 1198.
Benson has been sitting on both cases for about two years.
But let's hope the LDS elders find out about the problem Benson is in and reason with brother Benson.
Morales and Payne are now going to try to bring the New Mexico state judges to justice. We've been harassed, with illegal activity, in writing.
So let's all learn, again, how to file a criminal complaint affidavit for HARASSMENT!
Like no paid for trial by jury, illegal removal of our civil rights. So let's do something about this.
Friday August 22, 2003
19:20
Payne was advised to let the
LSD church elders know the immanent danger to
Benson.
Payne did this this afternoon by email.
Payne also looked up the genealogy of his wild San Mateo, CA high school buddy Rodmar Pulley.
We may have found his grandfather. If Payne recalls correctly, after about 50 or more years, Pulley's middle initial was L.
Pulley's mother was mostly a native American, named Omega. And very strict!
But the importance of what is written here is don't try to involve the true Mormons in criminal behavior.
This is almost worse than killing Iranian and Iraqi kids.
True Mormons have about zero tolerance for essential
misbehavior. And they know how to deal with this. Payne has seen this. But this
is for later.
Susan
Salinas of Good News process servers reported that her daughter, Sharon
Apodaca, served Phyllis Dow but was unable to serve Hoses. Robert St. John was
also served.
Parker and Hoses were not at work. Good News is personally going to serve Hoses and Parker.
Well, students of pro se litigation, you let the lawyers and judges do illegal things to you in court. If you try to get back at them by filing in their own court, this doesn't appear to work.
So we've come up with a creative solution!
Payne's projects usually work. Keep upwind.
Payne is starting a 80C32SOC USB 2.0 project.
Electronics and system software are similar to law.
Come up with a winning strategy. Then implement that strategy with meticulous care following all rules.
Now to get the defendants served properly.
Be very careful here. They will try to get out this by claiming insufficiency of service. This is why you want a careful and experienced legal process server.
Utter disaster appears to have hit the defendants at last!
Downes and St John got judge Christina Jaramillo. Hoses and Dow got judge Charles Barnhart. And Parker judge Denise Barela Sheperd.
They might have been able to corrupt one judge, but it's going to be very difficult corrupting three judges.
Note the different arraignment dates!
They should have settled many years ago.
Let's push for jail time. If they get jail, then this will be a wake up call for judges and lawyers not to screw up so badly.
    |
Look at what the options for the defendants are!!!
DEFENDANT:
If the defendant appears, AFTER BEING PROPERLY SERVED, the judge will then take a plea. The defendant has a choice of pleading guilty, not guilty or nolo contendre. The judge may impose sentence immediately or set the case for sentencing at a later date.
If the defendant does not appear. AFTER BEING PROPERLY SERVED, the judge may issue a warrant for his/her arrest.
NOT GUILTY:
If the defendant pleads not guilty, the judge has the option of setting a bond to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. Both you and the defendant will receive a notice of trial from the Case Setting Division. located on the North Lobby of the 1st floor of the Metropolitan Court. If you do not receive notice within a two week period after arraignment. you may call them at 841-8140 or 841-8111. The Case setting Division will require your case number in order to expedite your inquiry efficiently.
Either plead guilty or nolo contendre [SIC] or go to trial!!!
All was filed almost uneventfully. All of this took about 90 minutes.
Here's judge James A[MOCO] Parker's paperwork.
Defendants judge William F Downes, US Attorneys Dow and Hoses, and lawyer St. John have a bit of a problem since all of the evidence of guilt is in writing in court documents!
Let's see how they plead on September 11, 2003. Not
guilty by reason of insanity might be reasonable.
September
11th?
   |
Next of the list of crooked judges to be processed
for harassment is judge Robert H Scott and other judges who
1 did not
recuse himself as required by New Mexico rules
2 ruled to dismiss when only
a plaintiff can move to dismiss a jury trial lawsuit
3 denied Morales and
Payne right inviolate for jury trial prima facie case lawsuit.
Then we address 1198 which judge Dee Vance Benson is sitting on.
But we really should get these matter settled before they get worse.
Wednesday August 20, 2003
16:01
New Mexico chief federal judge
James A[MOCO] Parker appears to be engineering all of this.
Parker took away Wen Ho Lee's civil rights 1, 2, so lets try to do it to AMOCO Parker.
It looks like you may be able to do service by mail. See CRIMINAL SUMMONS in the instructions.
But this is too risky. You can get along just fine, even better, without a lawyer. But a process server is about essential.
Criminal complaint affidavit for Wyoming chief federal judge William F Downes, New Mexico chief federal judge James A[MOCO] Parker, Assistant US Attorneys Michael H Hoses and Phyllis A. Dow and lawyer Robert M St John have been notarized and FILED.
While the Metro criminal complaint affidavit does not include instructions for notarization, be sure to do this. The lack of instructions may be a lawyer ploy not to act.
Payne has contacted Susan Salinas of Good News to serve the summons.
Pro se litigants are not advised to try doing their own process serving.
You can make technical mistakes like not having the serve
