ARTHUR R. MORALES
WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs,

vs.
CIVIL NO. 00-1574 William F Downes

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO,
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants.

1 Assistant US Attorney Phyllis A Dow writes

Defendant United States of America objects to the pursuit of any discovery pending the determination of the existing dispositive motions. Discovery is not appropriate until such time as the Court rules on same.

civ 2000 10289 was improperly removed to federal court and numbered CIVIL NO. 00-1574.

civ 2000 10289 is an active New Mexico 12-person jury trial lawsuit. Discovery has commenced in civ 2000 10289 with federal judges Martha Vazquez, James A Parker, and William F Downes. See Exhibit A

2 This Court, aka William F Downes, has acted twice in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

As a result Downes has been sued twice in New Mexico state courts for ruling when Downs has no jurisdiction.

3 Plaintiffs suspected that judge Downes may have been misinformed that led to the his two unfortunate rulings.

As a result plaintiffs will agree to file New Mexico state district court action 1-041. Dismissal of actions against Downes once these matters have been settled.

4 Dow's request to have this court rules on dispositive motions would clearly have this court rule again in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Dow encourages this court to perpetuate the previous mistake of ruling in absence of all jurisdiction

In addition, Dow's response is groundless since civ 2000 10289 is the same as CIVIL NO. 00-1574.

Discovery information will be obtained either or both at state or federal level.

Plaintiffs continue to feel that settlement is best.

Plaintiffs are willing to settle to bring these unfortunate matters to closure.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on April 19, 2002 to

PHYLLIS A DOW
Assistant US Attorney
POB 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Raymond Hamilton
Assistant US Attorney
201 Third Sweet, NW
Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Patricio Serna
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

James A Parker
Chief judge
United States District Court
333 Lomas NW.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

William F Downes
Chief Judge; Wyoming
111 South Wolcott
Room 210
Casper, WY 82601
(307) 261-5441
care of
Webmanager@wyd.uscourts.gov

Judge Dee Vance Benson
care of
Louise_York@utd.uscourts.gov

Gorence was former chief prosecutor of Wen Ho Lee.

Kelly, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1993, offered no reason for his leaving in either a news release issued Monday or in a Dec. 30 resignation letter to his boss, Attorney General Janet Reno.

Kelly, 52, is a native of upstate New York. He is a college friend of Clinton from Georgetown University and ran Clinton’s New Mexico campaign in 1992. 1

 The final meeting took place Dec. 4, 1999 in the White House Situation Room with national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger chairing. In addition to Reno, Freh and the U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, John Kelly, represented Justice.  Also attending were Richardson, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre and CIA Director George J. Tenent.

President 'Troubled' by Lee Case by David A Vise, Washington Post Friday September 15, 2000

                CASE NUMBER

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

Complaint for

Writ of REPLEVIN and Relief from HARASSMENT

1 Citizens Morales and Payne file pro se Freedom of Information Act lawsuit 97cv0266 against the National Security Agency in New Mexico District federal court on February 27, 1997.

Magistrate judge Don J. Svet was assigned case.

US attorney John J Kelly assigns assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell to defend National Security Agency.

2 FBI agents Moore and Kohl hand-deliver May 29, 1997 at 08:29 harassment letter authored by First Assistant US Attorney Robert J Gorence on May 19, 1997. Exhibit A.

3 01/28/98 Svet issues

ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet granting defendant's motion to strike any and all of plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions to various employees of the National Security Agency & to various employees of Sandia National Laboratory (see order for further specifics re sanctions & communication) [28-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (dmw) (7k)

4 02/09/98 Mitchell submits

AFFIDAVIT of attorney fees by Jan Elizabeth Mitchell in accordance with court order [37-1] (dmw)

BILL OF COSTS is submitted to US District Court on Jun 12, 1998. Exhibit B.

On June 30, 1998 Mitchell places liens on both Payne's and Morales personal properties.

Exhibit L.

5 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on March 18, 1998 to halt attempted sanctions.

Scalia does not reply.

6 On April 30, 1998 court order (docket #42) removes Morales as plaintiff in this case.

7 US Attorney John J Kelly orders initiates garnishment against Morales on February 2, 1999. Exhibit C1.

8 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR with US District Court on February 2, 1999. Exhibit C2.

Morales notified of right to hearing in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Exhibit D was included in the same letter as Exhibit C1 2.

Paragraph in D2 is quite clear

If you want a hearing you must notify the court within 20 days after receipt of the notice. Your request must be in writing. If you wish., you may use this notice to request the hearing by checking the box below. You must either mail it or deliver it in person to the Clerk of the United States District Court at 333 Lomas NW. Suite 270, P.O. Box 689, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. You must also send a copy of your request to the United States Attorney at: United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, ATTENTION: MANUEL LUCERO, Assistant U. S. Attorney, P. 0. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, so the Government will know you want a hearing.

Letter in exhibit E Morales requested hearing.

Letter in exhibit F shows that Morales protested when he did not get requested hearing.

Government took money from Morales without due process.

9 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly and US District Court Clerk Robert

March of his request for hearing on February 12, 1999 delivered by Payne. Exhibit E.

10 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT is received at Sandia National Laboratories on February 17, 1999. Exhibit G 2 3 and H.

11 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly, US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero, US District Court Clerk Robert March, and Sandia employee Mary Resnick on February 22, 1999 DEMAND that garnishment proceeding be held in abeyance pending requested hearing. Exhibit F.

12 $625 is garnished from Morales wages without due process in Sandia pay period 02/12/1999 to 03/25/1999 and 02/26/199 through 03/11/1999. Exhibit I.

13 Payne pays Morales $312.50 for his share of expenses in NSA lawsuit.

14 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file ORDER OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don F Svet on April 20, 1999. Exhibit J 2.

There is no cause of action before the court for such order of garnishment.

15 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on April 27, 1999 to halt attempted unwarranted garnishment.

Scalia, again, does not respond.

But no money has yet been garnished from Morales' wages by Sandia.

16 On July 21, 1999 Rio Grande Title refunds Morales' $625 [Exhibit M 2] which was taken from escrow account from property lien being held since November 25, 199.

Exhibit L.

17 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of the these and other illegal acts on February 26, 2000.

Morales and Payne offer administrative settlement of these and other misconduct.

Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000.

Deaton does not respond.

18 Citizens John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and Don F Svet have broken New Mexico state laws by garnishing $625 from Morales' wages without due process. Exhibits B, C 2, D 2, E, F, G 2 3, H, I 2, K 2, L, M 2.

ARTICLE 11

Magistrate Court; Replevin

Sec. 35-11-1. Replevin; grounds. 35-11-2. Replevin; special provisions. 35-11-3. Judgment.

35-11-1. Replevin; grounds.

Whenever any personal property is wrongfully taken or detained, the person having a right to immediate possession may bring a civil action of replevin for recovery of the property and for damages sustained from the wrongful taking or detention. However, in replevin actions, magistrate courts shall not issue any writs of replevin or any other orders providing for a seizure of property before judgment.

19 Citizens Robert J Gorence harassed William Payne by Sending FBI agents to Payne's home to deliver threatening letter in Exhibit A.

Don F Svet, John J Kelly, and Manuel Lucero harassed Arthur Morales by attempting to garnish $1,793.56 from Morales wages when there was no legal cause of action for such writ. Exhibit J 1.

ARTICLE 3A

Harassment and Stalking

30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.

A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which 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.

WHEREFORE

20 Morales and Payne ask for their $625 taken from them without due process.

21 Morales and Payne ask for the $1,793.56 since this can be taken from Morales wages or file an property lien at any time.

22 Payne asks for punitive damages $300,000 from Gorence for harassment for illegally sending FBI agents to family residence to deliver harassment letter.

23 Illegal garnishment of Morales' salary jeopardized Morales' security clearance and employment at Sandia National Laboratories.

Morales and Payne ask for punitive damages from citizens John J Kelly $300,000, Don F Svet $300,000, Manuel Lucero $100,000, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell $100,000 , and so that citizens and federal employees are sent a message to obey the laws they are tasked to upheld rather than abuse.

24 No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law.

Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for prosecution of citizens Robert J Gorence, John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and Don F Svet for violation of New Mexico state laws.

25 Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified - return receipt requested mail.

_________________________________

__________________________________ Date

Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 345 1381

William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505 292 7037

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FROM JUDGE WILLIAM F DOWNES

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have supplied all material requested by plaintiffs

_______________________________________
WILLIAM F DOWNES

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 11, 2002 to

William F. Downes
Chief Judge; Wyoming
111 South Wolcott
Room 210
Casper, WY 82601
(307) 261-5441

Richard G Patrick
Department of Justice
District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FROM JUDGE JAMES A PARKER

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have supplied all material requested by plaintiffs

_______________________________________
JAMES A PARKER

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 11, 2002 to

James A Parker
Chief judge
United States District Court
333 Lomas NW.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Raymond Hamilton
US Department of Justice
201 3rd Street NW, Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FROM JUDGE MARTHA VAZQUEZ

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

2 Plantiffs request that Martha Vazquez produce copies of all documents, notes, electronic media, referencing plaintiffs.

3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have supplied all material requested by plaintiffs

_______________________________________
MARTHA VAZQUEZ

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 11, 2002 to

Martha Vazquez
100 S. Federal Place
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Raymond Hamilton
US Department of Justice
201 3rd Street NW, Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS FROM JUDGE MARTHA VAZQUEZ

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 I realize that New Mexico state lawsuit is the same as federal CIVIL NO. 00 1574.

4 I was assigned to be judge in 1574

11/28/00 11/28/00 9 MINUTE ORDER: Case reassigned from Magistrate Judge Richard Puglisi to District Judge Martha Vazquez, and Case referred to Chief Magistrate William Deaton (cc: all counsel) (sl) (19k)

12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1] , Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10]

7 Did you receive any written outcome of New Mexico hearing.

8 I ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FILED at Santa Fe, NM JAN 2 - 2001

ARTHUR R. MORALES
WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 RLP

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Notice of Substitution submitted by the United States of America. The Court has been fully apprised that the attorney General’s designee has certified that Defendants ROBERT J. GORANCE, JOHN J. KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO, JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL, DON F. SVET, were acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the incident giving rise to this suit. The Court has also been apprised of the substitution of tie United States pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 § 6, Pub. L. No. 100-694,102 Stat. 4563(1988), 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the pmvisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2) and § 2679(d)(2), the claims set forth in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice with respect to the named Defendants, on the grounds that the exclusive remedy far these claims is an action against the United States of America.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action shall be amended to reflect the substitution of the United States of America as the Defendant.

apparently signed by judge Martha Vazquez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Submitted by:

Raymond Hamilton
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Civil Chief

11 Did the Department of Justice contact you about 1574?

12 Were you coerced into signing docket 22 ORDER?

13 Did Raymond Hamilton Assistant U.S. Attorney, Civil Chief compel you to sign docket 22 ORDER?

12 I ignored my own stay ORDER, docket entry 19, when I ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

14 Did anyone else compel or influence you into signing docket 22 ORDER?

15 Is replevin a federal question.

16 Is harassment a federal question.

17 Was magistrate judge Don Svet wrong to sign an order of garnishment for $1,793.56 against Arthur Morales with no cause of action against Morales?

18 Was it wrong to garnish $625 from Arthur Morales Sandia Laboratory wages without requested due process hearing?

19 Please return your admissions within THIRTY DAYS.

20 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that are true.

_______________________________________
MARTHA VAZQUEZ

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 12, 2002 to

Martha Vazquez
100 S. Federal Place
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Raymond Hamilton
US Department of Justice
201 3rd Street NW, Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS FROM JUDGE JAMES A PARKER

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 I realize that New Mexico state lawsuit is the same as federal CIVIL NO. 00 1574.

4 I assigned Martha Vazquez to be judge in 1574

11/28/00 11/28/00 9 MINUTE ORDER: Case reassigned from Magistrate Judge Richard Puglisi to District Judge Martha Vazquez, and Case referred to Chief Magistrate William Deaton (cc: all counsel) (sl) (19k)

12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1] , Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10]

7 Did you know that federal court receive any written outcome of New Mexico hearing.

8 Did you know Vazquez ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FILED at Santa Fe, NM JAN 2 - 2001

ARTHUR R. MORALES
WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 RLP

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Notice of Substitution submitted by the United States of America. The Court has been fully apprised that the attorney General’s designee has certified that Defendants ROBERT J. GORANCE, JOHN J. KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO, JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL, DON F. SVET, were acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the incident giving rise to this suit. The Court has also been apprised of the substitution of tie United States pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 § 6, Pub. L. No. 100-694,102 Stat. 4563(1988), 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the pmvisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2) and § 2679(d)(2), the claims set forth in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice with respect to the named Defendants, on the grounds that the exclusive remedy far these claims is an action against the United States of America.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action shall be amended to reflect the substitution of the United States of America as the Defendant.

apparently signed by judge Martha Vazquez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Submitted by:

Raymond Hamilton
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Civil Chief

11 Did the Department of Justice contact you about 1574?

12 Did you know if Vazquez was coerced into signing docket 22 ORDER?

13 Did you know Raymond Hamilton Assistant U.S. Attorney, Civil Chief may have compelled you to sign docket 22 ORDER?

12 Di you know Vazquez ignored her own stay ORDER, docket entry 19, when she ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

14 Do you know if anyone else compelled or influenced Vazquez into signing docket 22 ORDER? 15 Is replevin a federal question.

16 Is harassment a federal question.

17 Was magistrate judge Don Svet wrong to sign an order of garnishment for $1,793.56 against Arthur Morales with no cause of action against Morales?

18 Was it wrong to garnish $625 from Arthur Morales Sandia Laboratory wages without requested due process hearing?

19 Please return your admissions within THIRTY DAYS.

20 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that are true.

_______________________________________
JAMES A PARKER

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 121, 2002 to

James A Parker
Chief judge
United States District Court
333 Lomas NW.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Raymond Hamilton
US Department of Justice
201 3rd Street NW, Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS FROM JUDGE WILLIAM F DOWNES

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 I realize that New Mexico state lawsuit is the same as federal CIVIL NO. 00 1574.

4 I assigned Martha Vazquez to be judge in 1574

11/28/00 11/28/00 9 MINUTE ORDER: Case reassigned from Magistrate Judge Richard Puglisi to District Judge Martha Vazquez, and Case referred to Chief Magistrate William Deaton (cc: all counsel) (sl) (19k)

12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1] , Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10]

7 Did you know that federal court receive any written outcome of New Mexico hearing.

8 Did you know Vazquez ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FILED at Santa Fe, NM JAN 2 - 2001

ARTHUR R. MORALES
WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 RLP

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Notice of Substitution submitted by the United States of America. The Court has been fully apprised that the attorney General’s designee has certified that Defendants ROBERT J. GORANCE, JOHN J. KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO, JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL, DON F. SVET, were acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the incident giving rise to this suit. The Court has also been apprised of the substitution of tie United States pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 § 6, Pub. L. No. 100-694,102 Stat. 4563(1988), 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the pmvisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2) and § 2679(d)(2), the claims set forth in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice with respect to the named Defendants, on the grounds that the exclusive remedy far these claims is an action against the United States of America.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action shall be amended to reflect the substitution of the United States of America as the Defendant.

apparently signed by judge Martha Vazquez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Submitted by:

Raymond Hamilton
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Civil Chief

11 Did the Department of Justice contact you about 1574?

12 Did you know if Vazquez was coerced into signing docket 22 ORDER?

13 Did you know Raymond Hamilton Assistant U.S. Attorney, Civil Chief may have compelled you to sign docket 22 ORDER?

12 Do you know Vazquez ignored her own stay ORDER, docket entry 19, when she ruled

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

14 Is replevin a federal question.

15 Is harassment a federal question.

16 Was magistrate judge Don Svet wrong to sign an order of garnishment for $1,793.56 against Arthur Morales with no cause of action against Morales?

17 Was it wrong to garnish $625 from Arthur Morales Sandia Laboratory wages without requested due process hearing?

18 Please return your admissions within THIRTY DAYS.

19 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that are true.

_______________________________________
WILLIAM F DOWNES

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 12, 2002 to

William F. Downes
Chief Judge; Wyoming
111 South Wolcott
Room 210
Casper, WY 82601
(307) 261-5441

Richard G Patrick
Department of Justice
District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

civ - 2000 10289

Arthur R Morales
William H Payne

Plaintiffs

v

Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FROM JUDGE MARTHA VAZQUEZ

1 As you may know from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

1-026. General provisions governing discovery.

A. Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, under Rule 1-034 or Rule 1-045(A) (1) (c), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations and requests for admission.

B. Scope of discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ...

3 Please return your productions within THIRTY DAYS.

4 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have supplied all material requested by plaintiffs

_______________________________________
MARTHA VAZQUEZ

Executed the day of 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was sent on April 12, 2002 to

Martha Vazquez
100 S. Federal Place
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Raymond Hamilton
US Department of Justice
201 3rd Street NW, Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

ARTHUR R. MORALES and
WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiffs, vs. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 MV/WWD ACE
(Judge Downes)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW Defendant United States of America, by and through David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and Phyllis A. Dow, Assistant United States Attorney, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and respectfully requests the Court for a protective order that discovery not be had. As grounds therefor, it would show the Court the following:

On April 12, 2002, Plaintiffs sent to the Honorable James A. Parker and the Honorable Martha Vazquez what purport to be First Set of Admissions and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents or Things. (Attached as Exhibits A though D.)

Plaintiffs used the caption of the original state court case, Arthur R. Morales et al. v. Robert J. Gorence, et al., CV-2000- 10289, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. That action was removed to this Court on November 8, 2000. (Dkt. No. 1.) Consequently, there is no pending action in the New Mexico state court under this caption.

The United States Attorney then certified that Defendants Robert J. Gorence, John J. Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and the Honorable Don F. Svet were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the United States of America, United States Department of Justice, or as an employee of the Courts of the United States. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Notice of Substitution of the United States on their behalf was also filed on that date. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Complaint as against the individual Defendants and substituting the United States of America as the sole Defendant was entered by the Court on January 2, 2001. (Dkt. No. 22.) Neither Judge Parker nor Judge Vazquez have ever been parties to this litigation, and written discovery cannot be served upon them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 36. Written discovery can only be propounded by one party to another party.

Defendant is also requesting that discovery not be had on the basis that there are two pending dispositive motions. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on November 30, 2000, which has been fully briefed and is sub ludice. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 16, and 25.) In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute Immunity on July 26, 2001, to which Plaintiffs did not respond. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, and 46.)

Furthermore, the parties have never met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Therefore, any attempt by the Plaintiffs to commence discovery from any source is premature and should be prohibited. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), “a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred . .2’ (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs oppose this Motion. Therefore, a Memorandum in Support is submitted herewith.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID C. IGLESIAS

States Attorney

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
(505) 346-7274

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 14, 2002, a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to: Arthur R. Morales, 1024 Los Arboles, NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107; and, William H. Payne, 13015 Calle de Sandias, NE, Alb~erque, NewMexico 87111.

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney

N: \PDow\Payne\00cv1574\mo.prot.order.wpd

ARTHUR R. MORALES and
WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiffs,
vs. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 MV/WWD ACE
(Judge Downes)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant United States of America is requesting pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) a protective order that discovery not be had in this matter.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action is one of several currently in litigation which were brought by one or both of the Plaintiffs against counsel of record and judges in prior cases. Others include Payne v. Sandia Cori~., et al., Civil No. 1677, Morales, et al. v. Baca, et al., Civil No. 01—634, Payne v. Dow, et al., Civil No. 01—1132, and Morales v. Zavitz, Civil No. 01-1198. Plaintiffs have engaged in a pattern of abusive and malicious filings of pleadings and other documents against these individuals simply based upon the fact that they have handled one of Plaintiffs’ cases. Defendanrs in Morales, et al. v. Baca, et al., have filed a Motion to Enjoin Plaintiffs From Filing Further Actions Without Leave of Court. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 26, and 31.)

On April 12, 2002, Plaintiffs sent to the Honorable James A. Parker and the Honorable Martha Vazquez what purport to be First Set of Admissions and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents or Things. As stated in Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiffs used the caption of the original state court case, Arthur R. Morales et al. v. Robert J. Gorence, et al., CV—2000-10289, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. That action was removed to this Court on November 8, 2000. (Dkt. No. 1.) Consequently, there is no pending action in the New Mexico state court under this caption. The United States Attorney then certified that Defendants Robert J. Corence, John

J. Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and the Honorable Don F. Svet were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the United States of America, United States Department of Justice, or as an employee of the Courts of the United States. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Notice of Substitution of the United States on their behalf was also filed on that date. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Complaint as against the individual Defendants and substituting the United States of America as the sole Defendant was entered by the Court on January 2, 2001. (Dkt. No. 22.) Neither Judge Parker nor Judge Vazquez have ever been parties to this litigation, and written discovery cannot be served upon them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 36.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION CAN ONLY BE PROPOUNDED BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER PARTY.

Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing production of documents and things clearly states: “Any party may serve on any other party a request.” (Emphasis added.)

“Rule 34 itself is limited to parties to the action.” 8A C. Wright, A. Miller & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2204, at 365 (2d ed. 1994) (Wright & Miller) . ~f. United States V. One Parcel of Real Proijerty Described as Lot 41, Berryhill Farm Estates, 128 F.3d 2612, 1397 (10th Cir. 1997); University of Texas at Austin v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), interrogatories may only be directed to a party to an action.”); Jobson v. Henne, 35 F.R.D. 37 (W.D.N.Y. 1964) . Similarly, Rule 36 only provides for requests for admission from one party to another party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) (“A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission . . . of the truth of any matters “) (emphasis added) . Because neither Judge Parker nor Judge Vazquez is a party to this action, it was improper for Plaintiffs to attempt to obtain discovery from them through these mechanisms.

II. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER AN ORDER THAT NO DISCOVERY BE HAD.

Defendant is also requesting the Court to order that no discovery be had on the basis that there are two pending dispositive motions. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on November 30, 2000, which has been fully briefed and is sub ludice. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 16, and 25.) In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute Immunity on July 26, 2001, to which Plaintiffs did not respond. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, and 46.)

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ actions in attempting to obtain written discovery from non-parties, together with their numerous lawsuits, constitute the very type of harassment which Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) is intended to prevent. Wright & Miller, suura, at §2036.

Furthermore, the parties have never met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Therefore, any attempt by Plaintiffs to commence discovery from any source is premature and should be prohibited. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), “a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred .“ (Emphasis added.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Protective Order and order that discovery not be had, declare that the written discovery served on the Honorable James A. Parker and the Honorable Martha Vazquez is invalid, for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
DAVID C. IGLESIAS
United States Attorney

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
(505) 346—7274

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 14, 2002, a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to: Arthur R. Morales, 1024 Los Arboles, NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107; and, William H. Payne, 13015 Calle de Sandias, NE, Al rque, New xico 87111.

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney

N: \FDow\Payne\00cv1574\memo.supp.wpcl

ARTHUR R MORALES
WILLIAM H PAYNE

Plaintiffs,

vs CIVIL NO. 00-1574 William F Downes

ROBERT J. GORENCE, JOHN J.
KELLY, MANUEL LUCERO,
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL,
DON F. SVET,

Defendants.

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow and defendant in civ 2001-05900 writes

COMES NOW Defendant United States of America, by and through David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and Phyllis A. Dow, Assistant United States Attorney, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and respectfully requests the Court for a protective order that discovery not be had. As grounds therefor, it would show the Court the following:

On April 12, 2002, Plaintiffs sent to the Honorable James A. Parker and the Honorable Martha Vazquez what purport to be First Set of Admissions and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents or Things. (Attached as Exhibits A though D.)

Plaintiffs used the caption of the original state court case, Arthur R. Morales et al. v. Robert J. Gorence, et al., CV-2000- 10289, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. That action was removed to this Court on November 8, 2000. (Dkt. No. 1.) Consequently, there is no pending action in the New Mexico state court under this caption.

is a false statement.

New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 is an active 12 person jury trial lawsuit for replevin and harassment.

Exhbit AA is docket sheet, see PN PENDING JURY, printed May 28, 2002.

Dow has made a false statement above IN WRITING before this court.

Dow refers to Dkt. No. 1.

Docket entry 1 reads

11/08/00 11/09/00 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 (vv) (207k)

Replevin and harassment are not federal questions.

New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 was illegally and improperly removed to federal court and given federal label 00-1574. Illegal removal was done in violation of the Anti- Injuction Act 28 USC Sec. 2283

Anti-Injunction Act is a complete prohibition against a federal court injunction of state court proceeding unless the injunction fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute.

Replevin and harassment are state issues, not federal issue.

Plaintiff file motion of stay or proceedings pending hearing in state court. Exhbit BB.

11/28/00 11/28/00 10 MOTION by plaintiffs for stay (sl) (146k)
Re: ORDER , [19]
REPLY [18]
RESPONSE [13]

Judge Martha Vazquez grants stay of removal pending state court hearing. Exhibit CC. Here's the docket entry

12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1] , Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10]

State hearing IS NEVER CONDUCTED!!!

Plaintiffs are denied due process ordered by judge Vazquez.

2 Dow writes

The United States Attorney then certified that Defendants Robert J. Gorence, John J. Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and the Honorable Don F. Svet were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the United States of America, United States Department of Justice, or as an employee of the Courts of the United States. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Notice of Substitution of the United States on their behalf was also filed on that date. (Dkt. No. 4.)

US Attorney Norman Bay issued a fraudulent CERTIFICATION on 16 November 2000.

New Mexico CV-2000-10289 is prima facie for case of replevin for garnishment of $625 from plaintiff

Morales' Sandia National Laboratories wages without due process. Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M Requested hearing was never conducted by $625 was taken from Morales without due process.

But the most significant reason for filing New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 is the prima facie case of harassment against plaintiff by magistrate federal judge Don Svet.Svet signed order of garnishment for $1,793.56 against Arthur Morales and William Payne with no cause of action against Morales. Exhibit J.

This order of garnishment is still outstanding and requires legal resolution.

Breaking New Mexico laws against taking money from without due process and harasassing citizens, is, or should be, outside the scope of federal employees tasked to uphold, not break, laws.

3 Dow writes

The Order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Complaint as against the individual Defendants and substituting the United States of America as the sole Defendant was entered by the Court on January 2, 2001. (Dkt. No. 22.)

Here's docket 22 entry

01/02/01 01/02/01 22 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez substituting parties with the USA (cc: all counsel) (jg) (29k)

And here's Vazquez's ORDER. Exhibit EE.

Vazquez does not wait until state hearing is complete before ruling. Vazquez violatate her own ORDER.

Vazquez harasses plaintiffs using federal court. This is why Vazquez is sued for harassment in New Mexico 01 cv 0634 which, again, was improperly removed to federal court and numbered CV-2001- 03118.

Harassment is not a federal question!

Exhibit EE, of course, is written evidence of Vazquez' guilt in 01 cv 0634 / CV-2001- 03118 as charged.

4 Dow writes

Neither Judge Parker nor Judge Vazquez have ever been parties to this litigation, and written discovery cannot be served upon them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 36. Written discovery can only be propounded by one party to another party.

Dow is apparently incorrect that written discovery can be propounded by one party to another party. Here's the law.

28 USC

Rule 34. - Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes

(c) Persons Not Parties.

A person not a party to the action may be compelled to produce documents and things or to submit to an inspection as provided in Rule 45.

So a person not a party can be compelled to produces wrtten documents.

And here's why.

Rule 45. - Subpoena

(a) Form; Issuance.

(1) Every subpoena shall

(A) state the name of the court; and

(B) state the title of the action, and its civil action number; and

(C) command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that person, or to permit inspection of premises, at a time and place therein specified;

Judge Parker has essential information on New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 illegal remvoal to federal court, then assigned judge William Downes.

Judge Vazquez has essential information on New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 because she didn't follow her own order and wait for ordered state hearing before allow removal and then ruling in improper and illegal 00-1574.

5 Dow writes

Defendant is also requesting that discovery not be had on the basis that there are two pending dispositive motions. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on November 30, 2000, which has been fully briefed and is sub judice. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 16, and 25.)

As this court aka judge William Downes may now be aware that federal courts don't have jurisdiction over replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment. This awareness may be due to the fact that Downes has been sued twice in New Mexico state courts for harassment for ruling when he did not have jurisdiction. Dow apparent requests that this court delay discovery until such a time that this court will act illegally again by ruling on matters which it does not have jurisdiction.

6 Dow writes

In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Based on Absolute Immunity on July 26, 2001, to which Plaintiffs did not respond. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, and 46.)

is yet another false statement by lawyer Dow.

Here's docket entry 46

08/28/01 08/29/01 46 NOTICE by USA of completion of motion packet re motion to dismiss complaint (sl) (8k) Re: RESPONSE [48]

Note that plaintiffs' DID FILE A RESPONSE TO 44, 45, and 46 togther in RESPONSE.

Here's docket entry 48

09/04/01 09/05/01 48 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion of completion of briefing package re motion to dismiss [46-1] (sl) (879k) Re: NOTICE [46]

Lawyer Dow has established pattern and practice of lying to this court IN WRITING!

7 Dow writes

Furthermore, the parties have never met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Therefore, any attempt by the Plaintiffs to commence discovery from any source is premature and should be prohibited. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), “a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred . .2’ (Emphasis added.)

These courts aka judge James A Parker, judge Martha Vazquez, and William F Downes have established a paper trial of judicial misconduct.

We are going to get to get to the bottom of why this occurred.

Since New Mexico CV-2000- 10289 is the same as federal 00-1574, plaintiff are conducting discovery at both the state and federal level.

It is not plaintiff's fault that these courts did not conduct discovery meeting as required.

Plaintiffs cannot wait while these courts violate court jurisdiction and rules even further.

Nothing is getting resolved in this or any other of these lawsuits.

8 Dow writes

Plaintiffs oppose this Motion. Therefore, a Memorandum in Support is submitted herewith.

must be disregarded. And certainly not ruled on. This court aka William F Downes does not have jursidiction over replevin and harasssment.

9 WHEREFORE plaintiffs sincerely feel that judge William F Downes has been serious misled in these unfortunate New Mexico messes.

For this reason plaintiffs are willing to file to dismiss charges against judges William F Downes and Martha Vazquez once these unfortunate matters are settled.

When cases are settled, then plaintiffs will file to dismiss charages. Otherwise cases should be remanded to state court arbitration and/or trial.

Replevin, defamation [libel], and harassment are not federal questions.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on May 28, 2002 to

PHYLLIS A DOW
Assistant US Attorney
POB 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103

Raymond Hamilton
Assistant US Attorney
201 Third Sweet, NW
Suite 900
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Patricio Serna
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

James A Parker
Chief judge
United States District Court
333 Lomas NW.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

William F Downes
Chief Judge; Wyoming
111 South Wolcott
Room 210
Casper, WY 82601
(307) 261-5441
care of
Webmanager@wyd.uscourts.gov

Judge Dee Vance Benson
care of
Louise_York@utd.uscourts.gov

ARTHUR R. MORALES and
WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL NO. 00-1574 MV/WWD ACE

(Judge Downes) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW Defendant by and through undersigned counsel and for its Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Protective Order states as follows:

The majority of Plaintiffs’ Response is a monotonous, incessant rehashing of Plaintiffs’ previous voluminous pleadings both in this case and in the others listed on page one of Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 54.) The issues concerning the propriety of the removal and, in some cases, the certification of federal employees as being within the course and scope cf their employment have been briefed numerous times in those cases. Motions, both dispositive and relating to discovery, have been pending and ready for ruling before this Court and others -or some time.

The only issues before the Court in Defendant United States’ Motion for Protective Order are: (1) whether written discovery can be propounded to a non-party, and (2) whether this Court should enter an order that no discovery be had. Plaintiffs have forwarded absolutely no authority on the first question. It is clear that requests for production and requests for admission can only be served on parties to the lawsuit. Documents can only be obtained from non-parties through subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. SA C. Wright, A. Miller & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2204, at 365 (2d ed. 1994) . Because neither Judge Parker nor Judge Vazquez is a party to this action, the attempt to serve requests for production and requests for admission on them was improper.

On the second matter, Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Protective Order and their purported First Set of Admissions and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents or Things sent to Judge Parker and Judge Vazquez are yet additional examples of why the Court should rule that no discovery be had. Plaintiffs have followed this vexatious and burdensome path of multiple and frivolous pleadings in state court as well. Indeed, the cases listed on page one of Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order all were originally filed in state court and removed to federal court because Plaintiffs had sued federal defendants. An Order has now been entered in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, against Plaintiff Payne prohibiting him from filing any pro se pleadings or any new lawsuits unless filed by a licensed New Mexico attorney or being approved by the judge assigned to the case. The state court found “that the pro se pleadings of William H. Payne are impairing, impeding, delaying, and obstructing the orderly administration of justice, and that Plaintiff William H. Payne is a vexatious litigant . . (Order of May 14, 2002, attached as Exhibit A.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Protective Order and order that discovery not be had, declare that the written discovery served on the Honorable James A. Parker and the Honorable Martha Vazquez is invalid, for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID C. IGLESIAS
United States Attorney

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
(505) 346—7274

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 14, 2002, a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to: Arthur R. Morales, 1024 Los Arboles, NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107; and, William H. Payne, 13015 Calle de Sandias, NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111.

PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney
N:\PDow\Payne\00cv1574\reply.mo.prot.Wpd

Unless otherwise provided by rule of procedure, appeals to the court of appeals shall be taken from the district court in the manner prescribed for appeals to the supreme court.

History: 1953 Comp., § 16-7-9, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 9.

Sec. 2. [Supreme court; appellate jurisdiction.]

Appeals from a judgment of the district court imposing a sentence of death or life imprisonment shall be taken directly to the supreme court. In all other cases, criminal and civil, the supreme court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law; provided that an aggrieved party shall have an absolute right to one appeal. (As amended September 28, 1965.)

1-074. Administrative appeals; statutory review by district court of administrative decisions or orders.

A. Scope of rule. This rule governs appeals from administrative agencies to the district courts when there is a statutory right of review to the district court, whether by appeal, right to petition for a writ of certiorari or other statutory right of review. This rule does not create a right to appeal. For purposes of this rule, an "agency" means any state or local government administrative or quasi-judicial entity.

B. Constitutional review by writ of certiorari. This rule does not apply to:

(1) reviews from administrative agencies when there is no statutory right. If there is no statutory right of appeal or statutory right to writ of certiorari, an aggrieved person may be entitled to a constitutional review of an administrative decision or order pursuant to Rule 1-075 of these rules;

(2) appeals under the Human Rights Act [28-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.]. These appeals are governed by Rule 1-076 of these rules;

(3) the review of decisions relating to unemployment compensation claims under the Unemployment Compensation Law. Appeals from decisions involving unemployment compensation claims are governed by Rule 1-077 of these rules.

C. Filing appeal. When provided or permitted by law, an aggrieved party may appeal a final decision or order of an agency by:

(1) filing with the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal with proof of service; and

(2) promptly filing with the agency a copy of the notice of appeal which has been endorsed by the clerk of the district court.

D. Content of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal shall specify:

(1) each party taking the appeal;

(2) each party against whom the appeal is taken;

(3) the name and address of appellate counsel if different from the person filing the notice of appeal; and

(4) any other information required by the law providing for the appeal to the district court.

A copy of the order or decision of the agency appealed from, showing the date of the order or decision, shall be attached to the notice of appeal filed in the district court.

E. Time for filing appeals. Unless a specific time is provided by law or local ordinance, an appeal from an agency shall be filed in the district court within thirty (30) days after the date of the final decision or order of the agency. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within ten (10) days after the date on which the first notice of appeal was served or within the time otherwise prescribed by this rule, whichever period expires last. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 1-006 does not apply to the time limits set forth in this paragraph. A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision by an agency, but before the decision or order is issued by the agency, shall be treated as timely filed.

F. Service of notice of appeal. At the time the notice of appeal is filed in the district court, the appellant shall:

(1) serve each party or such party's attorney in the administrative proceedings with a copy of the notice of appeal in accordance with Rule 1-005 NMRA;

(2) file proof of service with the clerk of the district court that a copy of the notice of appeal has been served in accordance with Rule 1-005 NMRA; and

(3) file a certificate in the district court that satisfactory arrangements have been made with the agency for preparation and payment for the transcript of the proceedings.

G. Docketing the appeal. Upon the filing of the notice of appeal and proof of service and payment of the docket fee, if required, the clerk of the district court shall docket the appeal in the district court. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, no docket fee or other cost shall be imposed upon a state agency or a political subdivision of the state in any such appeal.

H. Record on appeal. Unless a different period is provided by law, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the notice of appeal with the agency pursuant to Paragraph B of this rule, the agency shall file with the clerk of the district court the record on appeal taken in the proceedings. For purposes of this rule the record on appeal shall consist of:

(1) a title page containing the names and mailing addresses of each party or, if the party is represented by counsel, the name and address of the attorney;

(2) a copy of all papers and pleadings filed in the proceedings of the agency;

(3) a copy of the final decision or order sought to be reviewed with date of issuance noted thereon;

(4) any exhibits; and

(5) the transcript of the proceedings, if any. If the transcript of the proceedings is an audio or audio-video recording, the agency shall prepare and file with the district court a duplicate of the tape and index log. If the proceedings were stenographically recorded, the agency shall transcribe and file with the court those parts of the record specified by any party.

Any party desiring a copy of the transcript of the proceedings shall be responsible for paying the cost, if any, of preparing such copy. The agency shall give prompt notice to all parties of the filing of the record on appeal with the court.

I. Correction or modification of the record. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record on appeal by error or accident, the parties by stipulation, or the agency on request, or the district court, on proper suggestion or on its own initiative, may direct that the omission be corrected and a supplemental record transmitted to the district court.

J. Statement of appellate issues. A statement of appellate issues shall be filed with the district court as follows:

(1) the appellant's statement shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the record on appeal in the district court;

(2) the appellee's response shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days after service of the appellant's statement of issues; and

(3) if the appellee files a response, the appellant may file a reply to the appellee's response within fifteen (15) days after service of the appellee's response.

K. Appellant's statement of appellate issues. The appellant's statement of the appellate issues, under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated, shall contain:

(1) a statement of the issues;

(2) a summary of the proceedings, which shall indicate briefly the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition of the agency. The summary shall include a short recitation of all facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record on appeal showing how the issues were preserved in the proceedings before the agency;

(3) an argument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each issue presented in the statement of appellate issues, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record on appeal relied upon. New Mexico decisions, if any, shall be cited; and

(4) a statement of the precise relief sought.

L. Appellee's statement of appellate issues; response. The appellee's response shall conform to the requirements of Subparagraphs (1) to (4) of Paragraph K of this rule, except that a statement of the issues or summary of the proceedings shall not be made unless the appellant's statement of issues or a summary of the proceedings is disputed or is incomplete.

M. References in statement of appellate issues. References in the statement of appellate issues shall be to the pages of the record on appeal or, if the reference is to a tape recording, the approximate counter numbers of the tape as shown on the index log shall be used. If reference is made to evidence the admissibility of which is in controversy, reference shall be to the place in the record on appeal at which the evidence was identified, offered, and received or rejected.

N. Length of statements of appellate issues. Except by permission of the court, the argument portion of the appellant's statement of appellate issues shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Except by permission of the court, the appellee's response shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Any reply to the appellee's response shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

O. Briefs. Briefs may be filed only by leave of the district court and upon such conditions as the court may direct.

P. Oral argument. Upon motion of a party or on the court's own motion, the court may allow oral argument.

Q. Scope of review. The district court may reverse the decision of the agency if:

(1) the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously;

(2) based upon the whole record on appeal, the decision of the agency is not supported by substantial evidence;

(3) the action of the agency was outside the scope of authority of the agency; or

(4) the action of the agency was otherwise not in accordance with law.

R. Rehearing. A motion for reconsideration may be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the district court's final order. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 1-006 does not apply to the time limits set by this rule. The motion shall state briefly and with particularity, but without argument, the points of law or fact that in the opinion of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended. No response to a motion for rehearing shall be filed unless requested by the court.

S. Stay. A party appealing a decision or order of an agency may petition the district court for a stay of enforcement of the order or decision of the agency. Upon notice and hearing, the district court may grant a stay of enforcement of the order or decision of the agency upon showing by the appellant that:

(1) it is likely that the appellant will prevail on the merits of the appeal;

(2) the appellant will suffer irreparable harm unless a stay is granted; and

(3) no substantial harm will result to other interested persons or the public if a stay is granted.

As a condition of granting a stay, the court may require the posting of a surety or other bond sufficient to assure the payment of any amount that may be owed to a party upon final determination of the appeal.

T. Appeal. An aggrieved party may seek review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

U. Conflict between statute authorizing appeal. If there is a conflict between the time period for taking an appeal set forth in this