| Friday March 21, 2008 10:32 Altwies made a false statement about void judgments. There is no two year statute of limitations |
 |
Meto court
Void judgments
First posted
Friday May 11, 2007 09:08
Updated
Friday March 20, 2008 10:32
| Friday March 21, 2008 10:32 Altwies made a false statement about void judgments. There is no two year statute of limitations |
|
|
Let's ask Biderman some specific questions. Here's the REAL PROBLEM. The University of New Mexico Institute of Public Law MSCll 6060 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-000] PHONE: (505) 277-5006 FAX:(505)277-7064 May 24, 2007 William H. Payne 13015CalledeSandiasNE Albuquerque, NM 8 7111 Re: Metropolitan Court Benchbook Dear Mr. Payne: The Institute of Public Law (which houses the New Mexico Judicial Education Center) has reviewed your criticisms of the metropolitan court benchbook and finds no mistakes. We stand by the material as written. Paul Biderman Director PHYSICAL ADDRKS: 1117 Stanford Dr. NF Albuquerque, New Mexico R71.51-0001  ----- Original Message ----- From: bill payne To: biderman@unm.edu ; plams@unm.edu ; bgillia@unm.edu Cc: art morales ; jblair@metrocourt.state.nm.us ; martinchavez@cabq.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:20 PM Subject: We are concerned that there are two serious constitutional errors in the benchbook Please send an ack if you get this.  Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8762 2593 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 6:59 AM on May 24, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125.   |
| Wednesday May 23, 2007 08:15 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#biderman Certified, return receipt requested and email Paul Biderman, Director 505-277-8789 biderman@unm.edu Pam Lambert, Senior Attorney 505-277-1052 plams@unm.edu Beth Gillia, Staff Attorney, 505-277-0710 bgillia@unm.edu Dear Benchbook preparation participants: We read The Judicial Education Center welcomes your suggestions for improvement of the Benchbook. We are concerned that there are two serious constitutional errors in the benchbook at 1.3-1 Judgments, I. Relief from Judgment. First error is at 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) which states ii. A motion based upon these grounds shall be filed not more than one (1) year after the judgment, order or proceeding was taken. This means that if a motion was not filed with in one year
than a void judgment would become valid. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 See foonotes in MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT used to support MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION for rearraignment of assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow on a prima facie charge of criminal harassment. Second error is at 1.3-1 (I)(5) which states An order granting or denying relief from a final judgment may be appealed to the district court in the same manner as other appeals from final judgments are taken. You may not know When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 Therefore no appeal from a void judgment is required. If in fact a judge would deny a valid vacate motion, then that ruling would, too, be void. We ask that 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) be deleted from the Benchbook within 20 working days. In event these two paragraphs are not deleted within 20 day, then we ask 1 who authored 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) and on
what date, Inclusion of errors seen in 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) creates the appearance of willful misconduct by some of the Benchbook preparation participants designed to obstruct proper arraignment of alleged criminals in Metropolitan court. For example, proper arraignment of judges James A Parket and William F Downes and lawyer Robert St John on criminal harassment charges. Errors seen in 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) do not apply to dismissal of criminal harassment charges against US attorneys Phyllis A Dow and Michael H Hoses so MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION has been docketed to void judgment by former Metropolitan judge Charles R Barnhart.We ask that 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) be deleted from the Benchbook. We ask for a written certified report identifying those invovled in writing and approving 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) in the Benchbook. What action is taken to those involved? We ask for your response within 20 working days of your receipt of our certified return receipt requested letter. Sincerely Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne |
A two year statute of limitations to a void judgment? Let's see about this. Looks like we have another void judgment. Two denials were included in envelope.   |
It took some nice talking but Payne finally got
phyllis.dow@usdoj.gov
michael.hoses@usdoj.gov
|
Wednesday May 16, 2007 16:40 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#dow  Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8759 4937 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 11:16 AM on May 21, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87102.  |
|
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Dow, Phillis A MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION 1 COMES NOW complainant William H Payne to seek vacation of dismissal of criminal complaint against Phyllis A Dow by former judge Charles R Barnhart for lack of jurisdiction. 2 Barnhart dismissed criminal complaint
against Dow with 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. The passage of time does nothing to validate a void or voidable judgment. 4 Bernalillo Metropolitan court rules for processing a criminal complaint state 1. The arraignment is the proceeding at which the defendant is brought before the judge after arrest or in response to a criminal summons in order to enter a plea to the charge(s).Barnhart did not follow these procedures in CR 12310-03. 5 The Court had subject matter jurisdiction but Barnhart [1] violated Metropolitan Court judicial rules by denying due arraignment process by dismissing criminal complaint prior to arraignment, [2] lacked the inherent power to enter the premature faulty judgment "Dismissed for failure to state a claim within our jurisdiction." which should have gone to a jury had Dow pleaded "not guilty"and [3] entered an order which violated Metropolitan Court due arraignment process. 6 Bernalillo Metropolitan court rules state If the court grants relief from judgment because the judgment is void, the judge writes "void" on the court's copy of the judgment and also enters the reason, the date, and his or her signature. 7 Judge writes "void" on Barnhart's dismissal seen in section 2 of this motion. 8 Court sends copy of "void" written on Barnhart's judgment to complainant Payne via email at bpayne37@comcast.net. 9 Court schedules proper arraignment of defendant Dow within 30 day of void judgment entry. 10 Court sends copy of arraignment notice of defendant Dow to complainant Payne via email at bpayne37@comcast.net with 10 working days of scheduled arraignment. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION was mailed certified, return receipt requested to Phyllis A Dow, 201 3rd ST NW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Friday May 18, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ |
|
Wednesday May 16, 2007 12:09 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#dowmandatory |
|
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Dow, Phillis A 1 COMES NOW, complainant William H Payne to place this court on mandatory judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgment in CR 12310-03. 2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements: (1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties; If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3 5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5 6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7 8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9 9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11 1 See Peduto v. North Wildwood (DC NJ) 696 F Supp 1004, affd (CA3 NJ) 878 F.2d 725; In re Doe (NM App) 99 NM 517, 660 P.2d 607; Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 284 Pa Super 220, 425 A.2d 782. 2 See U.S.Const.Amdt. V; F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); CR 60(b)(5); State cases: Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 596, 794 P2d 526 (1990), rev.den., 116 Wash.2d 1009, 805 P2d 813 (1991); Brenner v. Port of Bellingham, 53 Wash.App. 182, 188, 765 P2d 1333 (1989) (motions to vacate under CR 60(b)(5) are not barred by the ‘reasonable time’ or the 1-year requirement of CR 60(b)”); Mid-City Materials, Inc. v. Heater Beaters Custom Fireplaces, 36 Wash.App. 480, 486, 674 P2d 1271 (1984); Matter of Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wash.2d 612, 618-19, 772 P2d 1013 (1989)(doctrine of laches does not bar attack of void judgment)(citing John Hancock Mut. Life. ins. Co. v. Gooley, 196 Wash. 357, 370, 83 P2d 221 (1938)(additional cite omitted); In re Marriage of Oritz, 108 Wash2d 643, 649, 740 P2d 843 (1987); Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 7, 448 P2d 490 (1968); Bresolin v. Morris, 86 Wash2d 24, 245, 543 P2d 325 (1975); Cockerham v. Zikratch, 619 P2d 739 (Ariz.1980); State ex rel Turner v. Briggs, 971 P2d 581 (Wash.App.1999); Ward v. Terriere, 386 P2d 352 (Colo. 1963); Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P2d 58 (Kan.1997); Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P2d 653 (Kan.1994); In re Estate of Wells, 983 P2d 279 (Kan.App.1999); B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat’l. Bank & Trust, 903 P2d 339 (Okla.App.Div.3 1995); Graff v. Kelly, 814 P2d 489 (Okl.1991); Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewly, 795 P2d 1051 (Okl.1990); Wahl v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P2d 1116, cert.den., 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 US 926, 3 L.Ed.2d 629 (Colo.1958); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); Lange v. Johnson, 204 NW2d 205 (Minn.1973); People v. Wade, 506 N.W2d 954 (Ill.1987); State v. Blankenship, 675 NE2d 1303 (Oh.App.Dist.9 1996); Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 NE2d 1383 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1983); People v. Rolland, 581 NE2d 907 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Eckles v. McNeal, 628 NE2d 741 (Ill.App.1993); People v. Sales, 551 NE2d 1359 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1990); In re Adoption of E.L., 733 NE2d 846 (Ill.App.Dist.1 2000); Irving v. Rodriguez, 179 NE2d 145 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1960); People ex rel Brzica v. Village of lake Barrington, 644 NE2d 66 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1994); Steinfeld v. Haddock, 513 US 809 (Ill.1994); Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 NE2d 458 (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Rook v. Rook, 353 SE2d 756 (Va.1987); Mills v. Richardson, 81 SE2d 409 (N.C.1950); Henderson v. Henderson, 59 SE2d 227 (N.C.1950); State v. Richie, 20 SW3d 624 (Tenn.2000); Crockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 SW2d 154 (Mo.App.1964); State ex rel Dawson v. Bomar, 354 SW2d 763, cert.den., ____ US _____ (Tenn.1962); Underwood. v. Brown, 244 SW2d 168 (Tenn.1951); Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 SW2d 577 (Tenn.App.1950); City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 SW2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App.1973); Federal cases: Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D.Virg.Is.1985); Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Millikan v. Meyer, 311 US 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1940); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA7 1999). 3 See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 NE2d 1152 (Ind.1998); Thompson v. Thompson, 238 SW2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951); Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 NE2d 1114, rehng.den., trans.den, (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); In re Marriage of Parks, 630 NE2d 509 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No.27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R.Fed. 298 (CA1 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D.Fla.1980); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, recon.den., 149 F.R.D. 147, aff’d, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D.Ill.1992); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P2d 319 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1951). 4 See In re Marriage of Markowski, 50 Wash.App. 633, 635, 749 P2d 745 (1988); Brickum Inv. Co. v. Vernham Corp., 46 Wash.App. 517, 520, 731 P2d 533 (1987); Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994). 5 See Mitchell v. Kitsap County, 59 Wash.App. 177, 180-81, 797 P2d 516 (1990)(collateral challenge to jurisdiction of pro tem judge granting summary judgment properly raised on appeal)(citing Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Ruth, 57 Wash.App. 783, 790, 790 P2d 206 (1990)); Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1994). 6 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Monroe v. Niven, 221 NC 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. 7 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 NC 607, 107 S.E.2d 302. 8 As to persons and agencies bound by due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 742, 821-824. 9 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 78 S.Ct. 1228, reh den 358 US 858, 3 L.Ed.2d 92, 79 S.Ct. 10; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa 487, 148 A 699, 68 ALR 1172. 10 See Royal Indem. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 209 Ga 383, 73 S.E.2d 205; Spencer v. Franks, 173 Md 73, 195 A 306, 114 ALR 263; Road Material & Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss 611, 91 So.2d 554, motion dismd 229 Miss 630, 92 So.2d 245; Howle v. Twin States Express, Inc., 237 NC 667, 75 S.E.2d 732; Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 192 Okla 248, 135 P.2d 340; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 ALR 966; Reburg v. Lang, 239 Wis 381, 1 N.W.2d 759. The courts of a state may render only such judgments as they are authorized to do under the laws of the state. Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo 225, 281 SW 762, 45 ALR 1223. 11 See People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke, 72 Colo 486, 212 P. 837, 30 ALR 1085; People v. Wade, 116 Ill 2d 1, 107 Ill Dec 63, 506 N.E.2d 954; Gray v. Clement, 296 Mo 497, 246 SW 940; Ex parte Solberg, 52 ND 518, 203 NW 898; Russell v. Fourth Nat’l Bank (Ohio) 102 Ohio St 248, 131 NE 726; Hough v. Hough (Okla) 772 P.2d 920; Farmers’ Nat’l Bank v. Daggett (Tex Com App) 2 S.W.2d 834; State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658; Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 117 Wis 2d 223, 344 N.W.2d 115. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@comcast.net Date: ____________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT was mailed certified, return receipt requested to Phyllis A Dow, 201 3rd ST NW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Friday May 18, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ |
|
Wednesday May 16, 2007 16:21 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#hoses  Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8759 4944 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 11:16 AM on May 21, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87102.  |
|
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Hoses, Michael H MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION 1 COMES NOW complainant William H Payne to seek vacation of dismissal of criminal complaint against Michael H Hoses by former judge Charles R Barnhart for lack of jurisdiction. 2 Barnhart dismissed criminal complaint
against Hoses with 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. The passage of time does nothing to validate a void or voidable judgment. 4 Bernalillo Metropolitan court rules for processing a criminal complaint state 1. The arraignment is the proceeding at which the defendant is brought before the judge after arrest or in response to a criminal summons in order to enter a plea to the charge(s).Barnhart did not follow these procedures in CR 12311-03. 5 The Court had subject matter jurisdiction but Barnhart [1] violated Metropolitan Court judicial rules by denying due arraignment process by dismissing criminal complaint prior to arraignment, [2] lacked the inherent power to enter the premanture faulty judgment "Dismissal w/o prej Does not state claim of "harassment" under NM 2 law. Federal officials acting in their jobs are exempt." which should have gone to a jury had Hoses pleaded "not guilty" and [3] entered an order which violated Metropolitan Court due arraignment process. 6 Bernalillo Metropolitan court rules state If the court grants relief from judgment because the judgment is void, the judge writes "void" on the court's copy of the judgment and also enters the reason, the date, and his or her signature. 7 Judge writes "void" on Barnhart's dismissal seen in section 2 of this motion. 8 Court sends copy of "void" written on Barnhart's judgment to complainant Payne via email at bpayne37@comcast.net. 9 Court schedules proper arraignment of defendant Hoses within 30 day of void judgment entry. 10 Court sends copy of arraignment notice of defendant Hoses to complainant Payne via email at bpayne37@comcast.net with 10 working days of scheduled arraignment. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT was mailed certified, return receipt requested to Michael H Hoses, 201 3rd ST NW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Friday May 18, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ |
|
Wednesday May 16, 2007 12:52 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#hosesmandatory |
|
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Hoses, Michael H 1 COMES NOW, complainant William H Payne to place this court on mandatory judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgment in CR 12311-03. 2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements: (1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties; If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3 5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5 6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7 8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9 9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11 1 See Peduto v. North Wildwood (DC NJ) 696 F Supp 1004, affd (CA3 NJ) 878 F.2d 725; In re Doe (NM App) 99 NM 517, 660 P.2d 607; Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 284 Pa Super 220, 425 A.2d 782. 2 See U.S.Const.Amdt. V; F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); CR 60(b)(5); State cases: Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 596, 794 P2d 526 (1990), rev.den., 116 Wash.2d 1009, 805 P2d 813 (1991); Brenner v. Port of Bellingham, 53 Wash.App. 182, 188, 765 P2d 1333 (1989) (motions to vacate under CR 60(b)(5) are not barred by the ‘reasonable time’ or the 1-year requirement of CR 60(b)”); Mid-City Materials, Inc. v. Heater Beaters Custom Fireplaces, 36 Wash.App. 480, 486, 674 P2d 1271 (1984); Matter of Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wash.2d 612, 618-19, 772 P2d 1013 (1989)(doctrine of laches does not bar attack of void judgment)(citing John Hancock Mut. Life. ins. Co. v. Gooley, 196 Wash. 357, 370, 83 P2d 221 (1938)(additional cite omitted); In re Marriage of Oritz, 108 Wash2d 643, 649, 740 P2d 843 (1987); Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 7, 448 P2d 490 (1968); Bresolin v. Morris, 86 Wash2d 24, 245, 543 P2d 325 (1975); Cockerham v. Zikratch, 619 P2d 739 (Ariz.1980); State ex rel Turner v. Briggs, 971 P2d 581 (Wash.App.1999); Ward v. Terriere, 386 P2d 352 (Colo. 1963); Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P2d 58 (Kan.1997); Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P2d 653 (Kan.1994); In re Estate of Wells, 983 P2d 279 (Kan.App.1999); B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat’l. Bank & Trust, 903 P2d 339 (Okla.App.Div.3 1995); Graff v. Kelly, 814 P2d 489 (Okl.1991); Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewly, 795 P2d 1051 (Okl.1990); Wahl v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P2d 1116, cert.den., 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 US 926, 3 L.Ed.2d 629 (Colo.1958); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); Lange v. Johnson, 204 NW2d 205 (Minn.1973); People v. Wade, 506 N.W2d 954 (Ill.1987); State v. Blankenship, 675 NE2d 1303 (Oh.App.Dist.9 1996); Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 NE2d 1383 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1983); People v. Rolland, 581 NE2d 907 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Eckles v. McNeal, 628 NE2d 741 (Ill.App.1993); People v. Sales, 551 NE2d 1359 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1990); In re Adoption of E.L., 733 NE2d 846 (Ill.App.Dist.1 2000); Irving v. Rodriguez, 179 NE2d 145 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1960); People ex rel Brzica v. Village of lake Barrington, 644 NE2d 66 (Ill.App.Dist.2 1994); Steinfeld v. Haddock, 513 US 809 (Ill.1994); Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 NE2d 458 (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Rook v. Rook, 353 SE2d 756 (Va.1987); Mills v. Richardson, 81 SE2d 409 (N.C.1950); Henderson v. Henderson, 59 SE2d 227 (N.C.1950); State v. Richie, 20 SW3d 624 (Tenn.2000); Crockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 SW2d 154 (Mo.App.1964); State ex rel Dawson v. Bomar, 354 SW2d 763, cert.den., ____ US _____ (Tenn.1962); Underwood. v. Brown, 244 SW2d 168 (Tenn.1951); Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 SW2d 577 (Tenn.App.1950); City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 SW2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App.1973); Federal cases: Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D.Virg.Is.1985); Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Millikan v. Meyer, 311 US 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1940); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA7 1999). 3 See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 NE2d 1152 (Ind.1998); Thompson v. Thompson, 238 SW2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951); Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 NE2d 1114, rehng.den., trans.den, (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); In re Marriage of Parks, 630 NE2d 509 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No.27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R.Fed. 298 (CA1 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D.Fla.1980); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, recon.den., 149 F.R.D. 147, aff’d, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D.Ill.1992); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P2d 319 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1951). 4 See In re Marriage of Markowski, 50 Wash.App. 633, 635, 749 P2d 745 (1988); Brickum Inv. Co. v. Vernham Corp., 46 Wash.App. 517, 520, 731 P2d 533 (1987); Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994). 5 See Mitchell v. Kitsap County, 59 Wash.App. 177, 180-81, 797 P2d 516 (1990)(collateral challenge to jurisdiction of pro tem judge granting summary judgment properly raised on appeal)(citing Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Ruth, 57 Wash.App. 783, 790, 790 P2d 206 (1990)); Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1994). 6 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Monroe v. Niven, 221 NC 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. 7 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 NC 607, 107 S.E.2d 302. 8 As to persons and agencies bound by due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 742, 821-824. 9 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 78 S.Ct. 1228, reh den 358 US 858, 3 L.Ed.2d 92, 79 S.Ct. 10; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa 487, 148 A 699, 68 ALR 1172. 10 See Royal Indem. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 209 Ga 383, 73 S.E.2d 205; Spencer v. Franks, 173 Md 73, 195 A 306, 114 ALR 263; Road Material & Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss 611, 91 So.2d 554, motion dismd 229 Miss 630, 92 So.2d 245; Howle v. Twin States Express, Inc., 237 NC 667, 75 S.E.2d 732; Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 192 Okla 248, 135 P.2d 340; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 ALR 966; Reburg v. Lang, 239 Wis 381, 1 N.W.2d 759. The courts of a state may render only such judgments as they are authorized to do under the laws of the state. Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo 225, 281 SW 762, 45 ALR 1223. 11 See People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke, 72 Colo 486, 212 P. 837, 30 ALR 1085; People v. Wade, 116 Ill 2d 1, 107 Ill Dec 63, 506 N.E.2d 954; Gray v. Clement, 296 Mo 497, 246 SW 940; Ex parte Solberg, 52 ND 518, 203 NW 898; Russell v. Fourth Nat’l Bank (Ohio) 102 Ohio St 248, 131 NE 726; Hough v. Hough (Okla) 772 P.2d 920; Farmers’ Nat’l Bank v. Daggett (Tex Com App) 2 S.W.2d 834; State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658; Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 117 Wis 2d 223, 344 N.W.2d 115. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@comcast.net Date: ____________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT was mailed certified, return receipt requested to Michael H Hoses, 201 3rd ST NW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Friday May 18, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ |
|
Wednesday May 16, 2007 12:00 |
Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court homepage Magistrate and Metro Court Benchbook Stay tuned for some real fun.
At Metro court level we don't do all defendants at once. We do assistant US attorneys Dow and Hoses first. Crooked and incompetent former judge Charles Barnhart dismissed criminal complaints against Dow and Hoses without holding arraignments. Then we go after defendants New Mexico federal judge James A[moco] Parker, Wyomining chief judge William F [queeg balls] Downs, and lawyer Robert St John. Providing we don't settle, of course. Settlement is the name of the game. 3-307. 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. All motions shall state with particularity the grounds and the relief sought. B. Requirement of written motion. All motions, except motions made during a pretrial conference or trial, or as may be permitted by the court, shall be in writing. A copy of every written motion shall be served on each party or the party's attorney as provided by Rule 3-203 NMRA. A motion for relief filed more than ninety (90) days after entry of the judgment shall be served on the opposing party in the manner provided by Rule 3-202 NMRA for service of a summons. C. Unopposed motions. If both parties are represented by attorneys, prior to filing a written motion, the moving party shall determine whether or not a motion will be opposed. If the motion will not be opposed, an order approved by opposing counsel shall accompany the motion. D. Opposed motions. A motion filed by an attorney in a case in which the opposing party is represented by an attorney shall recite that concurrence of opposing counsel was requested or shall specify why no such request was made. The movant shall not assume that the nature of the motion obviates the need for concurrence from opposing counsel unless the motion is a: (1) motion to dismiss; (2) motion for new trial; (3) motion for judgment on the pleadings. E. Notice and hearing. No written motion shall be considered by the court unless served on each party or the party's attorney as required by these rules. Be very careful about service!
(3) Service may be made by mail or commercial courier service provided that the envelope is addressed to the named defendant and further provided that the defendant or a person authorized by appointment, by law or by this rule to accept service of process upon the defendant signs a receipt for the envelope or package containing the summons and complaint, writ or other process. Service by mail or commercial courier service shall be complete on the date the receipt is signed as provided by this subparagraph. For purposes of this rule "signs" includes the electronic representation of a signature. F. Process; personal service upon an individual. Personal service of process shall be made upon an individual by delivering a copy of a summons and complaint or other process: (1) (a) to the individual personally; or if the individual refuses to accept service, by leaving the process at the location where the individual has been found; and if the individual refuses to receive such copies or permit them to be left, such action shall constitute valid service; or (b) by mail or commercial courier service as provided in Subparagraph (3) of Paragraph E of this rule. (2) If, after the plaintiff attempts service of process by either of the methods of service provided by Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, the defendant has not signed for or accepted service, service may be made by delivering a copy of the process to some person residing at the usual place of abode of the defendant who is over the age of fifteen (15) years and mailing by first class mail to the defendant at the defendant's last known mailing address a copy of the process; or The arraignment is the proceeding at which the defendant is
brought before the judge after arrest or in response to a criminal summons in
order to enter a plea to the charge(s). At the arraignment, the judge a. informs the defendant of the charges; b. informs the defendant of the penalty provided by law for the offense(s) charged; c. informs the defendant of his or her rights; d. receives a plea to the charges; e. sets bond and or bail; and f. sets or reviews conditions of release. I. Relief from Judgment: Void Judgment 1. After judgment has been entered, the judge may relieve the party or the party's legal representative from the judgment by declaring the judgment void. Magis. Ct. R. 2-703; Metro. Ct. R. 3-704. The judgment may be declared void if it is determined that: a. the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter; b. although a default judgment was entered, there was failure to make proper service of process upon the opposing party; c. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party occurred in procuring the judgment. Magis. Ct. R. 2-703; Metro. Ct. R. 3-704. i. Relief from judgment on any of the grounds listed in paragraph 1(c) is granted only upon motion of a party and only insofar as necessary to achieve a just result. 2. The party seeking relief from judgment must make
application to the court by filing a written motion; a copy of the motion must
be served on the opposing party as is provided for service of pleadings and
other papers. Magis. Ct. R. 2-203; Metro. Ct. R. 3-203. |
This is posted at usps.com on Wednesday May 23, 2007 Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8761 7544 Status: Acceptance Your item was accepted at 8:24 AM on May 18, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.  Friday May 18, 2007 Certified, return receipt requested Clerk Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court 401 Lomas NW P.O. Box 133 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Dear Clerk: Enclosed is an original and two copies of MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT for criminal complaint CR 12310-03 and CR 12311-03. I enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope. Please return a file-stamped copies to me for both cases. Sincerely William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@comcast.net |
Wednesday May 16, 2007 16:59
Morales fixed-up 5 in the MOTION TO VACATE. Another example of why you don't want to work alone in pro se litigation. Team efforts work lots better.
Whoops. "5 The Court ..."
John Sobolewski's [scroll down] advice.
In a
criminal arraignment you automatically get a jury trial if you plead "not
guilty." So a crooked judge, like Barnhart, can't dismiss a complaint for his
or her buddies [fellow lawyers here].
See how much more powerful Payne's [and Morales' - he's hidden here]
misdemeanor criminal complaint is than a tort or breach of contract claim
is!
Next on our legal project agenda is to deal with some other likely New Mexico-educated lawyers.
Tuesday May 22, 2007 12:50
Lawyer came up with the term Bugs Bunny law. Let's investigate.
Daniel Ivey-Soto of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Rules Committee committee gave Morales
which we used for criminal harassment.
Let's all hope for peaceful settlement before matter get far worse.
| ----- Original Message ----- From: bill payne To: biderman@unm.edu ; plams@unm.edu ; bgillia@unm.edu Cc: art morales ; jblair@metrocourt.state.nm.us ; martinchavez@cabq.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:20 PM Subject: We are concerned that there are two serious constitutional errors in the benchbook Please send an ack if you get this. Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8762 2593 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 6:59 AM on May 24, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125. |
| Wednesday May 23, 2007 08:15 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metrovoid/metrovoid.htm#biderman Certified, return receipt requested and email Paul Biderman, Director 505-277-8789 biderman@unm.edu Pam Lambert, Senior Attorney 505-277-1052 plams@unm.edu Beth Gillia, Staff Attorney, 505-277-0710 bgillia@unm.edu Dear Benchbook preparation participants: We read The Judicial Education Center welcomes your suggestions for improvement of the Benchbook. We are concerned that there are two serious constitutional errors in the benchbook at 1.3-1 Judgments, I. Relief from Judgment. First error is at 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) which states ii. A motion based upon these grounds shall be filed not more than one (1) year after the judgment, order or proceeding was taken. This means that if a motion was not filed with in one year
than a void judgment would become valid. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 See foonotes in MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGEMENT used to support MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION for rearraignment of assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow on a prima facie charge of criminal harassment. Second error is at 1.3-1 (I)(5) which states An order granting or denying relief from a final judgment may be appealed to the district court in the same manner as other appeals from final judgments are taken. You may not know When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 Therefore no appeal from a void judgment is required. If in fact a judge would deny a valid vacate motion, then that ruling would, too, be void. We ask that 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) be deleted from the Benchbook within 20 working days. In event these two paragraphs are not deleted within 20 day, then we ask 1 who authored 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) and on
what date, Inclusion of errors seen in 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) creates the appearance of willful misconduct by some of the Benchbook preparation participants designed to obstruct proper arraignment of alleged criminals in Metropolitan court. For example, proper arraignment of judges James A Parket and William F Downes and lawyer Robert St John on criminal harassment charges. Errors seen in 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) do not apply to dismissal of criminal harassment charges against US attorneys Phyllis A Dow and Michael H Hoses so MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION has been docketed to void judgment by former Metropolitan judge Charles R Barnhart.We ask that 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) be deleted from the Benchbook. We ask for a written certified report identifying those invovled in writing and approving 1.3-1 (I)(1)(c)(ii) and 1.3-1 (I)(5) in the Benchbook. What action is taken to those involved? We ask for your response within 20 working days of your receipt of our certified return receipt requested letter. Sincerely Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne |
Next on our legal project agenda is to deal with some other likely New Mexico-educated lawyers.
Let's try to point out the errors to the proper
authorities people:
| The Judicial Education Center
welcomes your suggestions for improvement of the Benchbook.
Please submit your comments to Paul Biderman, Director, 505-277-8789 or biderman@unm.edu; Pam Lambert, Senior Attorney, 505-277-1052 or plams@unm.edu; or Beth Gillia, Staff Attorney, 505-277-0710 or bgillia@unm.edu. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Rules Committee (As of May 31, 2005) Hon. Sharon D. Walton, Chair Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Hon. George Anaya, Jr. Santa Fe County Magistrate Court Steven L. McConnell Raton Thomas DeMartino Albuquerque Claud Eugene Vance Albuquerque Karen S. Janes Administrative Office of the Courts Eric W. Schuler Albuquerque Daniel A. Ivy-Soto Albuquerque Jessica A. Perez Board of Bar Commissioners Liaison Copyright ©1997-2007 Institute of Public Law Judicial Education Center MSC11 6060 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 505-277-5006 |
