----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To:
fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject:
Constitutional problem: denial of two paid for 12 person trial by jury breech
of contract lawsuits guaranteed inviolate
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people.
We've been defrauded out of money with two paid for 12 person
jury trial breech of contract lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both us and new
mexico state constitutions.
GAO should investigate these constitutional problems.
Sunday August 27, 2006 14:22
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/bosson/bosson.htm#bosson
richard.bosson@supremecourt.nm.org
and certified mail return receipt requested
Richard Bosson
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87504-4860
Dear judge Bosson:
William H Payne moves to void
judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Kenneth G Brown
did not have jurisdiction to dismiss under rule 1-041: Dismissal of
actions.
Payne's right to
paid for 12 person jury trial right guaranteed inviolate by
both US and New Mexico constitutions.
Payne moves to void
second judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Kenneth G
Brown did not have jurisdiction to take away Payne's right to represent himself
pro se.
William H
Payne
Date
Arthur R Morales and William H Payne moves
to void
judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Robert H Scott
did not have jurisdiction to dismiss under rule 1-041: Dismissal of
actions.
Morales' and Payne's right to paid for 12 person jury trial
right guaranteed inviolate by both US and New Mexico
constitutions.
Morales and Payne moves to void
second judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Robert H
Scott did not have jurisdiction to take away Morales' right to represent
himself pro se.
Arthur R Morales
Date
William
H Payne
Date
We ask that you sign both ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT,
ORDER
OR WRIT OF THIS COURT, forward copies to the clerk of the second
judicial district and parties involved by September 15, 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
Distribution
Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT
BERNALILLO COUNTY
No. CV 2001 07994
Willam H Payne, Plaintiff
against
W
John Brennan, W Daniel Schneider, Defendants
ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, ORDER
OR WRIT OF
THIS COURT
A motion having been made to set aside the
an order entered in the above styled case on the day of May 16,
2002 and
second order dated May 16, 2002 upon the grounds that such
orders:
[ ] was entered because of (a) (mistake) (inadvertence)
(surprise) (excusable neglect) (fraud).
[X] is void because judge
Kenneth G Brown did not have jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is denied
right to paid for 12 person jury trial guaranteed inviolate
by New Mexico and federal constitutions.
Plaintiff has right to
represent himself pro se guaranteed by Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
which New Mexico Constitution Bill of Rights section 1 honors.
The court having held a hearing finds that the motion
was timely filed and there are good grounds to grant the relief requested.
IT IS ORDERED that the above orders be set aside.
It is further ordered that CV 2001 07994 either be
immediately settled or sent to trial.
Dated:
__________________ , ________
________________________________________
Richard C
Bosson
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT
BERNALILLO COUNTY
No. CV 2002 3425
Arthur R Morales and William H Payne, Plaintiffs
against
W John Brennan, Kenneth G Brown, William Haas, Patricio
Serna, Walz and Associates, Defendants
ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, ORDER
OR WRIT OF
THIS COURT
A motion having been made to set aside the
an order entered in the above styled case on the day of July 8,
2002 and
second order dated July 8, 2002 upon the grounds that such
orders:
[ ] was entered because of (a) (mistake) (inadvertence)
(surprise) (excusable neglect) (fraud).
[X] is void because judge
Robert H Scott did not have jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs is denied
right to paid for 12 person jury trial guaranteed inviolate
by New Mexico and federal constitutions.
Plaintiff Morales has right to
represent himself pro se guaranteed by Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
which New Mexico Constitution Bill of Rights section 1 honors.
The court having held a hearing finds that the motion
was timely filed and there are good grounds to grant the relief requested.
IT IS ORDERED that the above orders be set aside.
It is further ordered that CV 2002 3425 either be
immediately settled or sent to trial.
Dated:
__________________ , ________
________________________________________
Richard C
Bosson |
Sunday August
27, 2006 14:42
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/madrid1/madrid.htm#madrid
Certified return
receipt mail and email
patricia.madrid@ago.state.nm.us
madrid@madridforcongress.com
Patricia
A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM
87504-1508
Dear attorney general Madrid:
Second judicial district attorney Kari Brandenburg was sent both by email and certified mail,
return receipt requested several prima facie [all evidence of felony criminal
guilt of accused in writing] criminal complaints on Tuesday May 23,
2006.
Return receipt green card shows that Brandenburg's office
received complaints on May 24, 2006.
Brandenburg was asked to respond by June 7, 2006.
We received no response from Brandenburg as of Sunday
August 27, 2006.
We wrote Metropolitan chief judge Judith Nakamura both by email
and certified, return receipt requested, mail concerning failure to process
misdemeanor criminal complaints properly on March 24, 2006.
Nakamura's office received our certified letter on March 27,
2006.
We asked for a response from Nakamura by April 7,
2006.
We received no response from Nakamura as of Sunday
August 27, 2006.
Neither Nakamura or Brandenburg wrote us to tell us
that there was something wrong with our criminal complaints.
Nonresponse appears to be Nakamura's and Brandenburg's
way of not doing their jobs and thus apparently ignoring their oath of
office.
We ask that you complete the enclose questionnaire by
September 15, 2006 so as to not ignore your oath of office.
Questionnaire response is required for the reason
that you are a lawyer.
Lawyers, we have found in our 14 year legal
project, are notorious in evasion of facts.
Verified responses to TRUE
and FALSE questionnaire leaves little room for attempted lawyer evasion.
We ask that you direct second judicial district district attorney Kari
Brandenburg to serve the summons directed to the
parties identified in our May 23, 2006 letter or tell us
why are complaints are invalid.
We ask that you send us a copy of
your letter to Brandenburg by September 15, 2005.
We continue to believe that settlement of these
unfortunate matters is best and
enlist your settlement help.
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
Distribution
Richard Bosson
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New
Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860
richard.bosson@supremecourt.nm.org and certified mail return receipt
requested
jnakamura@metrocourt.state.nm.us
Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov
Verified New Mexico and Federal
Constitutional Law and New Mexico Judicial Procedure and Rules Questionnaire
and Responses
of
New Mexico attorney general Patricia A
Madrid 1
Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution states?
U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE
2 New Mexico
Constitution ARTICLE II Bill of Rights states?
Section 1. [Supreme law of the land.] The
state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the
constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land
Response.
TRUE
FALSE
3 New Mexico
Constitution ARTICLE II Bill of Rights states?
Sec. 12. [Trial by jury; less than unanimous
verdicts in civil cases.]
The right of trial by jury as it has
heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate. In all cases
triable in courts inferior to the district court the jury may consist of six.
The legislature may provide that verdicts in civil cases may be rendered by
less than a unanimous vote of the jury.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 4
No. CV 2001 07994 is a paid for 12 person jury trial.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 5
No. CV 2002 3425 is a paid for 12 person jury trial.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 7 Are
United States state courts bound by abide by paid for trial by jury guaranteed
by new Mexico and US Constitutions?
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 8
A New Mexico state judge cannot dismiss a paid for trial by
jury lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by federal and state constitutions?
1-041. Dismissal of actions.
A.
Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.
(1) Subject to the provisions of Paragraph E of Rule
1-023 and of any statute, 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 q 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. If the
court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall
make findings as provided in Rule 1-052.
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, for
improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 1-019, 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. 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.
E. Dismissal of action with and without prejudice.
(1) Any party may move to dismiss the
action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if
the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to
bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from
the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed
if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered
pursuant to Rule 1-016 or with any written stipulation approved by the court.
(2) Unless a pretrial scheduling order has been
entered pursuant to Rule 1-016, the court on its own motion or upon the motion
of a party may dismiss without prejudice the action or any counterclaim,
cross-claim or third party claim if the party filing the action or asserting
the claim has failed to take any significant action in connection with the
action or claim within the previous one hundred and eighty (180) days. A copy
of the order of dismissal shall be forthwith mailed by the court to all parties
of record in the case. Within thirty (30) days after service of the order of
dismissal, any party may move for reinstatement of the case. Upon good cause
shown, q the court shall reinstate the case and shall enter a pretrial
scheduling order pursuant to Rule 1- 016. At least twice during each calendar
year, the court shall review all actions governed by this paragraph.
(3) The filing of a motion for dismissal pursuant
to this rule shall not be taken to be an entry of appearance in said action or
proceeding. F. Applicability. This rule shall apply to
all civil cases filed in the district court, including civil cases appealed
from the metropolitan or magistrate courts. This rule shall not apply to:
(1) guardianship, receivership, trusteeship or
conservatorship cases;
(2) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities Code;
(3) proceedings commenced
pursuant to the provisions of the Probate Code; or
(4) proceedings
commenced pursuant to the Children's Code.
[As amended, effective January 1, 1990.]
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 9
The
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states?
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 10 The
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives the
constitution right for a citizens to represent themselves pro se in a US
court?
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 12
Citizens have a Tenth Amendment constitutional right to represent themselves in
a demanded jury trail guaranteed inviolate by the Seventh Amendment to the
Constitution and New Mexico?
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 13
If a judge rules without jurisdiction is the appropriate
remedy
A appeal judge's
ruling.
B seek writ to void ruling?
Response.
A
B 14
Does New Mexico have a way to void a ruling made without
jurisdiction?
Response.
TRUE
FALSE 15 Are New
Mexico elected and appointed officials required to sign an Oath of Officer?
Section 1. [Oath of officer.] 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.
Response.
TRUE
FALSE
17
Verification
Under penalty of perjury as provided by law,
the undersigned certifies that material factual statements set forth in this
pleading are true and correct, except as to any matters therein stated to be
information and belief of such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that the undersigned verily believes the same to be true.
Notary Public
______________________________________
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___________.
Patricia A Madrid
_____________________
|
----- Original Message -----
From: bill
payne
To: fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Please help get matters settled
Friday August 11, 2006 09:53
By
email
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm
J.
William Leonard
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
National Archives and Records
Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, DC
20408
Telephone: 202-357-5250
Email:
bill.leonard@nara.gov
Dear
Mr Leonard:
Purpose of the email is to make a request for a
mandatory declassification review of the 70 pages of
documents seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.
Plus
the apparent 60 pages of documents originating at the FBI but held both
by DOJ lawyer Kovakas and the FBI.
The FBI has been
unresponsive for 10 years to my FOIA request referenced by Kovakas and well has
been the NSA.
DOJ employee Pricilla Jones acknowledged February 9, 2006
appeal of Kovakas decision to withhold name of FBI Special
Agent.
Ms Jean
Kornblut of Kovakas' office informed me on May 23, 2006 that their office
wanted me to know that a yet unidentified individual employed as a Special
Agent at the FBI was responsible [along with Sandia National Laboratories
employees Gosler and Folley] for having me fired and for production subsequent
release to EEOC in Phoenix without my written approval of the false and
defaming [libelous] documents seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.
The Freedom Of
Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended in 2002, states
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for
records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--
...
(ii) make a determination with respect
to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of
the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify
the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that
determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.
So DOJ non-response paves the way to NARA
mandatory declassification review or DC federal court lawsuit.
Ms
Kornblut and I discussed what should be done.
Ms
Kornblut appeared to agree that NARA should be contacted to get the
documents, including the 60 pages from the FBI, to perform a mandatory
declassification review.
We had hope to avoid requesting
a MDR from NARA by suggesting reasonable settlement of this unfortunate 14 year
matter caused by lawyers by
suggesting settlement to DOE.
DOE Hearing and
Appeals director apparently decided not to respond to our settlement
offer.
Please let me know if this email request is
sufficient for my request.
The government and courts have
gone into a non-response mode in this matter apparently hoping it will go away.
This in unlikely because of the financial damages cause by the US federal
government in this matter.
Please give me a time limit for
automatic assumption of denial of my request so that we can take the next legal
steps. This matter has gone on far too long.
Sincerely
bill payne
bpayne37@comcast.net
Distribution
Jean.Kornblut@usdoj.gov
george.breznay@hq.doe.gov
Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov |
|
