Judge James A Parker
Wednesday October 31, 2001 10:51
Page was originally composed using AOLPress.
Cibola Internet Services problem partially fixed.
Saturday November 10, 2007 09:02

Judge James A[moco] Parker Saturday November 10, 2007 09:02 Morales visited and we went to lunch at McDonald's on Friday November 9, 2007. Morales brought a copy of Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. Morales has a signed copy. The Rosenbergs now live in Albuqueruque. Rosenberg cites 1 observations 2 feelings 3 needs 4 requests in steps in nonviolent communcations. Morales feels we need to write General Gabreski's commanding officer and follow the steps suggested by Rosenberg. Let revise the below with Rosenberg's ideas in mind. OBSERVATIONS Five New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuits were fraudulently remove to federal court by US attorneys Hamilton, Dow and Hoses. Harassment, replevin, defamation [libel] are not federal questions. Judge James A Parker assigned Wyoming chief judge William F Downes and Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson to hear these lawsuits Downes and Benson did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore judgments can be voided ... provided we can find honest court and judge in the United States. Here's the evidence of Parker's felony violation of Title 18 § 241 and 242 in writing in court records. 00 cv 1574 See docket entry # 42. Parker defrauded out of $ 297. See written evidence of Parker's guilt. 01 cv 0634 See docket entry # 16. Parker defrauded out of $ 297. See written evidence of Parker's guilt. 01 cv 1198 See docket entry # 6. Parker defrauded out of $ 322. See written evidence of Parker's guilt. 00 cv 1677 See docket entry # 69. Parker defrauded out of $ 297. See written evidence of Parker's guilt. 01 cv 1132 See docket entry # 13. Parker defrauded out of $ 322. See written evidence of Parker's guilt. Click on each of the dockets and search [Ctrl F] for "parker." Also look for the fraudulently removed New Mexico state lawsuit case numbers. Fraudulently removal of above New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuits violates § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and § 241 and Conspiracy against rights in writing in court record since Morales is a member of minority class. FEELINGS If we were to go to the Albuquerque Journal with this written evidence of Parker's criminal acts, the Journal almost certainly do nothing. Scott Sandlin appears to write Parker opinion and doesn't write about Parker's ignoring the law. NEEDS We need to get matters settled or we need to have our paid for New Mexico for 12 person jury trial prima facie case lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. All evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing in court records. REQUESTS ----- Original Message ----- From: bill payne To: ssandlin@abqjournal.com Cc: art morales ; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov ; bill.leonard@nara.gov ; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov ; The Secretary ; julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov ; foialo, foialo ; isoo@nara.gov Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:40 PM Subject: Parker article Ms Sandlin We request that you write an article for publication in the Albuquerque Journal that written evidence in court records proves judge James A Parker does not obey the law. Parker, as a result, committed 5 Title 18 felony violations of law in writing. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/parker/parker1.html#jamesamoco John Gowan pointed our some years ago that the Albuquerque Journal does not report the news. The journal, in Gowan's opinion, tries to shape the news. Time to change we think. Thanks in advance. bill and art

from complex corporate litigation and professional malpractice defense to defending a man charged with illegally inducing aliens to enter the United States to pick berries. The latter was one of his first cases in an unpaid court appointment, one of many he handled in the days before state and federal public defender systems. He won it. 'Gentleman Jim' When then-President Reagan selected Parker over other contenders in 1987, Parker packed up at the Modrall law firm and moved five blocks south to the federal courthouse. "I don't think I'm going to be a controversial nominee like Judge (Robert) Bork or some of the others. I'm pretty plain vanilla," Parker told the Journal after his nomination in 1987, referring to the Supreme Court nominee whose candidacy went down in flames. Despite his self-deprecating description, Parker has earned a reputation as a prodigious worker, fair in his dealings with both sides in litigation and so unfailingly polite that one wag dubbed him Gentleman Jim. The image is perhaps bolstered by his avocational enthusiasms, including fly-fishing and support for the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra. Parker has shown himself mindful of the public purse while sometimes forcing officialdom to open it, and sensitive to the rights of defendants. Attorneys view his opinions as thoughtful and thorough. But manners don't offer immunity from controversy. He infuriated jurors in 1992 by overturning a $1.5 million verdict in a sexual harassment case, finding that the jury acted out of passion or prejudice. He ordered a new trial. He angered Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez with his rulings in the long-running silvery minnow case. The mayor took out a full-page ad in the Journal in 2002 to criticize the judge. Parker, barred by judicial ethics rules from directly commenting, suggested in a written opinion three years later that the mayor had engaged in demagoguery on the issue. Famous cases Parker has been at the center of cases with nationwide scope, including Jackson v. Los Lunas Hospital and Training School, the class action lawsuit on behalf of people with developmental disabilities; U.S. v. Wen Ho Lee, the criminal prosecution of a Los Alamos scientist; and the O Centro Espirita case challenging the government's restriction of a sacramental hallucinogenic tea. In the final hours of the last business day in 1990, Parker capped eight weeks of trial testimony over the previous year by filing a 175-page opinion finding flagrant discrimination and rights violations of society's most vulnerable citizens— people with mental retardation, severe cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities. Although Parker had not specifically ordered it, his opinion led New Mexico to become the first Western state to close its institutions for people with disabilities. "Judge Parker's order led the way for a fundamental transformation of the state's system for people with disabilities," said Jim Jackson, director of Protection and Advocacy Inc., which initiated the lawsuit. Parker ruled that disabled residents of the institutions who were capable of independent living— about 20 percent of the population— should be moved to community settings. For the rest, he ordered sweeping corrections to fix unsafe and substandard conditions that had led to horrific injuries for residents. Lead plaintiff Walter Stephen Jackson had been injured when oven cleaner stored in an orange juice container was poured down his throat. Parker continues to preside over the case, though the last institution was closed a decade ago. The case that generated the most press for Parker— and the most consternation— was the prosecution of Wen Ho Lee, suspected of espionage for the Chinese, charged with 59 counts of violating national security and ultimately convicted of a single count and sentenced in 2000 to time served. Lee had spent nine months in solitary confinement. Parker, who despite reservations had agreed to Lee's detention, offered an extraordinary apology to Lee from the bench. Top decision-makers in the executive branch, Parker said, especially in the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy (then headed by now-Gov. Bill Richardson), "have caused embarrassment by the way this case began and was handled. They did not embarrass me alone. They have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen in it." Parker said in an interview this week that he remains mystified about whether Lee did anything to harm the government. But he said he was struck by how prosecutors had squeezed Lee with the conditions of his confinement— living in a tiny space with only an hour a day for exercise. "I felt I was misled early on," he said. "There was a lot of overreaching on the part of the government. ... I fault myself in hindsight for buying too much of the government's argument." The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys named Parker the recipient of its Courageous Judiciary Award in 2001 for his comments in the Lee case. Parker, now on senior status, maintains a full caseload of civil and criminal cases, including numerous immigration cases. Together with Senior U.S. District Judge John Edwards Conway, he handles a substantial percentage of sentencings in Las Cruces cases. "I learned not to be concerned about being reversed," he said. Though it occasionally stings, "You want to have somebody looking over your shoulder." Parker loves his job. The best part, he said, "is the satisfaction of trying to help people to resolve disputes. I've always considered this to be a position of public service." Albuquerque Journal Friday November 9, 2007

As a result of our links to Parker's possible judicial and finanacial misconduct disappearing, we are placing documents on a Parker page. Let's all hope for settlement soon so that we can all get on to other things. Tuesday October 23, 2001 13:47 We've fixed this.  Judge James A Parker Parker received 2,000,000 shares of Amoco stock for $.05 per share. The shares had   apparent market value of about $1.25. 2/16/1999 14:03  Documentation Payne was given showed that judge Parker did not even pay $10,000 for the Amoco stock. Rather Parker got the stock in a swap, if Payne recalls correctly,  which was declared to be worth about $14,000.  But John Gowan of Libertad speculated the stock was probably worthless. financial dealings while judging an environmental case involving AMOCO polluting. Tuesday October 23, 2001 15:28   Subject: link problem at nmol.com Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:33:02 -0600 From: bill payne <bpayne37@home.com> To: help@whc.net Why is the link http://nmol.com/users/billp/scal2.htm getting converted to http://209.211.36.9/ rather than displaying the correct contents? Same with http://nmol.com/users/billp/cfd.htm changed to http://209.211.36.9/? Thanks in advance for a response http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

Lawyer Turner Branch  of the Branch law firm moves to have judge James Parker recused from a case.

John Gowan of Libertad copied this page for Payne.

Plaintiffs do not lightly seek the recusal of the Court; they realize that the Court is presumed to be impartial, and that the fact that important rulings go against them does not, in and of itself, call into question the court's impartiality. However, the following facts have recently come to light:

· the Judge has admitted receiving royalty income from Defendant Amoco Production Company ("Amoco") while presiding over this case;

· the Judge receives royalty income, has working interests in oil and gas rights, and owns stock in numerous other oil and gas companies, including Texaco and Fuel Resources Co.,which are defendants in the Colorado cases based on San Juan Basin water contamination;

· the Judge's son is president and a major stockholder in an oil and gas company, Delta Petroleum, which holds substantial oil and gas interests in the San Juan Basin, with objectives to engage in Fruitland production, the subject matter of this litigation;

· the Judge owns shares of Delta Petroleum stock.

· the Judge's son and daughter are beneficiaries of a trust which has interests in Amoco wells.

Based on those facts, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court take the action required by the disqualification statute and the Code of Judicial Conduct, not to mention the very integrity of the judicial system, and disqualify himself and vacate his prior rulings in the cases, as set out below. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Judge James A. Parker revealed in his Financial Disclosure Reports for the years 1994

....                                                     2

Judge Recuses Self in Cases Involving 2 Attorneys

BY Scott SANDLIN
Journal Staff Writer

An angry and sometimes emotion al U.S. District Judge James A. Parker said Thursday he won't hear any cases involving two Albuquerque attorneys who accused him of violating judicial ethics.

But Parker made it clear at the end of a 31/2-hour hearing that he wasn't stepping aside because the allegations raised by attorneys Turner and Margaret Moses Branch have any merit. Instead, the judge said he wouldn't hear any of their cases now or in the future because of the way they raised the allegations.done will extend to their client who appear before me."

In a motion served on Parker opposing counsel and Chief Judge John E. Conway on Aug. 21, the Branch law firm contended Parker and his family stood to benefit from rulings he made in a group of lawsuits alleging that oil and gas companies contaminated water in the Four Corners area.

Parker receives royalties from one of the companies that is a defendant in the litigation and his son is president of an oil and gas company not involved in the cases.

As his wife watched from a back row Thursday, Parker went through the law firm's 25-page motion in detail, attempting to explain the complexities of what appears on his required annual financial disclosure forms and on his son's company's Securities and Exchange Commission 10-K filing.

Later, going almost page by page, Parker listed numerous "misstatements," said statements presented as fact simply were untrue and at one point characterized the allegations on a page as "pure fantasyland."

Parker said he'd concluded he must recuse, not because of any thing he had done, "but precisely because (of) their publishing a brief full of falsehoods about my children and me. I confess that as a parent I am extremely upset about the way plaintiffs' counsel have maligned my children, especially my son Roger."

Roger Parker, president of Delta Petroleum in Denver, is list-

"In the future," Parker said, "I will not be able to erase from my mind what plaintiffs' counsel have said about my children or me, and as much as 1 try to ignore it, I am afraid my intense dislike of plain tiffs' counsel for what they have d in the Branch brief as owner of 87 percent of the stock in Delta. The motion also said Delta had objectives to engage in production in the Fruitland Basin, the subject of the litigation. Parker said his son actual ly owns 3.2 percent of stock in Delta, which no longer has any Fruitland formation rights because they were sold two years ago. The judge said 'that should· have been apparent from a careful reading of the company's 10-K.

Parker's voice broke as he noted that his reaction was probably a normal one for "any parent who loves and admires his child."

He noted that a judge has a duty not to withdraw from a case because of mere criticism.

But he said there is a "great qualitative difference" in this case because the Branch firm motion was disseminated in a way "calculated to produce the maxi mum embarrassment to me."

At the beginning of the hearing, Parker noted it is unusual for such a motion to be served on a judge not involved in the case, as Con way was.

A second reason for recusing, Parker said, was because two attorneys who are officers of the court, including Margaret Branch, have sworn to false statements in affidavits presented with the motion. "I simply can never again trust the word of those lawyers and it would be enormously unfair to a client of theirs to handle a case in which they are the attorneys," he said. "I reiterate: I have not recused because of my conduct in the case prior to publication of plaintiffs' counsel's motions. I believe throughout all of my rulings I was impartial."

Parker said he and his wife are paid royalties by Amoco Production Co. on mineral interests, but he doesn't own stock in or have a working interest in Amoco, one of two defendants in the New Mexico cases, or in Texaco or Fuel Resources, defendants in companion Colorado cases.

He said he and his wife have never owned any royalty or work ing interests in San Juan Basin gas.

He said the Branch firm saying he has an interest in Amoco because he gets royalties from it is like a food supplier claiming to have ownership in a restaurant to which he sells.

Although Parker recused him self, he didn't rule on the motion seeking his disqualification.

Parker suggested that defendants Amoco and Meridian Oil might consider seeking sanctions against the Branch firm, but Margaret Branch said after the proceeding she doesn't intend to with draw the disqualification motion.

She called Parker's distinctions between a royalty interest and a working interest "semantics."

"It's still my position he's in violation of the (disqualification) statute and the canons (of judicial ethics)" she said

"I simply can never again trust the word of those lawyers and it would be enormously unfair to a client of theirs to handle a case in which they are the attorneys." U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES A. PARKER

---

She also rejected Parker's comparison of the issues raised in the motion to getting interest on a municipal bond but continuing to hear civil rights cases against the city that issued them. Advisory opinions for the federal courts have said a judge need not recuse in such cases. Parker said U.S. District Judge C. LeRoy Hansen had told him he has oil and gas interests in Oklahoma and doesn't believe he must recuse from the Branch firm's related cases assigned to him.

"He also asked me to tell you to ask anything regarding his receipt of royalty payments ... I hope you will have the basic decency not to write a scurrilous motion ... and release it to the newspapers without first talking to Judge Hansen," Parker said.

Amoco attorney Scott Barker said after the hearing that whether his company seeks sanctions depends on what the Branch firm does with its motion.

Asked if he thought Parker's explanation was "semantics," Barker said, "not at all."

---

Judge Reverses Water Ruling

Previously barred expert testimony in contamination
suit will be allowed by new judge

BY Scott SANDLIN
Journal Staff Writer

The federal judge now hearing a group of lawsuits arising from Alleged water contamination from oil and gas drilling in the Four Corners area has reversed the previous judge's ruling regarding expert testinony. -

Senior U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton of Midland, Texas, sitting by designation as a federal judge in New Mexico, decided this week to allow testimony by the plaintiffs' experts who had been disqualified by Judge James A. Parker.

The Branch law firm, which rep resents homeowners suing Amoco Production Co. and Meridian Oil

now called Burlington Resources

asked Parker to recuse after several adverse rulings, including disqualification of their experts.

One witness in particular, geohydrologist Tim Kelly, was considered key to the plaintiffs' case.

Parker removed himself not because of the conflict of interest alleged, by the Branches but because he was so outraged by their actions he said he couldn't give any of their clients a fair hearing.

Parker and another judge to whom water contamination cases were assigned transferred all of hem  - about 20  -  to Bunton. Bunton said in his Oct. 28 order hat he was required to consider a recent 10th U.S. Circuit Court of appeal decision that Parker didn't have at the time of his rulings.

The appeals court's April 30 decision, Compton vs. Subaru of America, clarifies admissibility of scientific evidence in the 10th Circuit, which includes New Mexico.

In light of that case, Bunton said the appeals court would probably have admitted the experts' testimony in the water contamination cases.

"The experts are all highly qualified, and, even though the substance of some of their testimonies may be highly disputed by the opposing par ties, all ... are qualified enough to go in front of the jury," Bunton said. Amoco and Meridian opposed reconsideration of Parker's rulings saying they were filed too late and only to gain a tactical advantage. They also say there is no basis for the plaintiffs' contention that Parker was unaware of the Compton decision at the time of his ruling. While Bunton agreed to admit the plaintiffs' experts, he said he wouldn't reconsider any of the summary judgment rulings Parker had made in the case.

Attorney Turner Branch said the first six cases are scheduled to go to trial Feb. 10 in Albuquerque.

Catching them and bringing them to justice are two different matter.

Judge Parker is still on the bench in New Mexico.

But Morales and Payne are still searching for legal remedy.

Saturday 2/13/99 6:48 PM

Registered return receipt requested

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel
Judicial Conference of the United States
Committee on Financial Disclosure
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Suite 2-301
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-273-4626, 1884 fax

Dear lawyer Howell:

I have misplaced the documentation on judge James Parker on the Amoco stock Parker apparently received.

  Parker received 2,000,000 shares of Amoco stock for $.05 per share. The shares had   apparent market value of about $1.25.

Details are documented at  http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/bunton1.htm

John Gowan of Libertad gave me a copy of the motion.

Documentation was given to him by lawyer Turner Branch, Gowan told me.  

Gowan also gave me the documentation about the Amoco stock Parker apparently received.

I showed the documentation to my wife, Patty.

Purpose of this letter is to request the page I apparently mislaid which shows that judge Parker
received shares of Amoco stock while judging a case which involved Amoco.

I enclose $1 cash for the cost of copying.

If you claim no such page exists, then I ask to you inform me of this.  

Otherwise, I expect you to supply me with this page.

Sincerely,

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Mailed

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544
____________
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

Lawyer Turner Branch requested the financial disclosure records of NM Federal judge James Parker.

John Gowan of Libertad advised Payne to get financial disclosures on all judges involved with his case.

Payne get financial disclosures on judges Conway, Kelly, 1 2 Baldock, and Lucero. And inquires about judges Weis and Sloviter.

The paper trail follows below.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

September 16, 1996

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

This is in response to your letter dated September 4, 1996, concerning your request for copies of the financial disclosure reports for Judges John Conway and Paul Kelly. Before we can release the requested copies of their financial disclosure reports, you must complete the enclosed Form AO-1OA, Request for Examination of Report Filed By Judicial Officer or Judicial Employee, and send a check or money order in the amount of $6.50 for reproduction costs. The check or money order should be made payable to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

After completing the Form AO- 1 GA, you should return the form along with a check or money order to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Financial Disclosure Office, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 2-301, Washington, D.C. 20544 and, upon receipt, we will send the requested material to you. Judges John Conway and Paul Kelly will be notified when the copies are mailed to you.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

October 17, 1996

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

This is in response to your letter dated October 7, 1996, concerning your request for copies of the financial disclosure reports for Judges John Conway and Paul Kelly. Before we can release the requested copies of their financial disclosure reports, you must send a check or money order in the amount of $29.00 for reproduction costs. The check or money order should be made payable to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Therefore, you should return the check or money order to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Financial Disclosure Office, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 2-301, Washington, D.C. 20544 and, upon receipt, we will send the requested material to you. Judges John Conway and Paul Kelly will be notified when the copies are mailed to you.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

September 29, 1996

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

The financial disclosure reports of Judges John E. Conway and Paul J. Kelly, Jr. are enclosed.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

September 3, 1997

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

This letter is in response to your letter dated August 24, 1997, requesting copies of the financial disclosure reports for Judges Bobby R. Baldock and Carlos F. Lucero. Before we can release the requested copies of their financial disclosure reports, you must complete the enclosed Form AO- 1 OA, Request for Examination of Report Filed by Judicial Officer or Judicial Employee. Please note that each judge or employee must be listed by name on the form. After completing the Form AO-1OA, you should return the form to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Financial Disclosure Office, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 2-301, Washington, DC 20544.

The reproduction cost is $27.00 and you must forward a check or money order in that amount, made payable to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Upon receipt, we will send the requested material to you. Judges Bobby R. Baldock and Carlos F. Lucero will be notified when the copies are mailed to you.

Your letter also asks this office for input with respect to a letter you received from the United States Attorney for New Mexico. This office has no information as to the origin of the letter.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

September 10, 1997

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

This letter is in response to your letter dated August 29, 1997, requesting copies of the financial disclosure reports for Judges Dolores K. Sloviter and Joseph F. Weis, Jr.. Before we can release the requested copies of their financial disclosure reports, you must complete the enclosed Form AO- 1 OA, Request for Examination of Report Filed by Judicial Officer or Judicial Employee. Please note that each judge or employee must be listed by name on the form. After completing the Form AO-1OA, you should return the form to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Financial Disclosure Office, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 2-301, Washington, DC 20544.

The reproduction cost is $87.50 and you must forward a check or money order in that amount, made payable to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Upon receipt, we will send the requested material to you. Judges Dolores K. Sloviter and Joseph F. Weis, Jr. will be notified when the copies are mailed to you.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

September 15, 1997

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

The financial disclosure reports for Judges Bobby R. Baldock and Carlos F. Lucero are enclosed.

You ask that I send you a copy of the requirement that judges be notified when copies of their reports are released to members of the public. As indicated in my March 14, 1997, letter, this requirement is contained in the filing instructions, a copy of which is enclosed.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

John E. Howell, Staff Counsel Telephone:(202) 273-4626
One Columbus Circle, N.E. Facsimile:(202) 273-1884
Washington, D.C., 20544

March 14, 1997

Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

Judge Frank Magill, Chair of the Committee on Financial Disclosure, has asked that I respond to your letters of November 11, 1996, and February 13, 1997.

In your letter of February 13, 1997, you repeated questions raised in your letter of November 11, 1996. I will attempt to answer some of the questions you raise.

First, you refer to Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr., and suggest that he improperly received "non- investment income" from the firm of Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. While I cannot comment on the receipt of income, I would direct your attention to block 5 at the top of the two reports you refer to. In the report dated 11-19-91, it is clear that Judge Kelly was nominated on 11-19-91. On the report dated 3/10/93, he has changed that date to reflect his joining the federal judiciary on "4-14-92." In addition, in Part I of the report dated 3/10/93, he makes clear that he was a partner in Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley only through 4/14/92. On the face of the both reports, then, it is apparent that he was not a member of the federal judiciary until 4/14/92 and therefore, not subject to the Codes of Conduct until that date.

Second, on Judge Kelly's report dated 3/10/93, you note he reported "1993 A.G. Edwards & Co. - Salary." You are incorrect. The instructions to filers make clear that the "(5)" on that line refers to "Spouse," not salary. Judges are not required to report the non-investment income of spouses, only the fact that they are employed. See page 18 of the filing instructions, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

With regard to Judge John F. Conway, you make the same error by construing the "(5)" in the disclosure in Part III to refer to salary. It does not. It refers to "spouse." As noted above, the filer is not required to disclose the amount of his or her spouse's salary.

With regard to Judge James A. Parker, the Committee has no basis for any further inquiry into Judge Parker's filings.

Finally, you ask that I send you a copy of the requirement that Judges Conway and Kelly be notified with copies are mailed to you. The Committee has included that information on pages 56-5 7 of the Instructions, a copy of which is enclosed.

The balance of your letter contains allegations that are not within the jurisdiction or competence of the Committee.

Finally, you have requested access to certain documents under the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the judiciary is not subject to the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act. (See section 551(l)(B) of Title 5, U.S. Code) The release of
financial disclosure reports and amendments thereto is governed by section 105 of the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989.

As noted above, a copy of the Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees is enclosed. The Instructions provide guidance with respect to the completion of the financial disclosure form.

As required, I am providing a copy of this letter together with a copy of your letter to Judges Kelly, Conway, and Parker.

Sincerely,

<signature>

John E. Howell

Enclosure

cc: Honorable Paul J. Kelly
Honorable John E. Conway
Honorable James A. Parker

COMPLIANCE AND SANCTIONS

Compliance with filing and reporting requirements is monitored pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. 4, § 106.

One who knowingly and willfully falsifies or fails to file or report any information required under the Act is subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Section 104(a).

ETHICAL STANDARDS

The disclosure requirements and exemptions from disclosure contained in the Act neither define nor limit the standards imposed by the Codes of Conduct for United States Judges and other rules of the Judicial

Conference of the United States or the statutory provisions for disqualification or recusal.
For example, disclosure of financial interests under the Act is required only for interests exceeding a stated minimum amount of value and only with respect to certain members of a person's family, whereas 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) applies to financial interests without regard to amount and 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5) applies to participation in litigation by a person within the third degree of relationship to the judge. Similarly, the Act exempts from disclosure matters relating to campaign receipts and campaign disbursements, most of which would be prohibited under the Codes of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges, which also precludes qualified blind trusts for judges.

PUBLIC ACCESS

Financial Disclosure Reports are public documents, open to inspection and copying at the office of the Committee on Financial Disclosure. Reports will be made available to the public within thirty (30) days after the Report is received by the Committee on Financial Disclosure and only upon written application. Sections 105(a) and (b)(1).

Individuals requesting copies of Financial Disclosure Reports will be required to present adequate identification such as a picture identification, when requesting a copy in person. Those requesting copies by mail will be required to submit a notarized request.

There will be a charge of fifty (50) cents for each page copied. A Report will be made available only to a person who states on a written application:

(A) that person's name, occupation and address;

(B) the name and address of any other person or organization on whose behalf the inspection or copy is requested; and

(C) that such person is aware of the prohibitions with regard to obtaining or using the Report.

Section 1 05(b)(2).

It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use a Report--

(A) for any unlawful purpose

(B) for any commercial purpose other than by news and communications
media for dissemination to the general public;

(C) for determining or establishing the credit rating of any person; or

(D) for use directly or indirectly, in the solicitation of money for any political,
charitable, or other purpose.

Section 1 05(c)( 1).

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any person who obtains or uses a
Report for any prohibited purpose described above. The court in which such action is brought
may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed $10,000. Such remedy
shall be in addition to any other remedy available under statutory or common law. Section 105(c)(2).

Commentary

Financial Disclosure Reports are public documents open for copying and inspection and
will be maintained in the Financial Disclosure Office for six years, after which the reports will
be destroyed unless there is an ongoing investigation. The Committee has held that by statute
felons cannot be restricted from ready access to the Reports. Immediately upon mailing a copy
of a filer's Report to the requestor, staff sends a courtesy letter of notification cation to the filer
informing the filer that a proper request for a copy filer's Report was received and that it is
being made available.

Staff has been instructed to delete home addresses from Reports requested by the public.

The Instructions for completing Financial Disclosure Reports are made available to the
public upon request. The fee for copying Reports can be waived only after a determination by
the Committee that it is in the public interest and that the requestor is unable to pay (e.g., waiver
of the copying fee for prisoners). Substantive inquiries from the press or other members of the
public are handled by the Committee Counsel.

58 Issued January 2, 1997

Thursday August 28, 1997 16:25

Certified Return receipt requested Antonin Scalia Associate Justice United States Supreme Court One First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Dear judge Scalia: Purposes of this letter are to 1 seek a writ of mandamus, 2 file criminal complaint affidavits, 3 inform you of consequences of your failure to do your job. As you may know, Supreme Court Rules, Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ states, .1. The issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 USC is not a matter of right, but of the discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any writ under that provision, it must be shown that the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, that there are present exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. .3. (a) A petition seeking the issuance of a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both in the alternative, shall set for the name and office or function of every person against who relief is sought and shall set forth with particularity why the relief sought is not available in any other court. There shall be appended to the petition a copy of the judgment or order in respect of which the writ is sought, including a copy of any opinion rendered in that connection, and any other paper essential to an understanding of the petition. (b) The petition shall be served on the judge or judges to whom the writ is sought to be directed and shall also be served on every other party to the proceeding in respect of which relief is desired. The judge or judges and the other parties may, within 30 days after receipt of the petition, file 40 printed copies of a brief or brief in opposition thereto, which shall fully comply with Rule 15. If the judge or judges who are named respondents do not desire to respond to the petition, they may so advise the Clerk and all parties by letter. All persons served shall be deemed respondents for all purposes in the proceeding in this Court. We [Payne and Morales] filed suit against director Minihan of the National Security Agency for release of documents due us under Freedom on Information Act on February 27, 1997 [civ 97 0266]. We paid our fee for this lawsuit under the presumption that it would be processed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, we have not gotten what we paid for. This lawsuit and associated documents, including our previous request for writs and criminal complaint affidavits have been posted Internet at jya.com, click cryptome, then select file sandia2.htm Jessica Glicken: Sandia's Areas for Improvement August 27, 1997 to read documents associated with this lawsuit. Judge Don J. Svet [Svet] with apparent concurrence of judge Santiago Campos [Campos] issued the ORDER filed in Santa Fe, NM June 11, 1997. Payne and Morales v Minihan, NSA ORDER THIS MATTER come before the Court sua sponte following an Initial Scheduling Conference held June 5, 1997. The establishment of deadline for discovery and pre-trial pleading is necessary for the orderly hearing of this case. However, this case in not one in which an Initial Pre-trial pleading will assist the Court. Accordingly, such a document will not be entered. Further, the parties will not be permitted to undertake any discovery in this matter absent Court permission. The parties shall submit any proposed discovery to the Court for approval, accompanied by a motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the need for that discovery. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following deadlines are hereby established: 1. The parties shall complete discovery necessary by September 3, 1997. 2. Motions relating to discovery shall be filed no later than September 23, 1997. 3. All pretrial motions regarding matters other than discovery shall be filed by October 3, 1997. 4. The Pre-Trial Order shall be provided as follows: Plaintiffs to Defendants by November 3, 1997; Defendants to the Court by November 18, 1997. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in the matter shall only be undertaken upon obtaining Court permission. The parties shall submit any proposed discovery to the Court for approval, accompanied by a motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of point and authorities explaining the need for that discovery. signed DON J. SET UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Judge Scalia, as you may be aware, Rules governing discovery are contained in Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Rule 36. clearly states, Request for admission (a) A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for the purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) set forth the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying. The request may WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. ... We capitalize WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. 5 Rule 33 Interrogatories to Parties clear states, (a) Availability; Procedures for Use. Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. ... We capitalize WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. 6 Rule 30 Deposition Upon Oral Examination clearly states, (a) When Depositions May be Taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination. Leave of court, granted with or without notice, must be obtained ONLY if the plaintiff seeks to take a deposition prior to the expiration of 30 days after service of the summons and complaint upon any defendant or service made under Rule 4(e), ... We capitalize ONLY. Clearly, Svet and Campos' ORDER violates our civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. And, or course, this is not what we paid for. Therefore on July 22, 1997 15:33 we filed for a writ of mandamus with judge James K. Logan of the Tenth Circuit. Petition and proof of delivery are attached. We cited 28 USC from the Rules of Appellate Procedure to justify our seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition. TITLE V. EXTRAORDINARY WRITS Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition Directed to a Judge or Judges and Other Extraordinary Writs (a) Mandamus or Prohibition to a Judge or Judges; Petition for writ; Service and Filing. - Application for a writ or mandamus or of prohibition directed to a judge or judges shall be made by filing a petition therefor [sic] with the clerk of the court of appeals with proof of service of the respondent judge or judges and all parties to the action in the trail court. The petition shall contain a statement of the facts necessary to an understanding of the issues presented by the application; a statement of the issues presented by the application; a statement of the issues of the reasons presented and of the relief sought; a statement of the reasons why the writ should issue; and copies if any order or opinion or part of the record which may essential to an understanding of the matters set forth in the petition. Upon receipt of the prescribed docket fee, the clerk shall docket the petition and submit it to the court. We paid a docket fee of $100 to serve our petition for a writ on mandamus and prohibition on judge Logan as we are entitled to do by law. But we did not get what we paid for at the Tenth circuit either. We received the following attached order. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT In re: WILLIAM H. PAYNE and ARTHUR R. MORALES No. 97-2233 ORDER Filed August 11, 1997 Before BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. This matter come on for consideration of petitioners' letter of July 22, 1997, addressed to a judge of this court, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, the stands for which are similar. See Sangre de Cristo Community Mental Heath Serv., Inc. v. United States (In re Vargas), 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). For mandamus to issue, there must be a clear right to the relief sought, a plainly defined and peremptory duty on the part of the respondent to do the action in question, and no other adequate remedy available. Haley Mem'l' Hospital., Inc. v Schweiker, 689 F.2d 905, 912 (10th Cir. 1982). Petitioner must also show that his right to the writ is "clear and indisputable." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490, U.S. 296, 309 (1989); Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35-36 (1980); Weston v. Mann (in re Weston), F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the documents submitted and determined that petitioners have failed to demonstrate entitlement to the right sought. Insofar as the petition seeks to "file criminal complaint" against certain officers, mandamus will not lie for such purpose. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied. Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER, Clerk By Deputy Clerk We DID NOT submit our petition to Baldock or Lucero. We submitted it to Logan. Justification by citation for refusing our petition to have Svet and Campos obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appear to be inapplicable to our petition. In Sangre de Cristo Community Mental Heath Serv., Inc. v. United States (In re Vargas), 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) is inapplicable to our petition since it involved If a trial judge has clearly abused his discretion in denying motion to quash subpoena directed toward attorney, client can seek writ of mandamus with having to wait for contempt citation. Santiago Campos was the respondent judge. We seek our civil rights to conduct discovery mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Haley Mem'l Hospital., Inc. v Schweiker, 689 F.2d 905, 912 (10th Cir. 1982) petitioner, ... complaint failed to state valid claim for mandamus relief; ... Violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by judges Svet and Campos is surely a valid claim for mandamus relief. In Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490, U.S. 296, 309 (1989) lawyer Mallard wished to withdraw from representing indigent inmates. The Court of Appeals denied without opinion Mallard's petition for writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to allow his withdrawal. Our petition has to do with violation of civil liberties, rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and forcing judges to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. And has nothing to do with a lawyer seeking to withdraw from representing indigent inmates. In Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35-36 (1980) petitioner sought to overturn a new-trial order. To overturn a new-trial order by way of mandamus undermines the policy against piecemeal appellate review. Certiorari granted; 612 F 2.d 1249, reversed. We are not attempting to overturn a new-trial order. We are attempting to force judges to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Weston v. Mann (in re Weston), F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir. 1994) petitioner sought, in a bankruptcy matter, Requirement for time filed notice of appeal is mandatory; absent such notice, appeal must be dismissed. and Extraordinary relief of writ of mandamus is not to be used as substitute for appeal. But tenth circuit judges BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL did write, Party seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel court to exercise jurisdiction has burden of showing that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of writ, by demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion. Svet and Campos contempt for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressed in the outrageous June 11, 1997 Order is EXACTLY what a writ of mandamus is designed to remedy. Now judge Scalia we are not appealing any decision. We want what we paid for. A lawsuit conducted according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35-36 (1980), cited by Baldock and Lucero, contains the statement, This Court has recognized that the writ of mandamus "has traditionally been used in the federal courts only 'to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.'" Will v. United States, supra at 95, quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1934). Only exceptional circumstances, amounting to a judicial usurpation of power, will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. Will v. United States, supra, at 95. So, judge Scalia, this is exactly what Svet and Campos' ORDER of June 11 does: a usurpation of power which violates our civil rights. Svet and Campos attempt to usurp power by denying our discovery rights permitted us by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Relief, through you , is sought by writ of mandamus to modify the June 11 ORDER to read, The parties in civ 97-0266 will follow Federal Rules of 26-37 regarding all discovery. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following deadlines are hereby established: 1. The parties shall complete discovery necessary by February 3, 1998. 2. Motions relating to discovery shall be filed no later than February 23, 1998. 3. All pretrial motions regarding matters other than discovery shall be filed by March 3, 1998. 4. The Pre-Trial Order shall be provided as follows: Plaintiffs to Defendants by April 3, 1998; Defendants to the Court by April 18, 1998. The additional time is required to compensate for time lost as a result of these proceedings. We need to begin discovery using the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. We paid for this. Now we can proceed on to the criminal complaint section of this letter. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled the Complaint provides: The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate. As you may be aware, An individual may "make a written complaint on oath before an examining and committing magistrate, and obtain a warrant of arrest." This is in conformity with the Federal Constitution, and "consonant with the principles of natural justice and personal liberty found in the common law." [United States v Kilpatrick (1883, DC NC) 16G 765, 769] You may also be aware, A complaint though quite general in terms is valid if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. [United States v Wood (1927, DC Tex) 26F2d 908, 910, affd (CA5 Tex) 26 F2d 912.] And for your edification, The commission of a crime must be shown by facts positively stated. The oath or affirmation required is of facts and not opinions or conclusion. [United States ex rel. King v Gokey (1929, DC NY) 32 F2d 93, 794] The complaint must be accompanied by an oath. [Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No 2126] A complaint must be sworn to before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States. [United States v Bierley ( 1971, WD Pa) 331 F Supp 1182] Such office is now called a magistrate. A complaint is ordinarily made by an investigating officer or agent, and where private citizens seek warrants of arrest, the practice recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States is to refer the complaint to the United States Attorney. However, further reference to him is rendered futile where a mandamus proceeding is brought to compel him to prosecute and he opposes the proceeding. [Pugach v Klein (1961, SD NY) 193 F Supp 630, citing Manual for United States Commissioners 5 (1948)] Any attempt to bring criminal complaints to government authorities would, of course, be futile. I am a citizen of the United States and , judge Scalia you are the assigned magistrate. In order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution and Rules 3 and 4, a written and sworn complaint should set forth the essential facts constituting the offense charged and also facts showing that the offense was committed and that the defendant committed it. And, As to the requirement that the complaint be made on personal knowledge of the complainant, it is enough for the issuance of a warrant that a complainant shows it to be on the knowledge of the complainant. [Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d 1503, 78 S Ct 1245, rev. (Ca5 Tx) 241 F2d 575, 579 in accord Rice v Ames (1901) 180 US 371, 45 L Ed 577, 21 S ct 406, and United States v Walker, (1952, CA2 NY) 197 F 2d 287, 289, cert den 344 US 877, 97 L Ed 679, 73 S Ct 172] So as to keep contiguous the requirements of the law and the criminal complaint affidavit, I will include this complaint in this letter to you. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Don J. Svet and Santiago Campos Essential material fact is: 1 June 11, 1997 Svet and Campos [Judges] issue attach ORDER attempt to deprive Payne and Morales [Plaintiffs] rights under color of law. 2 Plaintiffs notify Judges in attached Motion for Court to Restore Plaintiffs' Civil Rights FILED JUN 24 1997 to correct situation. 3 Attached page 3 of docket sheet, item 19, dated July 18, 1997 3:27 pm shows that Judges received Plaintiffs' JUN 24 motion. Wherefore, Judges willfully and knowingly have violated Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Count 1 Judges have violated Title 18, Section 242 , Deprivation of right under the color of law. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 Date Arthur R. Morales 1023 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 (505)345-1381 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit judges Bobby Baldock and Carlos Lucero Essential material facts are: 1 Baldock and Lucero issued ORDER filed August 11, 1997 in docket case 97-2233. 2 Baldock and Lucero cited references in their decision knowingly inapplicable to petition in case 97-2233 before them. 3 Baldock and Lucero process case 97-2233 when it was addressed to judge James K. Logan. 4 Baldock and Lucero, with written evidence of illegal June 11, 1997 ORDER of Svet and Campos before them, valid criminal complaint affidavit submitted by Payne and Morales. COUNT 1 5 Baldock and Lucero are charged with Title 18, section 1017, Government seals wrongly used an instruments wrongfully sealed, Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buy, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." for sending the knowing false August 11, 1997 ORDER to Payne and Morales. COUNT 2 6 Baldock and Lucero are charged with, Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended which states, (3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from - (1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ... for intercepting Payne and Morales' petition for writ of mandamus when it was, in fact, directed to judge James Logan, not Baldock and Lucero. And for hindering and harassing Payne and Morales, through Baldock and Lucero's August 11, 1997 order from reporting Svet and Campos to judge James K. Logan. COUNT 3 7 Baldock and Lucero are changed with U.S.C., Title 18, Article 4: Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by the court of the United States conceals and who do not as soon as possible make known to some judge or other person in a civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for more than three years or both." June 25, 1948, Ch. 645, Article 1, 62 Stat. 648) for not properly processing the criminal complaint affidavits filed against judges Svet and Campos. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 Date Arthur R. Morales 1023 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 (505)345-1381 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit clerk Patrick Fisher Essential material facts are: 1 Payne and Morales addressed writs of mandamus and prohibition and criminal complaint affidavits against judges Svet and Campos to tenth circuit judges James K. Logan. 2 Fisher entered and had sent to Payne and Morales August 17 ORDER authored by Baldock and Lucero. COUNT 1 3 Fisher is charged with Title 18, section 1017, Government seals wrongly used and instruments wrongfully sealed, Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buy, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. for having sent August 11, 1997 ORDER authored by Baldock and Lucero when Fisher knew Payne and Morales petition was sent to judge Logan. COUNT 2 4 Fisher is charged with Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended which states, (3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from - (1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ... for willfully interfering with Payne and Morales efforts to report Svet and Campos violations of federal law to judge Logan. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 Date Arthur R. Morales 1023 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 (505)345-1381 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit judge James K. Logan Essential material facts are: 1 Payne and Morales addressed writs of mandamus and prohibition and criminal complaint affidavits against judges Svet and Campos to tenth circuit judges James K. Logan. 2 Logan's office acknowledges receipt of writs with return receipt requested posted car for item z 267 905 440 signed by Merva Bain on July 28, 1997. COUNT 1 3 Logan is charged with Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended which states, (3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from - (1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ... for his failure to properly process the writs and criminal complaint affidavits addressed to him. COUNT 2 4 Logan is charged with violaton of U.S.C., Title 18, Article 4: Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by the court of the United States conceals and who do not as soon as possible make known to some judge or other person in a civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for more than three years or both." June 25, 1948, Ch. 645, Article 1, 62 Stat. 648) for not properly processing the criminal complaint affidavits filed against judges Svet and Campos. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 Date Arthur R. Morales 1023 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 (505)345-1381 Now, judge Scalia, you are in receipt of our May 30, 1997 petition for writ of mandamus to have sent to us our docket sheets which the Tenth circuit refuses to do. Also, you are in receipt of a writ of mandamus directed toward judge Lucius Bunton to issue criminal complaint affidavits against some judges and clerks in the Tenth circuit. US Attorney Robert Gorrence's threatening letter to me apparently resulted from a letter I wrote to judge Frank John Magill on February 13, 1997 on the behalf of Max Hernandez of the organization Libertad. Judge Scalia, it appears there may be more criminal activity within the tenth circuit. While this apparently misconduct only remotely involves me [I was threatened under the color of law with sanctions by tenth circuit judge Paul Kelly], we think it best to draft formal criminal complaint affidavits for proper investigation. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit judge Paul Kelly Essential material facts are: 1 Kelly reports to the Committee on Financial Disclosure, 1989 Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley $166,003 B. Dalton Bookseller blank Santa Fe Mountain Center blank 1990 Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley $136,000 Santa Fe Mountain Center blank Misc. Oil & Gas Income (net) $355.00 1991 Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley $138,560.35 Santa Fe Mountain Center blank Misc. Oil & Gas Income (est) $300.00 Reporting Period 1/1/92 - 3/1/93 NON-INVESTMENT INCOME, 1992 Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley $128,320 Copies of the evidence from the report submitted to the Committee on Finanical Disclosure are attached. 2 Pages 9-26, Financial Disclosure Report, Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees apparently do now all such income from a law firm for a judge sitting on the bench. COUNT 1 3 Kelly is charged with violation of Title 18, Article 209, Salary of Government officials and employees payable only by United States, (a) Whoever receives any salary, or any contribution to or supplement of salary, as compensation for his services as an officer or employee of the executive branch of the Unites States Government, of any independent agency of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, from any source other than the Government of the United States, expect as may be contributed out of the treasury of any State, or municipality; or Whoever, whether an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other organization pays, or make any contribution to, or in any way supplements the salary of, any such officer or employee under circumstances which would make its receipt a violation of this subsection - Shall be fined more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both. ... for accepting the money from the law firm of Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley while also employee as as judge of the Tenth circuit. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr. Essential material facts are: 1 Cook was, on information and belief, the chairman, Committee on Financial Disclosure at the time tenth circuit judge Paul Kelly was collecting money from the law firm of Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley. 2 On information and belief, Cook advised Kelly to Kelly to sell his partnership in Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley [ which Kelly did for $128,320 in 1992] instead of filing a criminal complaint affidavit against Kelly for federal violation of law. COUNT 1 3 Cook is charged with violation of U.S.C., Title 18, Article 4: Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by the court of the United States conceals and who do not as soon as possible make known to some judge or other person in a civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for more than three years or both." June 25, 1948, Ch. 645, Article 1, 62 Stat. 648) for, on information and belief, that Cook counseled Kelly on how to cover-up Kelly's violation of federal law by selling Kelly's law firm interests instead of filing a criminal complaint affidavit against Kelly. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Tenth circuit judge John Frank Magill Essential material facts are: 1 February 13, 1997 Payne writes Magill, chairman, Committee on Financial Disclosure, on behalf of Max Hernandez of the organization Libertad. 2 Payne informs Magill of possible financial misconduct on the parts of judges Parker and Kelly. 3 Payne cites evidence given in the records of the Committee of Financial Disclosure. COUNT 1 4 Magill is charged with violation of U.S.C., Title 18, Article 4: Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by the court of the United States conceals and who do not as soon as possible make known to some judge or other person in a civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for more than three years or both." June 25, 1948, Ch. 645, Article 1, 62 Stat. 648) for, on information and belief, that Magill failed to draft criminal complaint affidavits against judges Kelly and Parker. COUNT 2 5 Magill is charged with Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended which states, (3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from - (1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ... for, on information and belief, causing US attorney Robert Gorrence to harass Payne by letter for having brought to Magill's attention apparent violation of criminal statutes by judges Parker and Kelly. VERIFICATION Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this criminal complaint affidavit 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. Date William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 Judge Scalia, you have not yet responded to our May 30, 1997 petition for writs and report of your disposition of the criminal complaint affidavits. Your failure to take proper and prompt action means that tenth circuit clerk Patrick Fisher has committed yet another felony violation of law - in writing, of course. Morales, I and others have noticed that NO ONE is writing us to tell us that our criminal complaint affidavits have no merit. Rather you judges are apparently using no response as method to fail to do your jobs as required by law. Therefore, I ask that you write us if our criminal complaint affidavits are out of order. And report if evidence of our allegations is insufficient to have you issue the warrants of arrest. But the evidence, of course, is all in writing. We ask that you do promptly process our petitions for writs of mandamus so we can, 1 review copies of our Tenth circuit docket sheets, 2 conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne 1023 Los Arboles NW 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87107 Albuquerque, NM 87111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that a copy of the foregoing request for writs was mailed to Judges Don Svet and Santiago Campos on August 28, 1997. date signed

end of parker