V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION, Gamishee.

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)

1 Plaintiff's garnished Sandia Labortory Federal Credit Union were removed from savings account without due process on July 22, 2008.

See yellow star

2 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6. Time

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation....

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5 (b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

3 Order was mailed August 14, 2000 in envelope seen below

4 ORDER was not FILE stamped by clerk of court as seen below.

Clerk rules state

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

Rule 79 was violated by New Mexico federal court clerk Matthew Dykman on August 10, 2008. See underline in above quote.

5 Plaintiff had until August 29, 2008 to file under Rule 59(e) a motion to alter or amend judgment.

6 Plaintiff did file timely Rule 59(e) motion on July 31, 2008

See htlm posting at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid.

Additional Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) filing has no time limit.

7

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

YES IT WAS TAKEN ON JULY 22

Lawyer and friend phoned Friday afternoon August 8, 2008.

Lawyer said that she filed a New Mexico lawsuit and tried to pay for a 12 person jury trial.

Clerk's office refused her money and said that judge Ted Baca must rule on whether she can have a jury trial or not.

Ted Baca is a defendant in one of our paid-for 12 person jury trial lawsuit which was fraudulently removed to federal court. All of the judgments in these cases are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We must file to void if we don't settle, of course.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday August 8, 2008 11:15
Docket entry 152

The US federal government took our money on July 22, 2008 without due process Rule 59 and 60 properly processed. See yellow star.

This is now a full-blown case of criminal extortion of at least $11,018.00

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#armijovoid

Payne spoke with lawyer Eliot Gould Tuesday evening August 6, 3008. Gould is trying to get back on the ballot in Santa Fe. Judge Martha Vazquez postponed a hearing on the matter until September.

Vazquez may be trying to delay until it is too late to reinstate Gould.

We discussed a subpoena for judge? M Christina Armijo.

Bob Carman suspects Armijo lack proper credentialals to be a federal judge.

Above and similar exhibits are seen at docket entry 24, A1 and A2, of MC 06-24 MCA, USA, et al v. Carman, suggests that judge Armijo does not have required credentials of

1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

-----Original Message-----
From: Deaton, William W. [mailto:wdeaton@cabq.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:41 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Citizen's Police Complaint CPC 136-08

in which he wrote wrote

Dear Mr. Payne:

We have received the proposed complaint you filed on July 31, 2008. You allege that an APD officer told you that APD has no jurisdiction over Federal matters and complaints, and that he suggested that you contact the U.S. Department of Justice.. It also appears that you were permitted to file your allegations with APD. Under the circumstances presented this is not a matter for this office or the Police Oversight Commission to consider. Accordingly, your complaint will be inactivated.

William W. Deaton
Independent Review Officer

Steps in Filing a Citizen Complaint

Citizens are encouraged to bring any question or concern about procedures to the attention of the Police Department, at any listed location. An attempt to formally address your concerns will be made by the employee’s supervisor. Complaints may be made informally through the employee’s chain of command or formally. The steps for filing a formal written complaint are as follows:

A citizen wishing to file a formal complaint should complete a written complaint form. These forms may be obtained at any substation or at the Internal Affairs Unit (400 Marquette NW, Old City Hall 1st floor). A Citizen Police Complaint (CPC) number will be assigned to each complaint. In most cases, a copy of the written complaint will be sent to the individual against whom the complaint was filed within seven working days.

If a complaint warrants further investigation, the Independent Review Officer will assign the case to the Internal Affairs Unit or to an outside investigator. Once the investigation is complete the Independent Review Officer, Chief of Police or his designate shall review all findings and determine the appropriate action to be taken. Most investigations and findings are completed within 60 days after the complaint has been filed. However, the Chief of Police may request a 30 extension from the Public Safety Director if the case requires additional attention.

Citizens filing complaints will receive a written notice of the disposition through certified mail. This notification will inform citizens of their right to appeal the decision to the Police Oversight Commission (POC).Any questions you have concerning the complaint process may be directed to the Internal Affairs Unit at 768-2880.

Citizens must be aware of the city ordinance which governs false reports and states that it is unlawful for any person to intentionally make or file with any law enforcement agency any false, misleading, or unfounded report or statement.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1

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 /

You can see our receipts for 12 person jury trial lawsuits in Exhibit A, Exhibit C, Exhibit E, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit K and Exhibit L all for prima facie cases which we paid more than $250 each.

Look at the receipts: three are for $297 and two are for $322 [against former judge W John Brennan].

These are, of course, void because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-----Original Message-----
From: Deaton, William W. [mailto:wdeaton@cabq.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:41 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Citizen's Police Complaint CPC 136-08
Dear Mr. Payne:

We have received the proposed complaint you filed on July 31, 2008. You allege that an APD officer told you that APD has no jurisdiction over Federal matters and complaints, and that he suggested that you contact the U.S. Department of Justice.. It also appears that you were permitted to file your allegations with APD. Under the circumstances presented this is not a matter for this office or the Police Oversight Commission to consider. Accordingly, your complaint will be inactivated.

William W. Deaton
Independent Review Officer

Would you be interested in mediation to resolve this complaint: YES

INSTRUCTIONS:

This form should only be completed if you wish to initiate a complaint against the Department or an employee(s). According to City Ordinance, written complaints must be filed within ninety (90) calendar days of the incident to be accepted. If you would rather attempt to resolve this issue with the employee’s supervisor, you may contact the employee’s supervisor directly. For assistance, please contact the Internal Affairs Unit at (505) 768-2880 during business hours.

IF YOU DECIDE TO FILE A COMPLAINT:

Please complete the complainant information and statement portions below. Once the form is completed and signed it may be delivered to the Independent Review Office/Police Oversight Commission at 600 2nd St. NW, Room 813, Albuquerque, NM, 87102, or mailed to PO Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Please notify the Independent Review Office if your address or phone number changes prior to the resolution of your complaint.

NAME: William Harris Payne

ADDRESS: 13015 Calle de Sandias NE, Albuquerque, NM 87111

TELEPHONE: Home: 505-292-7037 Cell/Work: 505-463-1020

Date and Time of Incident: Thursday May 1, 2008

Address where incident happened: John Carrillo Memorial Substation 8201 Osuna NE

NOTE: This complaint form along with other necessary documentation will be forwarded to the Independent Review Office for evaluation and investigative direction. Your complaint may be investigated by the Independent Review Office or assigned to APD’s Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The Independent Review Office also will review the completed investigation and will submit findings to the Chief of Police. You will be notified by certified mail, at your abovelisted address, of the final disciplinary findings (normally within 60 days after the complaint has been filed.)

PD-1102 (Revised 01/07)

Please describe both the incident and the specific nature of your complaint as completely as possible. Be sure to give the names, addresses and phone numbers of any witnesses of which you are aware. Be as specific as possible about the details such as exactly what was said, time and dates of incident. Identify the exact location of the incident, identification of the officers involved, if known. If officer’s names are not known, please include detailed descriptions of officers. Be specific, it is important to provide as much information as possible. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Please feel free to include any other relevant information or items (pictures, witness statements, etc.)

1 Detective Baker's response to Payne's statement submitted in writing and posted on Internet at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2 Thursday May 1, 2008 is also dated May 1, 2008.

2 Detective Baker attempts to dissuade Payne and Morales from filing statements. Evidence of Baker's guilt is on audio tape, provided it has not been altered.

4 Payne signs and dates his statement. At that time Baker obtains a case number and give Payne a copy of the first and last pages of complaint. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement#coverlastsheet

5 Baker wrote

On Thursday, May 1, 2008 I met with Arthur Morales and William H. Payne regarding a situation in which both are alleging judicial misconduct within the New Mexico District of the US Federal Courts. Both Morales and Payne stated that the United States Federal Government has been illegally garnishing wages and has frozen US Currency within their bank accounts.

We alleged, in writing, that the above had occurred without judicial jurisdiction so individuals were acting outside the scope of their authority.

Baker was given a signed copy of Payne's statement.

6 Baker wrote

Morales and Payne wanted this documented with the Albuquerque Police Department even though they both understand that the Albuquerque Police Department does not have jurisdiction to investigate federal offenses. Morales and Payne were referred to the Department of Justice for jurisdictional purposes.

Above is false statement. We did not "[b]oth understand that the Albuquerque Police Department does not have jurisdiction to investigate federal offenses".

Baker attempted to convince us that his statement was true.

Baker attempted to have us depart without signing our statements.

We explained carefully to Baker that that those complained about were acting outside the scope of their duties.

Baker only properly logged Payne's statement, but not Morales, when Payne signed the statement.

7 Baker wrote

Morales and Payne have completed written statements and the interview with them was recorded. The written statements are attached to this report, the audio recording was tagged into evidence. It should be noted that the interview will be tagged into evidence as 'evidence' however there is no indication at this time that there was a crime committed.

Baker's statement, "It should be noted that the interview will be tagged into evidence as 'evidence' however there is no indication at this time that there was a crime committed." does not indicate that any investigation which would require responses be solicited from those accused was conducted.

Baker, in his above paragraph, appears that he is attempting to cover-up a crime where all of the evidence of the guilt of those charged is in writing.

The above evidence in Baker's own writing shows that he has apparently violated

30-28-2. Conspiracy.

A. Conspiracy consists of knowingly combining with another for the purpose of committing a felony within or without this state.

in writing.

PD-1102 (Revised 01/07)

WITNESSES:

Name: Arthur R Morales

Address: 1400 Camino Amparo NW,  Albuquerque NM 87107

Phone Number: 505-410-2339

Names of officer you are complaining about: Detective Christian D Baker

Would you be interested in mediation to resolve this complaint: YES

The information provided in this statement is true and factual to the best of my knowledge. I understand that I may be required to appear in the Independent Review Office or the Internal Affairs Office for further interview or to provide other investigative assistance as necessary.

Complainant’s Signature

Complainant’s Date of Birth: 6/11/1937

PD-1102 (Revised 01/07)

Morales and Payne wanted this documented with the Albuquerque Police Department even though they both understand that the Albuquerque Police Department does not have jurisdiction to investigate federal offenses. Morales and Payne were referred to the Department of Justice for jurisdictional purposes.

Morales and Payne have completed written statements and the interview with them was recorded. The written statements are attached to this report, the audio recording was tagged into evidence. It should be noted that the interview will be tagged into evidence as 'evidence' however there is no indication at this time that there was a crime committed.

NRDC coal report linked.

Toxic bass/walleye fishing, and observing rural home FOR SALE signs.

We've taken a month off for vacation, pnm electric irp report comments.

eid-e- shomah mubarak!

New Mexico law allows carrying a loaded gun in a car and even loaded guns on your person provided they are not concealed.

Payne learned this in concealed carry class.

But let's check with other sources before filing additional APD officer misconduct complaints ... if we don't promptly settle, of course.

[T]his does not apply to: 1) carrying in a person's residence or on real property belonging to him as an owner, lessee, tenant or licensee; 2) carrying in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of person or property; or ...

Ray did not send Payne his certifcate for passing course.

Payne used a .22 pistol for the class which does not qualify for concealed carry license. Payne was only interested in the course contents, not carrying a concealed weapon.

---Original Message-----
From: Iran Defence Forum [mailto:support@irandefence.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:01 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Happy Birthday from Iran Defence Forum

Hello billp37,

We at Iran Defence Forum would like to wish you a happy birthday today!

05/30/2003 06/02/2003 105 ORDER by District Judge William F. Downes granting deft USA's motion to dismiss [78-1] and further ordered that pltf's claims against defts Charles Burtner and Magistrate Judge Garcia are dismissed w/prejudice dismissing case (cc: all counsel) [164k] [8 pages]
RE: [78] MOTION by deft USA to dismiss and/or... [36k] [2 pages]

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Amorales58@Comcast.Net
Subject: bob carman

i talked to bob carman this afternoon after meeting with gould.

carman thinks the feds are scared about jurisdiction issues.

and also because of lots of people are looking at nonsense in federal courts.

this may be why armijo has not acted.

we may have to depose armijo with lawyer eliot gould performing the depostion. using a subpoena, of course, as gould explained.

Gould said he can perform depositions through 2011.

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

V.                                                                                No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION, Gamishee.

                                                      Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4)and Rule 59(e)

1 Armijo writes

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied.

No rule in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to cover a response to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

Further, plaintiff cannot find an rule specifying a time to respond to a Finding and Recommended Disposition.

On the other than, Rule 59(e) allows

(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.

Further, Rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4) motion can be filed at any time.

2 Armijo writes

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

This is a false statement in view of title of

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hearingminutes.

Title "Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions" obviates statement "Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, ... ."

Fact is that magistrate Lorenzo Garcia scheduled hearing when plaintiff Payne was not properly served by assistant US attorney John W Zavitz.

This omission, of course voids all ruling in under rule Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

Plaintiffs objected by not attending kangaroo hearing on March 26, 2008 09:00.

3 Armijo writes

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are not accepted for the reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

4 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are sustained;

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption are dismissed for reason this Order violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

5 Armijo writes

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

must be altered to read

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court;

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

6 Armijo writes

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied.

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

under Rules 59(e) and Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4).

7 Armijo writes

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

must be altered to read

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

is an Order which violates due process and was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and is attacked at this time in this court.

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

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

because the Armijo does not have jurisdiction is acting as a private citizen outside the scope of her judicial jurisdiction.

See
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

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

9 Morales was dismissed as a defendant.

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)

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation....

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5 (b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

V. No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Gamishor,

and

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION, Gamishee.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27,2008 [Doc. 150]. In the Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' objections to Payne' s and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that neither Payne nor Morales filed a timely answer or carried his burden of proof to demonstrate applicability of any exemption, and that any purported claims of exemption raised by Payne or Morales be denied. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court authorize issuance of Orders of Garnishment of the funds sought by the United States. Neither Payne nor Morales filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

The Court accepts the findings and recommended disposition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommended disposition of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) the United States'objections to Payne's and Morales'purported claims of exemption are sustained;

(2) Payne's and Morales' answers are deemed untimely;

(3) Payne and Morales failed to carry their burden of proof to demonstrate a valid exemption; and

(4) any and all purported exemptions raised by Payne or Morales are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(5) Gamishee Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union ("SLFCU") pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Plaintiff William H. Payne's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter; and

(6) Gamishee SLFCU pay the sum of $11,018.00 of Arthur R. Morales's credit union accounts to Gamishor. Upon said payment, SLFCU will be released from its obligation in this matter.'

'Both checks should be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and mailed to: United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 70932, Charlotte, North Carolina 28272-0932. For tracking purposes in the Garnishor's accounting system, please print the CDCS number 2007A61842 on the front of the payment instruments.

SO ORDERED mis 11th day of July, 2008, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO
United States District Judge

CASE NO. CIV 97cv266 MCA/LFG DATE: March 25, 2008

TITLE: William H. Payne and Arthur Morales v. National Security Agency

COURTROOM CLERK: M. Woodward COURT REPORTER: Julie Sanchez

COURT IN SESSION: 9 a.m. COURT IN RECESS: 9:30 a.m TOTAL TIME: 30 min.

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Hearing on United States' objections to exemptions

COURT'S RULINGS/DISPOSITION: Report and Recommendation to issue Writs of Garnishment.

ORDER CONSISTENT WITH COURT'S RULING TO BE PREPARED BY; Government will provide revised Writs to Court

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF(S): ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):

Neither pro se Plaintiff was present John Zavitz

Kevin Hammar, for Gamishee Greg Fouratt

PROCEEDINGS:

Court in Session: 9 a.m.

Court: Calls case; asks for appearances of counsel Asks if either Plaintiff is present. Neither responds. Court Security Officer directed to check outside courtroom for Plaintiffs. Neither located.

Court: Summarizes procedural history of case. Plaintiffs were previously ordered to pay sanctions. Doc 41. Judge Campos, originally assigned to the case, dismissed the lawsuit initiated by Plaintiffs. That decision was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. The case was closed for years, at which point, but Plaintiffs commenced filing numerous pleadings seeking to re-assert dismissed claims. Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85, 91. Judge Annijo was assigned to the case and issued an order of reference in this case. Pursuant to that Order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause. Doc. 92. Neither Payne nor Morales responded. In a Report and Recommendation, this Court recommended sanctions be assessed for Plaintiffs' abusive and frivolous pleadings, and directed the United States Attorney to proceed to enforce and collect the sanctions imposed on Plaintiffs. Doc. 95. Plaintiffs filed no objections. Judge Armijo adopted the report and recommendation and imposed sanctions on each Plaintiff. No appeal was taken from that Order. The United States initiated collections proceedings to enforce judgment. Writs of garnishment were issued, including on Sandia Credit Union, where Plaintiffs each held accounts. Notices of writs of garnishment were issued to Plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs contacted the credit union to complain of the garnishment proceeding. However, neither Plaintiff filed objections with Court. Sandia Credit Union filed affidavits from Plaintiffs in the proceeding. Doc. 133. United States filed objections to the claimed exemption and sought a hearing. Doc. 135. Judge Armijo issued a new order of reference [doc. 141]directing the magistrate judge to conduct a hearing and issue a report and recommendation.

Zavitz: Explains that the United States' objection is being heard today. While Plaintiffs have filed pleadings, they did not file objections to the garnishment, nor did Plaintiffs request hearing. Plaintiffs indicated they did not want a hearing and objected to a hearing. Debtor/Plaintiff has burden to show exemption applies, but the only evidence presented by debtors/Plaintiffs are the affidavits filed by the credit union. Plaintiffs came forward with no other information on their behalf. Government clarified that Plaintiffs may be able to claim an exemption under state law if they could prove monies in credit union accounts are retirement proceeds. However, Plaintiffs did not show that all monies in these accounts were from retirement sources. Hammar: On behalf of Sandia Credit Union, the credit union filed, in an abundance of caution, the affidavits Plaintiffs submitted to the credit union. Plaintiffs/debtors incorrectly claimed that credit union had burden to show that the funds were not subject to garnishment. Credit Union informed Plaintiffs/debtors otherwise on numerous occasions. Court: Garnishee (credit union) has obligation only to respond to Court's Writ and to state whether garnishee holds funds, firedit Union is then required to freeze those assets if held in accounts and await Court's determination on exemptions, if any, and the Court's disposition under federal and state garnishment laws. Credit Union is under no obligation to adjudicate this matter, or to determine applicability of exemptions.

Zavitz: Tenders writs of garnishment for District Court to sign. Court: Makes findings. Plaintiffs were aware of today'shearing and proceeding, and Debtors/Plaintiffs have chosen not to attend the hearing. Court finds that debtors were served with the appropriate pleadings and notice of this hearing. Plaintiffs/debtors sent emails and other correspondence to the U.S. Attorney acknowledging receipt of the relevant information. Court rejects debtors' claims of improper service and finds that service was proper. Court acknowledges Plaintiffs'/Debtors' claim that funds in pertinent accounts should not be garnished because they are retirement funds or wages of a spouse. The monies in both Payne's and Morales' accounts were commingled with other funds in those accounts. It was the burden of debtors to demonstrate the source of the funds and any legitimate claim of exemption. They have wholly failed to do so. Thus, under the pertinent law, garnishment may proceed. Court looks at New Mexico law to determine if there are exemptions under state law and federal law. Garnishment may be made from communal mnds, to the extent the laws of New Mexico permit. Debts incurred during course of marriage may be garnished. Community property may be used to satisfied communal debt. Court recognizes that retirement funds may not be garnished. However, if those retirement funds are paid to the retiree and then commingled with other funds, they are subject to garnishment. Plaintiffs must demonstrate which funds are retirement funds. Plaintiffs failed to do so.

Zavitz: Tenders writs to Court which Court reviews. Court: In addition to the amounts ordered to be paid by Plaintiffs, the garnishee is entitled to attorney's fees related to responding to the writs. There are funds sufficient and there is no showing of an applicable exemption. Based on these determinations. Court concludes that the writs of garnishment should issue directing gamishee to pay the amounts to the United States. Once Sandia Credit Union makes payments to the United States, the garnishee is discharged and free of any other obligations in this matter. A report will issue recommending entry of an order directing payment.

Zavitz: Will submit revised Writs to correct typographical error.

Hammar: Nothing further. Credit Union seeks reimbursement for attorney's fees related to this matter.

Zavitz: Amount of attorney's fees will be added to the amounts to be paid.

Court: In recess, 9:30 a.m.

Wednesday July 9, 2008 15:24

Let's respond to Baker. But not directly.

Baker committed a felony violation of law in writing.

Sunday June 15, 2008 field tripThe Oil Drum viz.

Baker appears to be engaged in creative writing.

APD detective Baker may be included in the Myrland list.

You wouldn’t believe how frequently Prosecutors, Lawyers for the Plaintiff, and Judges do the Criminal Act without any hint of remorse and believing you have no recourse or remedy to their Criminal Acts.

I participated on a counseling conference call with David and I have to say just how impressed I am with David’s ability to find these violations in the Record. David, after listening to the evidence, started clicking off, one after another, the Federal Criminal Statutes opposing counsel and the judge had violated. It was really something impressive to listen to. The thing that marveled me most was that David rooted out the earliest violation that occurred. It happened before the Complaint was even filed! That initial violation actually made void everything that followed.

...
Courts no longer follow the law.

This is obvious.

What can be moved are the men and women who ‘work’ the courts to our detriment. Whether a public servant is a Dog Catcher, a Zoning Officers, a LEO, or a Prosecutor or a Judge; they ALL seek to further their political careers.

This is actually their Achilles heal!

We observe these people trip over themselves to violate, to trespass your Rights and in doing so, most likely they are violating your state criminal statutes in the process.

What David Myrland teaches is how to write the Criminal Complaints that absolutely foils any aspirations they may have for a future political career.

The end result is – do they not only want to get you out of their courts – better yet – they avoid you in the future!

Sunday June 8, 2008

Baker's response looks more like an attempted cover-up as opposed to a proper police investigation of of prima facie felony violation of law.

All evidence of guilt of accused is in writing.

Pro se fighters, only written materials count.

Words out of mouths don't count.

The goal, of course, is to settle not fight further. But the opposition looks to want to continue to fight.

Detective Baker phoned at about 13:05 on Monday June 2, 2006.

The APD response was picked up at the Carillo station.

The question all of us must ask ourselves is: Are matters going to get settled or get worse?

WWIII may be a lower limit or worse.

Both parties reported there was possible judicial misconduct regarding the alleged, illegal freezing of funds and garnishment of wages. On Thursday, May 1, 2008 I met with Arthur Morales and William H. Payne regarding a situation in which both are alleging judicial misconduct within the New Mexico District of the US Federal Courts. Both Morales and Payne stated that the United States Federal Government has been illegally garnishing wages and has frozen US Currency within their bank accounts. Morales and Payne wanted this documented with the Albuquerque Police Department even though they both understand that the Albuquerque Police Department does not have jurisdiction to investigate federal offenses. Morales and Payne were referred to the Department of Justice for jurisdictional purposes. Morales and Payne have completed written statements and the interview with them was recorded. The written statements are attached to this report, the audio recording was tagged into evidence. It should be noted that the interview will be tagged into evidence as 'evidence' however there is no indication at this time that there was a crime committed.

Here are the unread emails from Baker.

Monday May 12, 2008 14:59

After an intitial attempt to try to convince us that APD did not have jurisdiction

Detective Baker got our stories and complaints.

We continued to emphasize that Garcia was acting as a private citizen outside the scope of this authority in a garnishment attempt where rules were not followed.

Settlement time yet?

Morales reported that APD detective phoned him.

Payne was busy at PNM electric irp from about 09:15 to 16:00 so he listened to phone messages.

Here's the APD detective message.

Former federal chief magistrate judge William Deaton seemed like a judge who was trying to do the right thing.

Perhaps that's the reason he is no long with the federal court system?

But he is with the Albuquerque Police Department!

Former federal magistrate judge William Deaton is central to these matters.

http://www.cabq.gov/iro/EvidenceRoomExecSummary.html

http://www.cabq.gov/iro/pdf/CPCForm2.pdf

Deaton was magistrate judge for John Conway and aided in getting Morales/Payne cases removed from New Mexico federal court.

Deaton was given a copy of the Buehler Swiss Radio International tape transcribed by Laszlo Baranyi.

Baranyi Crypto AG information is now linked at reference 10 at Wikipedia.

We should get matters settled before they get even worse. Which they did this morning.

When Payne was waiting for Morales in east parking lot at

APD officer arrived on a motorcycle with lights flashing just to the left of this photo at about 09:55.

The APD officer drew is pistol, aimed it at Payne's back, ordered Payne out of his vehicle, ordered Payne to turn around, and place his hands behind his neck.

The officer asked Payne if he had a gun. Payne responded negatively.

The officer [Romero?]told Payne to place his feet wide apart. The officer then searched Payne.

A second officer [Olmstad?], with gun first drawn, searched Payne's vehicle and found no gun.

We all went in to the above substation where Morales was waiting. Morales parked on west side of the station since he arrived from the west. Payne parked on the east side since he arrived from the east.

The officer in charge said that the substation has been threatened. And someone phoned to report that man in bue shirt and camo hat [an official US issued hat] had a gun.

Shall we ask for the police report on this drawn gun matter?

No gun. Digital camera, yes. From our police state point of view, everything can be mistaken for a gun.

US Marshals Halvorsen and Bowman were frightened of a digital camera to the point that they committed criminal harassment in front of a camera.

So we should get matters settled promptly.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday April 18, 2008 10:49.

We visited PACER to look for docket entry 88. It is not posted on PACER.

88 strikes MALDEF lawyer, not judge, Martha Vazquez threat 87.

Vazquez did not have jurisdiction.

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

"...without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ""

Martha Vazquez has been internationally labelled a crooked judge.

Now we have to show the world that in the United States crooked lawyers are imprisoned if they get caught committing crimes in writing.

But we needed visibility to reach this point in our legal project. This was purpose of filing FOIA lawsuit Civ No: 97 2266 SC AM 10:51 against the National Security Agency.

We're linking to the PACER pdf documents to show lawyers, not judges - no jurisdiction, Vazquez, Armijo and Garcia got caught committing New Mexico state crimes in writing.

Now that we're checking pdfs, we see what we have also caught clerk Matthew Dykman in pattern and practice of harassment. But Dykman is little fish.

Guilt of the accused is in the docket record.

PACER docket records
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacergarnish/pacergarnish.htm

Detective has not returned phone call.

We need to write a brief letter to a detective - we have a phone call to him.

Keep in mind that these guys are experienced. They have learned it's best to get a message so as to give them some time to frame a response.

We are not in a rush. Keep in mind that the goal is to settle, not particularly to send some crooked lawyers to jail. No money is that.

We will reference Northern New Mexico Adhoc Committee For Honesty in Government points

2. Threats, intimidation, infliction of emotional duress, personally and via the US Mail;

3, Attempts at extortion under 'color of law'; ...

5. Denial of a Trial by Jury and Due Process of Law;

6. Total absence of "Powers of Attorney" and statutory authority for these actions;

7. Recordation of bogus liens and levy's, retaliation, persecution of, and blatant oppression against those who dare to question the legality of such 'federal' actions.

The visibility of these matters continues to escalate because of the efforts of lots of people.

EROIs (energy return on investments) viz.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

I "William H Payne" willingly and voluntary give this statement to Officer / Detective Christian Baker who I know to be a member of the Albuquerque Police Department. I understand that I do not have to give a statement and any statement that I do give can be used in a court of law if necessary.

Lawyers John W Zavitz, Kevin Hammar, Lorenzo Garcia and Martha Vazquez alleged to have committed some or all criminal violations

1 30-3A-2. Harassment
2 30-28-1. Attempt to commit a felony
3 30-28-3. Criminal solicitation
4 30-28-2. Conspiracy
5 30-16-9. Extortion
6 Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]:

1 Aug. 6, 1991 Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of the Shah of Iran, and his personal secretary Katibeh Fallouch were assassinated in the west Paris suburb of Suresnes.

Wikipedia posts, apparently by Persian intelligence representative, in the summer of 2007 suggest that Bakhtiar was, in fact, executed for his role in the attempted Nojeh coup.

2 March 18, 1992 Iran arrests Swiss company Crypto AG top salesman Hans Buehler for espionage in Tehran.

3 July 27, 1992 Sandia National Laboratories fires Payne.

4 December 23, 1992 plaintiff Payne files 92 cv 01452 (sealed) which is referred to Magistrate William Deaton. See docket entry 1.

5 December 31, 1992 Sandia Labs manager James Gosler submits ex parte sealed AFFIDAVIT to court. See docket entry 3.

December 6, 2006 the FBI declassifies a January 28, 1993 Wayne R Gilbert letter in which Payne is accused of releasing classified information about the National Security Agency.

6 January 4, 1993 Hans Buehler is released from the Evin prison in Tehran.

7 December 31, 1994 Buehler phones Payne from Zurich.

8 January 3, 1995 Buehler mails Payne a letter, copies of Reuters newspapers translations, book, and several other things.

9 January 5, 1005 Buehler mails Payne a copy of Swiss Radio International broadcast tape.

10 June 22, 1995 Baltimore Sun reporter Scott Shane phones Payne to ask for copies of documents and tape.

11 December 10, 1995, pp. 9-11. The Baltimore Sun, publishes No Such Agency Part Four - Rigging the Game written by Scott Shane and Tom Bowman.

12 January 22, 1996, Electronic Engineering Times, p. 84. publishes State-Sanctioned paranoia written by Loring Wirbel.

The words "DOE, Bill Payne, NSA, Crypto AG, Hans Buehler, Iranian prison, Crypto/NSA sting against that country, .." are contained in an article read by Iranian engineers.

13 February 28, 1997 Payne and Morales file FOIA lawsuit Civ No: 97 2266 SC AM 10:51 against the National Security Agency.

14 August 13, 1998 Hungarian/Swedish/German/English speaker Laszlo Baranyi requests copy of Swiss Radio International broadcast tape to transcribe tape from German audio to English text.

15 January 07, 2001 A. Zoubin ( Information Committee) of SMCCDI makes email contact to ask

Dear Friend,

we saw some of these documents http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html but we would like your commentary about what happened and all circumstances so we can post it on our website but as well as a report to the mailing lists.

16 May 11, 2007 Payne and Morales file motion to void judgment in New Mexico federal court in  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG for lack of jurisdiction for a several reasons.

17 May 16, 2007 "MOTION to Set Aside Judgment by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales. (pz) (Entered: 05/18/2007)" is finally docketed.

18 June 6, 2007 Payne and Morales file criminal complaint affidavit with in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

Docket entry: 06/12/2007 85 STRICKEN from the record pursuant to 100 Order - REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales. (pz) Modified docket text on 8/28/2007 (ln). (Entered: 06/12/2007) ]

since it appears from Wikipedia Nojeh post that a crime was committed by Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

19 February 12, 2008 commodities investor Jim Rogers reports in interview by Paul Kedrosky "Somebody knew that Iran and Iraq were going to war" which suggests that insider trader crimes may have been committed by Carter administration members.

21 All judicial officers in the District of New Mexico were recused by former judge James A Parker:

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.

From the 03/28/2008 14:12:09 docket of CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG:

Docket entry 86 reads

06/12/2007 86 MINUTE ORDER, Judge M. Christina Armijo added. Judge Santiago E. Campos no longer assigned to case. (ln) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

Docket entry 87 reads

06/14/2007 87 ORDER of Reference by Judge Martha Vazquez (jmg) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

Docket entry 88 reads

06/15/2007 88 MINUTE ORDER STRIKING 87 Order of REFERENCE Due to case being assigned to District Judge Armijo. by Judge Martha Vazquez THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED. (jmg) (Entered: 06/15/2007)

A Docket entry 89 reads

06/21/2007 89 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 81 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales to Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia by Judge M. Christina Armijo (jes) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

B Docket entry 90 reads

06/21/2007 90 MINUTE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia for discovery purposes. (ln) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

C Docket entry 92 reads

07/06/2007 92 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia (ln) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

D Docket entry 95 reads

07/31/2007 95 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Sanctions and Striking of Documents by Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2007 (clm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

E Docket entry 96 reads

07/31/2007 96 ERRATA - Regarding Doc. 95, recommendation on page 13, Plaintiffs may file objections to the Court's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). (clm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

F Docket entry 100 reads

08/27/2007 100 ORDER by Judge M. Christina Armijo Adopting Report and Recommendations, Striking Pleadings, and Imposing Sanctions 95 (jab) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

G Docket entry 102 reads

09/21/2007 102 ORDER by District Judge M. Christina Armijo striking 101 ORDER on Motion for Order. (al) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

H Docket entry 141 reads

03/05/2008 141 ORDER re: Writs of Garnishment by Judge M. Christina Armijo (jm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

I Docket entry 142 reads

03/05/2008 142 NOTICE of Hearing on Objections to Exemptions set for 3/25/08 at 9:00 before Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. (clm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

J Docket entry 148 reads

03/25/2008 148 Clerk's Minutes for hearing on United States' objection to exemptions held before Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia on 3/25/2008. (Court Reporter Julie Sanchez.) (mw) (Entered: 03/25/2008)

K Docket entry 150 reads

03/27/2008 150 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia that the United States' objections to Payne's and Morales' purported claims of exemption be sustained, that any purported claims of exemption be denied, and that the Court enter an order authorizing garnishment of the funds sought by the United States [See Doc. Nos. 114, 115.] Objections to R&R due by 4/15/2008.(mw) (Entered: 03/27/2008)

A through K are prima facie evidence that lawyers M Christina Armijo and Lorenzo F Garcia have violated New Mexico state law 30-3A-2. Harassment

A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

because they do not have jurisdiction since all judicial officers in the District of New Mexico were recused by former judge James A Parker.

23 Lawyer Martha Vazquez did not have jurisdiction when she authored ORDER OF REFERENCE on June 14, 2007, Docket entry 87, which states



Lawyer Martha Vazquez is charged with violation of New Mexico

30-16-9. Extortion.

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

Any of the following acts shall be sufficient to constitute a threat under this section: ...

B. a threat to accuse the person threatened, or another, of any crime;

C. a threat to expose, or impute to the person threatened, or another, any deformity or disgrace;

... Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

---

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.

A. If a person is convicted of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment is as follows: ...

(8) for a third degree felony, three years imprisonment; ...

23 Lawyers John Zavitz, Kevin Hammar, and Lorenzo Garcia conducted hearing on March 25, 2008 09:00 [Docket entry 142].

This hearing had no lawful purpose because all New Mexico federal judicial officers were recused by former chief judge James A Parker.

Further plaintiffs were not properly served and garnishment rules were not followed.

Specifically, Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson and its lawyer Kevin Hammar did not check to see that the $11,018 garnished were exempt as required by law.

Here are instructions from the court to SLFCU:

We outline the the court's admonition to SLFCU in red which was included to ensure that SLFCU would not garnish exempt funds.



See MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 for written evidence supporting statement.

Since Lorenzo Garcia lack jurisdiction plaintiffs did not attend unathorized hearing. See docket entry 148.




24 Lawyer Lorenzo Garcia with jurisdiction proceeds to



with above void document. See docket entry 150.

Above document does not conform to court rules because it is not filed stamped by court clerk.

The above ruling is also void for the reason that garnishment rules were not followed. Garcia lack the authority to make decision of seizing plantiff's money because only SLFCU has the data to verify plaintiff's saving exemption affidavit:

25 Lawyers Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia and SLFCU CEO Christopher Jillson have committed felony violations of

A New Mexico 30-16-9.

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

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

for the amount of $11,018.

B 30-28-1. Attempt to commit a felony.

C 30-28-3. Criminal solicitation; penalty.

D 30-28-2. Conspiracy.

E Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions. ...

(8) for a third degree felony, three years imprisonment; or

(9) for a fourth degree felony, eighteen months imprisonment.

All evidence of guilt of the accused is in writing in court records seen at
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2.

WITNESS______________________ SIGNED______________

WITNESS _______________________DATE _______________

NEW MEXICO CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC LAW MANUAL.

Tuesday June 3, 2008 07:09

The United States, which severed ties with Iran shortly after its 1979 Islamic revolution, is leading efforts to isolate Tehran over its disputed nuclear program, which the West suspects is a front for developing atomic bombs.

American diplomats including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and National Security Council adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski favor U.S. talks with Iran.

Dear Commissioners viz

We are very disappointed in Wayne Gilbert.

We may have to send Gilbert another email.

Thursday May 29, 2008 17:56

No email response from former FBI agent Wayne Gilbert yet. viz

No email from Gilbert as of 16:56

Phone call message received from Janice McLeod at the FBI on Tuesday May 27, 2008.

There is some fairly serious written evidence of unintelligent government criminal activity posted here.

Getting caught at genocide and not settling is not too bright.

Genocide criminal complaint affidavit processing viz

My post didn't appear viz

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski of the United States met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini.

would be classified TOP SECRET.

Criminal complaint statement made to the Albuquerque Police Department gives a history of the development of the spy sting on Iran story got out along with criminal acts of freezing of $11,018 of our saving account assets.

Our July 1, 2007 letter to president Carter explains what we did to try get the unfortunate spy sting on Iran matter settled.

Carter did not respond.

General Gabreski refused the criminal complaint as well.





Judge M Christina Armijo struck the Brzezinski genocide criminal complaint affidavit.





See docket entry 85.



Not a good idea for lots of reasons in this Internet age.

In my situation I have observed the the FBI appears to try to protect the government as opposed to protect me from government wrongdoing.

I would like to see the FBI do its job and investigate the complaint sent to Carter, Colonel Feehan, Colonel Taylor, General Gabreski, magistrate judges Lorenzo F Garia, judge M Christina Armijo and issue a finding of fact.

Brzezinski may have committed a serious crime which may jeopardize safety of Americans.

In addition to genocide, there possibly was insider trading in oil in 1980.

We realize that the statute of limitations on insider trading is five years. But we think the public should know who was involved.

There apparently is no statute of limitations on a genocide criminal complaint affidavit.

(e) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.

I ask that you tell me by email who to send [email addresses] the October 24, 2007 Gabreski criminal complaint affidavits to at the FBI for a proper investigation, investigation response and legal actions.

You wrote in your December 10, 2007 email "[relatively routine request of NSA sent to NSA under my name ..."



While this apparent request may have been relatively routine, it and other related events have cost me several millions of dollars.

I would like to obtain copies of the documents sent to NSA which, I believe, have been improperly withheld from me.

US DOJ OIP Associate Director Janice McLeod rejected my appeal on April 22, 2008.

Ms McLeod said she would phone me on Thursday May 15, 2008 with regards to a question I had about the April 22, 2008 appeal rejection letter.

Ms McLeod has not phoned.

My impression is Ms McLeod intends to do nothing which is supported by the last sentence in her letter.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

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.

Area 2 Oil Fields Index Map

Almost all of Iran's huge oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in Khuzestan, near the Iraqi border and Persian Gulf. Two years ago, the giant onshore Azadegan Field was discovered - one of the largest found in over 30 years - only a few miles from the Iraqi border in Khuzestan. It is believed to contain 5-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil, with potential production of 300,000-400,000 barrels per day.

War Over Iran's Oil Department
Iran Blockage Talk

There was one other thing that Brown shared with me in our conversation Tuesday - posed as a question: Could the US versus Iran situation become a global flashpoint, in the same sense that Germany's invasion of Poland (Kampania wrzesniowa) was in 1939?

The groundwork has been laid over many months by the neocons, who have made their intentions clear. While citing various "spreading of democracy" concepts, the real issue in play is that the West will simply run out of money to buy oil at some point, and with this will come a massive Depression, the likes of which the world has never seen. So, it's a 'pick your poison' kind of choice. What's new today is that Israeli prime minister Olmert is saying to US House Nancy Pelosi, that what the US should do is impose a naval blockage on Iran. Clearly, Pelosi and other democorps (elected to office under the pretext of ending the Iraq War) are trying to find answers to the pending 4'pick your poison' problem.

The Baltimore Sun, About December 4, 1995, pp. 9-11.

No Such Agency
Part Four
Rigging the Game

Spy Sting: Few at the Swiss factory knew the mysterious visitors were pulling off a stunning intelligence coup -- perhaps the most audacious in the National Security Agency's long war on foreign codes.
By Scott Shane and Tom Bowman, Sun Staff

[T]hese hints lay unexamined and apparently had no effect on Crypto's business until 1992, when the arrest and imprisonment in Iran of a salesman for Crypto prompted further inquiries.

The salesman, Hans Buehler, was on his 25th trip to Iran on behalf of Crypto when Iranian intelligence agents grabbed him, accused him of spying for the United States and Germany, held him in solitary confinement and interrogated him.

"I was questioned for five hours a day for nine months," Mr. Buehler says. "I was never beaten, but I was strapped to wooden benches and told I would be beaten. I was told Crypto was a spy center."

After nine months,Crypto paid $1 million to win Mr. Buehler's freedom. But a few weeks after Mr. Buehler's triumphant return to Switzerland, Crypto abruptly dismissed him and demanded that he repay the $1 million.

Mr. Buehler was baffled and bitter, he says. In 13 years with the company, he had no inkling that it had cooperated with foreign spies and assumed the Iranians' charges were groundless. But what he learned after he was fired persuaded him otherwise.
...

Maybe Gilbert can help to try to avert WWIII? And get matters settled.

TruthDig comment about our legal efforts to avert an attack on Iran.

Phone contact made with McLeod Wednesday May 14, 2008

McLeod claims someone else wrote the the FOIA appeal rejection letter and that she just signed it.

McLeod is pulling the file and said he would phone.

Let's see if Wayne Gilbert can get the FBI [fumble, bumble, and inept - APD moniker] to investigate a two possible crimes related to these unfortunate matters with a hope we can get these matters peacefully settled.

Links to Payne's ACM publications discovered Wednesday January 9, 2008 may prove useful in email to Gilbert.

The NSA-Crypto AG Sting
For years US eavesdroppers could read encrypted messages without the least difficulty
Ludwig De Braeckeleer

Cryptome linked to The NSA-Crypto AG Sting on December 29, 2007

NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran Conflict

How the Iraq/Iran War Got Started

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Gilbert
To: bill payne
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: Your memo

Bill - This appears to be a relatively routine request of NSA sent to NSA under my name but, as indicated by the initials preceeding my typed name, it was signed out by a subordinate supervisor in the Internal Security Section of my Division who had authority to intial off on this type of document. This would be indicated by placing my initials (WG) slash and then his initials. His name would have been at the red dot and was properly redacted from the memo. This is just one of hundreds if not thousands of memos sent interagency under my name during my two years as Assistant Director, Intelligence Division. I personally have no knowledge of this case and it would not have been staffed up to my level based on the information in this declassified memo. Any additional action called for would have depended upon NSA's review results. Sorry I couldn't have been of more assistance.

Wayne R. Gilbert
Gilbert International
71 Western Ledge Rd.
P.O. Box 658
Boothbay, ME 04537
tel. 207-633-3396
e-mail mainewayne@msn.com

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Gilbert
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Inquiry

I was advised by Dick Lefler that you were trying to contact me recently. Contact info is set forth below.

Wayne R. Gilbert
71 Western Ledge Rd.
P.O. Box 658
Boothbay, ME 04537
tel. 207-633-3396
e-mail mainewayne@msn.com

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1

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 /

Dear Mr. Payne,

The attachment you have sent was in regards with citizens filing complaints against APD officers, not criminal complaints against citizens. For example, if someone felt that an officer was rude to them, or violated our Standard Operating Procedures then the attachment you sent would apply.

Best Regards,

Christian D. Baker
Northeast Impact Detective
8201 Osuna Rd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 796-1938

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 5/2/2008 9:40 AM
To: Baker, Christian
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net
Subject: FW: Final CCafidavit

Detective Baker:

Morales sent his new statement to me last night which I now forward to you.

He said this morning that he is trying to contact you to deliver and sign it.

Morales he made copies of written evidence of guilt of accused to give to you.

We're concerned about the investigative procedure you outlined on Thursday May 1, 2008.

We believe that this the correct APD investigation procedure. Steps in Filing a Citizen Complaint

Citizens are encouraged to bring any question or concern about procedures to the attention of the Police Department, at any listed location. An attempt to formally address your concerns will be made by the employee's supervisor. Complaints may be made informally through the employee's chain of command or formally. The steps for filing a formal written complaint are as follows:

A citizen wishing to file a formal complaint should complete a written complaint form. These forms may be obtained at any substation or at the Internal Affairs Unit (400 Marquette NW, Old City Hall 1st floor). A Citizen Police Complaint (CPC) number will be assigned to each complaint. In most cases, a copy of the written complaint will be sent to the individual against whom the complaint was filed within seven working days.

If a complaint warrants further investigation, the Independent Review Officer will assign the case to the Internal Affairs Unit or to an outside investigator. Once the investigation is complete the Independent Review Officer, Chief of Police or his designate shall review all findings and determine the appropriate action to be taken. Most investigations and findings are completed within 60 days after the complaint has been filed. However, the Chief of Police may request a 30 extension from the Public Safety Director if the case requires additional attention.

Citizens filing complaints will receive a written notice of the disposition through certified mail. This notification will inform citizens of their right to appeal the decision to the Police Oversight Commission (POC).Any questions you have concerning the complaint process may be directed to the Internal Affairs Unit at 768-2880.

Citizens must be aware of the city ordinance which governs false reports and states that it is unlawful for any person to intentionally make or file with any law enforcement agency any false, misleading, or unfounded report or statement.

We expect that this procedure will be followed.

Morales appears to be under extreme stress for a variety of reasons.

While he attempts to attribute this to the Nojeh/NSA lawsuit, my observation is that he has moved 3 times [in fourth home] in the past several years.

Expenses and physical stress associated with these moves may be more correctly attributed to Morales apparent stress.

Prompt peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters, we believe, should be the goal of everyone.

bill payne

-----Original Message-----
From: amorales58@comcast.net [mailto:amorales58@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:04 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: Final CCafidavit

Friday May 9, 2008 13:47

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:31 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject:

Bill

...

I don’t know about the 11K. If you think you can go after it yourself – do it. I do know you can spend 200K on an attorney, who will do absolutely nothing.

From my 100 ft view, on the war, not the 11k battle, I do believe there was adverse information which was not shared with you.

Regardless, of what you did, or what you were accused of doing, you had a right to this information and a right to challenge and defend yourself.

When you started your job, you signed a number of documents including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The company you worked for and all federal agencies are responsible for complying with the FCRA and PA. Every time you submitted your identifying

Information for a job opportunity - Name, DOB and SS#, this information was more than likely accessed, and you should have been notified as much.

Under the law they are required to provided you with the adverse data and give you an opportunity to

1) Dispute
2) Correct
3) Amend
4) Appeal
5) Even if all else failed, and everyone disagreed, you are provided the revocable right to Include a formal statement of explanation or dispute.
6) They are required to keep a record of everyone this information was disseminated to, and inform you, on request, the names of everyone this information was disseminated to.
7) They are also required to provide the statement of explanation or dispute to everyone who access the record.

I hope you can track back every job you applied for.

The NSA and resumes of their contractors are also scanned and data mined.

It is also important to note that if the statute of limitations may start anew if a court finds that agencies were deliberately trying to hide their liability.

XXXX

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:59 AM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject:

Bill

I am attaching two FOIA/Privacy Act letters I would like you to consider filing.

If you do it I will even send you a check for the fingerprinting fee. ...

William Harris Payne 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 Federal Bureau of Investigation Privacy Act / FOIA Officer Record Information/Dissemination Section (RIDS) Service Request Unit, Room 6359 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2053 Subject: Privacy Act / FOIA Request May 8, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act I am requesting any and all records that reference myself (William Harris Payne), in any system of record, manual or automated . I am providing the following reference information that would assist in the records search, including; Name - William Harris Payne Social Security Number - Date of Birth Place of Birth - Address 13015 CALLE DE SANDIA Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 I reiterate my request under my rights specifically granted to me under the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act and various other governmental laws, rules and regulations to produce any and all records that pertain to myself, not limited to, but including; "Name, former names, birth date, birth place, Social Security number, home address, phone numbers, employment history, residential history, education and degrees earned, names of associates and references and their contact information, citizenship, names of relatives, birthdates and birth places of relatives, citizenship of relatives, names of relatives who work for the Federal government, criminal history, mental health history, drug use, financial information, fingerprints, summary report of investigation, results of suitability decisions, level of security clearance, date of issuance of security clearance, requests for appeal, witness statements, investigator's notes, tax return information, credit reports, security violations, circumstances of violation, and agency action taken." I am requesting all of my background information, including but not limited to my security file, findings & results etc. This request should also include but not be limited to the detailed contact information for each person to whom my background and/or security information results were disseminated. It should be noted that this request covers any and all data accessed. These records should include the detailed, complete and proper accounting of disclosures of each individual record and related contact information identifying the individuals the information was accessed by and/or disseminated to, are covered under the Privacy Act. I need and request this information. I am requesting a waiver of any fees associated with this request because my privacy rights have been violated. I am including a sworn declaratory statement of my identification. In addition, I am having this letter signed by a notary public Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000. Sincerely Notary Information William Harris Payne William Harris Payne 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 Federal Bureau of Investigation CJIS Division - Record Request 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306 Subject: Privacy Act / FOIA Request May 8, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act I am requesting any and all records that reference myself (XXXX XXXX), in any system of record, manual or automated. I am providing the following reference information that would assist in the records search, including; Name - William Harris Payne Social Security Number - Date of Birth Place of Birth - Address 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 I reiterate my request under my constitutional and civil rights and additional rights specifically granted to me under the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act and various other governmental laws, rules and regulations to produce any and all records that pertain to myself, not limited to, but including; "Name, former names, birth date, birth place, Social Security number, home address, phone numbers, employment history, residential history, education and degrees earned, names of associates and references and their contact information, citizenship, names of relatives, birthdates and birth places of relatives, citizenship of relatives, names of relatives who work for the Federal government, criminal history, mental health history, drug use, financial information, fingerprints, summary report of investigation, results of suitability decisions, level of security clearance, date of issuance of security clearance, requests for appeal, witness statements, investigator's notes, tax return information, credit reports, security violations, circumstances of violation, and agency action taken." I am requesting all of my background information, including but not limited to my security file, findings & results etc. This request should also include but not be limited to the detailed contact information for each person to whom my background and/or security information results were disseminated. It should be noted that this request covers any and all data accessed. This also includes systems (manual or automated) external either virtually or physically which your agency accessed, inquired on or obtained a "hit on" or provided extracts to. These records along with the detailed, complete and proper accounting of disclosures of each individual record and related contact information identifying the individuals the information was accessed by and/or disseminated to, are covered under the Privacy Act. I need and request this information. I am requesting a waiver of any additional fees associated with this request, because my privacy rights have been violated. I am including a sworn declaratory statement of my identification and have included a populated "fingerprint" card produced with the assistance of a N.M. State Police technician. In addition, I am having this letter signed by a notary public. I am including a check for XX. Dollars made out to the Treasury of the United States for fingerprint fee as indicated on you web site. I have been a XXXXXXX for more than fifteen years, and am familiar with the reporting capabilities' of many of your systems. I am also familiar with the auditing/reporting requirements & capabilities of your systems. If your have some difficulty, I would be happy to come in and produce the functional and technical reporting specifications to obtain the required data. Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000. Sincerely Notary Information William Payne

Tuesday April 15, 2008 06:57

What do you think Ms McLeod meant by

I note that you posted additional information on your internet Web site. However, this Office can accept and adjudicat only those appeals that have been delivered in writing. See Center for Public Integrity v HHS, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2248071 (D.D.C. August 3, 2007).

Hmm. Wrong WL number?

5. Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. HHS, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2257324 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2007)

?

Do you think that Ms McLeod realizes that assistant US attorney John W Zavitz is involved in felony New Mexico crimes involving harassment [misdemeanor], attempt to commit at felony, and possible extortion.

As well as docket fraud too, of course.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday March 28, 2008 14:19.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit\pacerdocket970266.htm

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

And that Morales and Payne are going to likely file criminal complaint affidavit statements with APD Tuesday afternoon April 15, 2008?

Janice McLeod message.

Let's continue to try to find out what national security violation charges Sandia lab manager James Gosler sent to the FBI.

We speculate that FBI does not wish to release the documents because it would embarrass the FBI by revealing that the FBI got hoodwinked by a psychotic.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/fbiletter4/letter.htm#denial

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information and Privacy
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mr. William H. Payne               Re: Appeal No. 08-1344 13015
Calle de Sandias, NE                Request No. 1090404
Albuquerque, NM 87111          ADW:RMF

Dear Mr. Payne:

You appealed from the action of the Headquarters Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to your request for access to records pertaining to yourself.

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming the FBI's action on your request. The records responsive to your request are exempt from the access provision of the Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.96(a) (2007). Because these records are not available to you under the Privacy Act, your request has been reviewed under the Freedom of Information Act in order to afford you the greatest possible access to them.

The FBI properly withheld certain information that is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to:

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2), which concerns matters that are related solely to internal agency practices; ,:

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which concerns material the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties; and

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), which concerns records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.

Please note that we have considered only your written appeal dated March 22, 2008.

I note that you posted additional information on your internet Web site. However, this Office can accept and adjudicate only those appeals that have been delivered in writing. See Center for Public Integrity v. HHS. No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2248071 (D.D.C. August 3, 2007).

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Janice Galli McLeod
Associate Director

Monday May 12, 2008 09:17

-----Original Message-----
From: amorales58@comcast.net [mailto:amorales58@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:26 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: My Latest and hopefully last version

Bill, See the enclosure. I review this and made some changes and corrected some errors. Look it over as best you can. I plan to take this into Baker as soon as I can. I will sign it and get a copy of the the signed copy and a copy of the docket sheets that I will enclose. Note that it has today,s date 5/02/2008. He has not returns my call as yet. ...art

Unedited May2, 2008 version

Detective was out chasing suspect with knife on Tuesday April 29, 2008, Morales said he was told.

Morales underwent arthroscopic surgery on his knee Wednesday April 16, 2008.

Morales statement was emailed Monday April 14, 2008 in Word format.

Only Morales's social security number has been redacted.

Docket before alterations

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit\pacerdocket970266.htm

Look at the "new" fraudulent docket.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday March 28, 2008 14:19.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1

I "ARTHUR R. MORALES" willingly and voluntary give this statement to Officer / Detective Christian Baker who I know to be a member of the Albuquerque Police Department. I understand that I do not have to give a statement and any statement that I do give can be used in a court of law if necessary.

Lawyers John W Zavitz, Kevin Hammar, M Christina Armijo, Martha Vazquez, Lorenzo Garcia and Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson are alleged to have committed criminal violations of

1 30-3A-2. Harassment
2 30-28-1. Attempt to commit a felony
3 30-28-3. Criminal solicitation
4 30-28-2. Conspiracy
5 30-16-9. Extortion
6 Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]:

On 2/28/1997 when William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) # 97-cv-266.

Morales was an interested third party to see if the FOIA laws would work and needed visibility.

Enclosed please find a letter dated 2/18/08 to Gregory J. Fouratt, United States Attorney, from Morales Re: Writ of Garnishment, with attachments. This is an example how, in February 17, 1999, the courts using the application for garnishment docket entry #53 for $625

for former employee (William Payne) and Notice to Sandia National Labs (SNL) regarding garnishment docket entry #54 for former employee.

Payne was not working at Sandia National Laboratories, but since Morales was still working at SNL the court came after Morales on 2/17/1999 took the $625 even though Morales had been terminated (see attachments to letter) and removed from the NSA case 0n 4/30/1998.

Court advertised right of hearing before garnishment.

Morales requested hearing in writing.

Hearing request is docketed.

No hearing was conducted before Morales' wages were garnished for the $625 with due process.

This illegal action caused me and William Payne to sue Robert J Gorence, John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and Don F Svet for Complaint for Writ of REPLEVIN and Relief from HARASSMENT in New Mexico state court paid for 12 person jury trial lawsuit civ - 2000 10289 guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

New Mexico civ - 2000 10289




was fradulently removed to federal court without required affirmation.

Replevin and Harassment are federal questions.

New Mexico civ - 2000 10289 was given federal case number 00cv01574. All judgments are, course, void since a federal court does not have jurisdiction.

Morales and Payne split cost of Nojeh/NSA lawsuit and each paid $312.50.

Court rules were not followed. The Court lacked jurisdiction to garnish Morales' wages. Therefore Court without without jurisdiction.

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

"...without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ""

Here is a copy of the docket showing Morales TERMINATED ON 4/30/98: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit\pacerdocket970266.htm

Here is the "new" fraudulent docket dated 03/28/2008 14:12:09.

An authentic docket can only have information appended to it.

Judge Svet came after Morales again on 4/20/1999 with another Writ of Garnishment for $1,793.56 (see attachments to letter) but we challenged the writ, which had no legal grounds.

To my knowledge, this wit was never cancelled. If Morales did not have standing in this case in the beginning, that could change now, because of what the courts have done to Morales with their writs of garnishment could certainly change that status.

Please find enclosed a letter to Chris Jillson, President; Hand carried on February 13, 2008.

This gives a detailed account of what happened from, January 19,2008, the day SLFCU called me about the notice of garnishment and the freezing of my funds of $11,018 until March 19. It also shows the detrimental effect on my family and me. In the letter I quote that Statue NMSA 22-11-42 provides exemption status for retirement accounts. I also reported to the Board that I strongly believe that SLFCU's attorney, Hammar, could have filed with the court that Morales met the status of exemption. However, Mr. Hammar advised Mr. Jillson that he could not make that decision. ( Not included in the letter because it is new information) So by not making that decision the Morales family has continued to suffer financially and emotionally by not being able to pay debts including Federal and State Income Taxes, property taxes and in some cases hospital bills. I am scheduled for knee surgery on 4/16/08. Even though I am in pain daily I am not sure if I should have it done at this time, because of my financial hardship. APPARENTLY THE BOARD CHOSE TO LET THE ATTORNEY HANDLE THE SITUATION. See enclosed letter from agjh attorneys at law (2/13/08)to Payne & Morales.

Morales sending his affidavit of exemption to Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union (SLFCU) in hopes that they would confirm his claim with SLFCU records was unsuccessful because: Kevin Hammar never returned Morales' call even though Hammar was the only one that we could talk to about the garnishment. Hammar, however, did file Morales' affidavit to the court but w/o Morales permission and w/o SLFCU records to support Morales' affidavit. Furthermore, on 02/04/2008 Mr. Hammar mailed to me SLFCU's copy of 'INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GARNISHEE' which states ON PAGE 2, "You are further required to withhold and retain any property, including bank accounts, in which Plaintiff has a substantial non-exempt interest.

A list of exemptions which are not subject to this writ is attached to this writ, entitled Claim For Exemption Form." Also enclosed was SLFCU's copy of 'WRIT OF GARNISHMENT', which states ON PAGE 2, "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' Notice of Post-Judgment Garnishment and instructions to Debtor".

The two underlined instructions, above, to SLFCU appear to be decisions to be made by SLFCU in order for them to be legally able to garnish or even freeze Morales' funds or not. Why would the court include a list of exemptions which is not subject to this writ if a decision was not required in order going to the next step.

Enclosed is Morales' most recent evidence for my exempt status (some from SLFCU and some from Fidelity Retirement Fund) which shows that accused are guilty of crimes charged.

Blue star highlights transfer from Fidelity to SLFCU. Green check highlights $11,018.00 illegal garnishment transfer.

to enable the release of my frozen funds of $11,018.

We have to send the accused to prison to get out savings funds released.

More importantly, William Payne reminded Morales that federal chief judge James A Parker recused all judicial officers in the District of New Mexico because he said, "There can be no fair hearing in New Mexico since (then), 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."

All the errors and mistakes, found to date, that were made by the court have been noted and made clear to the court in our submittals to the court, MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 and MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 2. The fact chief judge, James A. Parker, removed Payne and Morales cases out of New Mexico confirm the bold print statement above. This also legally substantiates Morales and Payne no-show at the illegal hearing on March 25,2008, Case No. CIV 97cv 266 MCA/LFG. Our final concern was to go to the illegal hearing that was to be under the complete control of the people, with power, whom are after us and have misused the law to get to us to this point.

Lawyers Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia and SLFCU CEO Christopher Jillson have committed felony violations of

A New Mexico 30-16-9.

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

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

for the amount of $11,018.

B 30-28-1. Attempt to commit a felony.

C 30-28-3. Criminal solicitation; penalty.

D 30-28-2. Conspiracy.

E Racketeering Act [30-42-1 NMSA 1978]

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions. ...

(8) for a third degree felony, three years imprisonment; or

(9) for a fourth degree felony, eighteen months imprisonment.

by garnishing $11,018.00 from my SLFCU saving account when after I was removed as a plaintiff from #97-266.

Lawyers Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia and SLFCU CEO Christopher Jillson have harassed me by their criminal actions.

Lawyers M Christina Armijo and Lorenzeo F Garcia committed misdemeanor crime of harassment for assuming jurisdiction in #97-266 after former chief judge James A Parker recused all New Mexico federal judicial officers.

Lawyer Martha Vazquez commited extortion in writing when she did not jurisdiction in #97-266.

WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED CRIMES:

All evidence of guilt of the accused is in writing in court records seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1.

WITNESS______________________ SIGNED______________

WITNESS _______________________DATE _______________

NEW MEXICO CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC LAW MANUAL.

Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by ... question are currently being sought in a lawsuit against NSA in New Mexico, ...

Let's all hope for peaceful settlement soon.

Northern New Mexico Adhoc Committee
For Honesty in Government

An Open Letter To;

All NM County Sheriffs;

All State and Federal Representatives and Elected Officials

NM State Attorney General

Various News Media All Concerned NM State Citizens;

You told us that you statement would only be between 3 to 4 lines long stating the essence of our felony complaints of garnishment outside the law.

We stated that rules, both of the court and garnishment, were not followed and, as a result federal court did not have jurisdiction.

You said that the complaint would be passed to the DA's office for processing. This would take about 20 days.

Here is the Internet link to my statement:

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

Here is the link to Morales' statement:

at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement1

We have not put all the links or written evidence in Morales' draft statement.

This will be completed shortly. I will put a revision date on the statement.

Thank you for listening [and recording] the details of our 16 year legal project.

And talking about oldest APD officer Kent Parsons.

Parsons has a fair amount to do with these unfortunate matters.

I describe Parson's role in the preface of my 8051 Forth book.

I put a red check and green star next to Parson's name.

We continue to hope for peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters before they get far worse.

Sincerely,

Bill Payne

Detective Baker:

Morales sent his new statement to me last night which I now forward to you.

He said this morning that he is trying to contact you to deliver and sign it.

Morales he made copies of written evidence of guilt of accused to give to you.

We're concerned about the investigative procedure you outlined on Thursday May 1, 2008.

We believe that this the correct APD investigation procedure.

Steps in Filing a Citizen Complaint

Citizens are encouraged to bring any question or concern about procedures to the attention of the Police Department, at any listed location. An attempt to formally address your concerns will be made by the employee’s supervisor. Complaints may be made informally through the employee’s chain of command or formally. The steps for filing a formal written complaint are as follows:

A citizen wishing to file a formal complaint should complete a written complaint form. These forms may be obtained at any substation or at the Internal Affairs Unit (400 Marquette NW, Old City Hall 1st floor). A Citizen Police Complaint (CPC) number will be assigned to each complaint. In most cases, a copy of the written complaint will be sent to the individual against whom the complaint was filed within seven working days.

If a complaint warrants further investigation, the Independent Review Officer will assign the case to the Internal Affairs Unit or to an outside investigator. Once the investigation is complete the Independent Review Officer, Chief of Police or his designate shall review all findings and determine the appropriate action to be taken. Most investigations and findings are completed within 60 days after the complaint has been filed. However, the Chief of Police may request a 30 extension from the Public Safety Director if the case requires additional attention.

Citizens filing complaints will receive a written notice of the disposition through certified mail. This notification will inform citizens of their right to appeal the decision to the Police Oversight Commission (POC).Any questions you have concerning the complaint process may be directed to the Internal Affairs Unit at 768-2880.

Citizens must be aware of the city ordinance which governs false reports and states that it is unlawful for any person to intentionally make or file with any law enforcement agency any false, misleading, or unfounded report or statement.

Morales appears to be under extreme stress for a variety of reasons.

While he attempts to attribute this to the Nojeh/NSA lawsuit, my observation is that he has moved 3 times [in fourth home] in the past several years.

Expenses and physical stress associated with these moves may be more correctly attributed to Morales apparent stress.

Prompt peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters, we believe, should be the goal of everyone.

bill payne

-----Original Message-----
From: amorales58@comcast.net [mailto:amorales58@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:04 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: Final CCafidavit

See attached it has today's date

Ad-Hockers;

My sincerest thanks to you and to your friends and relatives who signed the 'petition'. I will be hand-delivering it to Sheriff Solano tomorrow, as well as to the Governor and Secretary of State, for starters.

Attached is my 'cover letter' which will be notarized in order to 'authenticate' faxed/copied signatures etc. I also have to cut and paste (in the real world) signatures which were done on the same pages...on 'page 5' for example.

I also have to paste in a PAPER-strip saying that some folks "withdrew" their signature out of fear of retaliation. This is a very real fear, as you all know, and a very powerful statement as well. Fascism is scary!

I will get the petition, cover letter, and signatures saved in PDF format soon, and will then be able to send to news outlets etc. I will send you all copies in PDF as soon as I can get it formatted in PDF.

I also apologize... I know this was very short notice for all of you, but we did great! Less than one week after Solano's article appeared, we got it to him! Wow.

If you can, keep the petition going. We can add to it over time.

Wish us luck, and thanks again.

WE SHALL OVERCOME

Folks;

Please fax me any signatures you have... to 505-747-0993.

Please tell folks that if they are worried about retaliation...SAY SO ON THE FORM.

A typical "scared of the US Govt" entry might read "Cannot sign for fear of US Govt retaliation"... then initial.

Thanks, this is the opportunity we have been waiting for, handed to us on a silver platter.

The Sheriff might actually read it!

Copies will be sent to the Gov, Secy of State, etc., etc., and put into pdf format for submission to other agencies/officials/news media.

Other than on submissions to the gov and various Sheriffs Depts, phone numbers will be 'blacked-out'.

Thanks.

xxxxxxx

Sunday April 6, 2008 07:26

-----Original Message-----
From: xxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:59 PM
To: bill payne

Attachment: Wyoming sheriffs put feds in their place

We received a 1.5 hour phone call from a member of Center for Family Justice on Thursday February 28, 2008

We learned that judge Martha Vazquez and magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia, but not M Christina Armijo, are on a tentative list of 1,000 individuals who may be members of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF].

M Christina Armijo is a MALDEF judge, we were told because the list we first saw was old.

Principal gave us a reference to EyeOnAlbuquerque.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#honesty

An Open Letter To;

All NM County Sheriffs;

All State and Federal Representatives and Elected Officials

NM State Attorney General

Various News Media All Concerned NM State Citizens;

It was with great interest that we read Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano's front page comments in the April 1, 2008 issue of the Albuquerque Journal North's article ¹ in which he described various Federal Officials' actions as … "The federal government…blew through the City Police Department like a tornado, left the city to pick up the pieces, and walked away." Sheriff Solano goes on to describe how these federal "actions" caused an increase in burglaries and an 80 percent drop in drug trafficing arrests in his County.²

It may come as a surprise to the various Sheriff's Departments and other New Mexico State "law enforcement" personnel/organizations that, according the constitutions of both New Mexico and the United States of America, "federal jurisdiction" is extremely limited within the physical boundaries of any of the 50 States of the Union.

---

¹ Front Page of "Journal North Edition" article entitled "Sheriff Calls for Answers on Probe."
² It was also interesting to note that all charges relating to this federal investigation/assault on the Santa Fe Police dept./personnel have been dropped (without prejudice) for lack of sufficient prosecutorial evidence.

A recent comprehensive study ³ conducted in Santa Fe County, and recorded as an Affidavit in the records of Santa Fe County as "Instrument #1491433" reveals that, under the Constitutions of the USA and New Mexico ⁴ [and legally authorized by the required formal 'cession' and consent of the NM State legislature] the federal government has only been granted "concurrent legislative jurisdiction" on the grounds of the National Cemetery and upon the lands encompassing the Main Post Office/Federal Courthouse! PERIOD! A similar document for Bernalillo County has been filed in that County as "Document # 2007134138."

1, Theft; of lands, homes, vehicles, and compensation for personal services,

2. Threats, intimidation, infliction of emotional duress, personally and via the US Mail;

3, Attempts at extortion under 'color of law';

---

³ This study is based on a similar 'federal' study undertaken in 1956 nad 1957 entitled "Report of the Interdepartmental Committeee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part 1 and Part 2 (codified as 40 USC 3111 and 3112) and now known as "The Eisenhower Report".
⁴ See also New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) 1978 (ARTICLE 2;United States Lands;) 19-2-2; Jurisdiction:transfer procedure.

4. Impersonation of federal officers/employees.

5. Denial of a Trial by Jury and Due Process of Law;

6. Total absence of "Powers of Attorney" and statutory authority for these actions;

7. Recordation of bogus liens and levy's, retaliation, persecution of, and blatant oppression against those who dare to question the legality of such 'federal' actions.

These criminal actions against the People have resulted in the ruination of families, businesses, and lives, with people becoming ill from the stress related consequences of having to deal with these injustices. Throughout the nation, suicides and "maramus" (wishing and hoping for death) have been reported as a result of similar "tornado" actions and incessant harassment by federal "officials".

It may also come as a surprise to the various Sheriff's Departments and other New Mexico State "law enforcement" personnel/organizations that the sheriff is the HIGHEST law enforcement official in any county! For example, in Bighorn County Wyoming, after becoming weary of similar "tornado" operations in his county, Sheriff Dave Mattis has forbidden ANY federal agents from entering his county without his permission. (Go to "google.com" and enter Sheriff Dave Mattis). Before any federal activity can take place in his county, Sheriff Mattis requires that all federal agents submit to him details of any proposed 'federal' action for his "case by case" review.

These "tornado" operations carried out against the Citizens of this Great State are orchestrated by a collaboration of the US DOJ, the ICE, the IRS, and the US Marshall's Service (to name only a few federal agencies) with the blessing of the US Federal Court System.

The federal government is engaged in terrorizing sovereign NM Citizens on a daily basis.

WHEREFORE;

a. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST

a meeting with our respective Sheriffs in our respective County(s) to discuss these federal "tornado" operations, AND;

b. WE DEMAND;

1. A State Attorney General's Office investigation into these unlawful federal activities taking place in our respective County(s).

2. That our respective Sheriff Departments immediately begin to protect its' Citizens from these ongoing and unchecked federal abuses. 3. That a State Grand Jury be convened as soon as possible for eventual criminal prosecutions of federal agents involved in these terror-inducing "tornado" operations against the Citizenry of this State.

Signed;

_____________________ _____________________ ____________________
Signature Printed Name Phone
_____________________ _____________________ ____________________
Signature Printed Name Phone

....

We ask that APD send officers to 333 Lomas, Pecos courtroom at 09:00 Tuesday March 25, 2008 to be ready to arrest Zavitz, Hammar, and Garcia for 30-3A-2 Harassment and 30-28-1, Attempt to commit a felony, and 30-16-9 Extortion if, in fact, they sign order to seize our exempt savings of $22,036.00.

PACER docket as of  Tuesday March 18, 2008: see to the left of blue square.



Further evidence is PACER docket as of Thursday March 20, 2008: see date/time to left of green square. Note entries 144 and 145.



Note posted date of March 30, 2008 for MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@mail.globalsuite.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:52 AM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

This is the Symantec Mail Security program at host mail.globalsuite.net.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

The Symantec Mail Security program

mcaproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us: host mail.nmcourt.fed.us[207.114.144.218] said: 451 4.2.1 Mailbox busy, try again later (in reply to RCPT TO command)

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

PACER docket as of  Tuesday March 18, 2008: see to the left of blue square.



Further evidence is PACER docket as of Thursday March 20, 2008: see date/time to left of green square. Note entries 144 and 145.



Note posted date of March 30, 2008 for MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                M Cristina Armijo
                                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

We believe that this is an potentially explosive situation

perhap should have been

We believe that this is a potentially explosive situation

board_of_directors@slfcu.org
pporter@slfcu.org
cjillson@slfcu.org
mayor@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
pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

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
pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

Two crimes were committed, in writing, in court records. Amd more crimes may be committed at 09:00 Tuesday March 25, 2008 in the Pecos room, 333 Lomas NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

Above evidence suggests Tuesday March 25, 2008 hearing will be a kangaroo court hearing designed to harass us and extort money from us in violation of New Mexico criminal laws 30-16-9. Extortion and 30-3A-2. Harassment.

Can we stop these crimes from occuring? We will see.

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

1 Docket of CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG entry 143, section 2, contains an DECLARATION OF GARNISHMENT DOCUMENTS SENT TO DEBTOR which incorrectly states

I, LOIS A. AGNES, declare the following to be true and correct:

2 Agnes' statement

3. Debtor, William H. Payne, asserts in a letter filed by him in another case, Morales et al v. Baca. CIV 01-634 WFD (Docket No. 76), that the package he received did not actually include the Notice of Garnishment and Instructions for Objecting to the Answer. Consequently, the Debtor, William H. Payne, was re-served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 13, 2008, with the complete garnishment package which included a copy of the Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letters and return receipts signed by Mr. Payne are affixed hereto as Attachments 1 and 2.

10.3 Filing of Non-Conforming Papers.

(a) Acceptance of Papers. The Clerk will not refuse to file any paper because it is not in proper form.

(b) Signature. Any paper filed without signature will be stricken unless it is signed within fourteen (14) calendar days after the omission is called to the party's attention.

(c) Non-Conforming Papers. The Clerk will give to the submitting party written notice of a deficiency and deadline for correcting the deficiency. The Clerk will also provide any applicable forms and instruction sheets. Failure to remedy a deficiency or to show good cause for non-compliance within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of notice may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 41.2.

8 Thursday March 20, 2008 PACER shows

03/06/2008 144 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re service of documents 103- 135 (sl) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

9 Plaintiff Morales wrote Ms Marsha Urioste, SLFCU, Chair of the Board of Directors, Wednesday March 19, 2008

My social security # in the writ, it is not mine. The court has made critical legal errors and the writ is void.

10 As the court may know

Violation of procedural rules.

A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; ²² 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.²³ Directory rules of procedure are limited to what is required to be done, and simply regulate the orderly manner in which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Mandatory rules, however, prescribe, in addition to specific required actions, the result that will follow if those requirements are not met, and failure to comply with a mandatory rule renders a judgment void. ²⁴

Rules relating to service of process are mandatory, and the failure to comply with them, if a judgment is rendered against a party who was not served in accordance with those rules (and who did not waive service of citation or appear voluntarily) renders the judgment void.²⁵

²² See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841.

²³ See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386.

²⁴ See Autry v. Autry (Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 830 S.W.2d 140, in which the trial court’s failure to formally comply with a rule of the judicial District Courts of Harris County regarding the regulation of the docket did not make the judgment void.

²⁵ See Fuller v. Hurley (WD Va) 559 F Supp 313; Blume v. United States (DC SD) 40 BR 551; Ex parte Wilson Lumber Co. (Ala) 410 So.2d 407, appeal after remand (Ala App) 440 So.2d 1093; Beam v. Adams (Alaska) 749 P.2d 366; Barragan v. Banco BCH (4th Dist) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 232 Cal.Rptr. 758; Henry v. Hiwassee Land Co., 246

As a court may also know

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

"...without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ""

Therefore all orders and judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void as dictated by Rule 60(b)(3)(4)

Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ...

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.

⁴ Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994).

10.3 Filing of Non-Conforming Papers.

(a) Acceptance of Papers. The Clerk will not refuse to file any paper because it is not in proper form.

(b) Signature. Any paper filed without signature will be stricken unless it is signed within fourteen (14) calendar days after the omission is called to the party's attention.

(c) Non-Conforming Papers. The Clerk will give to the submitting party written notice of a deficiency and deadline for correcting the deficiency. The Clerk will also provide any applicable forms and instruction sheets. Failure to remedy a deficiency or to show good cause for non-compliance within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of notice may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 41.2.

03/05/2008 141 ORDER re: Writs of Garnishment by Judge M. Christina Armijo (jm) (Entered:

03/05/2008) 03/05/2008 142 NOTICE of Hearing on Objections to Exemptions set for 3/25/08 at 9:00 before Chief Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia. (clm) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

03/06/2008 143 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by USA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Lois Agnes# 2 Exhibit B - Payne Web Pages)(Zavitz, John) (Entered: 03/06/2008)

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                M Cristina Armijo
                                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date

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

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

1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

Dee Vance Benson
Born 1948 in Sandy, UT
Federal Judicial Service: U. S. District Court, District of Utah
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 16, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089;
Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1991, and received commission on September 16, 1991.
Served as chief judge, 1999-present.
Education: Brigham Young University, B.A., 1973 Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, J.D., 1976

Assistant US attorney John Zavitz is a defendant in New Mexico 12 person jury trial lawsuit CV 2001 6293 which was fraudulently removed to federal court.
FISC judge Dee Vance Benson is in the matter and has issued to void judgements.

Here is the first 01CV 1198.

The person that emailed the Fouratt appointment document visited with Morales and Payne for several hours Friday March 14, 2008.

Lots of people who are upset with the legal and law enforcement systems are sharing information and strategies.

Senate vote. 12. M. Christina Armijo, NM -Nov 6th, 2001 – vote 100-0

10.3 Filing of Non-Conforming Papers.

(a) Acceptance of Papers. The Clerk will not refuse to file any paper because it is not in proper form.

(b) Signature. Any paper filed without signature will be stricken unless it is signed within fourteen (14) calendar days after the omission is called to the party's attention.

(c) Non-Conforming Papers. The Clerk will give to the submitting party written notice of a deficiency and deadline for correcting the deficiency. The Clerk will also provide any applicable forms and instruction sheets. Failure to remedy a deficiency or to show good cause for non-compliance within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of notice may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 41.2.

1 Senate Confirmation
2 Presidential Commission
3 Oath of Office
4 Appointment Affidavit

1 Judge M Christina Armijo ORDER
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#armijo2

2 Magistrate judge Garcia Hearing scheduling
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lucero/lucero.htm#garcia2

Distribution

Certified return receipt requested

Matthew J Dykman,Clerk
United States District Court
333 Lomas Blvd. N.W.
Albuquerque New Mexico 87102

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

06/14/2007 87 ORDER of Reference by Judge Martha Vazquez (jmg) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

We respond with mandatory judicial notice 2.

You don't respond directly to a kangaroo court.

Monday March 10, 2008 14:44

Zavitz filing is very long so will only post the first several pages at pro se fights main page.

The entire filing is seen at

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/clegal/lucero/dojnm3/dojnm3.htm#zavitzlong

Rule 60(b)(3) Relief from Judgment or Order
...

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

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

v. CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Garnishor, and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,

Garnishee.

I, LOIS A, AGNES, declare the following to be true and correct:

1. I am a Paralegal Specialist in the office of the United States Attorney, Financial Litigation Unit, District of New Mexico.

2. On January 28, 2008, the Debtor, William H. Payne, to the best of my belief, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, with the following garnishment documents: Writ of Garnishment; Clerk's Notice of Post-Judgment Garnishment and Instructions To Debtor which included Claim For Exemption Form

EXHIBIT A

Major Exemptions Under Federal Law, Major Exemptions Under State Law, Bankruptcy Code Exemptions Claim Form, and Instructions To Defendant Debtor On How To Claim Exemptions; Request For Hearing Form; and Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer.

3. Debtor, William H. Payne, asserts in a letter filed by him in another case, Morales et al v. Baca. CIV 01-634 WFD (Docket No. 76), that the package he received did not actually include the Notice of Garnishment and Instructions for Objecting to the Answer. Consequently, the Debtor, William H. Payne, was re-served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on February 13, 2008, with the complete garnishment package which included a copy of the Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letters and return receipts signed by Mr. Payne are affixed hereto as Attachments 1 and 2.

4. On January 28, 2008, the Debtor, Arthur R. Morales, was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, with the following garnishment documents: Writ of Garnishment; Clerk's Notice of Post-Judgment Garnishment and Instructions To Debtor which included Claim For Exemption Form Major Exemptions Under Federal Law, Major Exemptions Under State Law, Bankruptcy Code Exemptions Claim Form, and Instructions To Defendant Debtor On How To Claim Exemptions; Request For Hearing Form; and Notice Of Garnishment and Instructions For Objecting To The Answer. Copies of the letter and return receipt signed by Mr. Morales are affixed hereto as Attachment 3.

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.

LOIS.A AGNES

Paralegal Specialist
Office of the United States Attorney
Dated: February 28, 2008

-----Original Message-----
From: john s Williamson [mailto:thewellguy@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:12 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: writ of mandamus

Mr. Payne,

Thank you for making contact this afternoon by phone and again by e-mail. Judge Black has ordered us not to file any more papers in any court for any reason which, exceeds his authority. A writ of mandamus is one of the extraordinary writs like the writ of habeas corpus. So, I'm hoping he will not be coming back at us again for contempt of court.

Yes, my wife Nancy(BS RN, NCSN) and I have met Bob Carmen and his wife Robin.

Mr. Carmen is also in touch with a number of other people fighting other big issues with our corrupt courts. Mr. Carmen and I confer regularly on various issues.

He has earned his para-legal certificate.

In our battles, we have been claiming 28 USC 1691 violations on all orders and papers coming out of the court that do not have the required seal of the court and signature of the court clerk. Even the initial summons they tried to serve upon us lacked the seal of the court and the clerks signature.

How sloppy can they get? (I don't know if any of this might apply to your case)

Case law supporting 28 USC 1691 holds that all process, all orders etc. issued must have the seal of the court and the signature of the clerk to verify that it is a valid order. Something akin to our having to go get papers notarized. Just one more of the myriad of miss-behaviors we have to watch them for.

Well I guess it's going to get cold tonight and maybe even snow a little here in the city. Stay warm and if I can help with anything please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,
John Williamson, BS IAED, MGWC (well driller)

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:54 PM
To: bill payne
Subject: RE: Statute of Limitations

I don't know how I received your email (below) but I'm sure glad I did.

I too have a case pending before Judge M.C. Armijo, and the following might interest you.

1. I FOIA'd her (4) statutorily required credentials (presidential commission, senate confirmation, etc.) and she has NONE.

2. The DOJ atty's have no Power of Atty to represent any entity known as United States of America (see 28 USC 1344 and 1345 for the statute = only entity is United States, period. "Statutes conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed".

3. She has also told me to stop filing pleadings that disclose their fraud, or be sanctioned... !

I wish you guys the best of luck. Perhaps it's time to do a RICO action in STATE court... states have concurrent jurisdiction per the RICO statute. I can send you the US Supreme Court case citations if you wish (Rotella v. Wood comes to mind)

I am not an attorney, just a concerned Citizen trying to shine some light on the dark forces controlling our country... I am a paralegal, and have been studying this fraud for at least ten years. My main beef is w/the IRS, and the Judiciary that allows them to rip us all off.

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:02 AM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: writ of mandamus

Mr. Payne,

Information about your issues with M C Armijo was forwarded to me.

I am a water well driller, my name is John Williamson, I am a certified Master Ground Water Contractor, you can verify my information at ngwa.org by the link to contractors and wellowener.org and the link to contractors.

I have not yet fully digested the information about your issues but, have not yet read that you have used a writ of mandamus to compel Armijo and others to do their jobs.

I just filed a writ of mandamus with the 10th circuit against USDC NM judge Black to compel him to obey the law and void his orders and judgments for lack of jurisdiction, fraud etc.

Also we have all the USDC judges credentials and M C Armijo is missing (I believe, I'll have to double check) all 4 required credentials to hold her seat.

If I'm not of any assistance, please forgive my intrusion. Sincerely,

The pleading should not have been accepted for filing, as it is in violation of the Court’s earlier order directing that no further pleadings be accepted in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ pleading [#101] is stricken from the record.

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

1 US District Court did not send plaintiffs copies of documents 103 - through 135entered on the docket, either by electronic transmission or by mail, in NSA lawsuit CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG as required by LOCAL CIVIL RULES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.

5.6 Service by Electronic Transmission.

(a) By the Court. The Court or Clerk may serve and give notice by electronic transmission, in lieu of service and notice by mail, to any person who has a written request, on file with the Clerk, to receive service and notice by electronic transmission.

As the court may know

Violation of procedural rules.

A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; ²² 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.²³ Directory rules of procedure are limited to what is required to be done, and simply regulate the orderly manner in which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Mandatory rules, however, prescribe, in addition to specific required actions, the result that will follow if those requirements are not met, and failure to comply with a mandatory rule renders a judgment void. ²⁴

Rules relating to service of process are mandatory, and the failure to comply with them, if a judgment is rendered against a party who was not served in accordance with those rules (and who did not waive service of citation or appear voluntarily) renders the judgment void.²⁵

¹⁷ See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 17.

¹⁸ As to the opportunity to be heard as a requisite of due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 839 et seq.

¹⁹ 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.

²⁰ 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.

²¹ 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.

²² See Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 NC 380, 100 S.E.2d 841.

²³ See Sache v. Gillette, 101 Minn 169, 112 NW 386.

²⁴ See Autry v. Autry (Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 830 S.W.2d 140, in which the trial court’s failure to formally comply with a rule of the judicial District Courts of Harris County regarding the regulation of the docket did not make the judgment void.

²⁵ See Fuller v. Hurley (WD Va) 559 F Supp 313; Blume v. United States (DC SD) 40 BR 551; Ex parte Wilson Lumber Co. (Ala) 410 So.2d 407, appeal after remand (Ala App) 440 So.2d 1093; Beam v. Adams (Alaska) 749 P.2d 366; Barragan v. Banco BCH (4th Dist) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 232 Cal.Rptr. 758; Henry v. Hiwassee Land Co., 246

As a court may know

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

"...without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ""

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

2 Plaintiffs were not properly served garnish write documents by assisant US attorney John Zavitz.

See Payne frist affidavit entered as docket entries 76 and 77 in case 01-634 and second affidavit 2 correctly entered as docket entry 136 in case 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG.

Morales affidavit of improper service is posted by PACER and at docket entry 137 1:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

3 Zavitz "UNITED STATES' OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING" is appparently a motion; however, Zavitz did not contact plaintiffs as required by

LOCAL CIVIL RULES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.

4 Opposed Motions Where Any Party Appears Pro Se.

(a) Movant must request concurrence of each party, at least three (3) working days before filing a motion. Movant must recite that concurrence was refused or explain why concurrence could not be obtained. A motion that omits recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence may be summarily denied.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

This is a Violation of procedural rules: see above.

Therefore all judgments in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

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.

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

v.                                                                                  CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
                                          Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                         Garnishor,
                                         and,

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
ATTENTION: LOSS PREVENTION,
                                             Garnishee.

                                                                ____________________________
                                                                Martha Vazquez
                                                                CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                                                 _____________________________
                                                                 Date