Morales denied right to DEMAND jury trial
by New Mexico federal judge LeRoy Hansen

First posted
Saturday June 2, 2007 07:42
Updated
Thursday Deember 13, 2007 17:26

Thursday December 13, 2007 15:50

Time to trot out the NSA/Nojeh [Shirin Neshat name] complete with background music?

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#neshat



Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

Douglas E. Cressler
Chief Deputy Clerk

November 9, 2007

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St. SE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108

re: Morales v. Lockheed Martin, Case No. 00-2029

Dear Mr. Morales:

On November 8, 2007, we received some documents from you that relate to the above-referenced appeal. As we explained to you in our letter of September 18, 2007, that case is long over. We therefore cannot accept your "Motion to Vacate Judgments For Lack of Jurisdiction" for filing. The rule you cite as authority for filing the motion - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) - has no application to circuit courts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ('These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts . . .). No action will be taken on the documents you tendered. We regret we cannot be of greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas E. Cressler
Chief Deputy Clerk











Wednesday November 21, 2007 09:01

Hanson and other judges apparently do not grasp the meanings of
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 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.

Thus Hansen ignores:
An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process of law.
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#hansenvoidruling










IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARTHUR R. MORALES,

Plaintiff,

-vs- No. CIV 97-0350 LH/DJS

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, BOBBIE V. WILLIAMS,
ANTHONY L. THORNTON, CHARLES E.
EMERY, C. PAUL ROBINSON, and EDWARD D.
GRAHAM,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Void Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 163), filed June 6, 2007. The Court, having reviewed the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, and otherwise being fally advised, fmds that Plaintiffs Motion is not well taken and will be denied.

Plaintiff pro se moves for relief from the Final Judgment in favor of Defendant Sandia Corporation (Docket No. 158), entered December 29, 1999, He contends that under the Seventh

Amendment to the United States Constitution" and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38,2 the Court lacked jurisdiction to deny his demand for a jury trial, making the Final Judgment void and entitling him to relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).3 Pro se pleadings must be liberally interpreted, Homes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but the Court should not "assume the role of advocate," Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 5121 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).

Plaintiffs argument is utterly without merit. In the first place, the Court made no error, constitutional or otherwise, in denying Plaintiff a jury trial. See, e.g., Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d 408, 409 (10th Cir. 1992)(per curium)(district court does not abuse its

1 "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. VII.

2 Rule 38, Jury Trial of Right, provides in relevant part:

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by (1) serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue, and (2) filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d). Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.
...

(d) Waiver. The failure of a party to serve and file a demand as required by this rule constitutes a v'aiver by the party of trial by jury....

FED. R. Civ. P. 38 (emphasis added).

3 Rule 60, Relief From Judgment or Order, provides in pertinent part:

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a fmal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (4) the judgment is void .... The motion shall be made within a reasonable time .... A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.


FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b).


discretion by denying Rule 39(b)4 motion when "failure to make a timely jury demand results from nothing more than the mere inadvertence of the moving party"); Dill v. City ofEdmond, 155 F.3d 1193, 1208 (10th Cir. 1983). Indeed, this very issue has been considered and this Court's ruling | affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Morales v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 00- 2029, Order and Judgment at 2 (Nov. 13,2000)( "[T]he district court acted well within its discretion j l: in denying Mr. Morales' untimely request for a jury trial."). |

Thus, the Court's early ruling was not in error and the Court's Final Judgment was not and f is not void.5 Furthermore, the Court is precluded from reconsideration of this issue pursuant to the mandate rule.6

WHEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Void Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 163), filed June 6, 2007, is DENIED.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Rule 39, Trial by Jury or by the Court, provides in pertinent part that "notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b)(emphasis added).

5 A judgment is void under Rule 60(b) "only ifthe court which rendered it lacked jurisdiction ofthe subject matter, or ofthe parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1344 (10th Cir. 2002)(quoting In re Four Seasons Sec. Laws Litig., 502 F.2d 834, 842 (10th Cir. 1974)).

6 See, e.g., Georgacarakos v. United States,211 Fed. App'x 730,732 (10th Cir. 2007)(" Because our opinion and mandate covered the arguments the appellant made in his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court was bound by the mandate rule and had no authority to re-examine its final decision. See Procter & Gamble [v. Haugen}, 317 F.3d [1121,] 1126 [10th Cir. '1003}; Huffman [v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P'ship},


262 F.3d [1211,] 1132-33 [10th Cir. 2001].").

Tuesday November 5, 2009 13:54

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#cressler

Email and certified return receipt requested mail

Douglas E. Cressler
Chief Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Office of the Clerk
Byron White United States Courthouse
Denver, Colorado 80257

Re:    Case No. 00-2029

Dear Mr Cressler:

On September 13, 2007 your office received a motion to vacate judgment for lack of jurisdiction to be filed at the Tenth Circuit pertaining to the case referenced above.


One of your clerks, Elisabeth A Shumaker, returned my motion unrecorded.


Ms Shumaker referenced the motion as an appeal which is in error. The motion is to vacate judgment for lack of jurisdiction citing my right to do so under rule Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4). And guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

I suggest that your review the returned enclose motion for filing and seek legal counsel as needed to validate my right to file this motion.

I would appreciate your response and the filing of this motion as soon as possible.


Respectfully submitted


Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108



Let's write Ms Shumaker a letter.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#schumaker









Tuesday September 11, 2007 14:11

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

Tuesday September 11, 2007 14:07

Clerk
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, CO 80257

Dear Clerk:

Enclosed is a single copy of MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and ORDER VACATING JUDGE C. LeRoy HANSEN 12/29/1999 JUDGMENT AND VACATING JUDGES BALDOCK, KELLY, AND HENRY AFFIRMATION for docketing.

Please either return a file stamped copy of the first page or post our filings on PACER.

Lil at (303) 844-3157 informed us that only a single copy of our motion is required but that our motion must be efiled at esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov.

Lil also told us about "New E-submission rules were approved by the court effective September 4, 2007."

Sincerely,


Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Wednesday September 12, 2007 06:33

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#350voidmotion

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/tenth350/motionjpg/motion.pdf

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR R. MORALES                                                        )                                                                                                    )
Plaintiff - Appellant                                                                   )                                                                                                    )
v.                                                                                                ) Case No. 00-2029
                                                                                                   )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al.                                                 )
Defendants - Appelees                                                            ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Plaintiff - Appellant sued the Lockheed Martin Corporation under the ADEA and Job Discrimination and retaliation (employment) New Mexico district federal lawsuits D.C. No. CIV-97-350-LH on FILE DATE 03/17/1997, ENTERED ON DOCKEY entry #1 on 03/18/1997.

03/17/1997 1 COMPLAINT ( 6 Summons(es) issued) (referred to Magistrate Don J. Svet ) (former employee) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
II. BASIS OF MOTION

2 Docket entry 03/17/1997 shows that plaintiff paid filing fee of $150 on 03/18/97.

03/17/1997 FILING FEE PAID: on 3/17/97 in the amount of $150.00, receipt #: 105286. (former employee) (Entered: 03/18/1997)

3 Docket entry 25 shows JURY DEMAND filed on 06/19/1993 and docketed on 06/16/1997.

06/13/1997 25 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf (kd) (Entered: 06/16/1997)

3 Docket entry 46 shows Judge C. LeRoy Hansen ORDER denying the jury demand.

01/06/1998 46 ORDER by Judge C. LeRoy Hansen denying jury demand [25-1] by Arthur R Morales (cc: all counsel) (dmw) (Entered: 01/06/1998)

4 Docket entry 158 shows Judge C. LeRoy Hansen dismissing lawsuit without DEMANDED jury trial.

12/29/1999 158 JUDGMENT by Judge C. LeRoy Hansen dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 12/30/1999)

5 Docket entry 161 show notice of appeal filed

01/24/2000 161 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Arthur R Morales from Dist. Court decision [158-2] ; Fees $105.00 - Distribution as required. (cc: all counsel) (pg) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

6 Docket entry 162

11/16/2000 162 COPY of USCA Order: affirming the decision of the District Court [161-1] (pg) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

and http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/00-2029.htm

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges BALDOCK, KELLY, and HENRY affirm Hansen's

voidable 12/29/1999 158 JUDGMENT.

"The court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment."

III. ISSUES

7 Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties.

The court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

8 Docket entries show that Hansen was blatantly bias and unjust and should be held accountable for his actions, which included denying Plaintiff - Appellant's opening statement and unwarranted sanctions for $2,160.85.

IV RELIEF SOUGHT

7 Return filed stamped copy of this Motion with 10 working days.

8 Sign attached ORDER rescinding Hansen's order/judgment Docket entry 158 and rescind BALDOCK, KELLY, and HENRY's ORDER AND JUDGMENT Case No. 00-2029 for lack of jurisiction to deny constitutional right of trial by jury inviolate which also orders settlement or trial by jury within 90 days of entry.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION was mailed to C. LeRoy Hansen, United States District Court, 333 Lomas Blvd. N.W., Ste 740, Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 and by email at Hansen's Chambers@nmcourt.fed.us, Kennedy, Moulton and Wells at 2201 San Pedro NE, Bldg 2, Suite 105 Albuquerque NM 87110.

___________________

___________________
Date




http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#350voidnotice

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/tenth350/noticejpg/notice.pdf
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR R. MORALES                                                        )                                                                                                    )
Plaintiff - Appellant                                                                   )                                                                                                    )
v.                                                                                                ) Case No. 00-2029
                                                                                                   )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al.                                                 )
Defendants - Appelees                                                             ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES FOR VOID JUDGMENT

1 COMES NOW, pro se plaintiff Morales to place this court on judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgment in Case No. 00 2029 and CIV-97-350-LH.

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

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

10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. 12

11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion. 13

12 An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice 14 is one of the essential elements of due process of law. 15

13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 16 that is, where proper rules of practice have not been followed, or where some necessary act has been omitted or has been done in an improper manner.17

14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.18

15 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, 19 lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, 20 or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.21

16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, 22 and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 23

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); 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 Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994).

5 See 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.

12 See Sanchez v. Hester, 911 SW2d 173 (Tex.App.1995).

13 See Allcock v. Allcock, 437 NE2d 392 (Ill.App.Dist.3 1982).

14 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17.

15 As to the opportunity to be heard as a requisite of due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 839 et seq.

16 See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841.

17 See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386.

18 See McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. (CA9 Ariz) 80 F.2d 344; State ex rel. Yohe v. District Court, 33 Wyo 281, 238 P. 545.

19 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 26, 27.

20 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 25.

21 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 17, 18.

22 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630.

23 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Moore v. Smith, 177 Va 621, 15 S.E.2d 48; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION was mailed to C LeRoy Hansen, United States District Court, 333 Lomas Blvd. N.W., Ste 740, Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 and by email at Hansen'sChambers@nmcourt.fed.us, and to Kennedy, Moulton and Wells at 2201 San Pedro NE, Bldg 2, Suite 105 Albuquerque NM 87110 ___________________

___________________
Date

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR R. MORALES                                                             )                                                                                                       )
Plaintiff - Appellant                                                                        )                                                                                                      )
v.                                                                                                  ) Case No. 00-2029
                                                                                                     )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al.                              )
Defendants - Appelees                                         ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

ORDER VACATING JUDGE C. LeRoy HANSEN 12/29/1999 JUDGMENT AND VACATING JUDGES BALDOCK, KELLY, AND HENRY AFFIRMATION

1 Judge C. LeRoy Hansen's 12/29/1999 JUDGMENT, see Docket entry 158 show, is rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to deny paid for jury trial lawsuit.

Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

2 USCA affirmation, see docket docket entry 162, is rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to affirm denial of paid for jury trial lawsuit.

3 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges BALDOCK, KELLY, and HENRY ruling in No. 2029 is rescinded because these judges lack jurisdiction to affirm Hansen's voidable decision in CIV 97-350 LH/DJS which was rendered in violation of the constitutional limitations and guaranties. Right of trial by jury is guaranteed inviolate by the 7th Amendment to the US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

4 1: 97 cv 350 is to be settled or proceed to trial by jury within 90 days from entry of this order.

                                                                      _________________________
                                                                     Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge

FINAL
Saturday June 2, 2007 13:46

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#motion

Void judgment links page.


Judge C. LeRoy Hansen homepage.

Kennedy, Moulton and Wells

PACER docket

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARTHUR R. MORALES                           )
Plaintiff                                                         )
                                                                      )
v.                                                                   ) No. CIV- 97-350-LH/DJS
                                                                      )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al                     )
Defendants                                                   ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
                                                                            

MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff sued the Lockheed Martin Corporation under the ADEA and Job Discrimination (employment) on FILE DATE 03/17/1997, ENTERED ON DOCKET entry #1 on 03/18/1997.

Subject of the lawsuit is: Federal Question-Employment

II. BASIS OF MOTION

1 Docket entry 03/17/1997 shows that plaintiff paid filing fee of $150 on 03/18/97.

2 Docket entry 25 shows JURY DEMAND filed on 06/13/1997 and docketed on 06/16/1997.

3 Docket entry 46 shows Judge: C. LeRoy Hansen ORDER denying the jury demand.

4 Hansen lacked jurisdiction to deny jury demand.

"The court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment."

III. ISSUES

5 Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. Therefore Judge Hansen lacked jurisdiction to deny paid for jury trial lawsuit.

IV RELIEF SOUGHT

6 Return filed stamped copy of this Motion with 10 working days.

7 Sign attached ORDER rescinding order/judgment: [docket entry 46] which orders settlement or trial by jury within 90 days of entry.

Respectfully submitted,


_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

Pro se litigant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION was mailed to C. LeRoy Hansen, United States District Court, 333 Lomas Blvd. N.W., Ste 740, Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 and by email at Hansen's clhproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us, Kennedy, Moulton and Wells at 2201 San Pedro NE, Bldg 2, Suite 105 Albuquerque NM 87110 Suite 105 Albuquerque NM 87110 and at http://www.kmwpc.com/StaticForm.shtml.

___________________

___________________
Date



DRAFT
Saturday June 2, 2007 10:14

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#order

Void judgment links page.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARTHUR R. MORALES                           )
Plaintiff                                                         )
                                                                      )
v.                                                                   ) No. CIV- 97-350-LH/DJS
                                                                      )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al                     )
Defendants                                                   ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
                                                                            

ORDER VACATING JUDGE C. LeRoy HANSEN 01/ 06/98 ORDER/JUDGMENT

1 Judge C. LeRoy Hansen's 01/ 06/98 ORDER/JUDGMENT, [see docket entry 46] is rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to deny paid for jury trial lawsuit.

Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

2 USCA affirmation, docket entry 162,

11/16/2000 162 COPY of USCA Order: affirming the decision of the District Court [161-1] (pg) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

is rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to affirm denial of paid for jury trial lawsuit.

3 97 cv350 is to be settled or proceed to trial by jury within 90 days from entry of this order.


                                                                    _________________________
                                                                    United States District Judge

                                                                    _________________________
                                                                   Date



DRAFT
Saturday June 2, 2007 13:47

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/moralesvoid.htm#notice

Void judgment links page.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARTHUR R. MORALES                           )
Plaintiff                                                         )
                                                                      )
v.                                                                   ) No. CIV- 97-350-LH/DJS
                                                                      )
LOCKHEED MARTIN, et al                     )
Defendants                                                   ) Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
                                                                            


MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES FOR VOID JUDGMENT

1 COMES NOW, plaintiff Morales to place this court on judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgment in CIV- 97-350-LH/DJS.

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

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,


_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

Pro se litigant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION was mailed to C. LeRoy Hansen, United States District Court, 333 Lomas Blvd. N.W., Ste 740, Albuquerque New Mexico 87102 and by email at Hansen's clhproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us, Kennedy, Moulton and Wells at 2201 San Pedro NE, Bldg 2, Suite 105 Albuquerque NM 87110 and at http://www.kmwpc.com/StaticForm.shtml.

___________________

___________________
Date













Saturday June 2, 2007 11:49

Certified, return receipt requested

Clerk
United States District Court,
333 Lomas Blvd. N.W.
Albuquerque New Mexico 87102

Dear Clerk:

Enclosed are an original and two copies MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, ORDER VACATING JUDGE C. LeRoy HANSEN 01/ 06/98 ORDER/JUDGMENT and MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES FOR VOID JUDGMENT of a with a self addressed stamped envelope.

Please return a file stamped copies to me.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely

Arthur R Morales


Wednesday September 12, 2007 08:37

Be amused pro se fighters: tenth circuit judges TACHA, EBEL, BRISCOE, BALDOCK, KELLY, AND HENRY and likely Anderson and Broby violated their oath of office in writing.

Let's all hope for settlement before matters get far worse. Like our 9/11 motion to vacate filings.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

Electronic Submission of Documents and
Conversion to an Electronic Case
Management SystemNo. 95-01

GENERAL ORDER
FILED August 10, 2007

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Introduction
On September 4, 2007, the court will convert to a new electronic case management system. This order defines the requirements for filing pleadings in the new system. At this stage, the conversion will not include direct attorney internet filing. The clerk’s office will continue to docket pleadings. All counsel will be required, however, to submit all pleadings as attachments to emails to esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov. ....

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/downloads/generalorder-efile.pdf

html of remainder order

The only exceptions will be appendices (including those filed per 10th Circuit Rule 9.2(B)), supplemental appendices, and addenda filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(f). In counseled cases, exemptions to the requirements contained in this order will be allowed only upon motion and for good cause. Pro se parties who are able may also submit pleadings via e-mail. Those pleadings must meet technical requirements. In this order, all e-filers will be referred to as Digital Submitters.
General Requirements

All pleadings submitted pursuant to this Order must be filed in Portable Document Format (PDF or Acrobat format, sometimes referred to as Native PDF). Native PDF files are generated from original word processing files and are text searchable. Except as delineated in this order, PDF images created by scanning documents will not be accepted. Digital Submitters should be aware there is a 45 megabyte limit per email (including all text, attachments etc.).

Pleadings Filed

A. Briefs

Digital Submitters must furnish the full contents of briefs (from cover through conclusion) in digital form. Any attachment(s) to a brief available in digital form (native PDF) must be included with the brief in the same document (that is, if the attachments required under 10th Cir. R. 28.2 are in Native PDF they may be included with the brief in a single document and e-filed). Required attachments to briefs that are not available in Native PDF may be submitted in scanned PDF format. In that instance, however, the attachments should be forwarded as a single, separate PDF document. If some of the attachments are available in Native PDF and some are not, all the attachments should be scanned as one document and attached separately in the e-submission. If a brief has PDF attachments the cover page must so state. The cover must also state whether the attachments are included in Native PDF or scanned PDF. Within 2 business days of submitting the brief via e-filing, the Digital Submitter must also file an original and 7 hard copies of the brief with the clerk’s office. Briefs may contain hyperlinks to cases and authorities.

B. All other pleadings.

Digital Submitters must submit all other pleadings via email as well. This includes all preliminary pleadings and materials, motions, notices, petitions for rehearing, cost bills and submissions per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28j. The only materials which may not be submitted via email are appendices and addenda. Documents attached to pleadings that are not available in Native PDF may be submitted in scanned PDF format. Those materials should be included in the esubmission as a single separate attachment. If the only attachments are in Native PDF they may be emailed as a single document with the pleading. Within 2 business days of submitting a pleading under this section via e-filing, the Digital Submitter must also submit a single hard copy of the document to the clerk’s office unless the pleading is a Petition For Rehearing or Petition For Rehearing En Banc. With panel petitions, the Digital Submitter must follow up by filing an original and 3 hard copies with the clerk’s office within 2 business days. For en banc petitions, an original and 18 hard copies must be filed, also within 2 business days.

C. Appendices and Addenda

Unlike other pleadings, Digital Submitters must file these materials in hard copy format (only) per Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 10 and 30 and 10th Circuit Rules 10 and 30. The court will not accept appendix materials via esubmission (including appendices filed per 10th Cir. R. 9.2(B)). Filers must submit the original hard copy and one additional copy of these materials.

Privacy Protection and Redactions

In the interest of privacy, Digital Submitters must redact pleadings and briefs consistent with the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See http:/www.privacy.uscourts.gov/b4amend.htm. Required redactions include social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers (filers may disclose the last four digits of a social security or tax identification number), birth dates (use year of birth only), minors’ names (initials may be used), and financial-account numbers (except those identifying property allegedly subject to forfeiture in a forfeiture proceeding). It is the sole responsibility of the filer to redact pleadings appropriately. Social Security and Immigration Appeals Pursuant to the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference and applicable statutory provisions, remote electronic access to immigration and social security dockets must be restricted. In this regard, the Clerk is directed to restrict electronic public access in these cases to judges, court staff, and the parties and attorneys in the appeal or agency proceeding. The court will not restrict access to orders and opinions in these cases. Parties seeking to restrict access to Orders and Opinions must file a motion explaining why that relief is required in a given case.

Sealed Materials

Sealed documents shall be filed only in hard copy paper format. Digital Submitters must file a single hard copy of all sealed pleadings and materials with the Clerk, with the exception of briefs. Digital Submitters must file an original and 7 hard copies of briefs submitted under seal. Motions to submit materials under seal shall also be filed in hard copy format. A single hard copy of the motion must be filed. E-Submission of Materials

All pleadings and briefs filed pursuant to this Order must be furnished to the Clerk via e-mail to esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov The subject line of the email must include the case name and docket number (including, where appropriate, all case numbers in consolidated or cross appeals). Counsel and pro se parties must include a signature block on all email submissions which includes the attorney or pro se party’s name, address, telephone number and email address.

Digital Signatures and Certification

A. Digital Signatures

All submissions requiring an attorney or pro se party’s signature shall be signed in the following manner:

s/ Attorney or Pro Se Party
Street Address
Telephone Number
Email address

B. Certification of Digital Submissions In addition to the certificate of service required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Tenth Circuit Rules, all Digital Submitters must certify that:

(1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document filed with the Clerk, and;

(2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (naming the program, version, and the date of the most recent update) and, according to the program, are free of viruses.

C. Service Requirements

All Digital Submitters shall serve copies of the materials submitted to the court on all parties to the proceeding. Where email is available parties may serve pleadings and briefs through that method. All certificates of service must reflect that proper service was made and must delineate the method used. If a party receives an exemption from this order or is a pro se party who does not have email access, all service must be made via regular mail or commercial carrier. The court will serve parties exclusively via email where it has an email address for counsel or a pro se party. Where an email address is not available the court will serve counsel and pro se parties via regular mail. The Court invites comment on these procedures and also invites parties to contact the office of the Clerk with questions.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER
Clerk of Court