WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY PLAN

1 Assistant US Attorney Phyllis 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.

CV 2000-10278 was improperly removed to federal court and numbered CIVIL No. 00-1677.

2 This Court, aka William F Downes, ruled in CIVIL No. 00-1677 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 plaintiff 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.

5 Judge Downes is responsible for not allowing plaintiff prima facie case of libel and harassment to be presented for a jury trails which he paid for and is guaranteed under the constitution of the state of New Mexico.

Words "prima facie" are used because all of the evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing. Exhibit A and http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Lawyer Stephen D. Aarons noted in 1994 about plaintiff

6 Given the nature of this lawsuit, where defendants allege some sort of security infraction by plaintiff as justification for his firing, such communication under the guise of national security violated plaintiff's due process rights. Plaintiff has been prejudiced by this improper communication coupled with protracted delays. ...

Plaintiff has been wrongly made to be sort of an security risk and un-American when refusing to do illegal electronic lock breaking work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation..

While Plaintiff will properly pursue enforcment of federal criminal provision of Privacy Act with judge Dee Vance Benson for distribution of the documents seen in Exhibit A, Plaintiff continues to feel that settlement is best.

Plaintiff is willing to settle to bring these unfortunate matters to closure.

Respectfully submitted,

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF JUDGE WILLIAM F DOWNES TO PROVIDE ANTI-INJUNCTION AFFIDAVIT

1 New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV 2000-10278 was removed to New Mexico federal court on November 11, 2000 by Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow. Docket entry 1, Exhibit A.

Title of the case was complaint for relief from defamation and harassment. The state case was given number CIVIL No. 00-1677.

2 On April 27, 2001 Chief Judge James A. Parker recuses all judicial officers of the District of NM and reassigns case to Chief U.S. District Judge William F. Downes of District of Wyoming. Docket entry 69, Exhibit A.

3 Downes was repeatedly informed that defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

4 Finally Downs was asked to provide an affidavit by August 20, 2001 stating which exceptions and citing references allowed removal of defamation and harassment state case to federal court. Downes must do this to be in compliance with

16 Courts 598-1

Anti-Injunction Act is a complete prohibition against a federal court injunction of state court proceeding unless the injunction fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. 28 USC Sec. 2283

5 AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM PAYNE

As of August 23, 2001 just after mail delivery at about 13:30 I have not received any affidavit from judges Downes to comply with the anti-injunction act to show federal exemptions to permit remove of defamation[libel] New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV 2000-10278 to federal court.

Moreover, I have not received any communications from judge Downes on CIVIL No. 00-1677 despite his about four months apparent involvement in this case WITH 89 ENTRIES ON THE DOCKET SHEET AS OF AUGUST 23, 2001. Exhibit A.

I regard judge Downes inaction as a conspiracy with Assistant US Attorney and the Rodey law firm to harass and stalk me using federal court. This violates New Mexico state law.

I am unfairly and illegally being denied my right to a jury trial for a prima facie case of libel. I aid about $300 my right under the New Mexico constitution for this jury trial.

Verification

Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material factual statements set forth in this pleading are true and correct, except as to any matters therein stated to be information and belief of such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that the undersigned verily believes the same to be true.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________

by William H, Payne ________________________________

Notary Public ______________________________________

My Commission Expires:

Respectfully submitted,

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to

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

Robert M. St.John, Mark A Smith, Larry Montaño
RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN , AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Telephone: (505) 765-5900
Facsimile: (505) 768-7395
http://rodey.com
info@rodey.com

Kenneth G. Brown
Thirteenth Judicial District Div. II
100 Avenida de Justicia
Bernalillo, NM 87004

W. John Brennan
Chief District Judge, Division XIV
P.O. Box 488
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
841-7499

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

August 23, 2001

CASE NUMBER

William H Payne

Plaintiff

v

Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories
American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn
John A. Bannerman
Charles Burtner
Lorenzo F. Garcia
Michael G. Robles
Carol Lisa Smith

Defendants

Complaint for

Relief from DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT

1 Citizen Richard Gallegos gives documents in Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 to citizen Arthur Morales. Morales gives documents to Payne on Saturday March 22, 1997. Exhibit A 4 show that the documents clearly refer to plaintiff W. H. Payne since his signature is affixed to that document.

Payne had not seen Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 documents before March 22, 1997.

The documents contain false information.

Release of documents like those seen in Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 without written consent is a criminal violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm

5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states,

CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE - No agency shall disclose any record which is contain in a systems of records by any means of communications to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to who the record pertains, ...

5 USC 552a(i)1 applies.

CRIMINAL PENALTIES. - Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

Further,

The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency denies access to a record or refuses to amend a record. An individual may sue an agency if the agency fails to maintain records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination and the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the individual. An individual may also sue an agency if the agency fails to comply with any other Privacy Act provision in a manner that has an adverse effect on the individual.

An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the Federal District Court in which the individual lives, in which the records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date on which the basis for the lawsuit arose.

http://www.epic.org/open_gov/citizens_guide_93.html

EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES

I. Generally

In recent years the trend has become for employers not to give detailed or even meaningful employment references when asked to do so. Most employers today either give no employment reference information or merely confirm that the (former) employee worked for the employer during specified dates and at a certain rank or position. The rationale for the unwillingness to provide more complete or specific information is that employers must minimize their risk of exposure to workplace defamation liability.

Generally, an employer is liable to an employee for defamation if the employer publishes a false statement about the employee that harms the employee's reputation and that is not privileged.

Each element of a defamation action is examined briefly below.

First, employers cannot make false statements about an employee. Employers can now be held liable for false statements only if they are responsible for the falsity. This means that the employer can be held liable for a false statements only if they were negligent in attempting to ensure the truthfulness of the statement. In other words, employers are not liable for a false statement if they were not negligent in their attempts to ensure that the statement was true before they published it.

RISK-FREE HIRING: How to Interview, Check References and Use Pre- employment Testing without Triggering Liability PRESENTED TO: COUNCIL ON EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO JUNE 25, 1997

PRESENTED BY: DEBRA J. MOULTON, ESQ. KAREN KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 6400 UPTOWN BLVD., NE, SUITE 630-E ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87110 (505) 884-7887

_____

7-1 Defamation Defined

The test for defamation is not merely a statement that hurts one's reputation. Defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement of fact. When defamation occurs in written form it is called libel. When the defamation is an oral communication, it is called slander. In order to prove that one has been defamed, the New Mexico courts rely on proof of the following facts:

1. that there was a defamatory statement of fact concerning another (i.e. a statement, as opposed to an opinion, that tends to lower the employee in the esteem of the community or other respectable individuals);

2. the statement must be published; that is it must be spoken or otherwise communicated to at least one person, usually a "third party," other than the complaining party;

3. fault amounting at least to negligence (should have known it was false) on part of the publisher, or, if the employer is a public official, the statement must have been made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth; and

4. that the statement was the proximate cause of actual injury to the employee.

It is imperative that employers take action to stop all defamatory actions by their employees, even in the realm of horseplay, since there exists in New Mexico both criminal, and civil liability for such actions.

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT IN NEW MEXICO: A Complete Desktop Guide to Employment Law, ERIC SIROTKIN Butterworth, 1994.

While it may seem obvious to readers of Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 that both Sandia National Laboratories and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission got caught in writing violating both the criminal and civil portion of the Privacy Act and should settle, the federal government decided to fight in federal court relying on cooperation of federal judges to protect it.

However, in this case the federal judge violated New Mexico state law in by mounting a campaign of harassment instead of administering a fair jury trial his zeal to protect the US government from liability.

Therefore, on advice of Mew Mexico Federal Magistrate Judge Karen B Molzen and others legal remedy reverts to state court for hearing defamation and harassment complaints. See section 20 this document.

2 Payne brought suit CIV 99-270 against defendants and others on March 12, 1999 in US District Court for the District of New Mexico for violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 9 docket entry 1.

3 Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia presides.

4 May 12, 1999 Payne moves in CIV 99-270 for summons service by US marshal for defendants Larry Trujillo, R A Polansacz, and C A Searles. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  page 8 docket entry 12.

5 Garcia denies service in CIV 99-270 May 24, 1999 claiming that Payne can only use US marshal service in a in forma pauperis case. Exhibit C1 2, Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  page 8 docket entry 18.

Payne never claimed he filed in forma pauperis and can, in fact, use US marshal service if he pays about $25 per summons.

Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.

6 On 8/4/99 in CIV 99-270 defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,

Smith and Bannerman file

MOTION by defts R A Poloncasz, C A Searls, and E Dunckel |to dismiss this action against them without prejudice| (rd) Re:MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and ... [87]

Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  page 7 docket entry 58.

7 On 11/12/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia grants

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59-1] dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and R A Poloncasz without prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (11k) Re: MOTION to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59]

Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 3 docket entry 87.

Garcia gives as reason that Dunckel, Searls and Poloncasz have not been properly served.

Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.

8 Payne in CIV 99-270 files Docket entry 34 Exhibit D1 2. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 7 docket entry 34.

6/8/99 34 AFFIDAVIT of William H. Payne to remove Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia from this action (rd) [Entry date 06/09/99]

9 Garcia falsely identifies Payne's AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia as a "motion" and denies it. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 7 docket entry 35.

6/9/99 35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying motion to disqualify (affidavit to remove Judge Garcia) [34-11 (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) [Entry date 06/10/991

Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.

10 Payne gives Garcia opportunity to correct AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia.

6/16/99 37 MOTION by Payne to alter or amend order denying motion to disqualify (sl)

Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 7  docket entry 37.

Garcia's refuses to obey law.

6/16/99 38 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying pltf's motion to alter or amend order denying motion to disqualify [37-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd)

Citizen Garcia continues to harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law,

11 May 25, 1999 Payne left for an extended business trip. Payne informed the court. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 8 docket entry 20.

12 On 06/02/99 in CIV 99-270 Defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,

Smith and Bannerman file

MOTION by Sandia defts |for sanctions due to violations of Rule 11(b)(2)| (rd) Re: RESPONSE [76] MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER [52] MEMORANDUM [24]

Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 8 docket entry 23.

13 June 18, 1999 Payne files for Motion for time extension of 90 days to answer Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 7 docket entry 39.

14 On 08/05/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia files

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia assessing costs in favor of Sandia defts and against pltf in the amount of $912.50 to be paid within twenty (20) days [55-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) (8k) Re: NOTICE [55]

Garcia was removed from CIV 99-270 on 6/8/99 and, therefore, has no authority to order sanctions against Payne.

Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.

15 On August 12, 1999 Payne files for writ of prohibition by certified mail with judge

Antonin Scalia.

Payne wrote

I sued under the Privacy Act as a result of false and defaming documents about my self distributed by Sandia Labs and EEOC.

These are seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/congress/8327/robles.htm

Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 shows that magistrate judge Garcia dismisses my air-tight Privacy Act Defamation lawsuit.

Exhibit C1 2  shows that judge Garcia has the gall to attempt to assess me with fees.

2 I ask that you issue a writ of prohibition to judge Garcia to stay his August 5 ORDER ASSESSING COST IN FAVOR OF SANDIA DEFENDANTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF WILLIAM H. PAYNE because written evident seen at http: //www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/robles.htm controverts Garcia' s claims.

Scalia does not respond.

Garcia, of course, was removed from case on June 8, 1999 and had no authority to rule.

Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.

16 Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file lien again Payne's and wife property on January 19, 2000. Exhibit D1 2.

Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman, knowing that Garcia was removed by affidavit harass Payne by filing illegal lien.

Rule 11(b)(2) states

Rule 11. Signing of Pleading, Motions, and other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

Evidence in documents in Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  clearly violate the both the criminal and civil provision of the Privacy Act.

CIV 99-270 is not frivolous.

Citizens Garcia, Smith and Bannerman law firm Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.

17 Payne files DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL in CIV 99-270 on March 24, 1999. Exhibit B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 page 9 docket entry 3.

On 03/17/99 paid the filing fee for this jury trial guaranteed him by the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Garcia, however, judged case without a jury trial.

Citizen Garcia denied Payne's right for jury trial and thereby harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.

18 New Mexico state law, ARTICLE 3A, defines

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.

19 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of Garcia's, Smith's and Bannerman's harassment acts by certified letter on February 26, 2000.

Administrative settlement of these and other misconduct was proposed.

Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000.

Deaton does not respond.

20 Magistrate judge Karen B Molzen schedules telephone status conference for Monday August 30, 1999 at 2:00pm. Exhibit E and B5 docket entry 61. Payne is in Pullman, WA.

Conference takes place between 13:40 and 13:17 pacific daylight time.

Defendant lawyer Smith is part of conference call.

Molzen conducts informal discussion with Smith.

Molzen points out to Smith that Molzen believes that Payne has a state defamation case.

Molzen, Payne believes, says conversation is recorded.

While the Privacy Act violation portion of this matter is currently being reviewed by the

Tenth Circuit, the defamation portion is now being tried, as Molzen and others recommend, in state court.

WHEREFORE

21 Order Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Bannerman and Smith to pay Payne $912.50 to satisfy lien.

22 Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Garcia for disallowing service by US marshal, failure to remove himself from CIV 99-270 after affidavit was file, ordering Payne to pay $912.50 after Garcia was removed from case, and denying trial by jury which Payne paid for and was guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Garcia is engaged in pattern and practice of harassment to deny rights due Payne under the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn for allowing lawyers Smith and Bannerman to harass him. Smith and Bannerman have engaged in pattern and practice of harassing Payne.

23 Punitive damages of $1,000,000 each from Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories, American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Lockheed Martin Corporation for the preparation and distribution of libelous and defaming false documents distributed without Payne's knowledge seen in Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .

24 Punitive damages of $50,000 each from Charles Burtner and Michael G. Robles distributing the false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .

25 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 Lorenzo Garcia, John Bannerman, and Carol Smith, for violation of the New Mexico state laws on harassment.

26 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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING PACKAGE

1 Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow writes

NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the briefing package on the United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment is complete and is ready for decision. The package consists of the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 78, the United States’ Memorandum in Support, Doc. No. 79, the Plaintiff’s Response, Doc. No. 81, and the United States’ Reply, Doc. No. 84.

must be rejected on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction over defamation[libel] or harassment. New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV 2000-10278 was illegally removed to federal court and given number CIVIL No. 00-1677. Defamation[libel] or harassment are not federal questions.

2 The false documents seen in Exhibit A constitute a prima facie case of libel.

30-11-1. Libel.

Libel consists of making, writing, publishing, selling or circulating without good motives and justifiable ends, any false and malicious statement affecting the reputation, business or occupation of another, or which exposes another to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace.

Whoever commits libel is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The word "malicious," as used in this article, signifies an act done with evil or mischievous design and it is not necessary to prove any special facts showing ill-feeling on the part of the person who is concerned in making, printing, publishing or circulating a libelous statement against the person injured thereby.

A. A person is the maker of a libel who originally contrived and either executed it himself by writing, printing, engraving or painting, or dictated, caused or procured it to be done by others.

B. A person is the publisher of a libel who either of his own will or by the persuasion or dictation, or at the solicitation or employment for hire of another, executes the same in any of the modes pointed out as constituting a libel; but if anyone by force or threats is compelled to execute such libel he is guilty of no crime.

C. A person is guilty of circulating a libel who, knowing its contents, either sells, distributes or gives, or who, with malicious design, reads or exhibits it to others.

D. The written, printed or published statement to come within the definition of libel must falsely convey the idea either:

(1) that the person to whom it refers has been guilty of some penal offenses; (2) that he has been guilty of some act or omission which, though not a penal offense, is disgraceful to him as a member of society, and the natural consequence of which is to bring him into contempt among honorable persons; (3) that he has some moral vice or physical defect or disease which renders him unfit for intercourse with respectable society, and as such should cause him to be generally avoided; (4) that he is notoriously of bad or infamous character; or (5) that any person in office or a candidate therefor is dishonest and therefore unworthy of such office, or that while in office he has been guilty of some malfeasance rendering him unworthy of the place. E. It shall be sufficient to constitute the crime of libel if the natural consequence of the publication of the same is to injure the person defamed although no actual injury to his reputation need be proven. F. No statement made in the course of a legislative or judicial proceeding, whether true or false, although made with intent to injure and for malicious purposes, comes within the definition of libel. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-11-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 11-1.

In addition the false and libelous documents seen in Exhibit A violate the criminal provisions of

THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 5 U.S.C. § 552A As Amended Records maintained on individuals (i)(1) Criminal penalties

Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

(2) Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm

Instead of enforcing violation of state and federal laws we have federal magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia and state judge Ted Baca along with Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow attempting to subvert both state and federal laws by illegally removing New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV 2000-10278 to federal court presumably to be dismissed by judge William F Downes.

3 However, Downes may be participant along with US Attorney Phyllis Dow, in violating the anti-injunction act.

16 Courts 598-1

Anti-Injunction Act is a complete prohibition against a federal court injunction of state court proceeding unless the injunction fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. 28 USC Sec. 2283

4 WHEREFORE judge Downes is either asked to

A state in an affidavit citing law where libel and harassment are one of the "exceptions specifically set forth in the statute. 28 USC Sec. 2283 to give federal jurisdiction

B remand CIVIL No. 00-1677 so that it can be heard by jury trial as New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV 2000-10278 BY AUGUST 20, 2001.

Plantiff prays that harassing and stalking using federal court and Department of Justice employees be discontinued.

Discontinue harassing and stalking plaintiff using federal court and Department of Justice employees.

Respectfully submitted,

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to

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

Robert M. St.John, Mark A Smith, Larry Montaño
RODEY, DICKASON SLOAN , AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
P.O. Box 1888
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Telephone: (505) 765-5900
Facsimile: (505) 768-7395
http://rodey.com
info@rodey.com

Kenneth G. Brown
Thirteenth Judicial District Div. II
100 Avenida de Justicia
Bernalillo, NM 87004

W. John Brennan
Chief District Judge, Division XIV
P.O. Box 488
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
841-7499

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

August 15, 2001

WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

1 This motion is brought under Rule 52

Rule 52. - Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings

(b)

Amendment. Upon motion of a party, or upon its own motion, made not later than 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made an objection in this court to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.

2 Judge William F Downes and this federal court does not have jurisdiction over Defamation [libel] or harassment.

3 Judge William F Downes is defendant in plaintiff's New Mexico lawsuit CV-200105900 which was improperly removed to federal court and numbed 01 cv 1132. Judge Downes is obviously biased and cannot properly rule in CIV 00-1677.

4 Judge Downes did not have the courtesy to respond to plaintiff's requests for jurisdiction justification that were relevant and critical to the process and progress of this lawsuit.

5 Judge Does did not send plaintiff copy of ruling in CIVIL NO. 00-1574 William F Downes. Downes only sent co-plaintiff a copy.

6 WHEREFORE plaintiff ask that judge Downes withdraw his ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND ORDER FILED 01 JAN 11 so that CIV 00-1677 can be assigned to a fair and unbiased judge.

Respectfully submitted,

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 June 7, 2002 to

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

James A Parker
Chief judge
care of
webmaster@nmcourt.fed.us

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

WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL No. 00-1677 William F Downes

SANDIA CORPORATION, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, KREHBIEL, BANNERMAN & HORN,
JOHN A. BANNERMAN, CHARLES BURTNER,
LORENZO F. GARCIA, MICHAEL G. ROBLES, and
CAROL LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABLITY

1 Plaintiff Payne will be unavailable because of long range travel plans from Saturday June 8, 2002 until July 24, 2002

Respectfully submitted,

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 June 7, 2002 to

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

James A Parker
care of
webmaster@nmcourt.fed.us

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