Sandia Laboratory
Federal Credit Union

How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started viz

Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war.
Jim Rogers February 12, 2008

First posted
Monday February 4, 2008 07:39
Updated
Wednesday May 28, 2008 17:50

Wednesday May 28, 2008 17:45 4qu from the fbi viz Fuel lines in China viz. Libel. Let's address the below now that the Gilbert2 email was sent. And, of course, the APD initial statement was submitted and filed. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#hammar6

February 22, 2008 Arthur R. Morales . ' ' 465 Washington St. SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 , William H. Payne . 3015CalledeSandiasNE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Matters . Dear Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne: As you no doubt know, this law firm represents Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union. At least with respect to the matters concerning the garnishment proceedings directed against your accounts at the Credit Union, this shall be the last correspondence directed to you on behalf of the .Credit Union or its Board of Directors. The communications between yourselves and the Credit Union are at an impasse, and any further efforts to try to move the situation in any positive odirection appear to be futile. The Board of Directors recognizes your dissatisfaction with the effect of the garnishment proceedings against your accounts at the Credit Union, i.e. the fact that some funds on deposit are now subject to an administrative hold which will continue until further Order of the Court. We recently received notice that the U.S. Attorney'^ Office has now disputed ypur Claims of Exemption. (Given the status of the Court's docket, had the Credit , Union not filed your claims, by now the Court could well have already issued its Order directing the delivery of your funds to pay the Judgments earlier entered against each'ofyou) The Credit Union has taken every step permitted by law to assist you. Hereafter, you must advocate directly to the Court with respect to your claimed exemptions. The U.S. Attorney's office has recently filed a notice disputing your claim(s). This indicates that a hearing on the matter will soon be established and you should receive notice thereof. In any event, the Credit Union will not tolerate any further conduct similar to that which you exhibited on Thursday, February 21st. This conduct .included coming on to Credit'Union property to intimidate Credit Union employees and to subject them to unflattering public portrayal through 1212 Pennsylvania n.e. - albuquei-que, new mexico 87110 o 505.266.8787 o fax5Q5.255.4029 o agjh-law.com Arthur R.Morales William. H. Payne t- , ' February 22,2008 . ' ' - Page 2 . ' ' , -^- posting photpgraphs and comments on your website(s). This letter is notice to you that should you come on to Credit Union property for purposes other than to properly conduct your banking ; business, or approach Credit Union employees, or members in a rude or hostile manner , the Credit Union will make an appropriate response to such provocation . , , As you may know, the Credit Union has the right, under appropriate circumstances, .to deny members access to its business premises, and to limit the services offered to its members. For example, a Federal Credit Union such as this one may forbid a member from coming onto Credit Union property, or it may require a member to conduct his financial transactions at remote sites or electronically. In addition, a Federal. Credit Union may deny services to you._ The consequence of a denial of service is to limit your membership rights to two matters: (1) the right.to vote in the annual Credit Union elections; and (2) the right to hold a single deposit account at the Credit Union. Another consequence of such a denial of services is to deny you the right to use another's account because of your status as joint owner. - The Credit Union does not wish to take these steps, but your unrelenting pursuit of your claims against the Credit Union and its personnel, rather than through the courts, cannot and will not be tolerated. This is a serious matter. The Credit Union hopes your cooperation will be forthcoming. Truly yours, . \ ' "' ' /o r\. ' -^~^ '.f^ ^. ^) o o hjf-^^-^ ."/?'^i-^-i...^-^ <' '.'-^r Kevin D. HammaA KDH/kmg _ ' , cc: Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union /

Thursday March 20, 2008 08:53 -----Original Message----- From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:32 AM To: jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov; cjillson@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org; mainewayne@msn.com Subject: Morales' money We are now dealing with a bogus hearing for reasons of insufficent service coming up Tuesday March 25, 2008. These matters are about to get far more serious. These matters need to get promptly settled. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#urioste Morales and Payne got a 10 - 13:30 hour lecture from a principal of Center for Family Justice on Wendesday March 19, 2008. There looks to be a conspiracy within the legal system in the US ... and we were told it is about money for lawyers. M Christina Armijo is a MALDEF judge, we were told. And MALDEF may be at the heart of this conspiracy, we were led to believe. Principal gave us a reference to EyeOnAlbuquerque. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#urioste

distribution board_of_directors@slfcu.org pporter@slfcu.org cjillson@slfcu.org mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com

Wednesday March 19, 2008 16:07 John Young posted at Cryptome.org 13 November 1998 William Payne promises that he and Arthur Morales will shortly have a Web site for offering information on their activities and those of others. A URL for that site will be available soon. Internet is making these projects possible. Morales and Payne got a 10 - 13:30 hour lecture from a principal of Center for Family Justice on Wendesday March 19, 2008. There looks to be a conspiracy within the legal system in the US. Principal gave us a reference to EyeOnAlbuquerque.

Tuesday March 4, 2008 11:40 We got libeled by SLFCU. But this must wait until we finish more important work. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#hammar5 Received Saturday March 1, 2008

Wednesday February 27, 2008 14:09 Wednesday February 27, 2008 13:00 Payne visited the Juan Tabo branch of SLFCU. Payne talked to younger and older ladies at the reception booth. Payne asked for the names of SLFCU board of directors. The younger lady lady gave Payne a book and showed Payne Payne asked if the chairperson had a mail box. The younger lady phone a Patty which is presumably Patty Porter, Jillson's secretary. The younger lady told Payne that Patty would be down. A man arrived instead. Payne put the Board of Directors email in an envelope addressed the Chairman, Board of Directors. The man said he would deliver the envelope. Payne ask the man's name. The man responded, "I know who you are and I don't want to give you my name." Payne asked the older lady who the man was. She responded, Robert Chavez. He is SLFCU VP. A B C Cash Flow Inc 12416 Towner Ave Ne, Albuquerque, NM 87112-3660 Phone: (505) 298-7353 This company profile is for the private company A B C Cash Flow Inc, located in Albuquerque, NM. A B C Cash Flow Inc's line of business is financial services. Company Profile: A B C Cash Flow Inc Year Started:1996 State of Incorporation:NM Location Type:Single Location NAICS:N/A SIC #Code:7389 Est. Annual Sales:$52,000 Est. Employees:1 Est. Employees at Location:1 Contact Name:Marsha Urioste Contact Title:President Submit concerns regarding CU policies and procedures, conflicts of interest, and/or fraud to SLFCU Supervisory Committee, PO Box 13045, Albuquerque, NM 87191.

Wednesday February 27, 2008 12:46 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillson4 cjillson@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org;webmaster@slfcu.org;ebranch@slfcu.org; Chris Jillson, president Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Credit Union Center 3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-293-0500 Dear Mr Jillson: Our email to the Board of Directors to express concern about your and SLFCU lawyer Hammar's job performance and request to meet with the Board failed to reach the Board of Directors. We received the two messages -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:mail-daemon@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:02 AM To: bpayne37@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: * directors@slfcu.org -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:mail-daemon@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:11 AM To: bpayne37@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: * directors@slfcu.org We ask that you or someone else at SLFCU see that our email is forwarded to the Board of Directors. Please send us a confirmation when the Board of Directors has been notified. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 505-323-7277 amorales58@comcast.net William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@ comcast.net

-----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:mail-daemon@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:02 AM To: bpayne37@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: * directors@slfcu.org -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:mail-daemon@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:11 AM To: bpayne37@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: * directors@slfcu.org -----Original Message----- From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:02 AM To: directors@slfcu.org Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; mainewayne@msn.com; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov Subject: We ask that SLFCU Board of Directors respond by 10:00 AM Thursday February 28, 2008. We won't waste our time with either Hammar or Jillson. We have some serious complaints. Serious criminal complaints. New Mexico attorney general Gary King is becoming more visible. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/king/king.htm#accent

Wednesday February 27, 2008 08:54 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#board board_of_directors@slfcu.org SLFCU Board of Directors Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Credit Union Center 3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-293-0500 Dear Board members: We received a letter from SLFCU's lawyer Kevin Hammar on February 20, 2008 which contains false information and bad legal advice. We feel that SLFCU's Board of Directors must immediate take action to correct matters before they become far more serious. Hammar writes: Thank you for your recent email sent to the Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Board of Directors. The Board has asked that I respond on its behalf. The Board has been briefed on your correspondence and the status of the garnishment proceeding directed against your accounts . We are pleased that we can communicate with you and the board of directors by email and webpages for the reason that we can link to written evidence supporting our claims of false statements and bad legal advice. Hammar wrote Until the Court has issued its Judgment on the Writ of Garnishment, the funds are still in your account, although subject to an administrative hold (freeze). Those funds can only be released or transferred, as the case may be, once the assigned Judge issues her Judgment directing the disposition of these funds. Hammar's above two sentences are incorrect in many ways because the administrative hold [freeze] could have been prevented. Hammar did not return our phone calls to accept our submitted affidavits of exemptions. Morales phoned SLFCU'S attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call. Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call. This would have prevented SLFCU from freezing our savings accounts in an improper, and thus void, sham garnishment proceeding. Morales was improperly served as well as Payne. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#fourattmorales We submitted affidavits of exemptions to SLFCU on February 5, 2008. Still no phone call from Hammar. We informed New Mexico federal court of insufficiency of service on for Payne the second time on February 19, 2008 and Morales on February 19, 2008. Hammar still did not phone. Had SLFCU lawyer Hammer returned both Morales' and Payne's phone calls we could have worked together with Hammar and SLFCU to provide evidence of list of exemptions which SLFCU *has in its records and identify possible service insufficiencies. Hammar's statement "Those funds can only be released or transferred ..." is incorrect because we were not properly served and this garnishment action is illegal and void. Our saving accounts must immediately be made available to us. Hammar's statement "once the assigned Judge issues her Judgment directing the disposition of these funds" indicates knowledge that judge will be a woman in the District of New Mexico. But we know There can be no fair hearing in New Mexico since then federal chief magistrate judge William Deaton told Payne and Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow at a meeting on 3/22/01 that it would be impossible to have fair hearings in New Mexico. INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Magistrate William Deaton; Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 3/22/01 at 11:00 am in Albuquerque, NM; provisional discovery plan and IPTR due 3/12/01 (cc: counsel*) [12k] [3 pages] Therefore then federal chief judge James A Parker ordered in all five fraudulently removed New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuits. 1 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 42 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that this case has been reassigned to Judge William F. Downes (cc: all counsel by dm) [21k] [1 page] 2 06/12/2001 06/12/2001 16 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico; and reassigning this case to the Hon. William F. Downes, Chief U.S. District Judge District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel*) [7k] [1 page] 3 10/25/2001 10/26/2001 6 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Judge James A. Parker reassigning case to Chief Judge Dee V. Benson for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) [8k] [1 page] 4 03/27/2001 03/29/2001 69 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of NM and reassigning case to Chief U.S. District Judge William F. Downes of District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel) [23k] [1 page] 5 10/24/2001 10/26/2001 13 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico recuse in this action, and this case is reassigned to the Honorable Dee V Benson, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) [8k] [1 page] Conclusion is clear that "all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico" are recused for the reason stated by former chief magistrate judge William Deaton that Morales and Payne cannot get a impartial hearing in New Mexico. This negates the writs of garnishment against Morales and Payne. Hammar appears to imply that judgment will be made even though we have not been properly served and jurisdiction tranferred to an impartial court. Further Hammar appears to attempt to have us respond to the court in a void proceeding. SLFCU's lawyer Hammar writes: In your most recent email, you indicate you would like to "...make [your] position clear", and, to clarify, you have provided certain excerpts from the documents which we provided to you. The excerpts are as follows: "In addition, you are hereby notified that there are exemptions under the law which may protect some of the property from being taken by the government if you can show that the exemptions apply. Attached is a summary of the major exemptions which apply in most situations in the State of New Mexico." The next excerpt you provided was a copy of the first page of the garnishment document indicating "Greetings to Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union", etc. You then provide a highlighted paragraph on another page which reads: "Under the law there is property which is exempt from this Writ of Garnishment. Property which is exempt and which is not subject to this Order is listed on the attached Claim for Exemption Form which is attached to the Clerk's "Notice of post-Judgment Garnishment-and Instructions To Debtor." Here's the email SLFCU lawyer Hammar references. SLFCU's lawyer Hammar writes: Your position is that it is the Credit Union, and not the Judge, who makes the determination as to whether your funds are , in fact, exempt. The Credit Union does not share this position. Under New-Mexico law, each of you as a "Judgment Debtor"... "may claim a statutory exemption from garnishment other than wages by filing with the Court a claim of exemption within ten (10) days after service of the "Notice of the Right to Claim Exemptions." New Mexico law further provides that if "the Judgment Debtor fails to file a Claim of Exemption within ten (10) days after service of the Notice of the Right to Claim Exemptions, the Judgment Debtor shall be deemed to have waived the right to claim a statutory exemption other than wages." SLFCU lawyer Hammar quotes "after service of the "Notice of the Right to Claim Exemptions." Again, we were not properly served by assistant UA attorney John Zavitz. And, again, had SLFCU lawyer Hammer returned both Morales' and Payne's phone calls we could have worked togther with Hammar and SLFCU to provide evidence of list of exemptions which SLFCU has in its records and identify possible service insufficiencies SLFCU's lawyer Hammar writes: Once you file (with the Court) your Claim of Exemption, New Mexico law provides the Judgment Creditor with the right to dispute your claimed exemption. If the Judgment Creditor fails to file the Notice of Dispute and Request for Hearing within the time permitted, your Claim of Exemption is granted. If the Judgment Creditor files a Notice of Dispute, the Judgment Creditor shall at the time of filing of the Notice, serve a copy of the Notice of Dispute and Request for Hearing on the Judgment Debtor. This entire series of filings, disputes and hearing is outside of the credit union's purview. We will not be filing "Claim of Exemption" with District of New Mexico federal court until properly served. SLFCU has garnished our savings accounts for a total of $22,036.00 is a sham legal proceeding which lawyer Hammar did not have enough sense to investigate before advising SLFCU and Jillson to proceed with garnishment proceeding. SLFCU's lawyer Hammar writes: The Credit Union has made great efforts to assist you in this matter, including forwarding your Claims of Exemptions to the Court, and working through Joan Fox, and others, to minimize the, adverse consequences of this garnishment proceeding upon your personal circumstances. It can do nothing more. Hammar sent "including forwarding your Claims of Exemptions to the Court" without our permission or including SLFCU deposit records which proved our delarations of exemptions. Joan Fox still has not provided a written copy of the rule mandating deactivation of SLFCU ATM cards when a garnishment it file she ask Beverly Girard to provide us with. We visted Jillson on Thursday February 14, 2008 11:16 - 11:35. Jillson was cordial and said that he would meet with us again. We visited Jillson again on Thursday February 21, 2008 11:08 to ask if he received our insufficient service email and to discuss releasing our funds since garnishment was based on fraudulent court action. Jillson appeared upset and threatening. Jillson told us that he would only communicate with us through SLFCU's attorney and ordered us out of SLFCU second floor main office suite. Because of lawyer Hammar's legal incompetence combined with Jillson's complicity SLFCU has illegally garnished our savings and appears to be in complicity in violation New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment with the New Mexico assistant US Attorney John Zavitz, judge M Christina Armijo, magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia, and clerk Matthew Dykman. SLFCU's lawyer Hammar writes: On February 19, you advised the credit union that you had received additional notices from the Judgment Creditor (or the judgment creditor's attorney). You report that he suggests that you each fill out and file a Claim of Exemption, and to do so quickly. What he is telling you is, in fact, the law. Your additional assertion that service was defective should be brought to the court's attention as well. Unless you put these matters before the judge, you may irreparably compromise your claims. SLFCU lawyer Hammar again attempt to lure us into responding to a void illegal court action in New Mexico federal court where all judicial officers were recused by former chief judge James A Parker. We ask that SLFCU Board of Directors immediately causes our savings accounts to be made accessible to us. We caution the Board of Directors that the problems before us were caused by liberal arts and lawyer educated individuals. Thursday February 21, 2008 we first learned that assistant US attorney John Zavitz was filing these garnishment proceedings with New Mexico federal District Court under case CIVIL NO. 97-266. Because we were improperly served garnishment documents by Zavitz, Zavits has voided CIVIL NO. 97-266. Reason we were sanctioned is that we filed to void CIVIL NO. 97-266. Two other reasons CIVIL NO. 97-266 is void are lack of due process for not conducting requested hearing in 03/10/1998 41 ORDER sua sponte by Magistrate Don J. Svet that plaintiffs shall pay defendant $625.00 in sanctions within 20 days of entry of this order (cc: all counsel, electronically) (dmw) (Entered: 03/10/1998) Morales was removed as plaintiff on April 30, 1998 04/30/1998 42 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Santiago E. Campos; sua sponte the deft is deemed by the Court to be NSA, and not Lt Gen Kenneth A Minihan, future captions for this case should reflect this change; and FURTHER denying as moot pltfs' motion for summary judgment based on evidence from admissions [34-1]; denying deft Minihan's motion for partial dismissal [23-1], and staying deft Minihan's motion for summary judgment pending an in camera ex parte declaration consistent herewith provided by deft to the Court within 60 days of the date of this opinion [23-2], granting deft Minihan's motion to dismiss pltf Arthur R. Morales [21-1]; and denying without prejudice pltfs' motion for summary judgment [11-1]; as further described herein (cc: all counsel) (pz) (Entered: 04/30/1998) Nonetheless the New Mexico US Attorney's office garnishes Morales Sandia Lab wages for the entire $625. 200010289 is a lawsuit for replevin for $625 being taken from citizen Morales without due process [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet1.htm]. Further Svet and assistant US attorney Manuel Lucero attempt a second garnishment which violates due process. Svet then issues order of garnishment for $1,793.56 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/svet2.htm] with no legal cause of action. 04/20/1999 67 ORDER OF GARNISHMENT by Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet (cc: all counsel) (dmw) (Entered: 04/20/1999) This order was never pursued and is an open threatening issue in 2008. We advise the SLFCU of the extensive damages currently being inflicted on us as a result of the illegal garnishment of our savings accounts. We wish to schedule an immediate meeting with SLFCU Board of Directors. We ask that SLFCU Board of Directors respond by 10:00 AM Thursday February 28, 2008. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 505-323-7277 amorales58@comcast.net William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@ comcast.net Distribution mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com

Tuesday February 28, 2008 12:56 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#hammar4

Monday February 25, 2008 09:52 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#disconnect SLFCU and US DOJ damages accumulate. Distribution mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com You guys are doing significant more damage by not helping to get these matters setted. Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war. Jim Rogers February 12, 2008 How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started

Monday February 25, 2008 10:38 Hammar's letter scanned. No enclosure as Hammar claimed Thursday February 20, 2008 18:19 Let's have some more fun with lawyer Hammar. Morales and Payne met to discuss strategy before a visit to Jillson at SLFCU. Morales suggested looking at PACER. Augmented PACER docket came as a great surprise. Note case 634. We are speculating that the clerk's office was confused by saw the link to Zavitz mistake in 634 and docketed Payne's letter and affidavit under 634 rather than 266. Now that we know formal rules of civil procedure are being followed in the garnishment rather than some other type of action, we will take appropriate actions. We left two messages to those involved in WDC. Let's see if we can't get matter settled before they get far worse. We visited Jillson on Thursday February 21, 2008 11:08. to ask if he received http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#improperservice Jillson's physical appearance reminds us of Jillson was not too cooperative about striking a pose similar to Dr Mengele. So this is the best we could do. Matters are getting worse. Jillson told Morales and Payne at our Thursday February 20, 2008 11:08 that SLFCU was only going to communicate with us through its attorney. Okay. Likely lawyer advice for business reasons, of course. SLFCU's legal bills look to increase in the future. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#hammar3

February 20,2008 Arthur R. Morale's 465 Washington St. SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 William H. Payne 13015CalledeSandiasNE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Garnishment Dear Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne: Thank you for your recent email sent to the Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Board of Directors. The Board has asked that I respond on its behalf. The Board has been briefed on your correspondence and the status of the garnishment proceeding directed agamst your accounts Until the Court has issued its Judgment on the Writ of Garnishment, the funds are still in your account, although subject to an administrative hold (freeze). Those funds can only be released or transferred, as the case may be, once the assigned Judge issues her Judgment directing the disposition of these funds. . , In your most recent email, you indicate you would like to "...make [your] position clear", and, to clarify, you have provided certain excerpts from the documents which we provided to you. The excerpts are as follows: "In addition, you are hereby notified that there are exemptions under the law which may protect some of the property from being taken by the government if you can show that the exemptions apply. Attached is a summary of the major exemptions which apply in most situations in the State of New Mexico." The next excerpt you provided was a copy of the first page of the garnishment document indicating "Greetings to Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union", etc. 1212 Pennsylvania n.e. o albuquerque, new mexico 87110 o 505.266.8787 . fax505.255.4029 o aaih-law.com You then provide a highlighted paragraph on another page which reads: "Under the law there is property which is exempt from this Writ of Garnishment. Property which is exempt and which is not subject to this Order is listed on the attached Claim for Exemption Form which is attached to the Clerk's "Notice of post-Judgment Garnishment-and Instructions To Debtor." Your position is that it is the Credit Union, and not the Judge, who makes the determination as to whether your funds are , in fact, exempt. The Credit Union does not share this position. Under New-Mexico law, each of you as a "Judgment Debtor"... "may claim a statutory exemption from garnishment other than wages by filing with the Court a claim of exemption within ten (10) days after service of the "Notice of the Right to Claim Exemptions." New Mexico law further provides that if "the Judgment Debtor fails to file a Claim of Exemption within ten (10) days after service of the Notice of the Right to Claim Exemptions, the Judgment Debtor shall be deemed to have waived the right to claim a statutory exemption other than wages." Once you file (with the Court) your Claim of Exemption, New Mexico law provides the Judgment Creditor with the right to dispute your claimed exemption. If the Judgment Creditor fails to file the Notice of Dispute and Request for Hearing within the time permitted, your Claim of Exemption is granted. If the Judgment Creditor files a Notice of Dispute, the Judgment Creditor shall at the time of filing of the Notice, serve a copy of the Notice of Dispute and Request for Hearing on the Judgment Debtor. This entire series of filings, disputes and hearing is outside of the credit union's purview. . , . "' , The Credit Union has made great efforts to assist you in this matter, including forwarding your Claims of Exemptions to the Court, and working through Joan Fox, and others, to minimize the, adverse consequences of this garnishment proceeding upon your personal circumstances. It can do nothing more. ' . ' o . ' On February 19, you advised the credit union that you had received additional notices from the Judgment Creditor (or the judgment creditor's attorney). You report that he suggests that you each fill out and file a Claim of Exemption, and to do so quickly. What he is telling you is, in fact, the law. Your additional assertion that service was defective should be brought to the court's attention as well. Unless you put these matters before the judge, you may irreparably compromise your claims. Yours truly, KEVIN D.HAMMAR KDH/ke enclosure NO ENCLOSURE RECEIVED, wp Friday February 22, 2008 14:29

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#wellsfargo Received Friday February 15, 2008

-----Original Message----- From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:41 PM <<<<<------------- To: board_of_directors@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; cjillson@slfcu.org Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; mainewayne@msn.com; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov Subject: Lawyer Hammar, by the court's admonition, has improperly seen that SLFCU garnished our saving accounts Hammar realized he erred and trys to correct. Jillson's physical appearance reminds us of Readers, Payne first saw the instructions to Sandia about exemption but then Morales pointed out the instructions to US. That's why we used the original quote. Good news may be that we have an open communications line with Jillson Jim Rogers interview by Dr Paul Kedrosky, Yahoo Finance, February 12, 2008. Somebody knew that Iraq and Iran were going to war. Jim Rogers February 12, 2008 Brzezinski knew when the Iraq/Iran war would start. Likely others in the Carter administration knew this too. Who? Contrary to lawyer Hammar's above statement, SLFCU has not followed the proper writ of garnishment procedures the court sent it and, along with lawyer Hammar appears to have committed extortion by denying us access to our exempt saving accounts. was removed.

Friday February 15, 2008 15:26 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillson3 cjillson@slfcu.org; pporter@slfcu.org; board_of_directors@slfcu.org Chris Jillson, president Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Credit Union Center 3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-293-0500 Dear Mr Jillson: Thank you for meeting with us today. We received lawyer Hammar's letter after meeting with you. You stated to us that you believe that we have differences on how SLFCU should have processed the attempted garnishments. Let us try to make our position clear because it was our fault for not including a second exhibit. We stated SLFCU garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Page 2 states in our February 7, 2008, February 8, 2008, and February 13, 2008 letters you. We tried to inform SLFCU's lawyer Hammar by telephone but Hammar did not return our calls. Morales phoned SLFCU'S attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call. Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call. But what we failed to include was the court's instructions to SLFCU. Here they are: We outline the the court's admonition to SLFCU in red which was included to ensure that SLFCU would not garnish exempt funds. SLFCU with the advice of its attorney Kevin Hammar apparently decided to ignore the court's instructions as well as Morales' and Payne's phone calls and submitted affidavits. Instead of, returning our phone calls, or acting on our affidavits in an effort not to garnish our exempt savings accounts, or verifying claims of exemptions made in those affidavits, thereby SLFCU proceeded with an illegal garnishment process. We believe that if SLFCU lawyer Hammar reads the instructions to SLFCU then he will see that we followed properly procedure and SLFCU did not. And Hammar's submitting SUPPLEMENT TO FILE appears to indicate that Hammar realized he made a mistake and was trying to correct it. Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008. As you may know, this law firm represents Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union. You may also know the Credit Union was served with two (2) Writs of Garnishment, issued out of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, against each of your accounts at the Credit Union. I earlier mailed to you copies of the answers to those Writ of Garnishment which I submitted on behalf of the Credit Union. In addition, Chris Jillson, Chief Executive Officer of the Credit Union, has also written to you informing you as to the proper procedure whereby you might claim the funds in your accounts are exempt from garnishment. You have, however, submitted directly to the Credit Union two (2) affidavits asserting that some part, if not all, of the funds otherwise placed under administrative hold (or freeze) in response to the Writ of Garnishment are exempt. Your cover letter asserts that the Credit Union makes the determination as to whether those funds are exempt. As you know, the Credit Union and yourselves have a different opinion about that matter. Hammar apparently failed to read the instructions to SLFCU outlined in red above. We followed the instructions given to us by the court and even tried to phone Hammar to advise him of exemptions but Hammar did not return our phone calls. Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008: Nonetheless, in an effort to address your claimed exemptions, we have electronically filed, with the District Court, your affidavits. With this filing the Credit Union makes notice in the Court's tile that you each have claimed some part, if not all, of your funds on deposit at the Credit Union as being exempt funds. Lawyer Hammar, by the court's admonition, has improperly seen that SLFCU garnished our saving accounts which were declared by affidavit as exempt. Lawyer Hammer writes on February 13, 2008: This letter is to caution you. This effort by the Credit Union is done to protect your interests as best the Credit Union can. However, by law, each of you are the only ones empowered to authorize to file such claims of exemption. I enclose copies of the-two relevant rules, of procedure. The first being federal rule of procedure the second being the state rule of procedure, addressing garnishments. Please note that Morales and Payne had individual instructions from the court for the process of garnishment. Morales and Payne followed their instructions by submitting individual affidavits to SLFCU in declaration of the status of their funds being held by SLFCU. SLFCU has on file records to validate or refute Morales's and Payne's affidavits. It is very clear that SLFCU received its own instructions from the court which informed them to garnish funds only it these funds were non-exempted by using the table enclosed by the court to determine status of the funds. Those rules contain certain phrases which are in bold face. These bold face sentences describe your duties and your rights with respect to claiming your funds as exempt. Please note that the rules require each of you to file these claims with the court. I thus would encourage you to comply with the letter of these statutes and assert your claims. The Credit Union cannot assure you that by submitting the attached documents for the Court's attention that it will in fact result in any judgment or order upholding your claim of exemptions. Contrary to lawyer Hammar's above statement, we have followed the rules. SLFCU has not followed the rules. You wrote in your February 13, 2008 letter: The law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt". We believe in view of the graphic evidence present in this email that you are incorrect. Our efforts to expedite and provide appropriate affidavits declaring our savings exemption status of our accounts were hand-delivered to SLFCU on February 5, 2008. It was our best effort to send it to SLFCU. Who better than SLFCU is better to affirm or refute the affidavits since it has all of the document to confirm the affidavits? The courts assigned SLFCU the task in its written instructions to determine whether the savings accounts were exempt or not. The court does not have the documentation to show whether the savings account are exempt or not. SLFCU has this information. Then, and only then if the saving accounts were not exempt to proceed with the garnishment. So we ask that you to see that SLFCU immediately makes our garnished saving accounts available to us. However, we feel that it is in the best interests of everyone to settle these unfortunate matters. Sandia National Laboratories has cause all of these unfortunate situations and, therefore, should pay to get them settled. Since we now have communications with you, we solicit your help in settlement of these unfortunate matter by Tuesday February 19, 2008. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 505-323-7277 amorales58@comcast.net William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@ comcast.net Distribution mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com

Thursday February 14, 2008 14:12 We have to decide whether the letter is to Jillson or lawyer Hammar. Let's try to explain to Jillson. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#hammar2

February 13,2008 William H. Payne 13015CalleDeSaildias Ne Albuquerque, NM 87111-2924 Arthur Morales 1400 CaminoAmparo NW Albuquerque, NM 871-7-2608 Re: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency United States of America, Garnishor, Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union, Garnishee U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, Case No. 97-266 MCA/LFG Dear Mr. Payne and Mr. Morales: As you may know, this law firm represents Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union. You may also know the Credit Union was served with two (2) Writs of Garnishment, issued out of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, against each of your accounts at the Credit Union. I earlier mailed to you copies of the answers to those Writ of Garnishment which I submitted on behalf of the Credit Union. In addition, Chris Jillson, Chief Executive Officer of'the Credit Union, has also written to you informing you as to the proper procedure whereby you might claim the funds in your accounts are exempt from garnishment. You have, however, submitted directly to the Credit Union two (2) affidavits asserting that some part, if not all, of the funds otherwise placed under administrative hold (or freeze) in response to the Writ of Garnishment are exempt. Your cover letter asserts that the Credit Union makes the determination as to whether those funds are exempt. As you know, the Credit Union and yourselves have a different opinion about that matter. Nonetheless, in an effort to address your claimed exemptions, we have electronically filed, with the District Court, your affidavits. With this filing the Credit Union makes notice in the Court's tile that you each have claimed some part, if not all, of your funds on deposit at the Credit Union as being exempt funds. This letter is to caution you. This effort by the Credit Union is done to protect your interests as best the Credit Union can. However, by law, each of you are the only ones empowered to authorize to file such claims of exemption. I enclose copies qf the-two relevant rules, of procedure. The first being federal rule of procedure the second being the state rule of procedure, addressing garnishments. Those rules contain certain phrases which are in bold face. These bold face sentences describe your duties and your rights with respect to claiming your funds as exempt. Please note that the rules require each of you to file these claims with the court. I thus would encourage you to comply with the letter of these statutes and assert your claims. The Credit Union cannot assure you that by submitting the attached documents for the Court's attention that it will in fact result in anyjudgment or order upholding your claim of exemptions. Truly yours, KEVIN D'HAMMAR cc: SLFCU enclosures

Thursday February 14, 2008 13:04 We continue to believe Jillson and lawyer Hammar are wrong ... and we think we have the evidence to prove this. Payne saw one exemption statement, Morales saw another. We used the exemption statement Morales saw, now we will use the exemption statement Payne first saw. Jillson mentioned that we have an open line of communcation. And, of course, we pointed out that Sandia labs has made a mess and matter should get settled before they get worse. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillsonmeeting

Jillson meeting with Morales and Payne Thursday February 14, 2008 11:16 - 11:35. Jillson secretary Jillson gave both Morales and Payne a copy of below documents.

Thursday February 14, 2008 06:30 Jillson is again wrong. SLFCU garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Page 2 states http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillsonresponse3

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 3707 JUAN TABO BLVD. NE ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 February 13,2008 Mr. Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St. SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 Mr. William H. Payne 13015CalledeSandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Garnishment & your letter dated Feb. 11, 2008 Dear Mr. Morales & Mr. Payne: This letter is in response to your letter of February 11, 2008 and as a follow up to my phone conversation with Mr. Morales today. As stated in my earlier letter(s) to you. The law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt". The forms which you are required to fill out in order to bring your claim(s) of exemption to the court's attention were mailed to you and you will need to file these with the court in order to protect your rights. The Credit Union's attorney Mr. Kevin Hammer is in the process of filing with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the Feb. 5th, 2008 Affidavit of William H. Payne and the Affidavit of Arthur R. Morales. He will also send a letter to both of you explaining this in more detail. Further, as I stated today in my conversation with Mr. Morales, in the interim, the Credit Union will honor and pay check written by him and/or his wife in order for the Morales to pay their bills and make the purchases they need to make. This will be without any type overdraft fee(s). The following is the names and address for the Board of Directors of SLFCU; Ms. Marsha Urioste, Chairperson Mr. Donald Schroeder Mr. Bruce Ten Broeck, Vice Chair Mr. Jerry Wackerly Mr. Clarence Filip, Secretary/Treasurer Mr. Kevin McMahon Mr. Paul Graham Mr. Joseph Fink Mr. Evan Ashcraft Directors may be contact by writing to: Board of Directors, Sandia Laboratory FCU, P.O.Box 23040, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87192-1040 Or emailed at: board_of_directors@slfcu.org Christopher Jillson President, CEO Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union

Wednesday February 13, 2008 07:08 Morales completed his letter to Jillson on Tuesday evening. Jillson appears to be trying to play liberal art education/lawyer games. Tuesday February 12, 2008 14:52 Morales reported that Jillson phone and offered to let Morales write checks. Morales reported that he is writing Jillson a letter. SLFCU didn't follow garnishment rules and this has caused us grief. Tuesday February 12, 2008 12:58 Morales phoned to report that Jillson phoned him. Tuesday February 12, 2008 09:50 Morales commented on the phone that they need they need to pay for insurance policies on two houses they own but cannot because SLFCU did not follow garnishment rules. Let's all hope for quick settlement before matters get lots worse and lots more expensive. Payne delivered below to Wendy, who also delivered hardcopy of our Friday February 8, 2008 email, to Jillson at about 15:45. Tulsa bail bondsman phoned while Morales and Payne were working on below email. He is on PACER. Wyoming chief judge William F Downes made have done something that, in addition to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invalidates his three rulings in 00 CV 1574, 00 CV 1677, and  01 CV 0634. Tulsa bail bondsman and Payne talked 08:30 Tuesday February 12, 2008. In addition to Downes not having jurisdiction in the above three cases, Downes may have committed fraud on the court. But we need to do some study on PACER to determine if Downes in guilty of fraud. But we need to study the cases with PACER to find out. We planning our next legal steps. Good news. Feb 11 06:04 PM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers, including one that buzzed an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned. A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 flew directly over the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 58 miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret. ... The U.S. has defended the plan as necessary to protect its European allies from possible attacks by Iran. But the Kremlin has condemned the proposal, saying it would threaten Russia's security. Reasons prevailed: The Nimitz may be out of the Persian gulf. Time to settle and focus on energy problems. More good news! Comcast looks to have increased our disk storage space by a factor of 40x!

Monday February 11, 2008 15:26 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillson2 Hand delivered, ebranch@slfcu.org, and webmaster@slfcu.org Chris Jillson, president Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Credit Union Center 3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-293-0500 Dear Mr Jillson: We are in receipt of your two letters of February 7, 2008 and February 8, 2008. Both contain serious errors which must be immediately corrected. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: This letter is in response to your letter of February 5, 2008. Your letter provides a great deal of background information relevant to where we find ourselves now, that is with a Writ of Garnishment issued out of the Federal District Court against each of your accounts. The Credit Union cannot provide you with any legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the lengthy and troubling litigation history described in your letters. Your joint letter indicates that the funds deposited by Mr. Morales at the Credit Union arise from "retirement money" and that most of the funds deposited by Mr. Payne arise from Patricia Payne's teacher wages - excepting only $1,950.00 deposited by Payne as a required distribution from his IRA. This is correct. We filed affidavits on February 5, 2008 to support exemption status claims. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: Let me explain what happens when the Credit Union receives a Writ of Garnishment. First, we review the Writ of Garnishment to make sure that it is issued by a court that has jurisdiction over the Credit Union. Since this Writ of Garnishment was issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and because the Credit Union has offices in New Mexico, that Court has jurisdiction over this Credit Union. Second, after we determine that the Writ is issued by a court having such jurisdiction, we then must follow the relevant law. For a Writ of Garnishment, when served upon a financial institution such as a credit union, the law provides that we (the credit union) must file an answer to that Writ of Garnishment and we also must freeze (place an administrative hold on) any funds on deposit at the credit union held under the accounts of the judgment debtors. These two Writs of Garnishment identify you both as the "debtors". SLFCU did not follow "the relevant law." SLFCU was required by law to examine the funds in our accounts so as to determine if the funds were exempt from garnishment or not. We took initiative to submit our affidavits on February 5, 2008 to show our exemptions from garnishment. SLFCU garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Page 2 states Morales phoned SLFCU'S attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call. Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call. SLFCU made no attempt to investigate in compliance with rules given it in the CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. However, your premature and illegal actions have causes unnecessary pain and suffering. As stated before in our February 7, 2008 letter the Morales have been unable to pay bills in February that they had planned to pay with the improperly garnished funds. This has also caused unbelievable tensions and arguments which have caused, in turn, irreparable harm and damage to the entire Morales family and its relationships. This may also cause penalties for unpaid bills or late payments of bills. Lawyer Hammar apparently did not read the instructions which could have prevented the garnishment since the funds are exempt. Lawyer Hammar seems to be incompetent and should be fired. It was Hammar's and SLFCU's legal responsibility to determine whether the monies were exempt or not before any acts of garnishment should be taken. We filed affidavits on February 5, 2008 to support exemption status claims. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: Thus there is such a freeze on part of your deposited funds at the credit union. However, the funds remain at the credit union until the court issues an Order telling us what to do. Before the court issues that order, the law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt". Responsibility was on SLFCU to determine if our deposited funds were exempt or not. This is the law. For an example, a judge does not have the jurisdiction to rule that social security funds are not exempt. You attempt to give the court power it does not have. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: The Judge, not the Credit Union, makes the decision as to whether the funds are exempt. The forms which you are required to fill out in order to bring your claim(s) of exemption to the Judge's attention were mailed to you on Monday, February 4th, along with a copy of the Credit Union's Answer to the Writ of Garnishment. In addition, a copy of the Writ of Garnishment was also mailed to each of you. If you have not received those documents by the time you receive this letter, please let me know immediately, and I will arrange to provide an additional set of copies to you. Your statement "The Judge, not the Credit Union, makes the decision as to whether the funds are exempt. " is incorrect. A judge in an impartial court, not in New Mexico since judge James A Parker recused all federal judicial officers in New Mexico, will rule only on if the sanctions are to be enforced or not. A judge doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on fund exemptions since these a determined by law. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: You should pay attention to these papers carefully. There is a time limit within which you must file your objections to the garnishments in the Federal Court. If you do not timely file your claims of exemption, the judge will enter an Order directing the credit union to pay over the frozen funds to your creditor. Mr Jillson, you and SLFCU should pay attention to the law. It appears that your suggested advice is to try to get us to appeal to biased and crooked judges who have criminal complaint affidavits lodged against them with the US Air Force. Further, all New Mexico judicial officers were recused by former chief judge James A Parker at the request of then chief magisrate judge William Deaton. You wrote in your February 7, 2008 letter: I hope you understand the reason those ATM cards were deactivated was so that the frozen funds would not be withdrawn inadvertently through the use of the cards.) Ms Fox instructed Ms Beverly Girard to get a copy of the rule allowing that our ATM cards be invalidated while Ms Trina Brinkley was transferring fund in Payne's account Ms Girard never returned with a copy of that rule. We ask that you immediately send us a copy of that rule. You wrote in your February 8, 2008 letter: This letter is in response to your letter of February 7, 2008. As stated in my letter of Feb. 7th, 2008 to you, the Writ of Garnishment was issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and because the Credit Union has offices in New Mexico, that Court has jurisdiction over this Credit Union and having such jurisdiction, the Credit Union must follow the relevant law. For a Writ of Garnishment, when served upon a financial institution such as a credit union, the law provides that we (the credit union) must file an answer to that Writ of Garnishment and we also must freeze (place an administrative hold on) any funds on deposit at the credit union held under the accounts of the judgment debtors. These two Writs of Garnishment identify you both as the "debtors". The law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt". The Judge, not the Credit Union, makes the decision as to whether the funds are exempt. The forms which you are required to fill out in order to bring your claim(s) of exemption to the Judge's attention were mailed to you on Monday, February 4th, along with a copy of the Credit Union's Answer to the Writ of Garnishment. In addition, a copy of the Writ of Garnishment was also mailed to each of you. Again, as stated, in my Feb. 7" letter, if you have not received those documents by the time you receive this letter, please let me know immediately, and I will arrange to provide an additional set of copies to you. Again Mr Jillson, SLFCU did not follow " the relevant law." SLFCU was required by law to examine the funds in our accounts so as to determine if the funds were exempt from garnishment or not. SLFCU garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR Page 2 states Morales phoned SLFCU's attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call. Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call. SLFCU made no attempt to investigate in compliance with rules given it in the CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Lawyer Hammar apparently did not read the instructions which could have prevented the garnishment since the funds are exempt. Lawyer Hammar seems to be incompetent and should be fired. It was Hammar's and SLFCU's legal responsibility to determine whether the monies were exempt or not before any acts of garnishment should be taken. We supplied exemption affidavits. SLFCU and Hammer should have and still should supply these affidavits to the court because this should suffice as SLFCU's response to the court which had to be made within 10 days. Because this was not done within 10 days, SLFCUdid not provided correct information to the court and proceeded with a violation of garnishment procedures ar outlined in the CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. A judge in an "impartial court" [not in New Mexico since judge James A Parker recused all federal judicial officers in New Mexico] may rule only on if the sanctions are to be enforced or not, providing these legal actions are not void. A judge doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on fund exemptions since these a determined by law. Repitition is a principle of learning. So Mr Jillson, we ask that you to see that SLFCU immediately makes our garnished account available to us. And, Mr Jillson, you are now aware that Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz in the SLFCU garnishment attempt so please see to it that Payne's accounts are unfrozen and has filed an affidavit. We also ask that you send us names and email addresses of SLFCU board of directors. Our requests require your immediate actions by close of business Wednesday February 13, 2008. Sincerely Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 505-323-7277 amorales58@comcast.net William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@ comcast.net Distribution mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com

Morales and Payne met for lunch to open, read, and discuss the February 7, 2008 Jillson response. Note that was mailed on the same day we delivered our first email/hand-delivered message to Jillson. We're going to use the words, "Premature," "without proper or competent legal advice," "incorrectly concluded," "need a competent legal expert" .... in our response to Jillson. We will also ask for the names addresses and email addresses of the SLFCU Board of Directors. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillsonresponse

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 3707 JUAN TABO BLVD. NE ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 February 7, 2008 Mr. Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St. SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 Mr. William H. Payne 13015CalledeSandiasNE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Garnishment Dear Mr. Morales & Mr. Payne: This letter is in response to your letter of February 5, 2008. Your letter provides a great deal of background information relevant to where we find ourselves now, that is with a Writ of Garnishment issued out of the Federal District Court against each of your accounts. The Credit Union cannot provide you with any legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the lengthy and troubling litigation history described in your letters. Your joint letter indicates that the funds deposited by Mr. Morales at the Credit Union arise from "retirement money" and that most of the funds deposited by Mr. Payne arise from Patricia Payne's teacher wages - excepting only $1,950.00 deposited by Payne as a required distribution from his IRA. Let me explain what happens when the Credit Union receives a Writ of Garnishment. First, we review the Writ of Garnishment to make sure that it is issued by a court that has jurisdiction over the Credit Union. Since this Writ of Garnishment was issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and because the Credit Union has offices in New Mexico, that Court has jurisdiction over this Credit Union. Second, after we determine that the Writ is issued by a court having such jurisdiction, we then must follow the relevant law. For a Writ of Garnishment, when served upon a financial institution such as a credit union, the law provides that we (the credit union) must file an answer to that Writ of Garnishment and we also must freeze (place an administrative hold on) any funds on deposit at the credit union held under the accounts of the judgment debtors. These two Writs of Garnishment identify you both as the "debtors". Thus there is such a freeze on part of your deposited funds at the credit union. However, the funds remain at the credit union until the court issues an Order telling us what to do. Before the court issues that order, the law affords you the right to proceed to court to show that the frozen funds are "exempt". The Judge, not the Credit Union, makes the decision as to whether the funds are exempt. The forms which you are required to fill out in order to bring your claim(s) of exemption to the Judge's attention were mailed to you on Monday, February 4th, along with a copy of the Credit Union's Answer to the Writ of Garnishment. In addition, a copy of the Writ of Garnishment was also mailed to each of you. If you have not received those documents by the time you receive this letter, please let me know immediately, and I will arrange to provide an additional set of copies to you. You should pay attention to these papers carefully. There is a time limit within which you must file your objections to the garnishments in the Federal Court. If you do not timely file your ;;, claims.of exemption, the judge will enter an Order directing the credit union to pay over the j frozen funds to your creditor. I am pleased that Joan Fox provided a solution to allow for the reactivation of your ATM cards. I hope you understand the reason those ATM cards were deactivated was so that the frozen funds would not be withdrawn inadvertently through the use of the cards.) I regret that I can offer you no further assistance other than as stated in this letter. Very truly yours, Christopher Jillson President, CEO Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union

Lawyer Hammar seems to be incompetent and should be fired viz. 30-16-6. Fraud. Fraud consists of the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations. ... Whoever commits fraud when the value of the property misappropriated or taken exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) is guilty of a second degree felony.$11,018 * 2 = $22, 036... 31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions. (5) for a second degree felony, nine years imprisonment; and they did it all in writing. 30-28-1. Attempt to commit a felony. Attempt to commit a felony consists of an overt act in furtherance of and with intent to commit a felony and tending but failing to effect its commission. B. if the crime attempted is a second degree felony, the person committing such attempt is guilty of a third degree felony ... (8) for a third degree felony, three years imprisonment; 30-28-2. Conspiracy. A. Conspiracy consists of knowingly combining with another for the purpose of committing a felony within or without this state. ... (2) if the highest crime conspired to be committed is a second degree felony, the person committing such conspiracy is guilty of a third degree felony Don't waste your time emailing those who who are unlikely to make a difference. Aldridge, Grammer, Jeffrey & Hammar, P.A Let's let SLFCU to reason with incompetent lawyer Hammar. Their game plan appears to get Morales and Payne in a hearing in federal district court. ----- Original Message ----- From: bill payne To: anch@slfcu.org ; webmaster@slfcu.org Cc: amorales58@comcast.net ; mayor@cabq.gov ; jhamman@cabq.gov ; bill.leonard@nara.gov ; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov ; foialo@nsa.gov ; Eichhorst, Julia E. ; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov ; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov ; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov ; mainewayne@msn.com Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:01 PM Subject: SLFCU has garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:01 PM Subject: Delivery status notification > Delivery to the following recipients failed permanently: >* anch@slfcu.org Revision history Thursday February 7, 2008 15:35      "Our ATM cards were cancelled which was required by the                                                                 writ of garnishment." corrected to "Our ATM cards were                                                                 cancelled which was NOT required by the writ of                                                                 garnishment."                                                                Monday February 11, 2008                      SLFCU did not follow the orders of the court.

Thursday February 7, 2008 15:35 http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/slfcu/slfcu.htm#jillson2 Hand delivered, ebranch@slfcu.org, and webmaster@slfcu.org Chris Jillson, president Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union Credit Union Center 3707 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-293-0500 Dear Mr Jillson: SLFCU has garnished money from our savings accounts in violation of rules set forth in violation of CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Page 2 states Morales phoned SLFCU'S attorney on Thursday January 31, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Morales's call. Payne phoned Mr Hammer on Monday February 4, 2008 and left a message. Mr Hammar has not returned Payne's call. SLFCU made no attempt to investigate in compliance with rules given it in the CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Lawyer Hammar apparently did not read the instructions which could have prevented the garnishment since the funds are exempt. Lawyer Hammar seems to be incompetent and should be fired. It was Hammar's legal responsibility to determine whether the monies were exempt or not. We supplied exemption affidavits. We demand that SLFCU immediate release the garnishments to give us access to our saving accounts. SLFCU did not follow the orders of the court. This caused us and our wives much anxiety. Morales's retirement funds are exempt and were earmarked to pay bills. Our ATM cards were cancelled which was NOT required by the writ of garnishment. In the Morales household this cause family arguments, tension, and irreparable damage to family relationships. Lawyer Hammar, in addition, released unnecessary private information about how money was in our accounts in ANSWER TO GARNISHEE [Morales] [Payne] without our written permissions. For these reasons we ask an additional $1,00,000 each for settlement of these unfortunate matters for what SLFCU and lawyer Hammer has done to us and our families. Settlement must be completed by Friday February 15, 2008 or we will take additional legal actions. Sincerely Arthur R. Morales 465 Washington St SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 505-323-7277 amorales58@comcast.net William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-292-7037 bpayne37@ comcast.net Distribution mayor@cabq.gov jhamman@cabq.gov 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 jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov mainewayne@msn.com