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

Zug, Switzerland. For four decades, the Swiss flag that flies in front of Crypto AG has lured customers from around the world to this company in the lake dis- [words missing] most sensitive diplomatic and military communications value Switzerland's reputation for business secrecy and political neutrality. Some 120 nations have bought their encryption machines here.

But behind that flag, America's National Security Agency hid what may be the intelligence sting of the century. For years, NSA secretly rigged Crypto AG machines so that U.S. eavesdroppers could easily break their codes, according to former company employees whose story is supported by company documents.

The value to NSA of such an intelligence windfall is hard to exaggerate. For NSA effortlessly to read coded messages between top officials of many countries is the equivalent of recruiting reliable spies in key government posts around the world, receiving minute-by-minute reports from them and never risking that they will be unmasked.

NSA appears to have pulled off an international sleight of hand as brazen and brilliant as the original Trojan horse by winning the covert cooperation of the Swiss firm. Wary of encryption companies in NATO countries, the suspicious governments of such prime U.S. targets as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia bought equipment from Crypto AG (or Crypto Inc.). They never imagined that when they coded their messages with the Swiss machines, they may have been sending an easily unscrambled copy directly to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade.

NCUA Inspector General office enters our legal project with an mp3 recording taken from an analog tape phone conversation recording made Tuesday afternoon December 2, 2008.

Message not audio edited so use the slide bar to move to the first.

and

1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of William H. and Patricia L. Payne on July 22, 2008.

See Yellow star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule

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.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud William H. and Patricia L. Payne of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT

---

1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales on July 22, 2008.

See green star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule

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.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT

6 Below NCUA letter and attachments arrived on Thursday November 7, 2008.

Letter apparently was a result of Ms Kelly Lay reading fraud loss affidavits on Internet.

November 12, 2008 we respond to Ms Lay's letter with

Ms Kelly Lay, Director
Division of Supervision
1230 West Washington Street, Suite 301
Tempe, A2 85281
Office (602) 302-6000
Fax (602) 302- 6024
E-mail: region5@ncua.gov

Dear Ms Lay:

Thank you very much for the copy of your October 31, 2008 letter seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#ncua.

While you correctly state

Enclosed is a letter of complaint from William H. Payne concerning issues related to the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

we are concerned that NCUA may not be properly processing our fraud loss claims in accordance to its rules set forth in Your Insured Funds

Our two fraud loss claims are prima facie in the sense that evidence of felony criminal fraud is again supported by Sandia Laboratory Federal Union [SLFCU] lawyer Kevin Hammer's October 31, 2008 threatening letter seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hammarthreat .

Hammar includes in that letter the exhibit showing that the court order does not carry the FILED stamp of the court and is therefore a bogus court order.

Page 9 in Your Insured Funds states

Rather the NCUA sending Mr Morales and I each a check $11,018.00 for an insurance claim, you appear to be handling our fraud loss claim as a complaint against SLFCU.

We conclude this from your statements to Mr Felix:

Please:
o Review Mr. Payne's complaint in accordance with the instructions and suggestions set forth in the enclosed copy of Section 4.12 of the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions (Guide).
o Reply directly to Mr. Payne (this is a change from section 4.12(1) of the Guide).
o Send us a copy of your reply within the next 25 business days along with the
documentation supporting your review and conclusion.

We feel that it is unreasonable for us to wait up to 25 business day for a response from Mr Felix for the reason the evidence fraud is prima facie seen in the above enclosure to lawyer Hammar's October 31, 2008 letter.

Copy of your October 31, 2008 letter appears to us as an attempt to have the SLFCU Supervisory Committee pressure SLFCU management into returning our stolen $22,036.00.

We ask that NCUA send us fraud loss claim insurance checks of $11,018.00 each by close of business Friday November 14, 2008 in compliance with National Credit Union Administration Regulations § 793.1-8.

Sincerely,




Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.net

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
bpayne37@comcast.net

We receive two emails from Ms Lay with unsigned pdf attachments.

Unsigned pdf 1.
Unsigned pdf 2.

November 13, 2009 Lay email reads:

November 17, 2008 email reads:

Tuesday November 25, 2008 email seen on email server [as opposed to email client]

Need more evidence of fraud?

Merely look at NOT-file-stamped bogus court document included with lawyer Hammar's October 31, 2008 letter!

"Ignore the evidence" strategy is what NCUA Region 5 is attempting.

Here's an example of a FILE stamped motion in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG.

Matters get lots worse.

You may call the OIG Hotline at 703 518-6357 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT to speak with an OIG investigator . After hours, you may leave a message and your call will be returned the next business day.

§ 745.201 Processing of Insurance Claims.

(a) Delegations of authority. The Agent for the Liquidating Agent (‘‘Liquidating Agent’’) or his or her designee is authorized to make initial determinations with respect to insurance claims pursuant to the principles set forth in this Part, and to act on requests for reconsideration of the initial determination.

(b) Initial determination. In the event the Liquidating Agent determines that all or a portion of an accountholder’s account is uninsured, the Liquidating Agent shall so notify the accountholder in writing, stating the reason(s) for such initial determination, and shall provide the accountholder with a certificate of claim in liquidation in the amount of the uninsured account from the Board in its capacity as Liquidating Agent for the insured credit union to enable the accountholder to share in the proceeds of the liquidation of the credit union, if any, up to the amount of the uninsured account.

(c) Request for Reconsideration. An accountholder may, at his or her option, request reconsideration from the Liquidating Agent of the initial determination within 30 days of the date of the initial determination, or directly appeal the initial determination to the Board pursuant to § 745.202 of this subpart. The Liquidating Agent shall act on the request for reconsideration within 30 days from its receipt.

§ 745.202 Appeal.

(a) Time for filing. Within 60 days after issuance of an initial determination, or of the determination on a request for reconsideration by the liquidating agent, the accountholder may appeal by filing with the Board a written request for appeal. The appeal may be filed with the Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

(b) Content of request. Any appeal must include:

(1) a statement of the facts on which the claim for insurance is based;

(2) a statement of the basis for the initial determination or determination on the request for reconsideration to which the accountholder objects and the alleged error in such determination, including citations to applicable statutes and regulations;

(3) any other evidence relied upon by the accountholder which was not previously provided to the Liquidating Agent.

(c) Procedures for review of request.

(1) Within 60 days of the date of the Board’s receipt of an appeal, the Board may request in writing that the accountholder submit additional facts and records in support of its request. The account-holder shall have 45 days from the date of issuance of such written request to provide such additional information. Failure by the accountholder to provide additional information may, as determined solely by the Board, result in denial of the account-holder’s appeal.

(2) Within 60 days from the date of the Board’s receipt of an appeal, the accountholder may amend or supplement the request in writing. In the event that the accountholder does amend or supplement the request, the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section with respect to requests for additional information and responses to such requests shall apply with equal force to any such amendment or supplement to a request.

(d) Determination on appeal.

(1) Within 180 days from the date of the receipt of an appeal by the Board, the Board shall issue a decision determining the extent of the accountholder’s insurance pursuant to the rules of this Part.

(2) The determination by the Board on appeal shall be provided to the accountholder in writing, stating the reason(s) for the determination, and shall constitute a final Agency order regarding the accountholder’s claim for insurance.

(3) If the Board determines that the account-holder is entitled to the amount of insurance claimed or portion thereof, upon payment of such insurance the accountholder shall promptly surrender to the Board the certificate of claim in liquidation provided in connection with the initial determination. In the event that the Board determines that the accountholder is only entitled to a portion of the amount of insurance claimed, upon the accountholder’s surrender of such certificate a new certificate of claim in liquidation will be provided which reflects the revised amount of the uninsured account.

PART 745 SHARE INSURANCE AND APPENDIX § 745.203

(4) Failure by the Board to issue a determination on appeal of the accountholder’s claim for insurance within the 180-day period provided for under this paragraph

(d)(1) shall be deemed to be a denial of such claim for purposes of Section 745.203 of this subpart.

§ 745.203 Judicial Review.

(a) For purposes of seeking judicial review of actions taken pursuant to this subpart, only a determination on appeal issued by the Board pursuant to Section 745.202 of this subpart shall constitute a final determination regarding an accountholder’s claim for insurance.

(b) Failure to file an appeal with regard to an initial determination, or a decision rendered on a request for reconsideration within the applicable time periods shall constitute a failure by the accountholder to exhaust available administrative remedies and, due to such failure, any objections to the initial determination or request for reconsideration shall be deemed to be waived and such determination shall be deemed to have been accepted by, and binding upon, the accountholder.

(c) Final determination by the Board is reviewable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7, Title 5, United States Code, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the court of appeals for the Federal judicial circuit where the credit union’s principal place of business is located. Such action must be filed not later than 60 days after such final determination is ordered.

793-1 may 2008 Part 793

Tort Claims Against the Government

§ 793.1 Scope of regulations.

The regulations in this Part shall apply only to claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2671–2680, accruing on or after January 18, 1967, for money damages against the United States for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the National Credit Union Administration while acting within the scope of his office of employment.

Subpart B—Procedures

§ 793.2 Administrative claim; when presented; place of filing.

(a) For purposes of the regulations in this Part, a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when the National Credit Union Administration receives, at a place designated in paragraph (c) of this Section, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for damage to or loss of property, for personal injury, or for death, alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident. A claim which should have been presented to the National Credit Union Administration but which was mistakenly addressed to or filed with another Federal agency, shall be deemed to be presented to the National Credit Union Administration as of the date that the claim is received by the National Credit Union Administration. A claim mistakenly addressed to or filed with the National Credit Union Administration shall forthwith be transferred to the appropriate Federal agency, if ascertainable, or returned to the claimant.

(b) A claim presented in compliance with paragraph

(a) of this Section may be amended by the claimant at any time prior to final action by the Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration or prior to the exercise of the claimant’s option to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Amendments shall be submitted in writing and signed by the claimant or his duly authorized agent or legal representative. Upon the timely filing of an amendment to a pending claim, the National Credit Union Administration shall have 6 months in which to make a final disposition of the claim as amended and the claimant’s option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of an amendment.

(c) Forms may be obtained and claims may be filed with the regional office of the National Credit Union Administration having jurisdiction over the employee involved in the accident or incident, or with the Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

§ 793.3 Administrative claim; who may file.

(a) A claim for injury to or loss of property may be presented by the owner of the property interest which is the subject matter of the claim, his duly authorized agent, or his legal representative.

(b) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person, his duly authorized agent, or his legal representative.

(c) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate or by any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim under applicable state law.

(d) A claim for loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer. A claim for loss partially compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer or the insured individually, as their respective interests appear, or jointly. Whenever an insurer presents a claim asserting the rights of a subrogee, he shall present with his claim appropriate evidence that he has the rights of a subrogee.

(e) A claim presented by an agent or legal representative shall be presented in the name of the claimant, be signed by the agent or legal representative, show the title or legal capacity of the person signing, and be accompanied by evidence of his authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other representative.

§ 793.4 Administrative claim; evidence and information to be submitted.

PART 793 NCUA RULES AND REGULATIONS § 793.5 may 2008 793-2

(a) Death. In support of a claim based on death, the claimant may be required to submit the following evidence or information:

(1) An authenticated death certificate or other competent evidence showing the cause of death, date of death, and age of the decedent.

(2) Decedent’s employment or occupation at the time of death, including his monthly or yearly salary or earnings (if any), and the duration of his last employment or occupation.

(3) Full names, addresses, birthdates, kinship, and marital status of the decedent’s survivors, including those survivors who were dependent for support upon the decedent at the time of his death.

(4) Degree of support afforded by the decedent to each survivor dependent upon him for support at the time of his death.

(5) Decedent’s general physical and mental condition before death.

(6) Itemized bills for medical and burial expenses incurred by reason of the incident causing death, or itemized receipts of payments for such expenses.

(7) If damages for pain and suffering before death are claimed, a physician’s detailed statement specifying the injuries suffered, duration of pain and suffering, any drugs administered for pain and the decedent’s physical condition in the interval between injury and death.

(8) Any other evidence or information which may have a bearing on the responsibility of the United States for the death or the damages claimed.

(b) Personal injury. In support of a claim based on personal injury, the claimant may be required to submit the following evidence or information:

(1) A written report by his attending physician or dentist setting forth the nature and extent of the injury, nature and extent of the treatment, any degree of temporary or permanent disability, the prognosis, period of hospitalization, and any diminished earning capacity. In addition, the claimant may be required to submit to a physical and/or mental examination by a physician employed or designated by the National Credit Union Administration. A copy or report of the examining physician shall be made available to the claimant upon the claimant’s written request provided that claimant has, upon request, furnished the report referred to in the first sentence of this subparagraph and has made or agrees to make available to the National Credit Union Administration any other physician’s reports previously or thereafter made of the physical or mental condition which is the subject of his claim.

(2) Itemized bills for medical, dental, and hospital expenses incurred, or itemized receipts of payment for such expenses.

(3) If the prognosis reveals the necessity for future treatment, a statement of expected duration of and expenses for such treatment.

(4) If a claim is made for loss of time from employment, a written statement from his employer showing actual time lost from his employment, whether he is a full or part time employee, and wages or salary actually lost.

(5) If a claim is made for loss of income and the claimant is self-employed, documentary evidence showing the amount of earnings actually lost.

(6) Any other evidence or information which may have a bearing on the responsibility of the United States for the personal injury or the damages claimed.

(c) Property damage. In support of a claim for damages to or loss of property, real or personal, the claimant may be required to submit the following information or evidence:

(1) Proof of ownership.

(2) A detailed statement of the amount claimed with respect to each item of property.

(3) An itemized receipt of payment for necessary repairs or itemized written estimates of the cost of such repairs.

(4) A statement listing date of purchase, purchase price, market value of the property as of date of damage, and salvage value, where repair is not economical.

(5) Any other evidence or information which may have a bearing on the responsibility of the United States for the injury to or loss of property or the damages claimed.

(d) Time limit. All evidence required to be submitted by this Section shall be furnished by the claimant within a reasonable time. Failure of a claimant to furnish evidence necessary for a determination of his claim within 3 months after a request therefor has been mailed to his last known address may be deemed an abandonment of the claim. The claim may be thereupon disallowed.

§ 793.5 Investigation, examination, and determination of claims. When a claim is received, the constituent agency out of whose activities the claim arose shall make such investigation as may be necessary or appropriate for a determination of the validity of the claim and thereafter shall forward the claim, together with all pertinent material, and a recommendation based on the merits of the case, with regard to the allowance or disallowance of the claim, to the Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration to whom authority has been delegated to adjust, determine, compromise and settle all claims hereunder.

§ 793.6 Final denial of claim.

(a) Final denial of an administrative claim shall be in writing and sent to the claimant, his attorney, or legal PART 793 TORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT § 793.7 representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the action of the National Credit Union Administration, he may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing the notification.

(b) Prior to the commencement of suit and prior to the expiration of the 6-month period after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail of notice of final denial of the claim as provided in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), a claimant, his duly authorized agent, or legal representative, may file a written request with the National Credit Union Administration for reconsideration of a final denial of a claim under paragraph (a) of this Section. Upon the timely filing of a request for reconsideration the National Credit Union Administration shall have 6 months from the date of filing in which to make a final disposition of the claim and the claimant’s option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) to bring suit shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of a request for reconsideration. Final National Credit Union Administration action on a request for reconsideration shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Section.

§ 793.7 Payment of approved claims.

(a) Upon allowance of his claim, claimant or his duly authorized agent shall sign the voucher for payment, Standard Form 1145, before payment is made.

(b) When the claimant is represented by an attorney, the voucher for payment (S.F. 1145) shall designate both the claimant and his attorney as ‘‘payees.’’ The check shall be delivered to the attorney whose address shall appear on the voucher.

§ 793.8 Release.

Acceptance by the claimant, his agent or legal representative, of any award, compromise or settlement made hereunder, shall be final and conclusive on the claimant, his agent or legal representative and any other person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim has been presented, and shall constitute a complete release of any claim against the United States and any employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim, by reason of the same subject matter.

§ 793.9 Penalties. A person who files a false claim or makes a false or fraudulent statement in a claim against the United States may be liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both (18 U.S.C. 287–1001), and, in addition, to a forfeiture of $2,000 and a penalty of double the loss or damage sustained by the United States (31 U.S.C. 231).

§ 793.10 Limitation on National Credit Union Administration’s authority.

(a) An award, compromise or settlement of a claim hereunder in excess of $25,000 shall be effected only with the prior written approval of the Attorney General or his designee. For purposes of this paragraph, a principal claim and any derivative or subrogated claim shall be treated as a single claim.

(b) An administrative claim may be adjusted, determined, compromised or settled hereunder only after consultation with the Department of Justice when, in the opinion of the National Credit Union Administration:

(1) A new precedent or a new point of law is involved; or

(2) A question of policy is or may be involved; or

(3) The United States is or may be entitled to indemnity or contribution from a third party and the National Credit Union Administration is unable to adjust the third party claim; or

(4) The compromise of a particular claim, as a practical matter, will or may control the disposition of a related claim in which the amount to be paid may exceed $25,000.

(c) An administrative claim may be adjusted, determined, compromised or settled only after consultation with the Department of Justice when it is learned that the United States or any employee, agent or cost-plus contractor of the United States is involved in litigation based on a claim arising out of the same incident or transaction.

NCUA second letter is posted below.

Jimmy Carter may have to return his Nobel peace prize.

Settle.

There are insurance laws that should be complied with.

What did Lay WRITE in second email message?

We will see. At the right time.

Please see the attached letter.

NCUA, Region V, Tempe, AZ

Division of Supervision

602-302-6000

r5dosmail@ncua.gov

FCU 05851-K6

PAL #08-6871

From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:27 AM
To: _Region 5 Mail
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us; board_of_directors@slfcu.org; tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; rshultz@cabq.gov; dbowdtch@cabq.gov; mcallaway@cabq.gov; mcastro@cabq.gov; kmccabe@cabq.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov; _Region 5 Mail; angel.espinoza@state.nm.us; James.Flores@state.nm.us; Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us; dft@newmex.com
Subject: we are concerned that NCUA may not be properly processing our fraud loss claims in accordance to its rules

Ms Lay:

Mr Morales and his family are under financial stress largely due to the money stolen from his SLFCU savings account.

Click on the below link to see the full text of our eletter to you.

Let’s all hope for peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters before they get worse.

We welcome SLFCU’s Supervisory Committee’s help

Bill payne

Mr. Bill Payne (email: bpayne37@comcast.net) VDear Mr. Payne:

This letter is in response to your follow-up email dated November 12, 2008, where you state that National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) may not be “properly processing” your fraud loss claim according to the rules. We handled your complaint against Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union according to the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions, as required. The NCUA is the independent federal agency that charters and supervises federal credit unions. In addition, we provide insurance on deposits in federally insured credit unions in the event of a credit union failure; however, we do not provide the type of insurance you state in your email. You cannot file a “fraud loss” claim with us.

After review of all information provided, we consider your complaint resolved. If you feel there are remaining issues, you will need to seek your own legal counsel. NCUA does not provide legal advice, nor does it represent either the consumer’s or the credit union’s interest in disputes. As of the date of this letter, NCUA considers this matter closed.

Sincerely,

/SIGNED/

Kelly Lay

Director of Supervision

05851-K6

cc: Sam Felix, Chairperson, Supervisory Committee

Mr. Payne:

Please see the attached letter.

NCUA, Region V, Tempe, AZ

Division of Supervision

602-302-6000

r5dosmail@ncua.gov

FCU 05851-K6

PAL #08-6871

Mr. Bill Payne (email: bpayne37@comcast.net)

Dear Mr. Payne:

I am in receipt of the October 31, 2008, response from agjh, attorneys at law, representing Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union to your complaint regarding the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

The letter from the law firm adequately addresses the issues you raised and we see no basis for action by the NCUA on this matter. We find no regulatory violation and consider the matter closed.

If you feel there are remaining issues, you will need to seek your own legal counsel. NCUA does not provide legal advice, nor does it represent either the consumer’s or the credit union’s interest in disputes.

Sincerely,

/SIGNED/

Kelly

05851-K6

Ms Lay:

Let's all hope for peaceful prompt settlement of these unfortunate matters. Bill payne

Thursday November 13, 2008 14:28

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/libel/libel.htm#lay

Ms Kelly Lay, Director
Division of Supervision
1230 West Washington Street, Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Office (602) 302-6000
Fax (602) 302- 6024
E-mail: region5@ncua.gov

Dear Ms Lay:

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] lawyer Kevin Hammar writes in his October 21, 2008 letter seen at at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hammarthreat

For these reasons, you are now both notified that the credit union now invokes its right to exclude both of you from any and all of its business premises. Neither of you may enter onto credit union property for any reason. All of your legitimate credit union business hereafter may be conducted only by internet or mail. Should you ignore this notice, the credit union may elect to have you removed as trespassers

Section 4. Continuation of membership. Once a member becomes a member that person may remain a member until the person or organization chooses to withdraw or is expelled in accordance with the Act and Article XIV of these bylaws. A member who is disruptive to credit union operations may be subject to limitations on services and access to credit union facilities. A credit union that wishes to restrict services to members no longer within the field of membership should specify the restrictions in this section.

Article XIV. Expulsion and Withdrawal Section 1. Expulsion procedure; expulsion or withdrawal does not affect members’ liability or shares. A member may be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the members present at special meeting called for that purpose, but only after the member has been given the opportunity to be heard. A member also may be expelled under a nonparticipation policy adopted by the board of directors and provided to each member in accordance with the Act. Expulsion or withdrawal will not operate to relieve a member of any liability to this credit union. All amounts paid in on shares by expelled or withdrawing members, before their expulsion or withdrawal, will be paid to them in the order of their withdrawal or expulsion, but only as funds become available and only after deducting any amounts due to this credit union.

4.12 You play an essential role in reviewing members’ complaints. You will want to make certain you handle complaints in an impartial and independent manner to ensure that you treat all members fairly. If a complaint identifies a policy or procedure that needs correction, you will want to follow through to ensure that the board of directors and credit union management implement corrective changes.

Types of Complaints. Although the types of member complaints vary greatly, the following are somewhat representative.

Concerns with:

1. Lending policies and procedures.

2. Loan rejections.

3. Annual meetings.

4. Share withdrawals.

5. Dividend rates and terms.

6. Credit union services.

Regardless of the nature of the complaint, you must conduct a full and complete investigation.

Receipt of complaints. A member may complain either directly to you or, as frequently happens, to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). NCUA will normally refer the matter to you. It will request that you investigate the complaint and furnish the NCUA regional office with a written report. The regional office then sends the member a final response letter. Investigation of complaints. Regardless of how the complaint is brought to your attention, it is suggested that you follow these general steps when investigating the complaint (not necessarily in the order given.)

(a) Read the complaint letter. Briefly outline the areas of complaint and questions asked by the complainant.

(b) Determine the appropriate type of investigation.

(c) Interview the complainant, if possible. A personal interview with the member is preferable. If you are able to interview the member:· Conduct interviews in private.

· Be careful not to express an opinion as to the probable validity of the complaint.

· Conduct discussions in a courteous and professional manner. Convey a sincere regard for the member’s concerns.

· Keep an open mind. Some statements made by the member may not be valid, but they do not disprove his/her entire complaint. The member usually knows little of the internal operation of the credit union, or standards of credit worthiness.

· If the complaint is routine or simply a disagreement, inform the member that they can resolve it directly with credit union staff.

(d) Review the complainant’s credit union file.

(e) Review pertinent written credit union policies and procedures, and determine their compliance with applicable credit union laws and regulations.

(f) Review pertinent unwritten procedures (i.e., practices observed by the credit union).

(g) Interview appropriate credit union officials and/or employees.

(h) Review several loans, if necessary, to determine the actual practices of the credit union and how they relate to the complaint.

(i) Determine the validity of the complaint.

· Do not rely on the credit union’s manager or employees to do the investigation for the committee. You should obtain all information firsthand, where possible. Try to determine what actually happened, rather than obtaining various versions of what happened.· You should not initiate a joint meeting between the complainant and the credit union officials as a means of resolving disputes or expediting the investigation. This is often counter-productive and may intimidate the complainant. You act as a liaison between members and management when disputes arise.

· Remember that no one likes to be investigated. Credit union officials and employees will often be defensive and complainants may also be antagonistic. You will need to be very skillful and tactful in obtaining the necessary information without alienating any of the parties involved.

j) Work with the officials to develop plans to correct any improper, unfair, or discriminatory practices, if applicable, or make appropriate recommendations.

k) Have corrective action implemented or obtain agreements from appropriate credit union officials and/or employees they will make corrections within a specified time.

l) When applicable, prepare and submit the written report to NCUA’s regional office. Write the report in a clear, concise, and factual manner. NCUA will usually send the report to the complainant as part of the regional office’s final response to the individual.

m) If the complaint was made directly to the committee (and NCUA is thus not involved ), prepare and submit a written response to the member. vn) You should maintain a file of all complaint resolutions.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/libel/libel.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: bill payne [mailto:bpayne37@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:27 AM
To: region5@ncua.gov
Cc: Amorales58@Comcast.Net; MaryE.Herrera@state.nm.us; board_of_directors@slfcu.org; tanya.kubinec@wpafb.af.mil; jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov; Eichhorst, Julia E.; foialo@nsa.gov; bill.leonard@nara.gov; rshultz@cabq.gov; dbowdtch@cabq.gov; mcallaway@cabq.gov; mcastro@cabq.gov; kmccabe@cabq.gov; jhamman@cabq.gov; mayor@cabq.gov; region5@ncua.gov; angel.espinoza@state.nm.us; James.Flores@state.nm.us; Paula.Templeton@state.nm.us; dft@newmex.com
Subject: we are concerned that NCUA may not be properly processing our fraud loss claims in accordance to its rules

Ms Lay:

Mr Morales and his family are under financial stress largely due to the money stolen from his SLFCU savings account.

Click on the below link to see the full text of our eletter to you.

Let's all hope for peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters before they get worse.

We welcome SLFCU's Supervisory Committee's help

Bill payne

2.04 You may suspend, by unanimous vote, any board member, executive officer, or credit committee member. (See below). Suspension is a serious measure and must be thoroughly considered before action is taken.

· If you suspend someone, you will call a special meeting of the members to act on the suspension. · The special meeting must be held within seven to fourteen days after the suspension.

· The person being suspended must be given an opportunity to present a defense and be given due process.

§ 715.3 General responsibilities of the Supervisory Committee.
(a) Basic. The supervisory committee is responsible for ensuring that the board of directors and management of the credit union -
(1) Meet required financial reporting objectives and
(2) Establish practices and procedures sufficient to safeguard members’ assets. ...

(4) Policies and control procedures are sufficient to safeguard against error, conflict of interest, self-dealing and fraud.


Part 701
Article IX. Supervisory Committee

Section 5. Powers of supervisory committee – removal of directors and credit committee members. By unanimous vote, the supervisory committee may suspend until the next meeting of the members any director, board officer, or member of the credit committee. In the event of any suspension, the supervisory committee must call a special meeting of the members to act on the suspension, which meeting must be held not fewer than 7 nor more than 14 days after the suspension. The chair of the committee acts as chair of the meeting unless the members select another person to act as chair.

Section 6. Powers of supervisory committee -- special meetings. By the affirmative vote of a majority of its members, the supervisory committee may call a special meeting of the members to consider any violation of the provisions of the Act, the regulations, or of the charter or the bylaws of this credit union, or to consider any practice of this credit union which the committee deems to be unsafe or unauthorized. ...

Section 3. Removal of directors and committee members. Notwithstanding any other provisions in these bylaws, any director or committee member of this credit union may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present at a special meeting called for the purpose, but only after an opportunity has been given to be heard. If member votes at a special meeting result in the removal of all directors, the supervisory committee immediately becomes the temporary board of directors and must follow the procedures in Article IX, Section 3.

§ 793.4 Administrative claim; evidence and information to be submitted.

may 2008 793-2 (c) Property damage. In support of a claim for damages to or loss of property, real or personal, the claimant may be required to submit the following information or evidence:
(1) Proof of ownership.
(2) A detailed statement of the amount claimed with respect to each item of property.
(3) An itemized receipt of payment for necessary repairs or itemized written estimates of the cost of such repairs.
(4) A statement listing date of purchase, purchase price, market value of the property as of date of damage, and salvage value, where repair is not economical.
(5) Any other evidence or information which may have a bearing on the responsibility of the United States for the injury to or loss of property or the damages claimed.
(d) Time limit. All evidence required to be submitted by this Section shall be furnished by the claimant within a reasonable time. Failure of a claimant to furnish evidence necessary for a determination of his claim within 3 months after a request therefor has been mailed to his last known address may be deemed an abandonment of the claim. The claim may be thereupon disallowed.

§ 793.5 Investigation, examination, and determination of claims. When a claim is received, the constituent agency out of whose activities the claim arose shall make such investigation as may be necessary or appropriate for a determination of the validity of the claim and thereafter shall forward the claim, together with all pertinent material, and a recommendation based on the merits of the case, with regard to the allowance or disallowance of the claim, to the Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration to whom authority has been delegated to adjust, determine, compromise and settle all claims hereunder.

---

§ 793.7 Payment of approved claims. (a) Upon allowance of his claim, claimant or his duly authorized agent shall sign the voucher for payment, Standard Form 1145, before payment is made. (b) When the claimant is represented by an attorney, the voucher for payment (S.F. 1145) shall designate both the claimant and his attorney as ‘‘payees.’’ The check shall be delivered to the attorney whose address shall appear on the voucher.

Enclosed is a letter of complaint from William H. Payne concerning issues related to the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

Page 9 in Your Insured Funds states

Rather the NCUA sending Mr Morales and I each a check $11,018.00 for an insurance claim, you appear to be handling our fraud loss claim as a complaint against SLFCU.

We conclude this from your statements to Mr Felix:

Please:
o Review Mr. Payne's complaint in accordance with the instructions and suggestions set forth in the enclosed copy of Section 4.12 of the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions (Guide).
o Reply directly to Mr. Payne (this is a change from section 4.12(1) of the Guide).
o Send us a copy of your reply within the next 25 business days along with the
documentation supporting your review and conclusion.

Dear Mr. Felix:

Enclosed is a letter of complaint from William H. Payne concerning issues related to the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

Please:
o Review Mr. Payne's complaint in accordance with the instructions and suggestions set forth in the enclosed copy of Section 4.12 of the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions (Guide).
o Reply directly to Mr. Payne (this is a change from section 4.12(1) of the Guide).
o Send us a copy of your reply within the next 25 business days along with the
documentation supporting your review and conclusion.

By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. Payne that:
o You will handle the complaint.
o We will review your reply to determine if further action by this office is needed.
o He should submit any further correspondence on this matter directly to you at the above address.

To be of assistance, I am enclosing information on the National Credit Union Administration and the complaint process. In addition, we have forwarded the original email from Mr. Payne to your email address due to the size of the files/links included.

If there are questions, please contact the Division of Supervision at 602-302-6000.

                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                    Kelly Lay
                                                                    Director, Division of Supervision
V/DOS/MMA:ma
FCU 05851-K6
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Bill Payne

Who is NCUA?

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is an independent agency under the Executive Branch of the United States Government. NCUA charters, regulates, examines, and supervises federal credit unions. We also insure member accounts in all federal credit unions and in most state-chartered credit unions. You can identify a federally insured credit union by the NCUA logo displayed at teller stations and in advertisements. The Federal Credit Union Act, accessible on our website at www.ncua.gov sets forth the authority and responsibilities of NCUA and the powers of federal credit unions.

Where is NCUA's Region V?

The regional office is in Tempe, Arizona, and supervises federal credit unions in Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

What is a credit union?

Credit unions are not-for-profit, democratically controlled, member-owned, financial institutions serving members who share a common bond of employment, association, or residence. Credit unions were established to meet the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means. Credit unions are organized as cooperatives. The manager and staff are paid, but the board and other officials are volunteers elected to office by the members.

The board of directors directs and controls the credit union and hires or elects officials, management, and staff to run the day-to-day operations. If the federal credit union has a credit committee, the committee is responsible for acting on loan applications and appointing loan officers. If the federal credit union does not have a credit committee, the board of directors appoints loan officers.

As a regulator, NCUA does not own, operate, or control credit unions, nor do we establish their operating policies and procedures. We do not have the authority to overturn individual lending decisions made by federal credit unions. We also cannot dictate the range of services they offer.

How can I tell if a credit union has a federal or state charter?

By the name. Federal credit unions have the word "federal" in their names. State chartered credit unions do not. For example, XYZ Federal Credit Union would be a federal charter; XYZ Credit Union would be a state charter.

Who is responsible for investigating member complaints in federal credit unions?

The Federal Credit Union Act mandates the appointment of a supervisory committee in each federal credit union.

The supervisory committee consists of volunteers. They are responsible for the annual audit, the verification of members' accounts, and the investigation of member complaints.

What do I do if I have a problem with a federal credit union?

Start by asking the credit union to correct the problem. You can do this orally or in writing. If you believe the credit union's staff is unresponsive to your inquiry or complaint, address your concerns in writing to the president/chief executive officer of the credit union or to the chairperson of the supervisory committee. You do not need the names of these officials to write them. Address your correspondence by title and send it to the credit union address shown on your statement of account.

How can NCUA help me with my complaint?

Each region has staff available to answer questions, offer guidance, and assist with member complaints. We do not have the resources or expertise to offer legal or accounting assistance. How do I contact Region V staff if I have a question?

Call us at 602-302-6000                           Write to us at:

                                                                   Director, Division of Supervision
                                                                   1230 W. Washington Street, Suite 301
                                                                   Tempe, AZ 85281

Fax correspondence to us at 602-302-6024 Email us at R5DOSMail@ncua gov.

How do I file a complaint with NCUA?

If you are unsuccessful in resolving your complaint directly with the federal credit union, you may file a formal complaint by writing us at the address shown above. No special form is required. You may also fax or email your complaint to us at the fax number or website shown above.

Your letter, fax, or email message needs to identify the full name and address of the credit union, explain the problem clearly and briefly, and state what action you want the credit union to take to resolve the problem. If you send documentation supporting your complaint, use legible photocopies. Do not send us your original statements or other documents. If you have already communicated with the federal credit union in writing, enclose a copy of the correspondence along with the reply you received. Be sure to include your name and postal address in the letter or email message.

What will NCUA do when you receive my written complaint?

Our standard procedure is to acknowledge receipt of your complaint, log it into our records, and ask the federal credit union's supervisory committee to conduct an investigation. We ask the supervisory committee to reply directly to you, or delegate staff to reply, and send a copy to us. The process generally takes from 2 to 6 weeks.

Depending on the credit union's response or the type of complaint, we may take additional steps or use a different approach. If we do, we will notify you in writing.

What consumer protection laws does the National Credit Union Administration enforce in federal credit unions?

We enforce the following laws in federal credit unions:

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation B. This law prohibits discrimination in credit granting based on the applicant's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract). It also prohibits discrimination against an applicant because all of his or her income derives from a public assistance program or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. In addition, the law requires creditors to notify applicants of action taken on their applications and to report credit history in the names of both spouses on an account.

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation E. This law establishes the basic rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of consumers who use electronic fund transfer services and of financial institutions offering these services.

The Expedited Funds Availability Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation CC. This law establishes rules and timeframes for financial institutions to make deposits available for withdrawal. The law also requires each financial institution to disclose its funds availability policies to customers or members when they open their account.

The Truth in Lending Act, implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z. This law promotes the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and costs. The regulation also gives

The Truth In Savings Act, which requires financial institutions to disclose fees, dividend rates, and other terms concerning accounts to members or potential members before they open their share accounts. Part 706 of the National Credit Union Administration's Rules and Regulations. This law prohibits a number of unfair credit practices, including the pyramiding of late charges, and requires a notice of disclosure to cosigners before they become obligated on a loan.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, This law primarily governs credit-reporting agencies, whose regulator is the Federal Trade Commission. However, the law requires credit unions and other creditors to: (1) notify consumers when they take adverse action on the basis of information in consumer reports; and (2) supply customers with the name and address of the consumer-reporting agency used.

Part 716 of the National Credit Union Administration's Rules and Regulations, This law: (1) requires a credit union to provide notice to members about its privacy policies and practices; (2) describes the conditions under which a credit union may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties; and (3) provides a method for consumers to prevent a credit union from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by "opting out" of that disclosure.

In federal credit unions, NCUA is also the enforcement authority for:

o Consumer Leasing, Regulation M. This regulation implements the consumer leasing portions of the Truth in Lending Act, and requires meaningful disclosures to lessees for comparing consumer lease terms with other leases and credit transactions.

o Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This law was enacted to regulate debt collection practices and eliminate abusive practices by debt collectors.

NCUA cannot represent consumers in settling claims or recovering damages. However, if your complaint brings a violation to our attention, we will take steps to ensure the federal credit union complies with applicable laws and regulations.

What if the complaint is not resolved to my satisfaction?

Complaints caused by error or misunderstanding is often resolved voluntarily by federal credit unions. However, many complaints stem from factual or contractual disputes between the federal credit union and the member. If you and the credit union are unable to reach a mutually agreeable settlement in such a situation, only a court of law can impose a remedy and award damages. We recommend you consult an attorney for guidance if you want to consider pursuing a legal remedy.

Who should I contact if my complint involves a financial institution other than a federal credit union? ?

If your complaint concerns a state chartered credit union, please see our web page for:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

If your complaint concerns a federal savings and loan (S&L) or a federally chartered savings banks (F.S.B.), you should contact:

The Office of Thrift Supervision
Office of Consumer Programs
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20552
(202) 906-6237 1-800-842-6929
E-mail: Costumer.cpmplaints@ots.treas.gov
Internet: http://www.ots.treas.gov

If your complaint concerns a national bank, you should contact:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Customer Assistance Group
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3710
Houston, TX 77010
1-800-613-6743
FAX: 1-713-336-4301
E-mail: customer.assistance@occ.treas.gov
Internet: http://www.occ.treas.gov

If your complaint concerns a state bank regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, you should contact:

Federal Reserve Board
Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
Washington, D. C. 20551
(202) 452-3946
Internet: www.federalreserve.gov

If your complaint concerns a federally insured state bank not regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, please contact:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429
(202) 942-3100 1-800-934-FDIC
E-mail: consumer@fdic.gov
Internet: www.fdic.gov

If your complaint concerns a credit reporting agency or a lender other than a credit union, a bank, or a savings and loan, you should contact:

Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20580
(202) 326-2222
E-mail: consumerline@ftd.gov
Internet: www.ftc.gov

We're going to make every effort to get our money back, then send Jillson, Hammar, Zavitz, Armijo, and Garcia to prison for felony theft of $22,036.00. And get notaries Strong and Martinez notatary licences removed too.

NCUA loss claim page.

VI. Removal from Office (14-12A-26) A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he: ...

E. commits a malfeasance in office.

K. Official Misconduct. “Official misconduct” means: 1. a notary public’s performance of an act prohibited, or failure to perform an act mandated ...

A Notary Public may be removed from office by the Governor if he
...
E. commits a malfeasance in office.

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

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

REGION V (TEMPE)
Regional Director
National Credit Union Administration
1230 West Washington Street,
Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Telephone: 602-302-6000
Fax: 602-302-6024
region5@ncua.gov

Google Albuquerque DA Kari Brandenburg. Look at entry number 1. Without Internet our legal project would not work.

We're going to make contact with her opponent Lisa Torraco.

We visited Avicenna tomb websites on Sunday. This is located in Hamedan, Iran. And posted a comment at one.

Note photo of Avecinna Tomb, Hamedan.

Eid-e shoma mubarak.

50 years ago to the University of Colorado in the summer of 1958.

Algebra knowledge acquired from professor Zirakzadeh.

---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!

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

1. the notary public knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or the associated transaction is unlawful;
2. the act is prohibited; or
3. the number of notarial acts requested practicably precludes completion of all acts at once, in which case the notary public shall arrange for later completion of the remaining acts.

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

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

REGION V (TEMPE)
Regional Director
National Credit Union Administration
1230 West Washington Street,
Suite 301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Telephone: 602-302-6000
Fax: 602-302-6024
region5@ncua.gov

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. 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.

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

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

NCUA fraud hotline phone message.

National Credit Union Administration

How Your Accounts Are Federally Insured

NCUA Fraud Hotline

telephone line established solely for the reporting of suspicious or illegal activity committed by credit union employees, members, or officials in federally insured credit unions.

800-827-9650

5851 ALBUQUERQUE, NM SANDIA LABORATORY

We have a new strategy for getting the $11,018 back.

We have to research the process to file insurance claims for the disappeared $11,018.

This guy

worked processing cd FDIC claims during the savings and loan crisis.

Money returned in 2 to 3 weeks he said on the phone.

Failure of the insurance company to pay will, of course, generate further complaints. Promptly settle, of course.

We received an email from pnm electric ipr architect Evlin Wheeler which we have not read yet.

We saw the same foils. And we looked at other energy sites on the web. We, however, differ in our interpretation of the data.

Garcia compiled a good list of crooked judges and what they did.

We did what we needed to do to keep "in the ring."

Note Garcia's references to former judge W John Brennan.

The legal system's objective, according to lawyer Steve Aarons, is to toss you "out of the ring."

Garcia comments that we are unsuccessful litigants.

We dispute this.

We are still "in the ring."

Now we have written evidence of $22,036 felony extortion, all in wrting, from us using bogus federal court orders. No file stamps. Even on PACER!

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday September 12, 2008 15:34

Docket entry 156
Docket entry 155
Docket entry 154

Lyric Wallwork Winik.

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: Reader Services
To: bill payne
Subject: PARADE has received your Message
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:41:34 +0000

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to contact PARADE. Hearing from you helps us publish a better magazine and website.

This e-mail confirms that PARADE Reader Response has received your message successfully. Our team will review and address accordingly.

Thanks again for your message and interest in PARADE.

Warm Regards

PARADE Reader Services

Plaintiffs,

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 filing of Plaintiff William H. Payne ("Payne")'s Reply' [Doc. 155] in connection with his Motion to Void and Amend Judgments [Doc. 152]. The Reply will be stricken as untimely.

Payne filed his Motion to Void and Amend Judgments on August 1,2008. He certified that he served the Motion on the United States Attorney on July 14,2008; however, the Motion that was mailed to this Court for filing was postmarked July 31,2008. There is no explanation why Payne

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Reply [Doc. 155] filed by Plaintiff Payne on September 2,2008 is hereby stricken from the record as untimely.

Lorenzo F. Garcia
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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)

The illegal and improper seizing of Morales' savings occurred even though Morales was dismissed as a defendant in CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG.

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)

(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).

5 ORDER, which as also sent mailed to us by SLFCU on July 23, 2008, was not FILE stamped by clerk of court as seen below.

See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

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.

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

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

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

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

8 If Armijo's not-FILE-stamped ORDER perhaps signed on July 11, 2008 was intentionally not mailed until July 14, 2008, then this constitutes

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

9 Since plaintiff's $11,018 was removed from his wife's [redacted in red name in 1 is not plaintiff's name] SLFCU savings account without due process on July 22, 2008, all proceedings in No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG are void.

10 Chief magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia stated in March 25, 2008 hearing without jurisdiction

[T]he case was closed for years, at which point, but Plaintiffs commenced filing numerous pleadings seeking to re-assert dismissed claims. ...

To the contrary, one reason for reopening the case was two Wikipedia spring 2007 posts, one of which starts

Nojeh Coup

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski LINK 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. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar LINK, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. ...

to attempt to bring to justice those in the United States involved in starting the Iraq/Iran war.

Wikipedia post was news to plaintiff.

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Proper processing of the allegation

would show the world that the US is able investigate, then bring to justice Brzezinski if the allegation is corroborated.

Damages of the alleged crime includes:

In the end, neither Iran nor Iraq would win a clear victory, but the suffering was enormous on both sides. Conservative estimates place the death toll at 367,000-262,000 Iranians and 105,000 Iraqis. An estimated 700,000 were injured or wounded on both sides, bringing the total casualty figure to over one million.

and

Iran weakened by the revolution was invaded by Iraq in September, 1980. By November the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day and 6.5 million barrels per day less than a year before. As a consequence worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.

The combination of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War cause crude oil prices to more than double increasing from from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.

Twenty-six years later Iran's production is only two-thirds of the level reached under the government of Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran.

Iraq's production remains about 1.5 million barrels below its peak before the Iraq-Iran War.

Possible consequences of failure to take legal and settlement actions should be considered.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Judge M Christina Armijo issued

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)

in violation of her Oath of Office which states, in part, "that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter ... ."

See judge Martha Vazquez oath of office document copy.

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

to have jurisdiction in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG.

Support of these allegations is perhaps the reason Armijo did not sign

Issue of proper processing of criminal complaint affidavit against Zbigniew Brzeninski is, again, before a federal court and should be promptly processed according to law.

11 Summary of essential judicial wrongdoing which voids all rulings in CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG includes:

A   Magistrate judge Lorenzo F Garcia is a defendant in paid for 12 person New Mexico state jury trial lawsuit cv 2000-10278 for relief of DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT.

B   New Mexico state lawsuit cv 2000-10278 was fraudulently removed to federal court and given number 00cv01677. Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT are not federal questions.

C   An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process of law. Garcia, for reasons stated in A and B, is neither competent or impartial.

D Plaintiffs file notice that the Court was not following rule of the court.  

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

Html of filing. PACER pdf of filing.

E   A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; 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. 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.

SLFCU does not follow rules of law by determining whether plaintiffs' savings accounts contain exempt fund or not.

Plaintiffs file Mandatory Judicial Notice 1 containing affidavits stating funds are exempt with Sandia Federal Credit Union is required by law.

SLFCU lawyer files affidavits with court on February 13, 2008 which is docketed as entry 133. Here is PACER pdf of docket entry 133.

D   Response to

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)

stated by affidavit

03/21/2008 146 NOTICE by William H Payne, Arthur R Morales re 119 122 123 121 118 120 Writ of garnishment (sl) (Entered: 03/21/2008)

that plaintiff plaintiff Payne was not properly served.

Here is PACER pdf of filing.

Garcia ignores affidavit.

F   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.

G Nonetheless Garcia conducts hearing without jurisdiction

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)

Here is PACER pdf of minutes.

H   "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) "

" LINK.

13 Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes in his response mailed August 11, 2008

To the extent this motion is a request for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed July 11, 2008 (Doc. 151) under FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it was not filed within ten days after entry of the Order and is therefore untimely. Any such motion was due July 25, 2008, and this motion was not filed until August 1, 2008.

Plaintiff did file on time.

Zavitz does not compute time properly for 10 day of less response.

14 Zavitz writes

Thus, this motion can only be treated as one for relief from an order under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, extraordinary, and warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Yapp v. Excel Corp.. 186 F,3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 1999); Cashnerv. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); Farr v. Int'l Fin. and Trading Network. 175 F.R.D. 333, 336 (D. Kan. 1997). Further, a motion under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not intended to rehash issues that have already been finally determined. Cashner. 98 F.3d at 577; VanSkiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 828 (1992) ("revisiting the issues already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider" filed under Rule 60(b)).

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. ¹

3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. ²

4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. ³

5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. ⁵

6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. ⁴

7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment ⁶ and cannot render a void judgment valid. ⁷

8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, ⁸ so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. ⁹

9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, ¹⁰ and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. ¹¹

10 A void judgment may be cured Mandamus. ¹²

11 Res judicata does not apply to a void judgment motion. ¹³

12 An opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal on proper notice ¹⁴ is one of the essential elements of due process of law. ¹⁵

13 A judgment is irregular where its rendition is contrary to the course and practice of the courts; ¹⁶ that is, where proper rules of practice have not been followed, or where some necessary act has been omitted or has been done in an improper manner.¹⁷

14 A court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.¹⁸

15 A judgment is void when the court lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, ¹⁹ lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, ²⁰ or acts in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.²¹

16 The judgment of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of its rights, ²² and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. ²³

Plaintiff Payne apparently asserts that the order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and is void. FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) & (4). However, he does nothing more than restate his prior arguments about alleged insufficient service and errors in the notice of the garnishment proceeding. Doc. 152, pp. 2-3, 52. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have already rejected those arguments. Doc. 150, pp. 6-10; Doc. 151, pp. 1-2. Reargument of issues that have been decided is not a proper basis for relief under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as noted above. Plaintiff Payne also calls the hearing before the Magistrate Judge a "Kangaroo court" and asserts that this Court , is engaged in extortion. Doc. 152, pp. 2, 5. Such frivolous assertions do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and, if anything, provide a new basis for further sanctions or contempt against Plaintiff Payne.

Finally, Plaintiff Payne notes that Arthur Morales was dismissed as a plaintiff in 1997. Doc. 42. However, Mr. Morales continued to join in the frivolous motions and other documents filed in this case which formed the basis of the sanctions previously imposed by the Court. See Doc. 95, p. 2, referencing Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85 and 91; see also Doc. 100, pp. 2-3, referencing Docs. 93, 94. Thus, this provides no basis for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition.

WHEREFORE, the United States requests that Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, be denied.

18 RECUSE all New Mexico judicial officers and MOVE  CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

19 VACATE Order seizing our $11,018 for failure to allow due process Rule 59(e) file and failure to file stamp order. See PACER pdf of docket entry 151.

20 ORDER SLFCU to restore $11,018 to Morales' and Payne's savings accounts within 14 days of clerk file stamp of this motion. Alternative is that plaintiff will file to void judgment in 00cv01677.

Respectfully submitted,

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

xxxx has a law degree and a phd.

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "xxxx"
To: "bill payne"
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and yyy
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:10:24 +0000

sickness. i owe you a big apology. incidentally, nice pic on your passport. you look canadian! just joking. my treat when we meet. sick today/tomorrow. let me know if friday is good and maybe a place closer to you. i'll email ya. thanks, and apologies again, xxx :-/

On 8/27/08, bill payne wrote:
I was there at 09:28.
I waited until 09:50.
What happened?

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject: Re: mcdonald's and xxx

xx and i will see you then. invite morales. xxx ;-)

On 8/26/08, bpayne37@comcast.net wrote:

Let's do xxx at yyy on zzz.

this is me.

http://www.prosefights.org/funpics/bill2007passport.jpg

"people" is important to include too as well as SLFCU sending Armijo ORDER.

CNN to the rescue on Thursday August 14, 2008.

Credibility of the US justice system is at risk.

Absolutely brilliant. We didn't do it.

But we did write

But we have the interest, expertise, ability, people, and oppportunity [No. CIV 97-266 MCA/LFG] to use the information provided to us to hopefully achieve peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

The NCUA reviews all its existing regulations every three years. The NCUA Office of General Counsel maintains a rolling review schedule that identifies one third of NCUA’s existing regulations for review each year and provides notice to the public of those regulations under review so the public may have an opportunity to comment.

NCUA will review the following regulations in 2008:

748 Security Program, Report of Suspected Crimes, Suspicious Transactions, Catastrophic Acts, and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance. ...

Comments may be e-mailed to OGCMAIL@NCUA.GOV or mailed to Regulatory Review (2008), Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

Case: l:97-cv-00266-MCA-LFG Document: 154 Filed: 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM H. PAYNE and
ARTHUR R. MORALES,

Plaintiffs, vs.

CIVIL NO. 97-266 MCA/LFG NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

Defendant.

SANDIA LABORATORY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Gamishee.

The undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation on March 27, 2008 [Doc. 150]. No objections were filed within the time permitted by law under either 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The trial judge adopted the Findings and Recommended

Disposition and Orders of Garnishment on July 11,2008 [Doc. 151]. Payne did not appeal nor did he timely seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Payne served his Motion to Void and Amend on July 14,2008; however, he did not file it until August 1,2008. A motion under Rule 59(e) must be filed within ten days; Payne's motion was not, and is therefore untimely. The motion can only be considered as one for relief from an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. ^(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F ^176^ 7fi4 (l n^ Fir i QQ7) Payne's motion simply seeks to resurrect arguments the Court previously rejected. Nothing in the motion demonstrates that the Court misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law. Rather, this motion simply reargues Payne's previous rejected claims.

A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) may not be used to simply reargue positions previously presented to and rejected by the court. Cashner v. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572,577 (1 Oth Cir. 1996); Van Skiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991)(revisiting the issues os^' already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider filed under Rule 60(b)).

Payne's motion is a frivolous pleading in a string of prior frivolous pleadings that seek only to abuse the court process. The Court's earlier Order to Show Cause [Doc. 92] and Report and Recommendation [Doc. 95] outlined Payne's abusive litigation history. Payne filed multiple lawsuits which name judges, U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, private attorneys, law firms, government entities, government officials, corporations, corporate officers and others as defendants. (See Appendices, Order to Show Cause, Doc. 92, July, 2007). In each case, defendants were forced

to retain counsel and expended significant amounts of time and money to defend themselves against frivolous and specious allegations.

Payne's litigation activities tax judicial resources in that many judges, both within and without the District ofNew Mexico, were compelled to spend inordinate amounts of time reviewing, analyzing and deciding Payne's motions, none of which had any merit.

Payne is not a successful litigant. To the contrary, he lost each and every claim in each and every lawsuit. Of those cases he appealed, his appeals were either rejected for non-compliance with appellate rules, or the appellate court sustained the trial court's decisions in dismissing his cases. His multiple requests for extraordinary relief filed in various appellate courts or the United States Supreme Court met similar fates. Thus, he lost each appeal he prosecuted.

In addition to his abusive litigation efforts in state and federal courts, Payne has unsuccessfully sought to have criminal complaints filed and arrest warrants issued against a number of federal judges and assistant U.S. Attorneys. Indeed, Payne is currently appealing the City of Albuquerque's refusal to process criminal complaints against the district's Chief Judge, the Honorable Martha Vazquez, the trial judge, the Honorable M. Christina Armijo, and the undersigned magistrate judge on allegations of extortion and fraud.

Not only are Payne's most recent pleadings frivolous, but he continues with his blatant disrespect for the Court, court officers and the Court's process. In his most recent filing, he refers to the prior court hearings as "kangaroo proceedings," and he accuses the trial judge of committing criminal acts of fraud and extortion. The Court will not tolerate this abuse. m an effort to quell his litigation tactics, Payne was permanently enjoined from filing any new lawsuit in any New Mexico state court unless he is represented by counsel.3 He has similarly

been enjoined in the United States District Court from filing aaypro se lawsuit unless he complies with certain filing restrictions.4

State and federal courts condemned his abusive practices, censured him and warned that his litigation abuses could result in sanctions.5 None of those efforts proved successful and they have done little to stem the tide of Payne's abusive litigation. In an effort to bring an end to these practices and to lessen the financial and time burdens imposed on those individuals who have incurred Payne's wrath, the Court entered an order imposing substantial sanctions on Payne [Doc. 151]. Indeed, it is that very sanction order that now forms the basis of Payne's present motion.

Even though those sanctions were paid to the United States, it appears that they were ineffective in stopping Payne's abusive practices. Accordingly, the Court will again give Payne a warning that if he continues with his misconduct by filing any further pleadings in this case, or violating the injunctions imposed in prior cases, the Court will issue a new order to show cause why additional substantial monetary sanctions should not be imposed.6

6 Pavne and Morales v. MiniTian et a1 , No. CIV 97-266, Payne was sanctioned for misconduct and ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $625.00 [Doc. 41]. As a result of ongoing frivolous filings and abuse, Payne was further sanctioned in the amount of $10,000.

In Pavne v. EEOC. No. CIV 99-270, Payne was warned and ultimately sanctioned for misconduct and order to pay Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions in the amount of $912.50 [Doc. 60].

In Morales and Pavne v. United States et al.. No. CIV 00-1574, Judge William F. Downes warned Payne of his "indiscriminately" suing the various judges assigned to their [Morales and Payne] cases, as well as suing the attorneys and law firms representing opposing parties [Doc. 64].

In Pavne v. Sandia Corn. et al.. No. CIV 00-1677, Judge William F. Downes referred to Payne's litigation history as "frivolous" [Doc. 105, p. 7]. So, too, m Morales and Pavne v. Judge Ted Baca. et al.. No. CIV 01-634, the trial court found that Payne's conduct was frivolous and his pleadings constituted "ranting diatribe grounded in unbridled contempt for law." [Doc. 57, p. 15].

6 The restriction on further filings in this case will not preclude proper and timely objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments be DENIED; and, farther, that Payne be admonished that continued frivolous litigation in this case or litigation in violation of existing injunctions will result in imposition of new sanctions and/or contempt of court.

Lorenzo F. Garcia
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

7.64 Timing of and Restrictions on Responses and Replies. [Amended 3/5/07]

(a) Timing. A response must be served and filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the motion. A reply must be served and filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the response. These time periods are computed in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) and (e) and may be extended by agreement of all parties. For each agreed extension, the party requesting the extension must file a notice identifying the new deadline and the document (response or reply) to be filed. If an extension of time is opposed, the party seeking the extension must file a separate motion within the applicable 14-day period. In all cases, upon completion of briefing, the movant must file a notice certifying that the motion is ready for decision and identifying the motion and all related filings by date of filing and docket number. An extension of briefing time must not interfere with established case management deadlines.

(b) Surreply. The filing of a surreply requires leave of the Court.

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,

V

Garnishee.

The United States opposes the Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, filed by Plaintiff William Payne1 (Doc. 152).

To the extent this document is intended as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed March 27, 2008 (Doc. 150), it is

To the extent this motion is a request for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition filed July 11, 2008 (Doc. 151) under FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it was not filed within ten days after entry of the Order and is therefore untimely. Any such motion was due July 25, 2008, and this motion was not filed until August 1, 2008.

Thus, this motion can only be treated as one for relief from an order under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Emmons. 107 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1997). Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary, extraordinary, and warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Yapp v. Excel Corp.. 186 F,3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 1999); Cashnerv. Freedom Stores. Inc.. 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); Farr v. Int'l Fin. and Trading Network. 175 F.R.D. 333, 336 (D. Kan. 1997). Further, a motion under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not intended to rehash issues that have already been finally determined. Cashner. 98 F.3d at 577; VanSkiver v. United States. 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 828 (1992) ("revisiting the issues already addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider" filed under Rule 60(b)).

Plaintiff Payne apparently asserts that the order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and is void. FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) & (4). However, he does nothing more than restate his prior arguments about alleged insufficient service and errors in the notice of the garnishment proceeding. Doc. 152, pp. 2-3, 52. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have already rejected those arguments. Doc. 150, pp. 6-10; Doc. 151, pp. 1-2. Reargument of issues that have been decided is not a proper basis for relief under FED. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as noted above. Plaintiff Payne also calls the hearing before the Magistrate Judge a "Kangaroo court" and asserts that this Court ^, is engaged in extortion. Doc. 152, pp. 2, 5. Such frivolous assertions do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and, if anything, provide a new basis for further sanctions or contempt against Plaintiff Payne.

Finally, Plaintiff Payne notes that Arthur Morales was dismissed as a plaintiff in 1997. Doc. 42. However, Mr. Morales continued to join in the frivolous motions and other documents filed in this case which formed the basis of the sanctions previously imposed by the Court. See Doc. 95, p. 2, referencing Docs. 81, 82, 84, 85 and 91; see also Doc. 100, pp. 2-3, referencing Docs. 93, 94. Thus, this provides no basis for relief from the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition.

WHEREFORE, the United States requests that Plaintiff Payne's Motion to Void and Amend Judgments in Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommended Disposition Mailed July 14, 2008, be denied.

Respectfully submitted, GREGORY J. FOURATT /f United States Attorney ////

Isl Electronically filed August TiC^^y
JOHN ZAVITZZ7-
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-0607
(505) 224-1414
(505) 346-6884 (facsimile)
E-mail: john.zavitz@usdoj.gov
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed, postage
prepaid, on August 11, 2008, to the following non-participant in the CM/ECF electronic
fling system:
William H. Payne\at 130/15 Calle De Sandias NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111- 2924. / /!
/s/ JOHN ZA\ATZ ^f f JOHN ZAVITZ^[/[/f Assistant United States Attorney N:\JZavitz\FLU\Payne\Response to Motion to Void ch.wpd 4

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 /