| Vazquez Oversteps Judicial Bounds
By HENRY MARK HOLZER
First Amendment Scholar
Before a person or object can be unthrottled, there must
first be a throttling. And that's what happened in New Mexico last week, when
U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez throttled the First Amendment.
A provision of the Albuquerque City Charter limits
expenditures by mayoral candidates arid punishes violation with fines,
reprimand and even removal from office.
Candidate Rick Homans overspent. He sued, claiming that the
charter provision violated his rights under the First Amendment to the
Constitution. Homans relied on the Supreme Courts decision in Buckley v. Valeo
that spending money for electoral purposes was a form of speech protected by
the First Amendment.
Although Buckley is quite clear on this point — and
although some years ago, in a case of mine, a colleague of Judge Vazquez had
declared unconstitutional a New Mexico statute providing that funds raised for
a federal election (i.e., Congress) could not be used in a state election
campaign (New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales) — Vazquez refused
to enjoin enforcement of the Albuquerque expenditure cap.
Even though a district judge like Vazquez is bound by
higher-court precedent, and even though it is the sworn constitutional duty of
federal district judges to apply those precedents, in the Homans case Vazquez
violated her oath.
Buckley, decided in 1976, was decades old, she noted. One
wonders how Vazquez would react to the argument that Roe v. Wade, decided in
1973, has lost its vitality after nearly three decades.
Then, there were some non-binding statements from lower
courts, whose ideas apparently impressed Vazquez. There is, she said, an
"abundance of judicial commentary on compelling governmental interests which
fall outside the ambit of Buckley"' — on the basis of which she found that
the Albuquerque expenditure cap fostered such interests. How? By preserving
faith in democracy and reducing the appearance of corruption. In other words;
because there is some non-binding language in some lower court cases, despite
what the Supreme Court held in Buckley, it was constitutionally permissible for
Albuquerque to punish Homans for spending more than the good citizens of that
city thought he should spend — even if it was his own money — in aid
of his mayoral aspirations.
v In addition, Vazquez claimed that the Supreme Court was
currently divided over the scope of Buckley. However, in making this claim she
failed to note the distinction that case made between permissible restrictions
on campaign contributions and impermissible restrictions on campaign
expenditures, the latter being the only aspect of the Albuquerque cap being
challenged by candidate Homans.
Finally, Judge Vazquez — confusing her role in our
constitutional separation of powers system with that of the elected and
politically accountable Legislature — observed that the public. favors
spending limits because they supposedly improve the fairness of elections and
ensure an equal playing field regardless of one's financial resources, thus
eliminating or at least reducing reliance on "special interests."
Homans immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals. That court promptly reversed Vazquez, ruling, in essence, that she
had misread and failed to be bound by Buckley, and refuting every one of the
"reasons" she had offered in support of her refusal to enjoin enforcement of
the Albuquerque charter provision.
The important point here, however, transcends Vazquez's
refusal to enjoin a patently unconstitutional law. It transcends the Court of
Appeals' summary reversal of her lawless conduct.
Why Judge Vazquez refused to enjoin enforcement of a
patently unconstitutional law is the most important part of this story. She
refused because, like many judges, Vazquez apparently believes that it is an
appropriate function of courts to make policy decisions rather than to
interpret and apply the Constitution and laws that judges are sworn, to
uphold.
As a federal judge with lifetime tenure, Martha Vazquez is
not politically accountable. That lack of accountability too often spawns a
judicial arrogance that can be checked in only two ways. One, as we have just
seen, is through reversal by a higher court. The other is through the
appointment process for federal judges.
Those who revere and understand the irreplaceable value of
the First Amendment must insist that, like the president of the United States,
appointed federal judges take seriously their duty to "preserve, protect and
defend" not only the First Amendment, but the entire Constitution.
A member of the New York Bar and a First Amendment Fellow of
the National Press Club, Henry Mark Holzer is professor emeritus at Brooklyn
Law School and co-author of the soon to be published "Aid and Comfort: Jane
Fonda in North Viet. Nam. He may be contacted at
HankHolzer@aol.com.
Albuquerque Journal Saturday September 16, 2001
We respond to Anaya's settlement letter with our ideas
on settlement.
The French law firm is in a real bind for having gotten
caught submitting a fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET to the New Mexico state court
system to get the state lawsuit removed to federal court. This is a
fourth degree felony.
Morales had to do some errands so we just barely made
filing on the last day.
The clerk's office closes at 4:30. We could have
used the court drop box or delayed until the following day. But this is
not good. Try to get your filings in on time.
Note the 4. We number copies with 0 being the
original.
The opposition has a bit of a problem on how to get
01cv00634 off the record since the feds don't have
jurisdiction.
We'll let the fed grapple with this one.
We, of course, will sue again after the 10th if this is
not settled. The reason is that only formal things work. We have to
get issue on the table to get money settlement. Wednesday September 5, 2001 08:09
| Tuesday September 4, 200 3:22 PM
Christina E Anaya esq
French and Associates,
PC
500 Marquette NW Suite 600
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
505 843
7075
Dear Ms Anaya:
Purpose of this letter is to respond to your threat
letter dated August 31, Exhibit A, with this promise letter.
And suggest prompt settlement of federal lawsuit
01cv00634.
You write
As you know, this office represents
Defendant Ted Baca. I am writing this letter in the hope that you will take
what I say under consideration and agree to dismiss your claims against Judge
Baca with prejudice. I am also requesting that you withdraw Plaintiffs’
Motion for Sanctions for False Certification of Notice of Removal (filed June
11, 2001) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent Civil
Cover Sheet (filed June 11, 2001). I will address each request in turn.
Your sentences appear threats.
We feel that after you read our responses, French
and Associate's insurance carrier and Mr. Haas of the state of New Mexico will
properly advise you of the merits of our settlement proposal.
You write
Claims Against Judge Baca
On June 18, 2001, this firm filed a Motion to
Dismiss your claims against Judge Baca with prejudice on the basis of absolute
judicial immunity. To date, you have not filed a response. Based on the facts
alleged in your Complaint and the clearly established law set forth in our
Motion, I want to remind you that you have no viable claims against Judge Baca.
Judge Baca was clearly acting in his judicial capacity at all times material to
the allegations in your Complaint.
is absolutely incorrect.
Judge Baca is being sued for harassment. Harassment
is not a federal question.
As you may or may not know 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.
permits only limited removal of state cases to
federal court.
Baca illegally permitted removal of New Mexico state
lawsuit cv 20010278 for harassment and defamation[libel] to federal court in an
apparent conspiracy to harass Payne. Exhibit C.
Judge Baca apparently either
A did not know about the anti-injunction
act and permitted removal to federal court B or may be part of a conspiracy
with the Rodey law firm Assistant US attorney Phyllis Dow, and judge William F
Downes to harass plaintiff with perjured documents.
This, of course, is the subject of New Mexico state
lawsuit CV 2001 05900. Exhibit B.
New Mexico state judge W Daniel Schneider in similar
lawsuit cv 20010289 for harassment and replevin by Plaintiff Morales and Payne
keeps case open a pending jury trial. Exhibit D. This is even after Assistant
US Attorney Raymond Hamilton illegally removed it to federal court and renamed
it 00cv01574!
So Baca closes case and Schnieder does not.
Appearance of apparent judicial misconduct in
01cv00634 apparently prompts New Mexico Second judicial chief judge W John
Brennan to recuse all second judicial court judges. Exhibit E arrow 2.
Your law firm's non-response to Brennan's request
causes clerk to file certificate to New Mexico Supreme Court. Exhibit E, arrow
2.
New Mexico supreme court chief judge Patricio Serna
designate judge Kenneth G Brown to hear cv- 2000103118, Exhibit E arrow 3. Of
course, New Mexico cv- 2000103118 and federal 01cv00634 are both the same
complaint!
Federal judge William F Downes was asked to provide
an affidavit under the 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.
that harassment was an exemption by August 20,
docket entry 51 Exhibit E. Downes did not respond, docket entry 47 Exhibit
E.
The conclusion is that Downes knows that harassment
is not a federal question.
So your statement
[I] want to remind you that you have no viable
claims against Judge Baca. Judge Baca was clearly acting in his judicial
capacity at all times material to the allegations in your Complaint. is clearly
false. Baca's superior judges Brennan and Serna have ordered Baca to trial in
cv- 2000103118 in the court of Kenneth Brown! See Exhibit E arrow 6.
Further, French and Associate responds to cv-
2000103118. Exhibit E arrows 4 and 5. Therefore, your firm acknowledges that
federal 01cv00634 is merely harassment of plaintiffs using federal court.
You write
Therefore, Judge Baca is entitled to
absolute immunity for his alleged actions. See Antoine v. Byers & Anderson,
508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam);
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkmau, 435 U.S. 349,
355- 56(1978); Piersonv. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) Bradley v. Fisher, 80
U.S. 335, 347 (1871); Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F.2d 54, 58 (10th Cir. 1957); Snell
v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 687 (10th Cir 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 976
(1991); Christensen v. McGovern, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 999 (1990); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1435 (l0thCir.
1986); Shepherdson v. Nigro, 179 F.R.D. 150, 152 (E.D. Penn. 1998); Whitcombe
v. Weyerhaeuser Cop., 907 F.2d 155, 1990 WL 95567 at **1 (9th Cir. 1990);
Edwards v. Wiley, 70 N.M. 400, 402, 374 P.2d 284, 286 (1962); Galindo v.
Western States Collection Company, Inc., 82 N.M. 149, 152, 477 P.2d 325, 328
(1970).
Baca is not entitled to absolute immunity for
permitting removal New Mexico cv- 2000103118 to federal court. Baca is merely a
co-conspirator with French and Associates, Assistant US Attorney John J Zavits,
and judge William F Downes in harassing using in federal court.
You write
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for False
Certification of Notice of Removal (filed June 11, 2001)
Your Motion for Sanctions for False Certification
of Notice of Removal similarly lacks any merit. On June 4, 2001, this firm
removed this case from the Second Judicial District Court for the County of
Bernalillo to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
See Notice of Removal (filed June 4, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. On June 11, 2001,
you filed a Motion for Sanctions for False Certification of Removal. See
[Docket No. 12] (“Motion”). Although the substance of your Motion was
vague and largely unintelligible, it appears that you were alleging that the
envelopes in which defense counsel mailed copies of the removal pleadings to
you came unsealed. You also appear to be alleging that on a separate occasion,
defense counsel sent you only the first page of the Notice of Removal. On this
basis, you allege that defense counsel did not “properly inform[ I
plaintiffs” of the removal and that this was done to “harass or cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation[.]” See
id. at 2. Therefore, you requested that the Court impose sanctions against
defense counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. See id. at4.
Your allegations, even if accepted as true, do not
establish a basis for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. Your allegations
that the envelopes in which you received your copies of the removal pleadings
were unsealed is certainly no cause for imposing sanctions on defense counsel.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). How or why the envelopes containing your copies of the
removal pleadings opened during the mailing process is unknown to defense
counsel.
Your allegations that defense counsel subsequently
sent you only the first page of the Notice of Removal likewise lacks any basis
for imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. On June 4, 2001, defense counsel
mailed copies of the removal pleadings to all parties and simultaneously filed
the pleadings with the Court. After obtaining the endorsed copies from the
Clerk’s Office, defense counsel mailed the endorsed face sheets to all
parties for their files. Such a practice is intended to facilitate the
parties’ ability to track the filing dates of pleadings in this matter,
not to harass, cause unnecessary delays or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b)(1). In your Motion, you cited no authority
to the Court and defense counsel is unaware of any authority finding that
conduct such as that alleged warrants the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions
Moreover, you failed to comply with Rule 1l’s
procedural requirements. A motion for sanctions under Rule 11 must be served on
the opposing party in advance of filing it with the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1
1(c)(1)(A). Only if the challenged item is not withdrawn or corrected within 21
days after service should the movant file the motion or present it to the
court. Id. Rule 11 s “safe harbor” provision is mandatory and your
failure to comply with Rule I1s procedural requirements requires the denial of
your Motion. See Aerotech. Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1528-29 (10th Cir.
1997) (citing Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995)). You failed
to serve defense counsel with this Motion in advance of filing it. Instead, you
bypassed this requirement and filed your Motion for sanctions directly with the
Court on June 11, 2001. You are therefore procedurally barred from obtaining
sanctions against defense counsel under Rule 11. See id. Your paragraphs
ramble.
You write
How or why the envelopes containing your
copies of the removal pleadings opened during the mailing process is unknown to
defense counsel.
This is unsupported in court document by affidavit.
We issued our affidavits that we were not properly served by you. Our motion
for sanctions under rule 11 are well-taken and will not be rescinded.
There were no corrective actions which could be
taken by French and Associates which could undo its rule 11 violations.
Therefore, correction portion of rule 11 is inapplicable.
You write
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for
Filing Fraudulent Civil Cover Sheet (filed June 11, 2001)
Your Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent
Civil Cover Sheet wholly lacks merit. This firm removed this case from the
Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo to the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See Notice of Removal
(filed June 4, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. As part of the removal process, defense
counsel filled out a Civil Cover Sheet. In your Motion you allege that defense
counsel fraudulently indicated on the Civil Cover Sheet that the basis of the
Court’s jurisdiction is a federal question. See Motion, p. 1 and Exhibit A
attached thereto. You assert that because the title of your Complaint is
“Complaint for Relief from Harassment” the case involves only matters
of state law. See id. On this basis, you request that the Court impose
sanctions against this firm pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
In your Motion, you knowingly ignore the claim
you asserted in your Complaint that Judge Baca’s actions violated”
both New Mexico state constitution and federal constitution on right to jury
trial which plaintiff Payne paid for.” See Complaint, 12 (emphasis added).
Your Motion is therefore without merit and does not warrant the imposition of
Rule 11 sanctions against defense counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). In addition,
as fully set forth above, you failed to comply with Rule 11’s procedural
requirements with regard to your Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent
Civil Cover Sheet.
Not only did Baca's action involve right to trial by
jury guaranteed by both New Mexico and Federal constitution, Baca violated the
anti-injunction act.
We attach again a copy of the French law firms
fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET, Exhibit F, which was submitted with the
cooperation of defendant in civ 20010289 = 00cv01574 magistrate federal judge
Don Svet!
We also attach a copy of the receipt which French
and Associates received from federal court for removing New Mexico cv-
2000103118 to federal court. Removal was a personal action by Baca and French
and Associates in an attempt to get Baca's case improperly dismissed in federal
court.
The conclusion the jury in cv- 2000103118 should
easily reach is that French and Associate conspired with Assistant US Attorney
John J Zavits and eventually federal judge William F Downes to illegally remove
Baca and others case to federal court where the case would be dismissed.
However, New Mexico second judicial district judge W John Brennan detected this
ploy and derailed it.
You write
I have given you the citations to cases and
reasons substantiating my position. I therefore urge you to dismiss your claims
against Judge Baca and withdraw your two (2) motions for sanctions which were
filed on June 11, 2001. Please advise in writing by the close of business,
September 10, 2001, whether you will do so. If I do not hear from you by then,
you will be served with a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1
1(c)(1)(A). I do not want to go that route, but if you force me to, I will have
no alternative.
You citations and reason are meaningless in view of
the documents and explanations in this letter.
Your letter is merely another exhibit in support of
our up-coming charges of a conspiracy of French and Associates, Zavits, and
Downs to harass us with perjured documents.
New Mexico state employee Haas and your insurance
carrier should convince you of this.
So let us propose settlement of actual damages, pain
and suffering caused by the illegal removal of New Mexico cv- 2000103118 to
federal court as federal 01cv00634.
French and Assoicates, Assistant US Attorney Zavits,
and judge Downs actions really deserve awarding significant monetary punitive
damages for their attempt to corrupt both the federal and state court legal
systems.
If we receive a check for actual damages for work we
did to file docket entries 14, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26, 36, 39, 41, 45, 46, 44, 47,
then we will agree to move not to sue French and Associates for actual damages
plus punitive damages.
Compensation for our work comes to $43,600.
We, of course, welcome New Mexico's alternate
dispute resolution to settle all of our outstanding legal cases.
In the alternative that we do not receive a check by
Monday September 10, 2001 we will be forced to sue the French law firm,
Assistant US Attorney John Zavits and judge William F Downes in a complaint for
relief from a conspiracy of harassment and perjury.
We will ask for significant punitive damages in
addition to actual damages. Your can get an idea of punitive damage request
from Exhibit B.
We'll email Haas our offer. We hope you present this
proposal to French and Associates' insurance carrier.
Sincerely,
Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
|
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v civ 01 0634 William F Downes
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A.
Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF
BRIEFING PACKAGE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS NO. I: ALL CLAIMS AGAINST JUDGE BACA ON
THE BASIS OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
1 French and Associates write
Defendant, Ted C. Baca, by and through his
counsel of record, French & Associates, P.C. (Stephen G. French, Esq. and
Christina E. Anaya, Esq.) and states the following for his Notice of Completion
of Briefing Package for his Motion to Dismiss No. I on the basis of Absolute
Judicial Immunity (filed June 18, 2001).
1. Ted Baca has filed the following
pleadings:
A. Motion to Dismiss No. I. All Claims Against
Judge Baca on the Basis of Absolute Judicial Immunity (filed June 18,
2001);
B. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss No.
I: All Claims Against Judge Baca on the Basis of Absolute Judicial Immunity
(filed June 18, 2001);
2. Plaintiffs did not file a responsive pleading.
The briefing of Ted Baca's Motion to Dismiss No. I on the basis of absolute
judicial immunity is therefore now complete and ready for decision.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Judge Ted C. Baca,
respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion to Dismiss No. I,
dismiss all of Plaintiffs' federal and state law claims against him with
prejudice, award Defendant his attorney's fees and costs, and order all other
relief this Court deems just and proper.
must all be rejected in view of the up-coming New
Mexico state lawsuit for a conspiracy to harass plaintiffs using perjured
documents described in Exhibit Y.
2 If judge Downes feels that he is not part of a
conspiracy then plaintiffs ask Downes to complete
14-2816. Withdrawal from conspiracy;
termination of complicity.
Evidence has been admitted concerning a
[conspiracy] [partnership in crime] and withdrawal by the defendant from any
such [conspiracy] [partnership].
A person may withdraw from a [conspiracy]
[partnership in crime]. If a member of a [conspiracy] [partnership in crime]
has withdrawn, he is not liable for any act of the other [conspirators]
[partners] after the withdrawal.
In order to withdraw, a person must [in good
faith notify the others he knows are involved that he is no longer in the
(conspiracy) (partnership) and urge them to give it up.]
[make proper efforts to prevent the carrying out
of the (conspiracy) (partnership in crime) and end his participation in such a
way as to remove the effect of his assistance.]
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant did not withdraw from any such [conspiracy]
[partnership].
by September 10, 2001 in affidavit form.
3 Deny defendants' requests. Remand to state
court.
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 September 4, 2001 to
Stephen G French
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite
600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075
John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
P0 Box
607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
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
|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
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 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF
BRIEFING PACKAGE
1 Assistant US attorney Phyllis A Dow writes
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the briefing
package on the United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss is complete
and is ready for decision. The package consists of the United States’
Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 44, and the United States’ Memorandum in
Support, Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiffs did not respond in accordance with D.N.M.
LR-Civ. 7.6.
CIVIL NO. 00-1574 is, in fact, New Mexico state
lawsuit cv-20010289 which is being heard as a jury trial by judge W Daniel
Schnieder.
2 Docket entry 47 in Exhibit Z shows that judge
William F Downes does not issue affidavit showing why harassment and replevin
are exempt under 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.
3 Downes engages in a conspiracy with Assistant US
attorneys Hamilton and Dow to harass plaintiffs using federal court.
4 Remand 00-1574 to New Mexico and discontinue
harassing plaintiffs. Example of pattern and practice of consequences of
continued harassment are given in Exhibit Y.
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 to
PHYLLIS A. DOW
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O.
Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
(505) 346-7274
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
W.Daniel Schneider
Division XIV
P.O. Box
488
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
this September 4, 2001.
|
Morales and Payne met Saturday morning to frame a
response. Payne wrote-down Morales thoughts. Then we all start
thinking. Slowly and carefully to plan how we will respond.
With another lawsuit if matters don't get settled quick
of course. We have an excellent record.
This is a typical lawyer threat letter. Actually
a letter of desperation. But a lawyer will try about anything in a pinch.
The French law firm has some real serious legal
problems since it filed a fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET with the state of New
Mexico court system and paid the federal filing fee for state judge Ted
Baca.
This is perjury. But, as Morales pointed out,
Clinton got away with perjury. We have to make sure that Zavits and the
French law firm do not.
Anaya is banking on judge William F Downes being a puto
vendido [bought whore] aka PV [Morales abbreviation] for the feds and the
department of justice.
Why don't you email Downes to ask him if he plans to be
a PV in the case? Webmanager@wyd.uscourts.gov
And perhaps advise him as to what you think we are going to do to
him!
Morales and Payne will respond to this letter tomorrow
and to the two completion of briefings. But today is labor day.
Monday September 3, 2001
09:05
|
 |
|
August 31, 2001
Mr. Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias
N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111
Re: Morales and Payne v. Theodore C.
Baca. et al.,
Civ. No. 01-634 William Downes-ACE
Dear Mr. Morales and Mr. Payne:
As you know, this office represents Defendant Ted
Baca. I am writing this letter in the hope that you will take what I say under
consideration and agree to dismiss your claims against Judge Baca with
prejudice. I am also requesting that you withdraw Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Sanctions for False Certification of Notice of Removal (filed June 11, 2001)
and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent Civil Cover
Sheet (filed June 11, 2001). I will address each request in turn. Claims
Against Judge Baca
On June 18, 2001, this firm filed a Motion to
Dismiss your claims against Judge Baca with prejudice on the basis of absolute
judicial immunity. To date, you have not filed a response. Based on the facts
alleged in your Complaint and the clearly established law set forth in our
Motion, I want to remind you that you have no viable claims against Judge Baca.
Judge Baca was clearly acting in his judicial capacity at all times material to
the allegations in your Complaint. Therefore, Judge Baca is entitled to
absolute immunity for his alleged actions. See Antoine v. Byers & Anderson,
508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam);
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkmau, 435 U.S. 349,
355- 56(1978); Piersonv. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) Bradley v. Fisher, 80
U.S. 335, 347 (1871); Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F.2d 54, 58 (10th Cir. 1957); Snell
v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 687 (10th Cir 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 976
(1991); Christensen v. McGovern, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 999 (1990); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1435 (l0thCir.
1986); Shepherdson v. Nigro, 179 F.R.D. 150, 152 (E.D. Penn. 1998); Whitcombe
v.
Mr. Arthur R. Morales
Mr. William H. Payne
August 30, 2001
Page 2
Weyerhaeuser Cop., 907 F.2d 155, 1990 WL 95567 at
**1 (9th Cir. 1990); Edwards v. Wiley, 70 N.M. 400, 402, 374 P.2d 284, 286
(1962); Galindo v. Western States Collection Company, Inc., 82 N.M. 149, 152,
477 P.2d 325, 328 (1970).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for False
Certification of Notice of Removal (filed June 11, 2001)
Your Motion for Sanctions for False Certification
of Notice of Removal similarly lacks any merit. On June 4, 2001, this firm
removed this case from the Second Judicial District Court for the County of
Bernalillo to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
See Notice of Removal (filed June 4, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. On June 11, 2001,
you filed a Motion for Sanctions for False Certification of Removal. See
[Docket No. 12] (“Motion”). Although the substance of your Motion was
vague and largely unintelligible, it appears that you were alleging that the
envelopes in which defense counsel mailed copies of the removal pleadings to
you came unsealed. You also appear to be alleging that on a separate occasion,
defense counsel sent you only the first page of the Notice of Removal. On this
basis, you allege that defense counsel did not “properly inform[ I
plaintiffs” of the removal and that this was done to “harass or cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation[.]” See
id. at 2. Therefore, you requested that the Court impose sanctions against
defense counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. See id. at4.
Your allegations, even if accepted as true, do not
establish a basis for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. Your allegations
that the envelopes in which you received your copies of the removal pleadings
were unsealed is certainly no cause for imposing sanctions on defense counsel.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). How or why the envelopes containing your copies of the
removal pleadings opened during the mailing process is unknown to defense
counsel.
Your allegations that defense counsel subsequently
sent you only the first page of the Notice of Removal likewise lacks any basis
for imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. On June 4, 2001, defense counsel
mailed copies of the removal pleadings to all parties and simultaneously filed
the pleadings with the Court. After obtaining the endorsed copies from the
Clerk’s Office, defense counsel mailed the endorsed face sheets to all
parties for their files. Such a practice is intended to facilitate the
parties’ ability to track the filing dates of pleadings in this matter,
not to harass, cause unnecessary delays or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b)(1). In your Motion, you cited no authority
to the Court and defense counsel is unaware of any authority finding that
conduct such as that alleged warrants the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.
Mr. Arthur R. Morales
Mr. William H. Payne
August 30, 2001
Page 2
Moreover, you failed to comply with Rule il’s
procedural requirements. A motion for sanctions under Rule 11 must be served on
the opposing party in advance of filing it with the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1
1(c)(1)(A). Only if the challenged item is not withdrawn or corrected within 21
days after service should the movant file the motion or present it to the
court. Id. Rule 11 s “safe harbor” provision is mandatory and your
failure to comply with Rule IFs procedural requirements requires the denial of
your Motion. See Aerotech. Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1528-29 (10th Cir.
1997) (citing Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995)). You failed
to serve defense counsel with this Motion in advance of filing it. Instead, you
bypassed this requirement and filed your Motion for sanctions directly with the
Court on June 11, 2001. You are therefore procedurally barred from obtaining
sanctions against defense counsel under Rule 11. See id.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Filing
Fraudulent Civil Cover Sheet (filed June 11, 2001)
Your Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent
Civil Cover Sheet wholly lacks merit. This firm removed this case from the
Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo to the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See Notice of Removal
(filed June 4, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. As part of the removal process, defense
counsel filled out a Civil Cover Sheet. In your Motion you allege that defense
counsel fraudulently indicated on the Civil Cover Sheet that the basis of the
Court’s jurisdiction is a federal question. See Motion, p. 1 and Exhibit A
attached thereto. You assert that because the title of your Complaint is
“Complaint for Relief from Harassment” the case involves only matters
of state law. See id. On this basis, you request that the Court impose
sanctions against this firm pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
In your Motion, you knowingly ignore the claim you
asserted in your Complaint that Judge Baca’s actions violated” both
New Mexico state constitution and federal constitution on right to jury trial
which plaintiff Payne paid for.” See Complaint, 12 (emphasis added). Your
Motion is therefore without merit and does not warrant the imposition of Rule
11 sanctions against defense counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). In addition, as
fully set forth above, you failed to comply with Rule ll’s procedural
requirements with regard to your Motion for Sanctions for Filing Fraudulent
Civil Cover Sheet.
I have given you the citations to cases and reasons
substantiating my position. I therefore urge you to dismiss your claims against
Judge Baca and withdraw your two (2) motions for sanctions which were filed on
June 11, 2001. Please advise in writing by the close of business, September 10,
2001, whether you will do so. If I do not hear from you by then, you will be
served with a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 1(c)(1)(A). I do
not want to go that route, but if you force me to, I will have no
alternative.
Mr. Arthur R. Morales
Mr. William H. Payne
August 30, 2001
Page 2
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
Christina E. Anaya
CEA/tlt cc. The Honorable Ted C. Baca
John
Zavitz, Esq.
Robert St. John, Esq.
Mr. William Haas
Bill.Haas@state.nm.us
RMD Claim
No.: 0101299-000
|
Assistant US Attorney Zavitz aka the feds are in a
world of hurt because they are responding to both federal and state court
filings in the same case. Looks like evidence of harassment and stalking
to us.
We are, of course, assembling all of the evidence
required for the next state lawsuit for relief from harassment and stalking.
We will have all of the evidence in writing as court-filed
documents.
But then again, we could settle before matters get
worse. Thursday August 16, 2001
08:54
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF
BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER CV-2001-03118
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A.
Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
Defendants
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION AGAINST
CONTINUED FILING IN FEDERAL COURT BY DEFENDANT PHYLLIS
DOW
1 Assistant US Attorney John J Zavitz writes
Defendant Phyllis A. Dow, by and through
her undersigned counsel, opposes the pro se plaintiffs' motion on the basis
that this action has been removed to federal court and 28 u.s.c. § 1446(d)
provides that after removal "...the State court shall proceed no further unless
and until the case is remanded."
As this court knows from Exhibit A case
CV-2001-03118 was removed by a fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET personally paid for
by French and Associates law firm for judge Ted Baca. Exhibit B. Harassment is
not a federal question. In addition from Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d
1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988), Zavitz or judge William Downes have not
complied 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
by showing that harassment is one of the
exemption specifically set forth by statute. Nor has judge William F Downes
ever issued an affidavit. Again, harassment is not a federal question. Judge
William Downes has been given until August 20, 2001 to:
A produce an affidavit showing that harassment
is, in fact, a federal question
B remand CV-2001-03118 and discontinue harassing
and stalking plaintiffs in violation of New
Mexico state law.
2 Assistant US Attorney John J Zavitz writes
Any filings in the state court after
removal are without jurisdiction and void. Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d
1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988); Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.),
Cert. denied, 355 U.S. 842 (1957).
Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248,
1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988) carefully points out at 1248
1. Removal of Cases
When removal petition is filed and proper
notice is given, the entire case is transferred to federal district court.
does not cover IMPROPER removal of case with
fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET, Exhibit A, and personal check to cover federal
court filing fee, Exhibit B. New Mexico second judicial chief judge W John
Brennan and New Mexico supreme court chief judge Patricio Serna apparently
agree that CV-2001-03118 was removed with fraudulent documents. In addition, if
Zavitz genuinely believed that this court had no jurisdiction, then he would
not be filing responses in state court.
Zavitz, French and Associates, and soon, judge
William F Downes if he does not comply with A or B in this filing, bcome common
criminals who violate New Mexico state laws against harassment and stalking in
writing. If required, plaintiffs intend to seek justice against all
violators.
3 Assistant US Attorney John J Zavitz writes
This Court should reject this and any further
filings by Plaintiffs in this matter unless and until the case is remanded. The
request for hearing should be denied on this basis as well.
Dow continues to file in federal court as of August
13, 2001! Exhibit C shows continued pattern and
practice of harassing and stalking plaintiffs using
federal court. Zavitz cannot control his client Phyllis Dow.
The Court should grant plaintiff's motion for relief
against harassment and stalking by Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow.
Respectfully Submitted
Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 3451381
Date
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 292 7037
Date
I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all
other parties titled to notice on August 15, 2001
ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE
Stephen G French
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite
600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075
John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
PO Box
607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
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
|
Assistant US Attorney Zavitz sends RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL COURT BY DEFENDANT PHYLLIS DOW to both Morales and
Payne in an envelope which, according the United States Postal Service employee
David King, was mailed to the Department of Justice in Albuquerque.
The envelope was previously folded into 3 parts.
King said that the meter mail stamp was affixed before
it was sent to the Department of Justice in Abq.
Note that there is no data of of cancelation.
King said that the post office should have canceled this stamp.
However, processing data which includes date and time
is contained in the bar coded information of the back of the
envelope.
Zavitz, the French law firm, and Wyoming chief federal
judge William Downes are in a world of legal problems since Zavitz is filing in
state court.
If, indeed, jurisdiction was in federal court,
then Zavitz wouldn't have to respond in state court.
We now have the evidence in writing by these filings of
both harassment and stalking which are misdemeanors in New Mexico. These
repeated filings in state and federal court can escalate.
B. Whoever commits aggravated stalking is guilty of
a fourth degree felony. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender is
guilty of a third degree felony.
We didn't immediately post Downes intimidation attempt
order.
We are now checking to make sure that the French law
firm is incorporated in New Mexico. You need at least one of the parties
in a state lawsuit to be a resident of that state.
When the lawsuit is filed, unless settlement is
reach before August 20 of course, the French law firm will have to
immediately notify its insurance carrier.
The insurance company must then decided whether to
fight or settle.
The insurance company will likely determine that given
the criminal activity of the French law firm, Zavits and now judge William
Downes, settlement is clearly the best option.
If the feds decide to remove the up-coming lawsuit from
state to federal court, then the state of New Mexico court system may decided
not to let them do this.
Judge John Brennan's starting the process to appoint a
state judge to direct our harassment lawsuit after the feds had removed it to
federal court is a direct challenge to federal court abuse of citizens.
Brennan has made a place in legal history. And so
has judge Serna.
The link to ill-advised Wyoming chief judge William
Downes is fixed Webmanager@wyd.uscourts.gov so
you can now send him an email to tell him what you think about this attempted
harassment and stalking of Morales and Payne. Monday August 13, 2001 13:14
Before responding be sure to visit a law library and
get copies of the citations.
Lawyers frequently cite cases which don't support their
arguments. This reason they do this is merely to have a judge agree with
them.
Judges should merely judge. A judge hears
arguments from both sides, then make a decision or advises a jury. If
they do more or less than this, then they are biased. And you can remove
a biased judge.
Assistant US Attorney Zavits really screwed up because
he put Morales and Payne in contact with the Anti-Injunction Act.
So citations by opposing counsel may even help
you! Saturday July 14, 2001 12:32
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF
BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER CV-2001-03118
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A.
Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
Defendants
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
1 Lawyer Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes
Defendants Norman C. Bay, Phyllis A. Dow,
Raymond Hamilton and the Honorable Martha Vazquez, by and through their
undersigned counsel, oppose the pro se plaintiffs’ motion on the basis
that this action has been removed to federal court and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d)
provides that after removal “...the State court shall proceed no further
unless and until the case is remanded.”
French and Associates file Fraudulent CIVIL COVER
SHEET stating that harassment is federal question. Chief judge W. John Brennan
and New Mexico supreme court Chief judge Patricio Serna apparently realized
that CV-2001-03 118 was improperly removed to federal court by fraudulent
documents. Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988)
carefully points out at 1248
1. Removal of Cases When removal petition
is filed and proper notice is given, the entire case is transferred to federal
district court.
First, French and Associates filed Fraudulent CIVIL
COVER SHEET. Second, Federal Court clerk office compels French and Associates
to pay filing fee this apparently realizing that French and Associates are
improperly using federal court for it personal reasons.
Lawyer Zavits would not need to submit RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAiNT if, in fact, Zavits honestly believe that CV-2001-03
118 was removed to federal court for good reason.
2 Lawyer Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes
Any filings in the state court after
removal are without jurisdiction and void. Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d
1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988); Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 355 U.S. 842 (1957). This Court should reject this and any
further filings by plaintiffs in this matter unless and until the case is
remanded. The request for hearing should be denied on this basis as well.
Lawyer Zavits failed to do his homework on Maseda v.
Honda Motor Co. Section 16 ofMasedav. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248, 1254-55
(11th Cir. 1988) states
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
Harassment, replevn, and defamation do not fall into
any such exceptions. Nor has Zavits offered any argument before this court that
they do.
28 USC Sec. 2283. Stay of State court proceedings
states
A court of the United States may not grant
an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,
or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
Currently Wyoming Federal chief judge William F
Downes continues to participate in harassment of plaintiffs in violation of
state law by refusal of obey 28 USC Sec. 2283.
Plaintiffs’ having to prepare and respond to
French and Associates and Zavits illegal ffiing in federal court constitute
even more harassment.
It is for this reason that plaintiffs ask this court
to grant leave to amend this complaint to include French and Associates and
Zavits.
3 French and Associates and Zavits continue to
engage in pattern and practice of harassment N WRITING in federal court.
Plaintiffs are compelled to sue again in state court
to try to resolve issues before a jury. French and Associates and Zavits harass
plaintiffs by attempting to not permit the judicial process to complete before
a jury in state court.
Plaintiffs have right guaranteed under United States
Constitution and Constitution for right to trial before jury.
Consolidation, section Rules 1-018 to 1-021 of the
New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, is required.
Plaintiffs have purposely postponed state lawsuit to
give court time to respond as it must by state Rules 1- 018 to 1-021 to MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Respectfully Submitted
Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 345 1381
Date
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505 292 7037
Date
I certify a copy of this motion was mailed to all
other parties titled to notice on June 27, 2001
ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE
Stephen G French
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite
600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075
John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
PO Box
607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Kenneth G. Brown
Thirteenth Judicial District
Div. II
100 Avenida de Justicia
Bernalillo, NM 87004
|
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF
BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER CV-2001-03118
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A.
Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez Defendants
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION AGAINST
CONTINUED FILING IN FEDERAL COURT
1 Lawyer Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes
Defendants Norman C. Bay, Phyllis A. Dow,
Raymond Hamilton and the Honorable Martha Vazquez, by and through their
undersigned counsel, oppose the pro se plaintiffs’ motion on the basis
that this action has been removed to federal court and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d)
provides that after removal “...the State court shall proceed no further
unless and until the case is remanded.”
French and Associates file Fraudulent CIVIL COVER
SHEET stating that harassment is federal question.
Chief judge W. John Brennan and New Mexico supreme
court Chief judge Patricio Serna apparently realized that CV-2001-03118 was
improperly removed to federal court by fraudulent documents. Maseda v. Honda
Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988) carefully points out at
1248
1. Removal of Cases
When removal petition is filed and proper notice
is given, the entire case is transferred to federal district court.
First, French and Associates filed Fraudulent CIVIL
COVER SHEET. Second, Federal Court clerk office compels French and Associates
to pay filing fee this apparently realizing that French and Associates are
improperly using federal court for it personal reasons.
Lawyer Zavits would not need to submit RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT if, in fact, Zavits honestly believe that
CV-2001-03118 was removed to federal court for good reason.
2 Lawyer Assistant US Attorney Zavitz writes
This Court should reject this and any
further filings by Plaintiffs in this matter unless and until the case is
remanded. The request for hearing should be denied on this basis as well.
Section 16 of Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d
1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1988) states 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
Harassment, replevin, and defamation do not fall
into any such exceptions. Nor has Zavits offered any argument before this court
that they do.
28 USC Sec. 2283. Stay of State court proceedings
states
A court of the United States may not grant
an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,
or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
Currently Wyoming Federal chief judge William F
Downes continues to participate in harassment of plaintiffs in violation of
state law by refusal of obey 28 USC Sec. 2283. Plaintiffs' having to prepare
and respond to French and Associates and Zavits illegal filing in federal court
constitute even more harassment.
It is for this reason that plaintiffs ask this
court to grant leave to amend this complaint to include French and Associates
and Zavits.
3 French and Associates and Zavits continue to
engage in pattern and practice of harassment IN WRITING in federal court.
French and Associates and Zavits harass plaintiffs by having to respond to
filing in violation of 28 USC Sec. 2283 which, of course, is legal harassment
in violation of New Mexico state law.
Respectfully Submitted
Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 3451381
Date
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505 292 7037
Date
I certify a copy of this motion was mailed to all
other parties titled to notice on July 13, 2001
ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE
Stephen G French
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite
600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075
John W Zavitz
Assistant US Attorney
PO
Box 607
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Kenneth G. Brown
Thirteenth Judicial District
Div. II
100 Avenida de Justicia
Bernalillo, NM 87004
|
|
