New Mexico second judicial district void judgment actions

First posted
Wednesday September 19, 2007 07:39
Updated
Thursday November 8, 2007 09:30

Thursday November 8, 2007 08:38

Second judicial district court returned our 3425 void judgment filing AFTER file stamping and punching it. No!!!

Something very strange. Look like a duplicate of information previously received but instead of the Eichwald order, the two 02 May 16 PM 1:07 enclosures.

The filed stamp has been whited-out.

Here's the reverse side of above.

Here's the file stamp magnified 3x.

2007 OCT 30 8:18 PENELOPE SMITH?

Thursday November 1, 2007 07:58

2001 CV 7794 and 2002 3425 are properly before New Mexico Court of Appeals and Utah Federal Court. See Pro Se Fights main page article.

12-309. Motions.
A. Use of motion. Unless otherwise prescribed by these rules, all applications for an order or other relief shall be made by filing a motion.

B. Content and filing. Motions shall be filed, together with any supporting affidavits or other papers, with proof of service on all parties as provided in Rule 12-307. A motion shall state concisely and with particularity the relief sought and the ground on which it is based. If the docket fee has not already been paid, it must accompany the motion unless free process has been granted in which case the free process order shall accompany the motion.

C. Opposition or concurrence. Prior to filing a motion, the moving party shall attempt to ascertain whether the motion will be opposed by any other party. The motion shall recite whether, upon inquiry by counsel for the movant, any other party has expressed an intention to oppose or not oppose the motion or why the position of another party was not obtained after reasonable effort.

D. Procedural motions. Motions seeking extensions of time, leave to exceed the length of brief permitted by these rules and similar motions directed to the appellate court's discretion in procedural matters need not be accompanied by briefs. Such motions shall state with particularity the reasons for the request.

E. Other motions. Other motions may be accompanied by a separate brief. Adverse parties may file and serve a response within fifteen (15) days after service of movant's motion.

This is more than a posting: IT IS A CRIME SCENE.

And here may be what you do about a violation of oath of office.

12-604. Removal of public officials.
A. Scope. This rule governs all proceedings for removal of public officials where jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the constitution or by statute.

B. Filing of charges. Charges alleging specific facts constituting one or more constitutional or statutory grounds for removal will be entertained by the court upon presentment by the governor, the attorney general or any regularly impanelled grand jury. Any such grand jury presentment shall be immediately certified to the Supreme Court by the district court clerk where such presentment is filed.

C. Prosecution. All charges so presented to the court shall be prosecuted by the attorney general unless the attorney general shall decline to act, except that the governor, in case of presentment by the governor, may request the designation of another attorney, in either of which events the court will appoint another attorney.

D. Service. Upon any such presentment, the court shall make and enter its order directing service upon the accused and specifying the time for appearance and answer.

E. Answer. Within the time prescribed in such order, the accused may, by way of answer, object to the sufficiency of any charge or specification or deny the truth thereof. Any charge or specification legally sufficient and not denied shall be taken as admitted.

F. Failure to appear. If the accused shall not appear, the court will proceed to hear and determine the charges in the accused's absence.

G. Trial. The issues shall be tried to the court without a jury. To the extent that such are applicable and do not conflict with the rules of this court, the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts and the Rules of Evidence shall govern the conduct of the trial. The prosecution shall have the burden of proof.

H. Judgment. The decision and judgment of the court shall be final. Unless the judgment shall expressly provide otherwise, no motion for rehearing or for new trial shall be permitted, and the judgment shall take effect at once.

I. Fees. No docket fee or filing fee shall be required in any removal proceedings. Witness fees and other costs shall be taxed in such manner as may be determined by the court in its discretion.

Morales and Payne studied the returned motion documents. It appears that they were properly filed and punched by clerk Penelope Smith, then someone whited-out the file stamp marks. Perhaps ANN M. HART whose stamp is seen below.

But they apparently screwed-up and didn't white-out the file stamp from one document.

We're formulating a strategy on what to do. First post!

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#eichwald

The Eichwald order is voidable since the order beyond Eichwald's jurisdiction.

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

A judge can't grant you the right to organize your own army.

Nor can a judge deny you a right to trial by jury guranteed inviolate by both New Mexico and US constitutions.

Eichwald also violated his oath of office, in writing. But, hey, this is standard practice.

Here's the law:

1-060. Relief from judgment or order.
A. Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

B. Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 1-059 NMRA;

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one-year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this paragraph does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the proceeding for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

They didn't white-out the file stamp on this.

Here's a whited-out request for hearing in the Morales and Payne void judgment action.

Here's the reverse side.

Here's upper left hand corner enlarged 300%.

FILED
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2007 OCT -5 AM 8:10 PENELOPE SMITH

Let's do some further investigation.

November 1, 2007 10:48

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#replywalzmoralespayne

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. CV-2002-3425

ARTHUR R. MORALES, and WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiffs,

W. JOHN BRENNAN,
KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS,
PATRICIO M. SERNA, and
WALZ AND ASSOCIATES
Defendants.

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

1 Lawyer Walz writes

COME NOW, Defendants W. John Brennan. Kenneth G. Brown, William Haas, Patricio M. Serna, and Walz and Associates, by and through counsel, Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, hereby respond to Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne pleadings as follows:

1. This matter was dismissed pursuant to court order entered July 8, 2002, by the Honorable Robert H. Scott. Jurisdiction was at all times proper, and no appeal from the dismissal orders was taken by the Plaintiffs. The following dismissal orders which resolved all claims advanced by Plaintiffs are attached as follows:

The matter was improperly dismissed in court order entered July 8, 2002.

CV-2002-3425 is a 12 person jury trial lawsuit.

Walz does not cite any statute or law which over turns right of trial by jury guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico Constitution ARTICLE II Bill of Rights which 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. ...

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

2 Lawyer Walz writes

a. Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Compliant Against W. John Brennan, Kenneth G. Brown and Patricio M. Sema on the Basis of Absolute Judicial Immunity.
b. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against Walz and Associates for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

c. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against William Haas for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

a-c are all voidable because the limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

Further, we have been defrauded out of our $322 filing fee for 12 person jury trial lawsuit.

Fraud for amount of $322 is a a fourth degree felony under 30-16-6 which carries a sentence of eighteen months imprisonment under 31-18-15.

3 Lawyer Walz writes

d. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting Arthur R. Morales from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Courts Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.
e. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting William H. Payne from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Court Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.

are all voidable because the limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

Further, d and e are proof in writing in court record that Walz and judge Scott have committed Federal Title 18 § 241 felony violation of law as well as violation of 30-16-9. Extortion

Extortion consists of the communication or transmission of any threat to another by any means whatsoever with intent thereby to wrongfully obtain anything of value or to wrongfully compel the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

[f]or a third degree felony, three years imprisonment - under 31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.

3 Lawyer Walz writes

2. The current pleadings filed by Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are frivolous, out of time, and in direct violation of two separate orders which permanently enjoin these plaintiffs from filing these types of pleadings.

Above statement is false.

Mandatory judicial notice states: A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient.

The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment and cannot render a void judgment valid.

4 Lawyer Walz writes

3. The terms and conditions of the injunction entered in these proceedings which prohibits this type of behavior from Mr. Morales are clear and unambiguous. A copy of Judge Scott's order granting the injunctive relief is attached.

Copy of judge Scott's order plaintiffs received did not have Scott's signature affixed nor was it mailed from clerk's office

Mandatory judicial notices states: Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

Plaintiffs are properly before court in No. CV-2002-3425.

5 Lawyer Walz writes

4. In another state district court action, co-plaintiff William H. Payne was also enjoined by an order entered on May 16, 2002, from the Honorable Kenneth Brown from filing this type of pleading without meeting specific terms and conditions as identified in that order. The Order granting injunctive relief against Mr. Payne is attached. Both Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are in direct violation of the respective injunctive orders entered by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and the court should impose appropriate sanctions against them.

Reference to order entered on May 16, 2002, from the Honorable Kenneth Brow is improper because Mandatory Judicial Notice states: A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

6 Lawyer Walz writes

Respectfully, the Court in these proceedings should order the following:

1. That Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne be ordered to personally appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt;

2. That should the Court find that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne have violated the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them, that the Court hold them in contempt and fix an appropriate penalty and enforce it accordingly in a manner in which these two individuals will understand that they can not violate the respective injunctions entered against them.

3. That the Court order that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this matter based on their direct and intentional violation of the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them . The Court, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2, has the proper authority to impose sanctions for violations of court orders. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2 (It shall be within the power of each and every presiding [officer] of the several courts of this state, whether of record or not of record, to preserve order and decorum, and for that purpose to punish contempts by reprimand, arrest, fine or imprisonment, being circumscribed by the usage of the courts of the United States.) See also Consoles v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 151, 154 (N.M. 1995) (An award of sanctions is based on a party's misconduct towards the court. The court may award civil contempt sanctions even when the underlying claim is dismissed. An award of civil contempt sanctions attempts to "compensate the complainant for losses sustained.")(quoting State e.x re]. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico, Inc., 74 N.M. 201, 204, 392 P.2d 347, 349 (1964))(intemal cites omitted) State ex rel. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories, 74 N.M. 201, 204 (N.M. 1964) (Judicial sanctions may, however, be employed in civil contempt for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.) The court should utilize that power and authority to secure compliance from Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne regarding the injunctions entered against them.

must be rejected for the reason that Plaintiffs have paid for 12 person jury trial breach of contract prima facie case lawsuit against defendants. Plaintiffs wants what they paid for and is guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and US Constitutions.

7 The court must grant relief requested in motion for reasons:

A When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

B Judge assigned to case will have signed are 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.

Failure not to have settlement or paid for trial by 12 person jury would violate oath of office and the limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

8 No face-to-face hearing must be permitted in this matter because of the threat of Walz to get a crooked judge to unwarrantedly sanction plaintiff.

Walz has demonstrated, in writing guilt of

30-42-3. Definitions. As used in the Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]: A. "racketeering" means any act that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of New Mexico and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, involving any of the following cited offenses:
(6) fraud, as provided in Section 30-16-6 NMSA 1978;

(12) extortion, as provided in Section 30-16-9 NMSA 1978;

(16) criminal solicitation, as provided in Section 30-28-3 NMSA

30-28-3. Criminal solicitation; penalty. A. Except as to bona fide acts of persons authorized by law to investigate and detect the commission of offenses by others, a person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, commands, requests, induces, employs or otherwise attempts to promote or facilitate another person to engage in conduct constituting a felony within or without the state.

for attempting to solicit a judge to deny right to trial by jury.

When judges or other authorities are suspected or accused of crime or misconduct, then they should no longer be under the protection of absolute immunity. These are persons who may have erred in their judgments and decisions and must be investigated to confirm or deny these allegations.

All communications in must be in writing because of demonstrated corruption within the New Mexico court systems.

The fact remains that a judge has never ruled on the validity of plaintiffs' motion of authorities to void or vacate judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

Respectfully submitted

_______________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-3230-7277

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

I certify that a copy of this request for hearing as mailed to all other parties entitled to notice on this ___________ day of October, 2007.

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE
Plaintiffs Pro Se:

Defendants' Attorneys:

Walz & Associates
12009 State Highway 14 N.
Cedar Crest, NM 87008

Marcus Rael
French and Associates
Attorney for Defendant Judge Brown
500 Marquette NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Gary King
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

November 6, 2007 08:47

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#replywalzmoralespayne

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. CV-2002-3425

ARTHUR R. MORALES, and WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiffs,

W. JOHN BRENNAN,
KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS,
PATRICIO M. SERNA, and
WALZ AND ASSOCIATES
Defendants.

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

1 Lawyer Walz writes

COME NOW, Defendants W. John Brennan. Kenneth G. Brown, William Haas, Patricio M. Serna, and Walz and Associates, by and through counsel, Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, hereby respond to Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne pleadings as follows:

1. This matter was dismissed pursuant to court order entered July 8, 2002, by the Honorable Robert H. Scott. Jurisdiction was at all times proper, and no appeal from the dismissal orders was taken by the Plaintiffs. The following dismissal orders which resolved all claims advanced by Plaintiffs are attached as follows:

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. ...

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

2 Lawyer Walz writes

a. Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Compliant Against W. John Brennan, Kenneth G. Brown and Patricio M. Sema on the Basis of Absolute Judicial Immunity.
b. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against Walz and Associates for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

c. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against William Haas for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

Fraud for amount of $322 is a a fourth degree felony under 30-16-6 which carries a sentence of eighteen months imprisonment under 31-18-15.

3 Lawyer Walz writes

d. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting Arthur R. Morales from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Courts Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.
e. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting William H. Payne from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Court Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.

Extortion consists of the communication or transmission of any threat to another by any means whatsoever with intent thereby to wrongfully obtain anything of value or to wrongfully compel the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will. ...

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

[f]or a third degree felony, three years imprisonment - under 31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.

3 Lawyer Walz writes

2. The current pleadings filed by Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are frivolous, out of time, and in direct violation of two separate orders which permanently enjoin these plaintiffs from filing these types of pleadings.

Above statement is false.

4 Lawyer Walz writes

3. The terms and conditions of the injunction entered in these proceedings which prohibits this type of behavior from Mr. Morales are clear and unambiguous. A copy of Judge Scott's order granting the injunctive relief is attached.

Copy of judge Scott's order plaintiffs received did not have Scott's signature affixed nor was it mailed from clerk's office

Plaintiffs are properly before court in No. CV-2002-3425.

5 Lawyer Walz writes

4. In another state district court action, co-plaintiff William H. Payne was also enjoined by an order entered on May 16, 2002, from the Honorable Kenneth Brown from filing this type of pleading without meeting specific terms and conditions as identified in that order. The Order granting injunctive relief against Mr. Payne is attached. Both Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are in direct violation of the respective injunctive orders entered by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and the court should impose appropriate sanctions against them.

6 Lawyer Walz writes

Respectfully, the Court in these proceedings should order the following:

1. That Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne be ordered to personally appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt;

2. That should the Court find that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne have violated the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them, that the Court hold them in contempt and fix an appropriate penalty and enforce it accordingly in a manner in which these two individuals will understand that they can not violate the respective injunctions entered against them.

3. That the Court order that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this matter based on their direct and intentional violation of the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them . The Court, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2, has the proper authority to impose sanctions for violations of court orders. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2 (It shall be within the power of each and every presiding [officer] of the several courts of this state, whether of record or not of record, to preserve order and decorum, and for that purpose to punish contempts by reprimand, arrest, fine or imprisonment, being circumscribed by the usage of the courts of the United States.) See also Consoles v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 151, 154 (N.M. 1995) (An award of sanctions is based on a party's misconduct towards the court. The court may award civil contempt sanctions even when the underlying claim is dismissed. An award of civil contempt sanctions attempts to "compensate the complainant for losses sustained.")(quoting State e.x re]. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico, Inc., 74 N.M. 201, 204, 392 P.2d 347, 349 (1964))(intemal cites omitted) State ex rel. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories, 74 N.M. 201, 204 (N.M. 1964) (Judicial sanctions may, however, be employed in civil contempt for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.) The court should utilize that power and authority to secure compliance from Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne regarding the injunctions entered against them.

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.

30-42-3. Definitions. As used in the Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]: A. "racketeering" means any act that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of New Mexico and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, involving any of the following cited offenses:
(6) fraud, as provided in Section 30-16-6 NMSA 1978;

(12) extortion, as provided in Section 30-16-9 NMSA 1978;

(16) criminal solicitation, as provided in Section 30-28-3 NMSA

30-28-3. Criminal solicitation; penalty. A. Except as to bona fide acts of persons authorized by law to investigate and detect the commission of offenses by others, a person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, commands, requests, induces, employs or otherwise attempts to promote or facilitate another person to engage in conduct constituting a felony within or without the state.

Respectfully submitted

Thursday October 25, 2007 15:20

Penelope Smith
Clerk's Office
District Court
Second Judicial District
POB 488
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Dear Ms Smith:

Enclosed is an original of REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION case 2001 7794 for filing.

Sincerely,

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
bpayne37@comcast.net

Distribution

bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov

Thursday October 25, 2007 10:35

We saw this one coming.

In the case of crooked judges and lawyers, do it all in writing. No face-to-face confrontations.

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
William H. Payne
Plaintiff

v CV-2001-07794

W. John Brennan
W. Daniel Schneider

Defendants

NOTICE TO JUDGE KENNETH G. BROWN TO CANCEL HEARING ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY SCHEDULED MAY 16, 2002 1 This notice for correction is bought under 1-009 B. Pleading special matters.

B. Fraud, mistake and condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.
[As amended, effective January 1, 1987.]

2 Plaintiff receives NOTICE OF HEARING stamped FILE IN OPEN COURT THIS 28 DAY OF MARCH 2002 apparently signed by Kenneth G Brown, district judge. Exhibit A, arrow.

3 NOTICE OF HEARING is based on erroneous or fraudulently submitted REQUEST FOR HEARING submitted by lawyer Jerry A Walz. Exhibit B. Walz erroneously or fraudulently check Non-Jury trial.

4 CV-2001-07794 is trial by jury. Exhibit C case docket sheet, shows that this case is JURY 12 PERSON CIVIL FILING W/ARBITRATION.

-- Register of Actions Activity --
Event Date Event Description P Type P Num Amt
11/16/2001 ASM: CIVIL FILING W/ ARBITRAT P 1 122.00
11/16/2001 ASM: JURY 12 PERSON P 1 200.00
FILING DEMAND FOR TWELVE-PERSON JURY TRIAL (PL
PRO SE)
11/16/2001 OPN: COMPLAINT

5 As this court may realize a motion to dismiss must satisfy

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.]

6 If plaintiff had wanted trial by judge, then plaintiff would have NOT paid $322 for Trial by jury with arbitration.

WHEREFORE This Court is asked to correct its mistake and cancel May 16, 2002 hearing IN

WRITING by close of business on April 16, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted

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

Date

I certify at a copy of this notice was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on April 8, 2002.

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-344-4848

Kenneth G. Brown
Thirteenth Judicial District Div. II
100 Avenida de Justicia
Bernalillo, NM 87004

W. John Brennan
Chief District Judge, Division XIV P.O. Box 488
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
841-7499

Patricio Serna
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#moralespayne

Arrived Saturday October 13, 2007.

Note that lawyer Walz does not respond to the motion but rather tries to attack plaintiffs. And, of course, plaintiffs are not filing any new lawsuits ... merely filing a motion in existing lawsuits.

Note "Making Legal History."

Appearance is made that Walz is trying to get us into a verbal hearing to judge on the merits of his attacks, not our motion. Let's not do this.

Walz may have again, in writing, violated New Mexico criminal statutes in below responses to yet undocketed motion.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#walzmoralespayne

Walz text scanned.

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. CV-2002-3425

ARTHUR R. MORALES, and WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiffs,

W. JOHN BRENNAN,
KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS,
PATRICIO M. SERNA, and
WALZ AND ASSOCIATES
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COME NOW, Defendants W. John Brennan. Kenneth G. Brown, William Haas, Patricio M. Sema, and Walz and Associates, by and through counsel, Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, hereby respond to Plaintiffs Arthur R. Morales and William H. Payne pleadings as follows:

1. This matter was dismissed pursuant to court order entered July 8, 2002, by the Honorable Robert H. Scott. Jurisdiction was at all times proper, and no appeal from the dismissal orders was taken by the Plaintiffs. The following dismissal orders which resolved all claims advanced by Plaintiffs are attached as follows:

a. Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Compliant Against W. John Brennan, Kenneth G. Brown and Patricio M. Sema on the Basis of Absolute Judicial Immunity.
b. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against Walz and Associates for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

c. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Against William Haas for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.

d. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting Arthur R. Morales from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Courts Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.

e. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief Prohibiting William H. Payne from Filing Lawsuits in New Mexico Court Without Representation of Licensed Counsel.

2. The current pleadings filed by Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are frivolous, out of time, and in direct violation of two separate orders which permanently enjoin these plaintiffs from filing these types of pleadings.

3. The terms and conditions of the injunction entered in these proceedings which prohibits this type of behavior from Mr. Morales are clear and unambiguous. A copy of Judge Scott's order granting the injunctive relief is attached.

4. In another state district court action, co-plaintiff William H. Payne was also enjoined by an order entered on May 16, 2002, from the Honorable Kenneth Brown from filing this type of pleading without meeting specific terms and conditions as identified in that order. The Order granting injunctive relief against Mr. Payne is attached. Both Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne are in direct violation of the respective injunctive orders entered by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and the court should impose appropriate sanctions against them.

Respectfully, the Court in these proceedings should order the following:

1. That Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne be ordered to personally appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt;

2. That should the Court find that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne have violated the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them, that the Court hold them in contempt and fix an appropriate penalty and enforce it accordingly in a manner in which these two individuals will understand that they can not violate the respective injunctions entered against them.

3. That the Court order that Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this matter based on their direct and intentional violation of the terms and conditions of the respective injunctions entered against them . The Court, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2, has the proper authority to impose sanctions for violations of court orders. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2 (It shall be within the power of each and every presiding [officer] of the several courts of this state, whether of record or not of record, to preserve order and decorum, and for that purpose to punish contempts by reprimand, arrest, fine or imprisonment, being circumscribed by the usage of the courts of the United States.) See also Consoles v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 151, 154 (N.M. 1995) (An award of sanctions is based on a party's misconduct towards the court. The court may award civil contempt sanctions even when the underlying claim is dismissed. An award of civil contempt sanctions attempts to "compensate the complainant for losses sustained.")(quoting State e.x re]. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico, Inc., 74 N.M. 201, 204, 392 P.2d 347, 349 (1964))(intemal cites omitted) State ex rel. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories, 74 N.M. 201, 204 (N.M. 1964) (Judicial sanctions may, however, be employed in civil contempt for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.) The court should utilize that power and authority to secure compliance from Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne regarding the injunctions entered against them.

Respectfully Submitted

WALZ AND ASSOCIATES Jerry Walz, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
12009 N.Hwy l4 \J
Cedar Crest, NM 87008
(505)281-3414

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was submitted via U.S. Mail to the following this 11Lh day of October, 2007:

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

William H Payne, Pro Se
13015CalledeSandiasNE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Jerry A. Walz* Walz and Associates Devon M.Fooks

Alfred D. Creecy Attorneys at Law William J. Moon

*Also Admitted

"Making Legal History'"
in Texas & Colorado 12009 N. Highway 14
Cedar Crest, New Mexico 87008
(505)281-3414
(505) 286-8171 FAX
October 11,2007

Mr. Arthur R. Morales Mr. William H. Payne
465 Washington St NE 13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87108 Albuquerque NM 87111
RE: Morales, et id., v. Brennan, et al.
CAUSE NO. D-202-CV-03425

Dear Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne,

Enclosed please find Defendants' Response to Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order and Mandatory Judicial Notice and Authorities to Vacate Judgments for Lack of. Jurisdiction which was filed with Second Judicial District Court on Thursday, October 11, 2007.

Should you have any questions relating to this response please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sincerely,

WALZ AND ASSOCIATES

Steph Chavez,

Legal Assistant for Jerry A. Walz

JAW/sc
Enclosure

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#paynemotion

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#paynenotice

Second judicial district court clerk apparently docked the above.

Now we get to reply. Pro seers: 1 motion, 2 reponse, 3 reply, 4 surreply [with permission of court].

1-007. Pleadings allowed; form of motions. A. Pleadings. There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim denominated as such; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 1-014 NMRA; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.

D. Response. Unless otherwise specifically provided in these rules, any written response and all affidavits, depositions or other documentary evidence in support of the response shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of the motion. Failure to file a response within the prescribed time period constitutes consent to grant the motion, is a waiver of the notice provisions of Paragraph C of Rule 1-058 NMRA, and the court may enter an appropriate order.

E. Reply brief. Any reply brief shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of any written response.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#walzpayne

Walz text scanned.

No. CV-2001-07794

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiffs,

W. JOHN BRENNAN, and
W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER, Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COME NOW, Defendants W. John Brennan, W. Daniel Schneider, by and through counsel, Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, hereby respond to Plaintiff William H. Payne's pleadings as follows:

1. This matter was properly dismissed on May 16, 2002, by the Honorable Kenneth Brown, sitting by designation. Jurisdiction at all times in these proceedings was proper, and no appeal from the dismissal order was taken by Pro Se Plaintiff William H. Payne. A copy of the Honorable Kenneth Brown's May 16, 2002, order is attached as Exhibit A.

2. The current pleadings filed by Mr. Payne are frivolous, out of time, and in direct violation of the order entered May 16, 2002, which granted Defendants' Motion for Injunctive Relief which prohibits Mr. Payne from filing any Pro Se pleadings in any New Mexico Court with the following exceptions:

a. "Nothing in the {the Court-s Order} Order precludes Plaintiff William. H Payne from filing a lawsuit in New mexico Court if the lawsuit is filed by a licensed New Mexico attorney, or if approved by tghe judge assigned to the case"

3- A copy of the Court's Mav 16 ?nn-> A May 16, 2002. order granting the above injunctive relief and other conditions is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

By filing the present pleadings, Mr. Payne was committed a direct violation of the Injundction entered against him by the court. The pleadings do not appear under the singnature of tha licnesed New mexico Attorney, not does it appear thaat the Judge assigned to the case has approved the filing.

Mr Payne has a history of vexatious litigation practices where he has on a refulare bases named judges as Defendant and then lawyers who successfully represente them. He has also posted on a regular basis false adn libelous informaiton on his website which will dealt the accordingly.

However, as to these particular pleading filed in violation of the injunction, the Court respectfully should order the following

1. That Mr. Payne should be ordered to personally appear before the Cpurt to show cause whey he sould not be held in comtempt of Court.

2. That the Court in fact find that Mr. Payne is in contempt of the Courts clear and unambiguous injuction , and the Court affix an appropriate penalty and enforce it accordingly so that.Mr. Payne will understand that he cannot deliberately violate the injunction;

3. That the Court order that Mr. Payne pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defenseof this matter based on Mr. Payne's direct and intentional violation of the terms and conditions of the injunction.

4. That the Court deny the requested relief. The Court, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-2, has the power and authority to impose sanctions for violations of its order. N.M. Sfal. Ann. § 34-1-2 (It shall be within the power of each and every presiding [officer] of the several courts of this state, whether of record or not of record, to preserve order and decorum, and for that purpose to punish contempts by reprimand, arrest, fine or imprisonment, being circumscribed by the usage of the courts of the United States.) See also Gomales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 151, 154 (N.M. 1995) (An award of sanctions is based on a party's misconduct towards the court. The court may award civil contempt sanctions even when the underlying claim is dismissed. An award of civil contempt sanctions attempts to "compensate the complainant for losses sustained.")(quoting State ex rel. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico. Inc.. 74 N.M. 201, 204, 392 P.2d 347, 349 (1964))(internal cites omitted) State ex rel. Apodaca v. Our Chapel of Memories, 74 N.M. 201, 204 (N.M. 1964) (Judicial sanctions may, however, be employed in civil contempt for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.) The Court should use that power and authority here to secure compliance from Mr. Payne of the injunction that has been in place against him since May 16, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted,

WALZ AND ASSOCIATES
Jerry A Walz Attorney for Defendants, Esq.
12009 N.Hwy 14 ]Cedar Crest, NM 87008
(505)281-3414

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was submitted via certified U.S. Mail to the following this 10th day of October, 2007:
William H.Payne, Pro Se
13015Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Wednesday October 3, 2007 10:43

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#penelope

Links to filings.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#moralespayne

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#moralespaynenotice

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#payne

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#paynenotice

Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 8426 9265
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 7:15 AM on October 3, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87103.

Tuesday October 2, 2007 12:13

Penelope Smith
Clerk's Office
District Court
Second Judicial District
POB 488
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Dear Ms Smith:

Thank you for your September 2006 letter.

Enclosed is an original of MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JDUGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION for both cases CV 2002 3425 and 2001 7794.

Also included are NOTICE OF HEARING and addressed stamped envelopes for all parties entitled to notice.

We also enclose a copy of REQUEST FOR HEARING for CV 2002 3425 and 2001 7794 which are mailed to all parties entitled to notice.

We have had unfortunate experience judges as evidenced by

so we would like to keep all communications in writing and avoid face-to-face interactions with judges if possible.

Please be aware of

1-088. Designation of judge.
Procedure for replacing a district judge who has been excused or recused. In the event a district judge has been excused or recused, counsel for all parties may agree to a district judge to hear all further proceedings and if that district judge so agrees, the clerk of the district court shall assign the case to such district judge. In the event counsel for all parties do not stipulate upon a district judge to try the case or the district judge upon whom they agree refuses to accept the case, within ten (10) days, or in the event that one party notifies the clerk of the district court in writing that they will be unable to agree on a replacement district judge, the clerk shall assign a district judge of another division at random, in the same fashion as cases are originally assigned or pursuant to local district court rule. If all district judges in the district have been excused or recused, and the counsel for all parties have not agreed within ten (10) days on a judge to hear the case, the clerk of the district court shall notify the chief justice of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, who shall designate a judge, justice or judge pro tempore to hear all further proceedings.

Sincerely,

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
bpayne37@comcast.net

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
amorales58@comcast.net

Distribution

bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
McClenaghan c/o jayala4@leo.gov

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

NO. CV 01-7794

WILLIAM H PAYNE
Plaintiff,

vs.

W JOHN BRENNAN and W DANIEL SCHNEIDER
Defendants.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

1. Assigned judge: THE HONORABLE________________________________

2. Type of case: Breach of Contract

3. Jury: $322 12 person jury trial guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and US Constitutions.

4. Dates of hearings presently set:

5. Specific matter(s) to be heard upon this request: Sign mandatory, not discretionary, relief to vacate judgments for reason that judgments are void for lack of jurisdiction.

6. Estimated total time required: 5 minutes.

7. Attach separate sheet(s) listing name, firm, capacity, address, and telephone numbers of all parties entitled to notice.

Signature

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

I certify that a copy of this request for hearing as mailed to all other parties entitled to notice on this ___________ day of October, 2007.

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Plaintiff Pro Se:

Defendants' Attorneys:

Walz & Associates
12009 State Highway 14 N.
Cedar Crest, NM 87008

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

NO. CV 01-7794

WILLIAM H PAYNE
Plaintiff,

vs.

W JOHN BRENNAN and W DANIEL SCHNEIDER
Defendants.

NOTICE OF HEARING

A Hearing in this case is set before the HONORABLE ________________________as follows:

DATE OF HEARING: _______________________________________

TIME OF HEARING: _______________________________________

LENGTH OF HEARING: _____________________________________

PLACE OF HEARING: Bernalillo County District Court
400 Lomas Blvd., NW
Albuquerque, NM

MATTERS TO BE HEARD: All evidence of void judgments is in writing in motion. No oral argument is required.

THE HONORABLE ____________________________
By _______________________________________

Notice mailed or delivered on to parties listed on attached sheet.

By _______________________________________

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Plaintiff Pro Se:

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

Defendants' Attorneys:

Walz & Associates
12009 State Highway 14 N.
Cedar Crest, NM 87008

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

NO. CV 2002 3425

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs,

vs.
W John Brennan
Kenneth G Brown
William Haas
Patricio M Serna
Walz and Associates
Defendants. REQUEST FOR HEARING

1. Assigned judge: THE HONORABLE________________________________

2. Type of case: Breach of Contract

3. Jury: $322 12 person jury trial guaranted inviolate by New Mexico and US Constitutions.

4. Dates of hearings presently set:

5. Specific matter(s) to be heard upon this request: Sign mandatory, not discretionary, relief to vacate judgments for reason that judgments are void for lack of jurisdiction.

6. Estimated total time required: 10 minutes

7. Attach separate sheet(s) listing name, firm, capacity, address, and telephone numbers of all parties entitled to notice.

Signatures

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

NO. CV 2002 3425

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs,

vs.

W John Brennan
Kenneth G Brown
William Haas
Patricio M Serna
Walz and Associates
Defendants.

NOTICE OF HEARING

A Hearing in this case is set before the HONORABLE

________________________as follows:

DATE OF HEARING: _______________________________________

TIME OF HEARING: _______________________________________

LENGTH OF HEARING: _____________________________________

PLACE OF HEARING: Bernalillo County District Court
400 Lomas Blvd., NW
Albuquerque, NM

MATTERS TO BE HEARD: All evidence of void judgments is in writing in motion. No oral argument is required.

THE HONORABLE ____________________________

By _______________________________________

Notice mailed or delivered on to parties listed on attached sheet.

By _______________________________________

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE
Plaintiffs Pro Se:

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-3230-7277

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

Defendants' Attorneys:

Walz & Associates
12009 State Highway 14 N.
Cedar Crest, NM 87008

Marcus Rael
French and Associates
Attorney for Defendant Judge Brown
500 Marquette NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Gary King
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Tuesday October 2, 2007 06:46

We converted the froms from html into word format.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#clerkforms

Letter arrived on Saturday with same enclosures.

Morales and Payne opened returned motion CV 2002 3425.

Enclosed were

ABOUT THE PRO SE DIViSIONISELF HELP CENTER
(Self Represented Litigants)
Second Judicial District Court - Bemalillo County Courthouse -- 400 Lomas NW C4th & Lomas)
Room 274A, 2nd floor (505)-841-6702

No Legal Advice. Forms, Referrals and Information Only for persons who wish to represent themselves without an attorney in:
*********************************************************************************************
- divorce, parentage/custody/child support, grandparent visitation
- name changes
- driver's license restoration (after 10 year DWI revocation and based on proof of treatment)
- guardianship (information and referrals ONLY)
*********************************************************************************************

Cost. Form packets - $10.00 (non-refundable) - Cash, Money Order or Cashier's Check ONLY.

IT'S UP TO YOU! YOU prepare your documents for filing as required by the rules of this Court. The Self Help Center cannot represent you or any person, cannot give legal advice, cannot fill out forms for you and cannot tell you how to handle your case.

HOURS OF OPERATION

Some family law packets also available for S10 in Domestic Relations, Room 240, 2nd floor________

NO APPOINTMENTS - 15 MINUTE LIMIT: First-come, first-served until full. Come early and be prepared to wait. Please do not bring small children. Non-English speakers: try to bring an English speaker with you.

If you are low income, you might call the Legal FACS Program (Forms and Courthouse Services) at 256-0417 to find out if you are eligible and for volunteer lawyer schedule.

Domestic Violence Restraining or Protective Order against a family member or intimate partner -Domestic Violence Division, Room274( 841-6737). Legal information and representation-Resources Inc. (243-4300) (Outside Alb, 1-877-974-3400).

Landlord/Tenant - New Mexico Resources for Renters ( 256-9442 in Santa Fe or toll free 1-800-348-9370) or 'Metro Court pro se legal assistant (841-8169). If you are appealing a Metro Court case, pick up apacket from die Civil Clerks Division (1st Floor) and fill out your own papers.

SEE ALSO COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES SHEET

New Mexico statutes

LR2-123. Opposed motions and other opposed matters; filing; hearings.
A. Presentment for filing. As a condition of filing, all opposed motions, objections and other opposed matters requiring a hearing (hereinafter "motions") shall be presented to the clerk with the following:

(1) A copy of the motion, along with any required and other attachments to the motion, for the assigned judge;

(2) An original request for hearing in the form set forth in LR2-Form G, along with a copy of the request for the assigned judge;

(3) An original notice of hearing in the form set forth in LR2-Form H and sufficient copies for all parties entitled to notice; and,

(4) Stamped, addressed, plain (without return address) envelopes for all parties entitled to notice.

B. Service of request. The movant shall serve copies of the request for hearing on all parties entitled to notice.

C. Filing; forwarding to judge. The clerk will file the motion and request for hearing, and endorse a copy of each for the assigned judge. The clerk shall forward the endorsed copies, the original notice of hearing and copies, and the envelopes, to the assigned judge.

D. Notice of hearing. The assigned judge's staff will complete and file the notice of hearing, and mail or deliver copies to all parties entitled to notice, adding to the envelopes the court address as the return address, or the judge may direct the movant to complete this process.

E. General exceptions. The clerk also shall file opposed motions presented without a request for hearing, notice of hearing or stamped, addressed envelopes, in the following circumstances:

(1) Prior to presentment to the clerk, the movant has delivered a copy of the motion and the request, the original and copies of the notice of hearing, and envelopes, to the assigned judge's office, and receipt is indicated on the original motion by initials of the judge's staff.

(2) The motion has been approved for filing by the assigned judge's staff in circumstances other than those set forth in Subsection E(1) above;

(3) The motion is presented with a signed order disposing of the matter; or,

(4) The motion is presented with a proposed order in which the date and time of the hearing will be entered, such as an order to show cause or temporary restraining order.

F. Exception for motions requiring fifteen minutes or less in criminal, delinquency and need-of-supervision cases. All motions in criminal, delinquency and need-of-supervision cases, requiring fifteen minutes or less for hearing, shall be presented only with sufficient copies of the motion for all parties entitled to notice. The clerk, at the time of filing, will stamp a hearing date and time on the original and copies of the motion. The movant shall serve a copy of the motion with the hearing date and time indicated, on all parties entitled to notice. With criminal cases, motions for Monday hearings must be filed by the preceding Monday; motions for Friday hearings must be filed by the preceding Friday. Any motions filed after these deadlines will be scheduled on the next regular calendar, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

G. Required attachments. With all motions requiring an evidentiary hearing, a list of witnesses shall be attached to the motion. With motions filed in domestic relations cases, a Rule 1-099 NMRA, certificate shall be attached as required by Second Judicial District Local Rules, Rule LR2-132.

H. Requests alone. A request for hearing may be filed without a motion provided the request is presented with a notice of hearing, copies and envelopes. A copy of the request shall be served on all parties entitled to notice.
LR2-124. Unopposed motions and other unopposed matters; filing.
A. Presentment for filing. As a condition of filing, all unopposed motions and other unopposed matters (hereinafter "motions") shall be presented to the clerk with the following:

(1) A copy of the motion, along with any required and other attachments to the motion, for the assigned judge; and

(2) An original proposed order disposing of the motion approved by all parties entitled to notice; approval of counsel may be indicated as telephonic approval; approval of a party pro se must be indicated by the party's signature on the proposed order.

B. Filing; forwarding to judge. The clerk will file the motion and endorse a copy for the assigned judge. The clerk shall forward the endorsed copy of the motion and the original proposed order to the assigned judge for consideration.

C. Signed orders; filing; copies. The movant shall retrieve and file the order promptly after it is signed, and shall mail or deliver endorsed copies to all parties entitled to notice. The court takes no responsibility for the filing of orders.

D. Required attachments. With motions filed in domestic relations cases, a Rule 1-099 NMRA, certificate shall be attached as required by Second Judicial District Local Rules, Rule LR2-132.

LR2-125. Trial and merits hearings.
A. Permissive and mandatory requests for trial. In any case, except where a trial or merits hearing (hereinafter "trial") has already been set by pretrial scheduling order, trailing calendar or other written notice, any party may request a trial by filing a request for hearing with the clerk. Where trial has not been set within fourteen (14) months after the complaint is filed, the plaintiff shall file either a request for hearing or a motion for extension of the Rule 1-016 NMRA, deadlines for commencement of trial.

B. Requests for hearing; presentment. As a condition of filing, all requests for hearing shall be in the form set forth in LR2-Form G and shall be presented to the clerk with the following:

(1) a copy of the request for hearing for the assigned judge;

(2) an original notice of hearing in the form set forth in LR2-Form H and sufficient copies for all parties entitled to notice; and

(3) stamped, addressed, plain (without return address) envelopes for all parties entitled to notice.

C. Service of request. The party requesting trial shall serve copies of the request for hearing on all parties entitled to notice.

D. Filing; forwarding to judge. The clerk will file the request for hearing and endorse the copy for the assigned judge. The clerk shall forward the endorsed copy of the request, the original notice of hearing and copies, and the envelopes, to the assigned judge.

E. Notice of hearing. The assigned judge's staff will complete and file the notice of hearing, and mail or deliver copies to all parties entitled to notice, adding to the envelopes the court address as the return address, or the judge may direct the party requesting trial to complete this process.

F. Pretrials and status conferences. Any party may request a pretrial or status conference by filing, without accompanying motion, a request for hearing in the manner set forth above. The court on its own motion may set pretrials and status conferences, and will mail or deliver notice to all parties entitled to notice.

G. Exceptions.

(1) Civil court jury cases. The court will set all civil court jury cases by trailing calendar mailed or delivered to all parties entitled to notice. Cases generally shall be set on the calendar in chronological order by filing date with oldest cases being tried first. For good cause upon motion, the court may provide a definite setting for a jury case.

(2) Delinquency and need of supervision cases. The clerk, under the direction of the assigned judge, will set all delinquency and need-of-supervision trials, and mail or deliver notice to all parties entitled to notice.

(3) Criminal cases. The clerk, under the direction of the assigned judge, will set all metropolitan court criminal appeals, and mail or deliver notice to all parties entitled to notice. The assigned judge's secretary will set all other criminal trials, and mail or deliver notice to all parties entitled to notice.

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CV-______________

Plaintiff
vs.

Defendant

MOTION FOR/TO _________________

_, who was the _________________ (Plaintiff

or Defendant) in the previous proceeding, appearing pro se, requests the Court to consider the

following:

1. _________________

2.

3. ________________________
Signature
Printed Name ______
Street Address ___
City, State & Zip ____
Phone Number________

I certify that I have
mailed a copy of this
pleading to opposing
counsel this_day of____, 20_____.

__________________________
Signature

__________________________
Printed name

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NO.________________
vs.

Plaintiff,

Defendant. .

REQUEST FOR HEARING,

1. Assigned judge: THE HONORABLE_________________

2. Type of case: ______________________

3. Jury: __________ Non-Jury: ____________

4.Dates of hearings presently set:

5. Specific matter(s) to be heard upon this request:

6. Estimated total time required: ____________

7. Attach separate sheet(s) listing name, firm, capacity, address, and telephone numbers
of all parties entitled to notice.

Signature

Name

Address

Telephone

I certify that a copy of this request for hearing ^as mailed to all other parties entitled to notice on this ___________day of ------------------, 20------. ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TOP NOTICE

Plaintiff Pro Se or Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant Pro Se or Defendant's Attorney:

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NO. ______

Plaintiff,

vs.

_______
Defendant.

NOTICE OF HEARING, A Hearing in tkis case is set before the HONORABLE ___as follows:

DATE OF HEARING: _________________

TIME OF HEARING:

LENGTH OF HEARING:

PLACE OF HEARING: Bernalillo County District Court
400 Lomas Blvd., NW
Albuquerque, NM

MATTERS TO BE HEARD: _____________

THE HONORABLE

By

Notice mailed or delivered on to parties listed on attached sheet.

By

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TOP NOTICE

Plaintiff Pro Se or Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant Pro Se or Defendant's Attorney:

Tuesday September 25, 2007 09:02

Judges Brennan and Schneider hopefully may have gotten themselves into some real trouble by crooked lawyer Walz's wording of order to deny Payne right to pro se litigation.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#payne

Mandatory judicial notice
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/secondvoid/secondvoid.htm#paynenotice

Label/Receipt Number: 7006 3450 0002 2280 0100
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 7:18 AM on September 26, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87103.

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H PAYNE
Plaintiff

vs No. CV 01-7794

W JOHN BRENNAN and W DANIEL SCHNEIDER
Defendants 1-060. Relief from judgment or order.

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Plaintiff Payne sue former second judicial chief judge W John Brennan, and second judicial judge W Daniel Schneider [now a New Mexico federal court magistrate judge] for breach of contract and harassment [not a tort] on November 16, 2001 for being defrauded out of $619 paid for two New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuits which plaintiff paid for but did not get.

2 Mandatory judicial notices filed contemporaneously with the motion cite legal support for this motion.

II. BASIS OF MOTION

3 Receipt

shows $322.00 paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit.

4 Certified letter mailed by lawyer Jerry Walz, not second judicial district clerk,

shows thirteenth district judge Kenneth G Brown dismissing 12 person jury trial lawsuit against judges Brennan and Schneider

5 May 16, 2002 ORDER

shows judge Kenneth G Brown dismissing paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit in violation of New Mexico judicial rule 1-041: Dismissal of actions.

6 Judges Brennan and Schnieder move to remove plaintiffs tenth amendment right to represent himself in court.

Judge Kenneth G Brown grants judges Brennan and Schnieder motion

on May 16, 2002

III. ISSUES

7 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. ...

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

Judge Kenneth G Brown denied plaintiff Payne right to trial by jury.

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

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

8 A New Mexico state judge cannot, according to New Mexico judicial rules, dismiss a paid for trial by jury lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by federal and state constitutions as specified in

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 o