effect Jan. 1, is an attempt to cut Metro Court's 33 percent dismissal rate in DWI cases by addressing the problem of cases coming to trial without the witnesses being interviewed.

The rule says that a witness interview has not been conducted by the date of trial and the witness is in the court or immediately available, that court shall order the interview to be conducted at that time and proceed to trial."

Barnhart contends that, when the interviews have not been completed, Nakamura -instead of ordering a hallway interview - suppresses officers' testimony and orders the case to trial. More often than not, he says, those cases are dismissed because prosecutors no longer have their key witness. Cade agrees, saying Nakamura at early court proceedings uses pretrial scheduling orders in effect, setting deadlines -for the interviews. If the deadlines aren't met and the interviews aren't finished, he said, she effectively dismisses the case by handcuffing prosecutors. "I believe (Nakamura) finds it more efficient to file the orders than follow the Supreme Court's rule," he said.

Nakamura said that prosecutors are always made aware of the deadlines. When they're not met, she said ~he is more inclined to take action such as suppressing officer testimony than to send everyone into the hallway for interviews.

"When I order them out into the hallway, it stops everything in my courtroom and, potentially, one of my colleague's courtrooms, too," she said. "The officer could be due in another, cou4room for another judge.1 Sending them all out into the hall is, quite frankly,' rude."

Nakamura said her practice' saves time and taxpayer money because cases don't go to trial unless everyone is ready. She said she does abide by the hallway rule "when it's appropriate."

"I have written scheduling orders in place with a deadline, but when the state does not ask for an extension - which I will grant - and simply decides to play by a different set of rules, then I need to make a decision... "Sometimes that decision is suppressing an officer's testimony."

Albuquerque Journal Wednesday November 15, 2006

Certified - return receipt requested and email

Judge Judith Nakamura
Bernalillo County Metropolitan
P.O. Box 133
401 Lomas, NW
Albuquerque NM 87103
(505) 841-8293

Dear Judge Nakamura:

1 William Payne was fired from his position of senior member of the technical staff at Sandia Labs in 1992.

Payne was also labeled a national security risk.

Sandia Department manager James Gosler, who was funded by the National Security Agency and Sandia lawyer Harold Folley appeared to be responsible for Payne's firing.

Payne sued Sandia labs for an ADEA violation using legal counsel Santa Fe lawyer Steve Aarons.

Sandia labs would not give Payne or Aarons any documents relating to his firing. And lawyer Folley wrote that no documents existed.

Gosler and Folley did however meet with presiding judge John Conway in camera. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm#gosler.

Conway dismissed Payne's ADEA lawsuit.

Arthur Morales and Manuel Garcia sued Sandia labs for class action races discrimination. This lawsuit forced Sandia labs to settle for much money.

However, Morales and Garcia were not a part of the class action settlement and sued Sandia separately using Albuquerque lawyer Kulokowski of the Keleher and McLeod law firm in pursuing their separate claims.

Garcia received money for this settlement.

Morales went to court and Judge Galvan dismissed Morales lawsuit.

Keleher and McLeod refused to appeal Morales' case to the Tenth circuit so Morales pursued appeal pro se.

Morales brief showed that Sandia lied on the stand and also pointed out errors and discrepancies but the Tenth circuit court dismissed the appeal because the court records were not submitted which Morales could not afford at that time.

Morales and Payne spent thousands of dollars on Aarons and Kulokowski without receiving remedies for financial damages suffered.

Strategy of using lawyers was not working.

Sandia labs then retaliated against Morales so Morales was forced to file another lawsuit against Sandia [pro se].

Judge Leroy Hansen presided over the trial and it was obvious from the beginning that Hansen was biased and prejudiced against Morales.

Hansen did not allow key and relevant evidence and witnesses for Morales' case.

Hansen did not allow Morales to make and opening statement.

Hansen ruled against Morales after half a day and never submitted or filed a document of Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law as required by Federal Judicial Procedure and Rules for bench trial cases.

Morales again appealed pro se to the Tenth circuit. This second appeal included the court report and numerous pages of appeal showing each instance of bias and prejudice as recorded in the court record.

Again the Tenth circuit denied the appeal.

At this point in time a FOIA request revealed Sandia labs and DOE had spent over $1,000,000 on lawyers defending against Morales' and Payne's lawuits.

Lawyers and even judges, we observed, would not follow rules or even the law if they knew that no one would know what they did and know they will not be held accountable.

Albuquerque Journal or Tribune would not report this type of lawyer or judicial misconduct even though Morales and Payne submitted several requested articles to the Albuquerque Tribune. None have been published to date.

Judicial systems create invisible victims of citizens.

So Morales and Payne teamed with others to remedy matters.

But this required visibility.

Payne was selected to receive text and audio documents in 1995 to receive documents sent from Mr Hans Buehler in Zurich. See http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm#buehlerlet

Buehler was arrested in Tehran for espionage and spent 9.5 months in the Evin prison. See http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm#buehlerpic

These text [http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm#docs] and audio [http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm#tape] documents were passed to the Baltimore Sun [http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm#sun]and others [http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm, http://biphome.spray.se/laszlob/cryptoag/buehler-tape.htm] to help enlighten the public about NSA projects.

Failure to find justice in our individual legal efforts caused Payne and Morales to unite to file a FOIA lawsuit against the NSA which Payne suspected, along with Gosler and Folley, was responsible for his firing.

Morales joined this lawsuit as an interested third party to see if the FOIA process worked as Congress intended.

See http://www.jya.com/nsasuit.txt or http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/nsasuit.txt

Department of Justice November 30, 2005 release of documents showing that DOJ lawyer David M. Glass was assigned to help NSA in Payne and Aarons ADEA lawsuit confirms Payne's suspicion. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm

We anticipated both lawyer and judicial system misconduct but this time this misconduct would be visible to the public and those who should be responsible for remedying judicial misconduct.

Our strategy worked.

1 Magistrate judge Don Svet garnished money from Morales' Sandia labs wages for $625 without due process. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm

Svet tried to intimidate Morales with order of garnishment for $1,793.56 with no cause of action. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm.

This second intimidation attempt happened after Morales was officially removed as party to this lawsuit.

During the course of the NSA lawsuit the documents Sandia lawyer claimed did not exist, actually surfaced at the Equal Employment Opportunities Office in Phoenix.

So first issue [A] is the false, defamatory, and libelous documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#cvpa which cause citizen Payne to be fired from Sandia labs and lose more than $1,000,000 of wages and benefits.

Release of these documents violate both criminal provision of the Privacy Act as well as New Mexico state libel laws.

Second issue [B] is to return of the $625 taken from Morales and Payne without due process and nullification of order of garnishment for $1,793.56 which is still on the record but false since there was not basis for this charge.

To effect remedy for B, Morales and Payne sued Svet and others for relief from replevin and harassment in New Mexico second judicial district.

To effect remedy for A, Payne sued those responsible for release of the false and defaming documents for relief from defamation [libel] and harassment in New Mexico second judicial district.

Both prima facie case lawsuits [all of the evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing]: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos, http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm, and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm] were paid for 12-person jury trial lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and federal constitutions.

See Morales and Payne receipt at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibita.htm and Payne receipt at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitc.htm.

2 Department of Justice New Mexico US attorneys Phyllis A Dow and Michael H Hoses illegally removed cases New Mexico 12 person jury trial cases cv 2001 5900 and cv 2001 6293 to federal court without federal question certification required by the US Supreme court.

3 Plaintiffs Morales and Payne clearly demonstrated that these cases involved defamation [libel], replevin and harassment which are clearly state issues, not federal issue.

Plaintiffs clearly documented this in their legal pleading which will all be referenced below.

4 New Mexico chief judge Parker and Wyoming chief judge Downes allowed and endorsed the illegal transfer of these cases [documented below].

5 After assessment, plaintiffs determined the appropriate legal path in pursuit of justice was established in Albuquerque Metro Court.

6 When plaintiffs brought criminal harassment legal action against these defendant judges brought in Robert M St John as their legal counsel.

As a result criminal harassment complaints were issued by Metro court and arraignments scheduled.

7 Metro court judges Jaramillo and Shepherd held proper arraignment for St John, Downes and Parker respectively but assistant DA Pete Ross intervened with perjured [documented below] NOLLE PROSEQUI for defendants Downes [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibits.htm], Parker [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitt.htm], and St John [See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metropayne/metropayne.htm#stjohn].

Complaint and affidavit [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitw.htm] that Rosss committed perjury [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nmcriminal/nmcriminal.htm#perjury] submitted to judges Shepherd and Jarmillo did not cause rearraignment.

8 Metro court judge Barnhart demonstrated his arrogance through his illegal act of dismissing the cases against accused criminal Dow [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metropayne/metropayne.htm#barnhart1] and Hoses [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/metropayne/metropayne.htm#barnhart2] prior to arraignment in violation of New Mexico judicial rules. As you know these type of actions got Barnhart removed from the bench.

Barnhart violated Metro court rule 3-305. Dismissal of actions and his oath of office in writing.

Here's the evidence of criminal guilt of Dow and Hoses - and Downes, Parker and St John too:

New Mexico Department of Justice assistant attorneys Phyllis A Dow and Michael H Hoses along with federal judges James A Parker and William F Downes and Albuquerque lawyer Robert M St John established guilt in writing of criminal harassment using federal court as harassment [New Mexico ARTICLE 3A, Harassment and Stalking 30-3A-2] the tool by pattern and practice of of removing paid for New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuits to federal court when jurisdiction for defamation [libel], replevin, and harassment are clearly state issues, not federal questions.

Parker and Downes guilt of pattern and practice of criminal harassment is easily established

Parker-Downes instance 1: 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 42 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that this case has been reassigned to Judge William F. Downes (cc: all counsel by dm) [21k] [1 page]. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1574.htm

Parker-Downes instance 2: ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico; and reassigning this case to the Hon. William F. Downes, Chief U.S. District Judge District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel*) [7k] [1 page]. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock0634.htm

Parker-Downes instance 3: 10/25/2001 10/26/2001 6 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Judge James A. Parker reassigning case to Chief Judge Dee V. Benson for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) [8k] [1 page]. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1198.htm

Parker-Downes instance 4: 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 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm

Parker-Downes instance 5: 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 15 NOTICE by plaintiff of non response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker to provide anti-injunction affidavit for anti-injunction act justification for removal of New Mexico case Civ 2001-05900 to Federal Court [152k] [6 pages].See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1132.htm

St John's guilt of pattern and practice of criminal harassment is easily established too:

St John instance 1: 11/29/2000 11/30/2000 2 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendants by Robert M. St. John and Larry Montano [32k] [2 pages]. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm

St John instance 2: 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 9 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendant Rodey, Dickason by Robert M. St. John [25k] [2 pages]. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1132.htm

Department of Justice New Mexico US attorneys Phyllis A Dow fraudulently removed New Mexico state 12 paid for 12 person jury trail lawsuit cv 2001-05900 to New Mexico federal court without required certification.

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file "a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

Defamation [libel] and harassment are not federal questions.

Here's proof in writing in court documents of Dow's guilt.

Dow instance 1: Receipt for New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuit: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm

Dow instance 2: Fraudulent notice of removal without required verification: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm

Dow instance 3: Docket sheet showing pattern and practice of criminal harassment using federal court as instrument of harassment: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm,
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1574.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1132.htm.

Replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

Here's proof in writing in court documents of Hoses' guilt. Hoses instance 1: Receipt for New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuit: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm

Hoses instance 2: Fraudulent notice of removal without required verification: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm

Hoses instance 3: Docket sheet showing pattern and practice of criminal harassment using federal court as instrument of harassment: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1198.htm

Prima facie evidence of guilt of Parker, Downes, St John, Dow and Hoses compelled Payne to file criminal complaints in Metro court. See the summons: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm.

Metro judge Christina Jamillo held a proper arraignment for accused criminals [all evidence of guilt is in writing in course records as seen above] St John and Downes.

Metro judge Denise Barela Shepherd held a proper arraignment for accused criminal [all evidence of guilt is in writing in course records as seen above] Parker.

Rule for Dismissal of Action by Metro judge is:

3-305. Dismissal of actions.

A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action.

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Dismissal for failure to prosecute. Any action pending for six (6) months from the date the complaint is filed, in which the plaintiff or defendant asserting a counterclaim has failed to take all available steps to bring the matter to trial, shall be dismissed without prejudice.

E. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

Dismissal of action metro court rule was, no doubt, drafted so a to prevent a metro judge for dismissing any criminal complaint against a friend, or in this case, fellow lawyer.

Metro judges Barnhart, Shepherd, Jaramillo, and Nakamura signed.

The Constitution of the State of New Mexico Article XX Section 1.(Oath of Officer.), states "Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

1 Arraignments for criminal complaints seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitq.htm should be rescheduled to show the right of the plaintiffs to paid for 12 person trail has been denied in violation of both New Mexico and Federal constitutions.

Defendants Dow, Hoses, Parker, Downes and St John attempt to subvert both New Mexico and Federal constitution right to paid for trial by jury guaranteed inviolate and Morales' and Payne' right to represent them selves pro se guaranteed in the 10th amendmend for two in prima facie [all evidence is in writing] New Mexico state cases.

We feel that this offense is so serious, that the evidence of guilt of defendants is all in writing, wasting several millions of the taxpayers' money on New Mexico lawyers rather than settling, that the maximum jail sentence of 364 days in the Metropolitan Detention Center must be imposed to send to the legal community the message that lawyers cannot violate citizen rights and state and federal constitution specifications.

2 All parties [judges and DAs] should have their actions of denying the opportunity for plaintiffs Morales and Payne their right to paid for 12 person trial by jury [guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico constitutions] placed on their records so that all may know who are responsible for the evaluation whether for merit or punitive measures.

Judge Nakamura, we have exhausted all legal remedies short of the US Supreme court.

The Tenth Circuit is not responding to our filed documents.

Our civil rights to litigate and represent ourselves pro se have been taken away by criminal judges.

We intend to pursue restoration of our rights at the US Supreme Court if necessary to void http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm.

3 Let it be known by all parties that the plaintiffs are always ready to arbitrate and negotiate settlement.

We ask that you respond to the contents of this letter by April 7, 2006.

Sincerely

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277

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

Janet Blair has more than 30 years experience in journalism and public relations. She has worked twenty years in TV news at KOAT and KRQE. She has also been a senior staff member to Mayor Martin Chavez, PR Director for St. Joseph Healthcare and owned her own small consulting firm

1 Executive director James Noel wrote on December 3, 2004

To reiterate. pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute alleged instances of judicial misconduct committed by sitting New judges.

See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/noelletter12032004/noelletter.htm#noelthreat

The Judicial Standards Commission does not have as it charter properly processing metro court misdemeanor criminal complaint which were previous improperly processed.

Judge Nakamura has this authority.

2 We filed a judicial misconduct complaint on judge Barnhard for improperly dismissing criminal complaints against US attorneys Dow and Hoses on Tuesday August 10, 2004 with Mr. Noel. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/jsccomplaintbrownscott/jsccomplaintbrownscott.htm#noel

Judicial Standards Commission chair David S. Smoak informed us that all are complaints were without merit and dismissed them. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/jscsettlement/jscsettlement.htm#redact even though all of the evidence was in writing, as you, judge Nakamura, and district attorney can attest, this this evidence is included to our March 24, 2006 Internet letter to judge Nakamura.

Further judge Barnhart was "and agrees to and admits that his behavior constituted willful misconduct in office, necessitating his retirement from office,” the order says." See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/barnhart/barnhart.htm#retire.

This evidence strongly suggests that the Judicial Standards Commission is crooked, incompetent, lowly-unintelligent, and poorly educated.

3 We, of course, have been cheated out of our money for paid for two New Mexico 12 person jury Breech of Contract trial prima facie lawsuits against former cocaine-sniffing former Second judicial chief judge W John Brennan guaranteed inviolate under both New Mexico state and federal constitution [see Exhibit K and Exhibit L] which were dismissed in violation of judicial rules by crooked new Mexico state judge Kenneth Brown [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibito.htm] and Robert Scott [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitp.htm].

We have been prevented from filing in New Mexico state courts by judges Brown and Scott with the help of Albuquerque journal editor, Kent Walz, brother lawyer Jerry Walz, and have had our right to represent ourselves pro se guaranteed under the 10th amendment taken away.

James Noel recommended [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/barnhart/barnhart.htm#retire]

Thus, with respect to the referenced jury trial you sought, any recourse you might have with respect to that legal decision remain; with the appellate courts of this state.

Petition for writ to void judgement for lack of jurisdiction is the appropriate remedy. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal\pacer\CITES%20BY%20TOPIC%20void%20judgment.htm

Since Noel's legal advice to proceed to appellate court in this state is incompetent and lowly-unintelligent, we seek to have Noel removed from the Judicial Standards Commission by governor Richardson [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/richardsonletter/richardsonsettle.htm].

Morales phoned an idea

Thursday March 30, 2006

Certified - return receipt requested

KARI BRANDENBURG
District Attorney
520 Lomas Blvd N. W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
(505) 841-7100

We believe that assistant DA Pete Ross committed perjury three times in writing in two criminal arraigments in chambers of metro judges Shepherd and Jaramillo. ....

Assistant DA Dawn Branch witnessed two instances of perjury in the chamber of judge Jaramillo.

We ask that you respond in writing to our allegations by April ...

Settlement time yet?