 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Office of the Clerk Byron White United States Courthouse Denver, Colorado 80257 (303)844-3157 Elisabeth A. Shumaker September 18,2007 Mr. William H. Payne Re: No. 00-2021, Payne v. EEOC Dear Mr. Payne: On September 13, 2007, we received some documents from you which referenced the above-referenced appeal. However, the court issued its final decision in that appeal on December 20, 2000. The appeal you referenced is at end. We therefore cannot accept your documents for filing and no action will be taken on them. We regret we cannot be of greater assistance. Very truly yours, ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk End. |
| Saturday September 15, 2007 06:44 Morales phoned Monday September 10, 2007 12:28 to point out "09/09/1999 68 MOTION by deft EEOC to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (rd) (Entered: 09/13/1999) " and "11/24/1999 96 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss individual defts and the Privacy Act claims with prejudice [64-1]; dismissing defts DOE and EEOC with prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/29/1999) " We didn't know about void judgments back in 2000. The legal system was keeping void judgments SECRET. Here's the documents that is going to get them in a jury trial: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos. Better settle before matters get FAR WORSE. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid.htm#270void |
 Label/Receipt Number: 7006 3450 0002 2278 7005 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:59 AM on September 13, 2007 in DENVER, CO 80202. Monday September 10, 2007 14:07 Clerk The Byron White U.S. Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, CO 80257 Dear Clerk: Enclosed is a single copy of MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and ORDER VACATING MAGISTRATE JUDGE LORGENZO F GARCIA'S JUDGMENTS AND TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE AFFIRMATION for docketing. Please either return a file stamped copy of the first page or post our filings on PACER. Lil at (303) 844-3157 informed us that only a single copy of our motion is required but that our motion must be efiled at esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov. Lil also told us about "New E-submission rules were approved by the court effective September 4, 2007." Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 bpayne37@comcast.net http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidmotion http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/motionjpg/motion.pdf  Bannerman Label/Receipt Number: 7006 3450 0002 2279 3167   Label/Receipt Number: 7006 3450 0002 2278 7081 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 8:31 AM on September 12, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87103.   Label/Receipt Number: 7006 3450 0002 2278 7074 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 8:39 AM on September 12, 2007 in ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87115.    ----- Original Message ----- From: EEOC To: bpayne37@comcast.net Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: address needed [Incident: 070910-003001] Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response. Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you. Subject address needed Discussion Thread Response (Claudia Ruiz) 09/14/2007 12:49 PM Dear Mr Bill Payne, Thank you for your email. The address for EEOC Legal Counsel Office is, 1801 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20507. If you have further questions or wish to discuss this with a customer service representative, please call 1-800-669-4000 anytime between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday. If you are deaf or hearing impaired, the TTY number is 1-800-669-6820. Sincerely, Claudia Ruiz Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phone: (800) 669-4000 TTY: (800) 669-6820 Email: info@ask.eeoc.gov www.eeoc.gov Customer (Bill Payne) 09/10/2007 08:15 PM Is this still a good address. Susan E Murphy Thanks in advance. bill payne |
|
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; I. INTRODUCTION 1 Plaintiff - Appellant Payne filed suit in New Mexico
federal court to seek recovery from the false and defaming documents seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos. 2 Docket entry 1 shows 03/12/1999 1 COMPLAINT (referred to Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet) (vv) (Entered: 03/17/1999) 03/12/1999 3 Docket entry 3 shows 03/24/1999 3 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf (rd) (Entered: 03/25/1999) 4 Docket entries 104, 106, and 107 show 11/30/1999 105 JUDGMENT: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia entered in favor of deft DOE on all of pltf's federal claims which are hereby dismissed with prejudice [95-1] (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/30/1999)5 Docket entry 188 shows 01/11/2000 118 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff William H Payne from Dist. Court decision [117-1] ; Fees $105.00 - Distribution as required. (cc: all counsel) (pg) (Entered: 01/11/2000) 6 Docket entry 199 shows
III. ISSUES 6 Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. Therefore Garcia lacked jurisdiction to dismiss paid for jury trial lawsuit 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM. 7 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE lacked jurisdiction to affirm Garcia's voidable decision in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM which was rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. 7 Return filed stamped copy of this Motion with 10 working days. 8 Sign attached ORDER vacating Garcia's JUDGMENTs seen at 4
above and TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE affirmation seen at
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=155012. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISICTION was mailed certified return receipt requested to: Joan M. Hart NM Public Defender's Office 200 Third St, NW #740 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 841-6989 Phyllis A. Dow United States Attorney's Office Civil P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 346-7274 Email: phyllis.dow@usdoj.gov Susan E Murphy EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Jake J. Chavez US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Admin PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 (505) 845-5216 Carol Lisa Smith Bannerman & Williams, P.A. 2201 San Pedre NE Building 2, Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-837-1900 Email: cls@nmcounsel.com John A. Bannerman 2201 San Pedro, N.E. Bldg. 2 Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 837-1900 Email: jab@nmcounsel.com ________________________ Signed ________________________ Date |
|
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidnotice
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff - Appellant Payne to place this court on mandatory judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgments. 2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements: (1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties; If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3 5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5 6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7 8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9 9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11 10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. 12 11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion.
13 13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 16 that is, where proper rules of practice have not been followed, or where some necessary act has been omitted or has been done in an improper manner.17 14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.1815 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, 19 lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, 20 or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.21 16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, 22 and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 23 1 See Peduto v. North Wildwood (DC NJ) 696 F Supp 1004, affd (CA3 NJ) 878 F.2d 725; In re Doe (NM App) 99 NM 517, 660 P.2d 607; Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 284 Pa Super 220, 425 A.2d 782. 2 See U.S.Const.Amdt. V; F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); CR 60(b)(5); Federal cases: Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D.Virg.Is.1985); Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Millikan v. Meyer, 311 US 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1940); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA7 1999). 3 See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 NE2d 1152 (Ind.1998); Thompson v. Thompson, 238 SW2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951); Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 NE2d 1114, rehng.den., trans.den, (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); In re Marriage of Parks, 630 NE2d 509 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No.27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R.Fed. 298 (CA1 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D.Fla.1980); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, recon.den., 149 F.R.D. 147, aff’d, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D.Ill.1992); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P2d 319 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1951). 4 Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994). 5 See Asher v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1994). 6 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Monroe v. Niven, 221 NC 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. 7 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 NC 607, 107 S.E.2d 302. 8 As to persons and agencies bound by due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 742, 821-824. 9 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 78 S.Ct. 1228, reh den 358 US 858, 3 L.Ed.2d 92, 79 S.Ct. 10; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa 487, 148 A 699, 68 ALR 1172. 10 See Royal Indem. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 209 Ga 383, 73 S.E.2d 205; Spencer v. Franks, 173 Md 73, 195 A 306, 114 ALR 263; Road Material & Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss 611, 91 So.2d 554, motion dismd 229 Miss 630, 92 So.2d 245; Howle v. Twin States Express, Inc., 237 NC 667, 75 S.E.2d 732; Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 192 Okla 248, 135 P.2d 340; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 ALR 966; Reburg v. Lang, 239 Wis 381, 1 N.W.2d 759. The courts of a state may render only such judgments as they are authorized to do under the laws of the state. Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo 225, 281 SW 762, 45 ALR 1223. 11 See People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke, 72 Colo 486, 212 P. 837, 30 ALR 1085; People v. Wade, 116 Ill 2d 1, 107 Ill Dec 63, 506 N.E.2d 954; Gray v. Clement, 296 Mo 497, 246 SW 940; Ex parte Solberg, 52 ND 518, 203 NW 898; Russell v. Fourth Nat’l Bank (Ohio) 102 Ohio St 248, 131 NE 726; Hough v. Hough (Okla) 772 P.2d 920; Farmers’ Nat’l Bank v. Daggett (Tex Com App) 2 S.W.2d 834; State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658; Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 117 Wis 2d 223, 344 N.W.2d 115. 12 See Sanchez v. Hester, 911 SW2d 173 (Tex.App.1995). 13 See Allcock v. Allcock, 437 NE2d 392 (Ill.App.Dist.3 1982). 14 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17. 15 As to the opportunity to be heard as a requisite of due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 839 et seq. 16 See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841. 17 See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386. 18 See McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. (CA9 Ariz) 80 F.2d 344; State ex rel. Yohe v. District Court, 33 Wyo 281, 238 P. 545. 19 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 26, 27. 20 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 25. 21 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 17, 18. 22 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630. 23 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Moore v. Smith, 177 Va 621, 15 S.E.2d 48; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630. Respectfully submitted, I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISICTION was mailed certified return receipt requested to: Joan M. Hart NM Public Defender's Office 200 Third St, NW #740 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 841-6989 Phyllis A. Dow United States Attorney's Office Civil P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 346-7274 Email: phyllis.dow@usdoj.gov Susan E Murphy EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Jake J. Chavez US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Admin PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 (505) 845-5216 Carol Lisa Smith Bannerman & Williams, P.A. 2201 San Pedre NE Building 2, Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-837-1900 Email: cls@nmcounsel.com John A. Bannerman 2201 San Pedro, N.E. Bldg. 2 Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 837-1900 Email: jab@nmcounsel.com ________________________ Signed ________________________ Date |
|
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; ORDER VACATING MAGISTRATE JUDGE LORGENZO F GARCIA'S JUDGMENTS AND TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE AFFIRMATION 1 Magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia's judgments 11/30/1999 105 JUDGMENT: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia entered in favor of deft DOE on all of pltf's federal claims which are hereby dismissed with prejudice [95-1] (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/30/1999)in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM are rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to dismiss paid for jury trial lawsuit which were rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. 2 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE ruling in No. 99-2021 is rescinded because these judges lack jurisdiction to affirm Garcia's voidable decision in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM which was rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. 3 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM is to be settled or proceed to trial by jury within 90 days from entry of this order. _________________________ Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge _________________________ Date |
Tenth circuit court of appeals judge Anderson is spared 09/07/99 09/07/99 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of preliminary record by USCA on 8/31/99 - USCA Number: 99-2271 (pg) Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL [66] 2271 was an interlocutory appeal.  |
| http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid.htm#generalorder |
Thursday September 13, 2007 08:10 Be amused pro se fighters: tenth circuit judges TACHA, EBEL, BRISCOE, BALDOCK, KELLY, LUCERO, BRORBY, MOORE, BARRETT, WEIS, AND HENRY and likely Anderson violated their oath of office in writing. Judge Conway in Payne original ADEA lawsuit appeal number is 94-2205.
Let's all hope for settlement before matters get far worse. Like our 9/11 motion to vacate orders and judgments. TENTH CIRCUIT In re: Electronic Submission of Documents and FILED August 10, 2007 Before TACHA, Chief Judge, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/downloads/generalorder-efile.pdf html of remainder order The only exceptions will be appendices (including those filed per 10th Circuit Rule 9.2(B)), supplemental appendices, and addenda filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(f). In counseled cases, exemptions to the requirements contained in this order will be allowed only upon motion and for good cause. Pro se parties who are able may also submit pleadings via e-mail. Those pleadings must meet technical requirements. In this order, all e-filers will be referred to as Digital Submitters. All pleadings submitted pursuant to this Order must be filed in Portable Document Format (PDF or Acrobat format, sometimes referred to as Native PDF). Native PDF files are generated from original word processing files and are text searchable. Except as delineated in this order, PDF images created by scanning documents will not be accepted. Digital Submitters should be aware there is a 45 megabyte limit per email (including all text, attachments etc.). Pleadings Filed A. Briefs Digital Submitters must furnish the full contents of briefs (from cover through conclusion) in digital form. Any attachment(s) to a brief available in digital form (native PDF) must be included with the brief in the same document (that is, if the attachments required under 10th Cir. R. 28.2 are in Native PDF they may be included with the brief in a single document and e-filed). Required attachments to briefs that are not available in Native PDF may be submitted in scanned PDF format. In that instance, however, the attachments should be forwarded as a single, separate PDF document. If some of the attachments are available in Native PDF and some are not, all the attachments should be scanned as one document and attached separately in the e-submission. If a brief has PDF attachments the cover page must so state. The cover must also state whether the attachments are included in Native PDF or scanned PDF. Within 2 business days of submitting the brief via e-filing, the Digital Submitter must also file an original and 7 hard copies of the brief with the clerk’s office. Briefs may contain hyperlinks to cases and authorities. B. All other pleadings. Digital Submitters must submit all other pleadings via email as well. This includes all preliminary pleadings and materials, motions, notices, petitions for rehearing, cost bills and submissions per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28j. The only materials which may not be submitted via email are appendices and addenda. Documents attached to pleadings that are not available in Native PDF may be submitted in scanned PDF format. Those materials should be included in the esubmission as a single separate attachment. If the only attachments are in Native PDF they may be emailed as a single document with the pleading. Within 2 business days of submitting a pleading under this section via e-filing, the Digital Submitter must also submit a single hard copy of the document to the clerk’s office unless the pleading is a Petition For Rehearing or Petition For Rehearing En Banc. With panel petitions, the Digital Submitter must follow up by filing an original and 3 hard copies with the clerk’s office within 2 business days. For en banc petitions, an original and 18 hard copies must be filed, also within 2 business days. C. Appendices and Addenda Unlike other pleadings, Digital Submitters must file these materials in hard copy format (only) per Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 10 and 30 and 10th Circuit Rules 10 and 30. The court will not accept appendix materials via esubmission (including appendices filed per 10th Cir. R. 9.2(B)). Filers must submit the original hard copy and one additional copy of these materials. Privacy Protection and Redactions In the interest of privacy, Digital Submitters must redact pleadings and briefs consistent with the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See http:/www.privacy.uscourts.gov/b4amend.htm. Required redactions include social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers (filers may disclose the last four digits of a social security or tax identification number), birth dates (use year of birth only), minors’ names (initials may be used), and financial-account numbers (except those identifying property allegedly subject to forfeiture in a forfeiture proceeding). It is the sole responsibility of the filer to redact pleadings appropriately. Social Security and Immigration Appeals Pursuant to the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference and applicable statutory provisions, remote electronic access to immigration and social security dockets must be restricted. In this regard, the Clerk is directed to restrict electronic public access in these cases to judges, court staff, and the parties and attorneys in the appeal or agency proceeding. The court will not restrict access to orders and opinions in these cases. Parties seeking to restrict access to Orders and Opinions must file a motion explaining why that relief is required in a given case. Sealed Materials Sealed documents shall be filed only in hard copy paper format. Digital Submitters must file a single hard copy of all sealed pleadings and materials with the Clerk, with the exception of briefs. Digital Submitters must file an original and 7 hard copies of briefs submitted under seal. Motions to submit materials under seal shall also be filed in hard copy format. A single hard copy of the motion must be filed. E-Submission of Materials All pleadings and briefs filed pursuant to this Order must be furnished to the Clerk via e-mail to esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov The subject line of the email must include the case name and docket number (including, where appropriate, all case numbers in consolidated or cross appeals). Counsel and pro se parties must include a signature block on all email submissions which includes the attorney or pro se party’s name, address, telephone number and email address. Digital Signatures and Certification A. Digital Signatures All submissions requiring an attorney or pro se party’s signature shall be signed in the following manner: s/ Attorney or Pro Se Party B. Certification of Digital Submissions In addition to the certificate of service required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Tenth Circuit Rules, all Digital Submitters must certify that: (1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document filed with the Clerk, and; (2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (naming the program, version, and the date of the most recent update) and, according to the program, are free of viruses. C. Service Requirements All Digital Submitters shall serve copies of the materials submitted to the court on all parties to the proceeding. Where email is available parties may serve pleadings and briefs through that method. All certificates of service must reflect that proper service was made and must delineate the method used. If a party receives an exemption from this order or is a pro se party who does not have email access, all service must be made via regular mail or commercial carrier. The court will serve parties exclusively via email where it has an email address for counsel or a pro se party. Where an email address is not available the court will serve counsel and pro se parties via regular mail. The Court invites comment on these procedures and also invites parties to contact the office of the Clerk with questions. ENTERED FOR THE COURT ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER |
----- Original Message ----- From: bill payne To: ESubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov Cc: art morales ; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov ; The Secretary ; julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov ; foialo, foialo ; William Bosanko ; ISCAP ; bill.leonard@nara.gov Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:39 AM Subject: Motions to vacate judgments under Rule 60(b)(4) esubmission questions Wednesday September 12, 2007 09:29 Elisabeth Schumaker Clerk of Court Dear Ms Shumaker: We read Electronic Submission of Documents and FILED August 10, 2007 and have questions about "Native PDF files are generated from original word processing files and are text searchable." Here are pdf copies of our motions to vacate judgments submitted by mail on September 11, 2007. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/moralesvoid/tenth350/motionjpg/motion.pdf http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/motionjpg/motion.pdf Here are htm hotlink versions which link to copies of PACER dockets http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidmotion
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidnotice Could you please tell us how to generated from original word processing files, recommend products, and inform us of cost. In the meantime, please return file stamped copies of the first pages of our submissions to void judgement for lack of jurisdiction and mandatory judicial notices. These unfortunate matters are becoming far more serious now that criminal complaint affidavits have been forwarded to the Kirtland AFB commander. We appealed the our
NSA visibility
lawsuit to the Tenth Circuit. We continue to believe that peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matter is best for everyone. Sincerely bill.leonard@nara.gov U.S.
House of Representative Committee on the Judiciary From: Betsy_Shumaker@ca10.uscourts.gov Dear Mr. Payne- Your email message was forwarded to me for a response. We do not make recommendations regarding which of the various products to use to turn Word files into native PDF documents but there are a number of options. I am guessing you have internet access because you are emailing, so you may want to do a search. I can confirm there are many, many products out there and many of them can be downloaded for free or for a very limited cost. It really is a very easy process. Also--please know that per the General Order, pro se litigants do not have to comply with the esubmission requirements. It is optional for you. You may send everything via regular mail. If the hard copies of your pleadings came with extra postage and extra copies (i.e., of the front pages) the case managers here will be happy to send back a file stamped version. Thanks very much. Betsy Shumaker ----- Original Message ----- From: ESubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov This message confirms receipt by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of an electronic transmission from this location. This confirmation does not necessarily mean the forwarded documents are in compliance with all applicable court rules and orders. However, the court has received your transmission and will act on it in due course. If there are any problems, you will be contacted. Please do not retransmit unless directed to do so by court staff. In addition, please note the submission of a document electronically does not relieve you of the obligation to also file in hardcopy form in compliance with court rules. A new General Order in this regard takes effect September 4, 2007. Please go to the court's website to review this Order. Prior to that date the rules regarding hard copies found in the current local rules apply. If you have questions, please do not submit another email. Rather, call the Clerk's Office at 303-844-3157, and we will be happy to answer your questions. You can access the dockets of the court through the PACER system. If the esubmission you tendered is processed without incident you should be able to access that document on the PACER system shortly. |
| Tuesday September 11, 2007 10:12 Morales phoned Monday September 10, 2007 12:28 to point out "09/09/1999 68 MOTION by deft EEOC to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (rd) (Entered: 09/13/1999) " and "11/24/1999 96 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss individual defts and the Privacy Act claims with prejudice [64-1]; dismissing defts DOE and EEOC with prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/29/1999) " We didn't know about void judgments back in 2000. The legal system was keeping void judgments SECRET. Something fishy about case number 2271. Here's the documents that is going to get them in a jury trial: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos. Better settle before matters get FAR WORSE. http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid.htm#270void |
Monday September 10, 2007 14:07 Clerk The Byron White U.S. Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, CO 80257 Dear Clerk: Enclosed is a single copy of MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VACATE JUGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and ORDER VACATING MAGISTRATE JUDGE LORGENZO F GARCIA'S JUDGMENTS AND TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE AFFIRMATION for docketing. Please either return a file stamped copy of the first page or post our filings on PACER. Lil at (303) 844-3157 informed us that only a single copy of our motion is required but that our motion must be efiled at esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov. Lil also told us about "New E-submission rules were approved by the court effective September 4, 2007." Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 bpayne37@comcast.net http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidmotion http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/motionjpg/motion.pdf |
|
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; I. INTRODUCTION 1 Plaintiff - Appellant Payne filed suit in New Mexico
federal court to seek recovery from the false and defaming documents seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos. 2 Docket entry 1 shows 03/12/1999 1 COMPLAINT (referred to Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet) (vv) (Entered: 03/17/1999) 03/12/1999 3 Docket entry 3 shows 03/24/1999 3 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf (rd) (Entered: 03/25/1999) 4 Docket entries 104, 106, and 107 show 11/30/1999 105 JUDGMENT: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia entered in favor of deft DOE on all of pltf's federal claims which are hereby dismissed with prejudice [95-1] (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/30/1999)5 Docket entry 188 shows 01/11/2000 118 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff William H Payne from Dist. Court decision [117-1] ; Fees $105.00 - Distribution as required. (cc: all counsel) (pg) (Entered: 01/11/2000) 6 Docket entry 199 shows
III. ISSUES 6 Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. Therefore Garcia lacked jurisdiction to dismiss paid for jury trial lawsuit 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM. 7 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE lacked jurisdiction to affirm Garcia's voidable decision in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM which was rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. 7 Return filed stamped copy of this Motion with 10 working days. 8 Sign attached ORDER vacating Garcia's JUDGMENTs seen at 4
above and TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE affirmation seen at
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=155012. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISICTION was mailed certified return receipt requested to: Joan M. Hart NM Public Defender's Office 200 Third St, NW #740 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 841-6989 Phyllis A. Dow United States Attorney's Office Civil P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 346-7274 Email: phyllis.dow@usdoj.gov Susan E Murphy EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Jake J. Chavez US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Admin PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 (505) 845-5216 Carol Lisa Smith Bannerman & Williams, P.A. 2201 San Pedre NE Building 2, Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-837-1900 Email: cls@nmcounsel.com John A. Bannerman 2201 San Pedro, N.E. Bldg. 2 Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 837-1900 Email: jab@nmcounsel.com ________________________ Signed ________________________ Date |
|
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/tenthvoid/tenthvoid#270voidnotice
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff - Appellant Payne to place this court on mandatory judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgments. 2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements: (1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties; If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1 3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2 4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3 5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5 6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4 7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7 8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9 9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11 10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. 12 11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion.
13 13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 16 that is, where proper rules of practice have not been followed, or where some necessary act has been omitted or has been done in an improper manner.17 14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.1815 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, 19 lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, 20 or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.21 16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, 22 and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 23 1 See Peduto v. North Wildwood (DC NJ) 696 F Supp 1004, affd (CA3 NJ) 878 F.2d 725; In re Doe (NM App) 99 NM 517, 660 P.2d 607; Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 284 Pa Super 220, 425 A.2d 782. 2 See U.S.Const.Amdt. V; F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); CR 60(b)(5); Federal cases: Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D.Virg.Is.1985); Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Millikan v. Meyer, 311 US 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1940); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA7 1999). 3 See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 NE2d 1152 (Ind.1998); Thompson v. Thompson, 238 SW2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951); Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 NE2d 1114, rehng.den., trans.den, (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); In re Marriage of Parks, 630 NE2d 509 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No.27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R.Fed. 298 (CA1 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D.Fla.1980); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, recon.den., 149 F.R.D. 147, aff’d, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D.Ill.1992); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P2d 319 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1951). 4 Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994). 5 See Asher v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1994). 6 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Monroe v. Niven, 221 NC 362, 20 S.E.2d 311. 7 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 NC 607, 107 S.E.2d 302. 8 As to persons and agencies bound by due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 742, 821-824. 9 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 78 S.Ct. 1228, reh den 358 US 858, 3 L.Ed.2d 92, 79 S.Ct. 10; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa 487, 148 A 699, 68 ALR 1172. 10 See Royal Indem. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 209 Ga 383, 73 S.E.2d 205; Spencer v. Franks, 173 Md 73, 195 A 306, 114 ALR 263; Road Material & Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss 611, 91 So.2d 554, motion dismd 229 Miss 630, 92 So.2d 245; Howle v. Twin States Express, Inc., 237 NC 667, 75 S.E.2d 732; Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 192 Okla 248, 135 P.2d 340; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 ALR 966; Reburg v. Lang, 239 Wis 381, 1 N.W.2d 759. The courts of a state may render only such judgments as they are authorized to do under the laws of the state. Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo 225, 281 SW 762, 45 ALR 1223. 11 See People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke, 72 Colo 486, 212 P. 837, 30 ALR 1085; People v. Wade, 116 Ill 2d 1, 107 Ill Dec 63, 506 N.E.2d 954; Gray v. Clement, 296 Mo 497, 246 SW 940; Ex parte Solberg, 52 ND 518, 203 NW 898; Russell v. Fourth Nat’l Bank (Ohio) 102 Ohio St 248, 131 NE 726; Hough v. Hough (Okla) 772 P.2d 920; Farmers’ Nat’l Bank v. Daggett (Tex Com App) 2 S.W.2d 834; State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658; Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 117 Wis 2d 223, 344 N.W.2d 115. 12 See Sanchez v. Hester, 911 SW2d 173 (Tex.App.1995). 13 See Allcock v. Allcock, 437 NE2d 392 (Ill.App.Dist.3 1982). 14 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17. 15 As to the opportunity to be heard as a requisite of due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 839 et seq. 16 See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841. 17 See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386. 18 See McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. (CA9 Ariz) 80 F.2d 344; State ex rel. Yohe v. District Court, 33 Wyo 281, 238 P. 545. 19 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 26, 27. 20 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 25. 21 See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 17, 18. 22 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630. 23 See State ex rel. Anderson-Madison County Hospital Development Corp. v. Superior Court of Madison County, 245 Ind 371, 199 N.E.2d 88; Moore v. Smith, 177 Va 621, 15 S.E.2d 48; Morley v. Morley, 131 Wash 540, 230 P. 645; Trough v. Trough, 59 W Va 464, 53 SE 630. Respectfully submitted,
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENTS FOR LACK OF JURISICTION was mailed certified return receipt requested to: Joan M. Hart NM Public Defender's Office 200 Third St, NW #740 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 841-6989 Phyllis A. Dow United States Attorney's Office Civil P.O. Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 346-7274 Email: phyllis.dow@usdoj.gov Susan E Murphy EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Jake J. Chavez US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Admin PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 (505) 845-5216 Carol Lisa Smith Bannerman & Williams, P.A. 2201 San Pedre NE Building 2, Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-837-1900 Email: cls@nmcounsel.com John A. Bannerman 2201 San Pedro, N.E. Bldg. 2 Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 837-1900 Email: jab@nmcounsel.com ________________________ Signed ________________________ Date |
|
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. No. 99-2021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; ORDER VACATING MAGISTRATE JUDGE LORGENZO F GARCIA'S JUDGMENTS AND TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE AFFIRMATION 1 Magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia's judgments 11/30/1999 105 JUDGMENT: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia entered in favor of deft DOE on all of pltf's federal claims which are hereby dismissed with prejudice [95-1] (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (Entered: 11/30/1999)in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM are rescinded for lack of jurisdiction to dismiss paid for jury trial lawsuit which were rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. 2 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE ruling in No. 99-2021 is rescinded because these judges lack jurisdiction to affirm Garcia's voidable decision in 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM which was rendered in violation of constitutional limitations and guaranties. Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. 3 1:99-cv-00270-LFG-KBM is to be settled or proceed to trial by jury within 90 days from entry of this order. _________________________ Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge _________________________ Date |
|