| Docket number:
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS In re NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS I It must be clear THIS IS NOT A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. II This is A PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT AUTHORIZED BY 28 USC 1651(a). 1 Petitioners present written evidence of criminal activities of federal employees, federal court officials, New Mexico state court officials, and respondent lawyers for which writs of prohibition to prevent enforcement of bogus court decisions which deprive petitioners of their civil rights for mandamus and prohibition are required. New Mexico state lawsuits cannot be fraudulently removed to federal court. 2 The Supreme Court must issue orders of mandamus to enforce New Mexico state and federal court rules to allow petitioners [pro se] right to paid for prima facie case New Mexico state jury trial lawsuits with state only questions guaranteed inviolate by both state and federal constitution. 3 The Supreme Court must issue orders of mandamus to New Mexico Metro court judges to properly arraign named criminal respondents because of fraudulent intervention by a New Mexico state assistant district attorney. 4 Issues involve harassment, replevin, and defamation[libel]. Harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] are state issues, not federal questions. III REMEDY AND JURISDICTION 1 Petitioners do not appeal to other courts because these are alleged [supported by written evidence] criminal acts committed by respondents to deny petitioners rights to paid for trials by jury for state issues in state court and right to represent themselves pro se in prima facie state cases. 2 Respondents violated U.S. Supreme Court decision for removal of New Mexico state causes to federal court; therefore, petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is the appropriate remedy and jurisdiction while promoting judicial efficiency and expedience. This raises another issue, federal in nature, that of retaliation for acts and conspiracy against petitioners of which the evidence clearly demonstrates. TITLE OF DOCUMENT PETITION FOR 28 USC 1651(a) WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION TO: 1 PROHIBIT RESPONDENTS FROM FURTHER HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION TOWARD PETITIONERS. 2 PROHIBIT FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OF NEW MEXICO STATE LAWSUITS TO FEDERAL COURTS BY NEW MEXICO ASSISTANT US ATTORNEYS PHYLLIS A DOW, MICHAEL H HOSES, RAYMOND HAMILTON, JOHN ZAVITZ, NEW MEXICO US ATTORNEYS NORMAN C BAY AND DAVID C IGLESIAS, US SPECIAL ATTORNEY RICHARD G PATRICK, US ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, NEW MEXICO LAWYER ROBERT M ST JOHN, NEW MEXICO LAWYERS STEPHEN G FRENCH AND CRISTINA E ANAYA, CHIEF JUDGE NEW MEXICO JAMES A PARKER, CHIEF JUDGE WYOMING WILLIAM F DOWNES AND CHIEF JUDGE UTAH DEE VANCE BENSON. 3 ORDER BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT JUDGE PETRA JIMENEZ MAEZ TO SCHEDULE PAID FOR JURY TRIAL NEW MEXICO STATE PRIMA FACIE LAWSUITS GUARANTEED INVIOLATE BY BOTH NEW AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS IN DISTRICT OTHER THAN TWO AND THIRTEEN AS MANDATED BY NEW MEXICO COURT RULES. 4 ORDER RESTORATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES AS PRO SE PLAINTIFFS WHICH CURRENTLY WAS DENIED BY NEW MEXICO COURT ORDER WRITTEN BY NEW MEXICO LAWYER JERRY WALZ, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGE KENNETH G BROWN AND SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT H SCOTT. 5 ORDER CHIEF JUDGE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO W JOHN BRENNAN TO NOTIFY ALL NEW MEXICO STATE COURTS THAT PETITIONERS CAN FILE ACTIONS PRO SE. 6 ORDER ALBUQUERQUE METRO COURT JUDGES CHARLES BARNHART, CHRISTINA JARAMILLO, DENISE BARELA SHEPHERD TO PROPERLY ARRAIGN NAMED DEFENDANTS FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OF HARASSMENT WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY HALTED BY FRAUDULENT FILING OF NOLLE PROSEQUI BY NEW MEXICO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PETE ROSS WITH APPARENT APPROVAL OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY KARI E BRANDENBERG. 7 ORDER METRO CHIEF JUDGE JUDITH NAKAMURA TO CONDUCT PROPER ARRAIGNMENTS FOR PHYLLIS A DOW [CR 12310-03] AND MICHAEL H HOSES [CR 12311-03] FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVITS FOR HARASSMENT WHICH WERE IMPROPERLY DISMISSED BY METRO JUDGE CHARLES BARNHART. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 7th Amendment to US Constitution 2 10th Amendment to US Constitution 3 Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) REPLEVIN: $625 was garnished without due process 4 Signing order of garnishment of $1,793.56 with no cause of action 4 New Mexico 2002-10289 is fraudulently removed to UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 7 Assistant US attorney Hamilton's NOTICE OF REMOVAL is not a verified petition 8 Harassment and replevin are not federal questions 8 US attorney Norman C Bay and Assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 10 Dow's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition 11 Lawyers French and Anaya's NOTICE OF REMOVAL of New Mexico state case to federal court contains no verified petition as required by US Supreme Court 13 Harassment is not a federal question 13 Harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] are not federal questions 14 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses and US attorney David C Iglesias fraudulently removes New Mexico state case to federal court without required verification 15 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses' NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition as required by the Supreme Court 16 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses and US Attorney Norman C Bay fraudulently remove New Mexico state case without required verification 17 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses' and US attorney Norman C Bay's NOTICE OF REMOVAL of New Mexico state case to federal court contains no verified petition as required by the Supreme Court 18 Harassment is not a federal question 18 New Mexico state judge Brown and lawyer Walz also take away petitioner Payne's civil right to represent himself pro se 24 New Mexico Second district judge Scott and lawyer Walz also take away petitioner Morales's civil right to represent himself pro se 24 Assistant US attorneys Dow and Hoses are not scheduled for arraignment 25 New Mexico assistant district attorney Pete Ross that the state of New Mexico is taking prosecutorial control over both Payne's complaints and files nolle prosequi based on the false statement that Wyoming federal court judge Downes and lawyer St John have not established "pattern of conduct" 25 New Mexico assistant district attorney Pete Ross that the state of New Mexico is taking prosecutorial control over Payne complaint and files nolle prosequi based on the false statement that New Mexico federal court judge Parker has not established "pattern of conduct"26 New Mexico second judicial judge Brennan and assistant DA Ross harass petitioner Payne in criminal violation of New Mexico criminal law 30 SUMMARY 31 VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION AND LAWS 1 Petitioners file prima facie case New Mexico state lawsuit CV 2000-10289 for replevin and harassment on October 20, 2000. A REPLEVIN: $625 was garnished without due process from petitioner Morales Sandia National laboratories wages for allegedly conducting discovery in Civ No: 97 2266 FILED 97 FEB 28 AM 10:51 seen at http://www.jya.com/nsasuit.txt even though petitioner Morales was removed as plaintiff in that FIOA lawsuit. See Exhibit SVET1. B HARASSMENT: New Mexico magistrate judge Don Svet harasses petitioners by signing order of garnishment of $1,793.56 with no cause of action. Petitioners split cost in CV 2002-10289. See Exhibit SVET2. Petitioners pay $279 filing fee for twelve person jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state and federal constitutions. See Exhibit A. 2 New Mexico 2002-10289 is fraudulently removed to UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO on November 8, 2000 by US attorney Norman C Bay and Assistant US attorney Raymond Hamilton in violation the Judicial Code. See Exhibit B. The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file "a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts" 28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury clearly states Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: Hamilton's NOTICE OF REMOVAL is not a verified petition. Harassment and replevin are not federal questions so Hamilton fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2002-10289 to federal court without required verification. Hamilton harasses petitioners using federal court as instrument of harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes. Assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow replaces Hamilton and continues to harass petitioners. Here's the docket entry showing replacement. 04/18/2001 04/18/2001 43 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: terminating attorney Raymond Hamilton for USA and substituting attorney Phyllis A. Dow [4k] [1 page]
3 Petitioner Payne files prima facie case New Mexico state lawsuit CV 2000-10278 on October 20, 2000 to recover damages from harassment and defamation [libel] for distribution of false and defaming documents. Distribution of these documents violate criminal provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals. See Petitioner Payne pays $297 for twelve person jury trial guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state and federal constitutions. See 4 US attorney Norman C Bay and Assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 on November 27, 2000 in violation the Judicial Code. See Exhibit D. The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts" 28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury clearly states Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: Dow's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition which is a violation of Supreme Court requirement. Plus harassment and defamation [libel] are not federal questions. Dow harasses petitioner Payne using federal court as instrument of harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes. 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. 5 Fraudulent removal of New Mexico paid for jury trial prima facie earned assistant US attorneys Hamilton and Dow and several others, including New Mexico district court judge Theodore C Baca and New Mexico federal judge Martha Vazquez, involved in cases lawsuits CV 2000-10289 and CV 2000-10278 for harassment. This prima facie case [see Exhibit B and Exhibit C] paid for jury trial lawsuit is CV 2001-03118 on May 5, 2001. Petitioners pay $279 filing fee for twelve person jury trial prima facie case lawsuit in CV 2001-03118 guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state and federal constitutions. See Exhibit E. 6 June 4, 2001 Albuquerque lawyers Stephen G French and Christina E Anaya, who are attorneys for defendant Theodore C Baca, fraudulently remove without required verification CV 2001- 03118 to New Mexico federal court. See Exhibit F. The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts" 28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury clearly states Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: French and Anaya's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition which is a violation of Supreme Court requirement. Plus harassment is not a federal question. French and Anaya harasses petitioners using federal court as instrument of harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes. 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. 7 In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10289 [Federal CIV 01 1574] New Mexico chief judge James A Parker issues 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] In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2000-10278 [Federal CIV 01 1677] New Mexico chief judge James A Parker issues 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] In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV 2001-03118 [Federal CIV 01 0634] New Mexico chief judge James A Parker issues 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] 8 Harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] are not federal questions. So Wyoming chief judge Downes is given an opportunity to give an affidavit under the anti-injunction act to give affidavit that harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] are exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. The Anti-injunction Act is Anti-Injunction Act is a complete prohibition against a federal court injunction of state court proceeding unless the injunction fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. 28 USC Sec. 2283. Downes fails to comply with request to give Anti-injunction act justification in Federal CIV 01 1574, Federal CIV 01 1677, and Federal CIV 01 0634 and rules in CIV 01 1574 and CIV 01 1677 when Downes does not have jurisdiction. This earns judge Downes and his accomplices two paid for jury trial lawsuits in New Mexico for harassment as well as a criminal complaint affidavit for harassment filed in Albuquerque Metro court. The first paid for prima facie case lawsuit is New Mexico CV-2001- 06293 with petitioners as plaintiffs. Petitioners pay $322 filing fee for twelve person prima facie case jury trial lawsuit in CV-2001-06293 guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state and federal constitutions. See Exhibit G. The second paid for prima facie case lawsuit is New Mexico CV- 2001-05900 with petitioner Payne as plaintiff. Petitioner Payne pays $322 filing fee for twelve person prima facie case jury trial lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by both New Mexico state and federal constitutions for CV-2001-05900. See Exhibit H. 9 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses and US attorney David C Iglesias fraudulently removes without required verification New Mexico CV-2001-06293 to federal court on October 16, 2001. See The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts" 28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury clearly states Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses' NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition as required by the Supreme Court. US special attorney Richard G Patrick and US attorney general join Hoses and Iglesias to harass petitioners. See Exhibit I. Harassment is not a federal question so Hoses fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-06293 to federal court without required verification. Hoses, Iglesias, Patrick and Ashcroft harass petitioners using federal court as instrument of harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes. 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. 10 Assistant US attorney Michael H Hoses and US Attorney Norman C Bay fraudulently remove without required verification New Mexico CV-2001-05900 to federal court on September 28, 2001. See Exhibit J. The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969) The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file " a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts" 28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury clearly states Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: Michael H Hoses' and Norman C Bay's NOTICE OF REMOVAL contains no verified petition as required by the Supreme Court. US special attorney Richard G Patrick and US attorney general join Hoses, Bay, and Iglesias to harass petitioners. See Exhibit J. Harassment is not a federal question so Hoses and Bay fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-05900 to federal court without verification required by the Supreme Court. Hoses, Iglesias, Patrick and Ashcroft harass petitioners using federal court as instrument of harassment in violation of New Mexico criminal statutes. 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. 11 In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-06293 [Federal CIV 01 1198] New Mexico chief judge James A Parker issues 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] In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-05900 [Federal CIV 01 1132] New Mexico chief judge James A Parker issues 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] 12 Harassment is not a federal question. Harassment is a New Mexico state crime: 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-06293 [Federal CIV 01 1198] New Mexico chief judges James A Parker and Dee Vance Benson are asked to provide anti-injunction to show that petitioners are not being harassed using federal court. Parker and Benson do not respond. Here's the proof in federal court record. 11/29/2001 11/30/2001 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal [85k] [5 pages] In fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-05900 [Federal CIV 01 1132] New Mexico chief judges James A Parker and Dee Vance Benson are asked to provide anti-injunction to show that petitioner Payne is not being harassed using federal court. Parker and Benson do not respond. Here's the proof in federal court record. 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 15 NOTICE by plaintiff of non response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker to provide anti-injunction affidavit for anti-injunction act justification for removal of New Mexico case Civ 2001-05900 to Federal Court [152k] [6 pages] Conclusion, with all evidence of guilt writing in federal court records, is that assistant US attorney Michael H. Hoses, New Mexico chief judge James A. Parker, and Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson are criminals who got caught in writing harassing petitioners using federal court as instrument of harassment. Lawyer Robert St. John represents his law firm: here's the docket from CIV 2001 -1132. 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10 NOTICE by defendant Rodey, Dickason of completion of briefing package re: complaint [1-1] [79k] [5 pages] St John harasses petitioner Payne using federal court. 13 As result of criminal acts of assistant US attorneys Raymond Hamilton, Phyllis A. Dow, Michael H. Hoses, David C Iglesias conspiring with crooked judge James A. Parker, William F. Downes, and Dee Vance Benson petitioners to deny right to paid for prima facie New Mexico state jury trials guaranteed inviolate by both state and federal constitutions petitioners were compelled to file New Mexico state lawsuit again other lawyers and judges who aided and abetted above named criminals. Petitioner Payne files New Mexico paid for jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 07794 a Complaint for Relief from BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT on November 16, 2001 name only non- federal defendants who conspired with Hamilton, Dow, Hoses, Iglesias, Parker, Downes and Benson to deny right to paid for prima facie New Mexico state jury trials guaranteed inviolate by both state and federal constitutions for petitioner Payne. $322 receipt for CV 2001-07794 is seen in Exhibit L. New Mexico second judicial chief judge W John Brennan and second judicial judge W Daniel Schneider are defendants in CV 2001-07794. Petitioners' file New Mexico paid for jury trial lawsuit CV 2002- 3425 on May 10, 2002. This is a Complaint for Relief from BREACH OF CONTRACT and HARASSMENT only non-federal defendants who conspired with Hamilton, Dow, Hoses, Igleisias, Parker, Downes and Benson to deny right to paid for prima facie New Mexico state jury trials guaranteed inviolate by both state and federal constitutions. $322 receipt for CV 2002-3425 is seen in Exhibit K. New Mexico second judicial chief judge W John Brennan, New Mexico thirteenth judicial district judge Kenneth G Brown, New Mexico risk management employee William Haas, New Mexico supreme court chief judge Patricio M Serna, and New Mexico law firm Walz and Associates are defendants CV 2002-3425. 14 New Mexico state law specifies procedure when judge is named defendant in a lawsuit. 1-088. Designation of judge. Exhibit M shows that respondent New Mexico judge Brennan is aware of this rule. Exhibit N shows that then New Mexico supreme court chief Patricio Serna is aware of this rule. 15 New Mexico judicial rule dictates that only a plaintiff can move to dismiss a paid for jury trial lawsuit unless there is no activity. 1-041. Dismissal of actions. A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof. Petitioners press for paid for jury trial or settlement and closure. 15 Judge Kenneth G Brown, who is defendant in New Mexico CV 2002-3425, is not recused as required by New Mexico 1-088.1, but rules with help of defendant in New Mexico CV 2002-3425 Jerry Walz in New Mexico CV 2001-07794 to dismiss prima facie paid for jury trial lawsuit in violation of New Mexico rule 1-041. Dismissal of actions. Brown and Walz also take away petitioner Payne's civil right to represent himself pro se. See Exhibit O. 16 Judge Robert H. Scott, who is a judge in district 2, the same district as defendant Brennan, is not recused as required by New Mexico 1-088.1, but rules with help of defendant in New Mexico CV 2002-3425 Jerry Walz in New Mexico CV 2001-03245 to dismiss prima facie paid for jury trial lawsuit in violation of New Mexico rule 1-041. Dismissal of actions. Scott and Walz also take away petitioner Morales's civil right to represent himself pro se. See Exhibit P. Defendant Brennan, see Exhibit P, prevented petitioners from filing notice of unavailability. See Exhibit Y. 17 Written evidence seen in Exhibit D, Exhibit I, and Exhibit J showing fraudulent removal of New Mexico prima facie evidence state cases to federal court in an attempt to deny petitioner Payne paid for jury trials in prima facie cases constitute a prima facie case of criminal harassment against assistant US attorneys Phyllis A Dow and Michael H Hoses, federal judge James A Parker, and lawyer Robert M St John. Harassment is a New Mexico state crime: 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. As a result of prima facie criminal case against Dow, Hoses, Parker, Downes and St John, petitioner Payne files criminal compliant affidavit for harassment in New Mexico Metro court. See Exhibit Q. 18 Arraignment of Dow and Hoses is scheduled on September 10, 2003 at 13:30 in the court room of metro judge Charles Barnhart. Petitioners attempt to attend arraignment but find that Dow and Hoses are not scheduled for arraignment. Petitioners are told that criminal complaints against Dow and Hoses have been dismissed. Petitioner Payne complains twice to judge Barnhart that these are prima facie cases. Barnhart refused to reconsider. See Exhibit R. See Exhibit X. 19 Metro Judge Christina Jaramillo both schedules and holds arraignments for judge William F Downes and lawyer Robert M St John on September 11, 2003. New Mexico assistant district attorney Pete Ross that the state of New Mexico is taking prosecutorial control over both Payne's complaints and files nolle prosequi based on the false statement that Downes and St John have not established "pattern of conduct". See Exhibit S. Here's evidence of St John's pattern of conduct from dockets of fraudulently removed New New Mexico CV 2000-10278 given federal number00 cv 1677 11/29/2000 11/30/2000 2 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendants by Robert M. St. John and Larry Montano [32k] [2 pages] and fraudulently removed New Mexico CV-2001-05900 given Federal number CIV 01 1132] 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 9 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendant Rodey, Dickason by Robert M. St. John [25k] [2 pages] Second judicial District attorney Kari E Brandenberg is Ross's supervisor. Petitioner Payne objects to Jaramillo and complains in several letters that Ross lied. See Exhibit X. Jaramillo does not respond. 20 Metro judge Denise Barela Shepherd both schedules and hold arraignment for judge James A Parker on September 11, 2003. New Mexico assistant district attorney Pete Ross that the state of New Mexico is taking prosecutorial control over Payne complaint and files nolle prosequi based on the false statement that Parker has not established "pattern of conduct". See Exhibit T. Petitioner Payne objects to Shepherd and complains in several letters that Ross lied. Shepherd responds that her court does not have any jurisdiction. And does not respond to a second letter. See Exhibit X. 21 Petitioner Payne writes Tuesday 9/16/03 3:42 PM See Exhibit W. Ross does not respond so Petitioner Payne issues affidavit attesting to fact that Ross lied in both judge Jaramillo and Shepherd arraignment hearings. See Exhibit U. 22 Petitioner Payne attempts to file appeal in New Mexico 2001 CIV 07794 a Complaint for Relief from BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT naming judges Brennan and Schneider as defendants on June 6, 2002. Paid for trial by jury 2001 CIV 077794 was dismissed in violation of New Mexico 1-041, Dismissal of actions, by judge and respondent Kenneth G Brown. See Exhibit O. Brennan orders Second judicial district court personnel not to accept petitioner Payne's appeal by having deputy court administrator give Payne a marked copy of Browns order not permitting Payne to file pro se seen in Exhibit O. See Exhibit V. Brown's order seen in Exhibit 0, the same used by Brennan, is given to metro judge Shepherd on September 11, 2003. See Exhibit T. Brennan and Ross harass petitioner Payne in criminal violation of New Mexico criminal law. 3A-2. Harassment; penalties. 23 SUMMARY Two prima facie New Mexico state paid for jury trial lawsuits, one for replevin and harassment [New Mexico 2002-10289] and a second for defamation [libel] [New Mexico CV 2000-10278] caused both and New Mexico blossomed into five New Mexico state lawsuit which were all fraudulently removed to federal court without Supreme Court required verification. Replevin, defamation [libel], and harassment are not federal questions. Two prima facie New Mexico state lawsuits, CV 2002 03425 and CV 2001 07794, were dismissed by judges Brown and Scott in violation of New Mexico court rules. Only a plaintiff can move to dismiss a paid for jury trial lawsuit according to New Mexico rules. Petitioners have cheated out of $2,179 paid for state jury trials guaranteed inviolate by both federal and state constitutions for prima facie cases by a bunch of crooked judges and lawyers. These matters have been pursued for several year through a convoluted series of lawsuits to resolve a simple question. Can the courts admit they made a mistake and remedy it? Unfortunately its must be concluded from written evidence in court files presented in Exhibits in this petition that criminal acts committed by each and every respondent has evolved into a an unnecessary and chilling conspiracy to cover-up and protect each other's misconduct and in the process has denied two citizens their constitutional rights to trial by jury, to represent themselves in court pro se, and to seek remedies for injustices initially committed by officers of the court who refused to admit their mistakes and settle. 24 WHEREFORE from the written evidence in Exhibits in this petition for writs it must be concluded that the Supreme Count must issue the orders seen in Exhibit ORDER1, Exhibit ORDER2, and Exhibit ORDER3 to remedy wrongdoings done to petitioners. Petitioners plead the Supreme Court punish appropriately those who broke the law as seen in the written evidence. Evidence in Exhibits A though Y make petitioners' writ application a prima facie matter. Only if any of the Exhibits were fraudulent would respondents have an argument not to grant relief requested in Exhibit ORDER1, Exhibit ORDER2, and Exhibit ORDER3. So if respondents don't respond to their NOTICES within 30 days that any Exhibit is fraudulent, then petitioners ask that the Supreme Court grant requested relief within 45 days. In conclusion petitioners' have always been willing to settle and close these issues and also pray that the truth be sought and justice be served for in time we all will face the consequences of our actions and non-actions so help us God. Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. Louis D. Brandeis Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne PARTIES TO PROCEEDING Christina E. Anaya John Ashcroft Judge Charles Barnhart Norman Bay Judge Dee Vance Benson Kari E Brandenberg W. John Brennan Kenneth G. Brown Phyllis A Dow William F. Downes Stephen G. French Raymond Hamilton Michael H Hoses David C Iglesias Judge Cristina Jaramillo Judge Judith Nakamura James A Parker Richard G. Patrick Pete Ross Robert M. St.John Robert H Scott Judge Denise Barela Shepherd Jerry A Walz John Zavitz Solicitor General of the United States |
