|
|
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
William H Payne
Plaintiff
v civ 2001-05900
Phyllis A. Dow
William F. Downes
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan
, Akin & Robb PA
Defendants
Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY Wednesday February 6, 2002 09:30
Looks like we're going to have to search for a replacement for Bunton.
Bunton was known as an exceptional judge when it came to coming down hard on the feds. Bunton, of course, fixed-up another judge Parker mess.
Morales pointed out yesterday that litigation can have very bad effects of people.
Judge Santiago Campos of NSA lawsuit fame died.
We speculate that Campos didn't write most of the rulings. The feds did this for Campos. See Young's table.
New Mexico federal chief judge Juan Burciaga died, under suspicious circumstances, shortly after ruling against the government.
Morales and Payne decided yesterday that Morales should phone the US Attorney David Iglesias to ask Assistant US attorney Michael [moley] Hoses to withdraw his motion to dismiss.
|
|
You must, or should, do this before filing for Rule 11 sanctions.
Iglesias was not in the office. Morales ended-up talking to Hoses for about an hour.
Hoses was telling Morales that we were going about litigation the wrong way.
Hoses offered to give Morales his $625 back and entertain a offer to settle the emotional damages.
This is a standard lawyer ploy. Give someone bad advice and hope they take it.
Morales and Payne will file notices of non-compliance of judges Benson and Parker to supply anti-injunctions affidavits. Also response and rule 11 sanctions motion.
Morales plans to talk to Iglesias about this unfortunate matter when Iglesias returns to his office. Thursday November 29, 2001 08:31
|
|
Incidentally Monroe McKay was chief judge of Utah when Morales and I tried to put some crooked judges away in 1996.
But times have changed. And things have happened. Friday November 2, 2001 13:14
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne, Plaintiff, v 01 cv 01132 Dee Vance Benson PHYLLIS A. DOW, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF NEW MEXICO CASE CIV 2001-05900 TO FEDERAL COURT 1 Plaintiff files Complaint for relief from Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY on August 28, 2001. This is NEW MEXICO CASE CIV 2001-05900. http://downloads.members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/nmls4.html 2 September 29, 2001 Assistant US Attorney Michael removes New Mexico CIV 2001-05900 to federal court. 09/28/01 10/01/01 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for relief from conspiracy of harassment & perjury Case Number: 1:01:CV:5900 (referred to Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia) (vv) (73k) Re: RESPONSE [11] ANSWER [2] Exhibit B, arrow 1. Exhibit C. 3 October 25, 2001 Judge James A Parker orders 10/24/01 10/25/01 13 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico recuse in this action; and this case is reassigned to the Honorable Dee V Benson, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Utah Case transferred to District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) (jrm) (8k) 4 28 USC Sec. 2283 states 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. 5 WHEREFORE judge Dee Vance Benson and judge James A Parker are both asked to send plaintiff AFFIDAVITS justifying injunction of New Mexico CIV 2001-05900 by Friday November 16, 2001. How do harassment and perjury "fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute?" 6 If no justification can be formed and referenced then the This Court should remand case back to state court. Respectfully submitted, William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on November 2, 2001 to Michael H Hoses Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes LUCIUS D. BUNTON, Senior Judge |
Double flash - Kerrie from judge Daniel Schneiders' office phoned at about 08:30.
Kerrie said that my case had been removed to federal court. Kerrie said that the hearing on the 16th had been vacated.
I told kerrie that libel and harassment were not federal issues.
Kerrie seemed very upset and told me that she didn't have to make this call.
Schneider still gets sued on Monday. Brennan gets sued on Monday too if I don't get my filing fee back.
But we really ought to get these messes settled before they get
worse ... perhaps by megatons.
Tuesday October 30, 2000 09:03
Flash - Note the article on judge Martha Vazquez below. Lawyer [abogado] Miguel Campos told Payne that the only judges in federal court who have the courage to stand-up to the feds are, or were, judges Vazquez and magistrate judge Deaton. As you can read, it looks like someone got to Vazquez. But we may have good news too.
Deaton apparently convinced Parker to transfer CIV 01-1198 to Benson in Utah. CIV 01-1198 is the federal version of New Mexico CV-200106293 !
Please email some who may be responsible to ask their help to get these lawyer messed settled. There is a list of the senate judiciary committee email addresses at the bottom of this page.
We will post soon. The article on Parker and Wen Ho Lee arrived from Rice University yesterday. We will post soon. Tuesday October 30, 2000 08:05
Monday October 29, 2001 13:16 Ann from Second judicial district phones Payne. Ann says that she can't process NOTICE OF RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF JUDGE. She tells Payne it isn't timely.
Payne responds that NOTICE does not need to be timely and asks here to process it.
Payne ask Ann her last name. Reluctantly she responds Carabajal.
Carabajal seem to be second in queen bee of the civil division behind Melissa Cavaleri.
If chief judge Brennan doesn't return Payne filing fee by Friday, then Brennan along with Schneider and the Rodey firm get sued for breach of contract and well-deserved
13-861. Punitive damages.If you find that __________________ (name of party making claim for punitive damages) should recover compensation for damages, and if you further find that the conduct of __________________ (name of party whose conduct gives rise to a claim for punitive damages) was [malicious], [reckless], [wanton], [oppressive], or [fraudulent], then you may award punitive damages.
Such additional damages are awarded for the limited purpose of punishment and to deter others from the commission of like offenses.
The amount of punitive damages must be based on reason and justice taking into account all the circumstances, including the nature of the wrong and such aggravating and mitigating circumstances as may be shown. The amount awarded, if any, must be reasonably related to the injury and to the damages given as compensation and not disproportionate to the circumstances.
[Malicious conduct is the intentional doing of a wrongful act with knowledge that the act was wrongful.]
[Reckless conduct is the intentional doing of an act with utter indifference to the consequences.]
[Wanton conduct is the doing of an act with utter indifference to or conscious disregard for a person's rights.]
Violating New Mexico constitution right to trial by jury when the evidence of the guilt of the feds is all in writing warrants some very harsh financial punitive damages. And, of course, removal of Schneider and Brennan from the bench.
Note that we are keeping the Morales and Payne lawsuits separate. We can go after Serna on these since he ordered 3118 to trial in writing. But nothing has happened.
Let's see what Brennan and Serna do. Their fate is in their
own hands. Tuesday October 30,
2001 07:55
Morales was quite concerned that we don't unnecessarily put judges Brennan and Serna on the defensive in my letter to Brennan.
Both have judges have to do their jobs to get these messes resolved legally.
But we agree that we have to be firm and let Brennan know we are NOT kidding about suing to get our filing fee money back. And Brennan is Schneider's boss.
Schneider is in real trouble because of delaying D-202-CV-200010289 [see docket at http://www.nmcourts.com/, Case Lookup, click at the bottom, then enter the case number] and not following court rules in Payne's case.
Having Payne's case active as a federal lawsuit too doesn't help him.
Schneider is in the national guard. He is a judge there too.
Steve Aarons of NSA lawsuit fame is also in the national guard.
Aarons usually acts as defense attorney in cases heard by Schneider, pro se fights is told.
Morales, Payne, and others are a bit concerned that we might be a target of a government bio attack.
Manuel Garcia who, with Morales, sued Sandia for race discrimination is a chemical engineer.
About year ago Garcia got sick and was suspicious that Sandia was trying to poison him.
You really can't know how bad the feds can be until you get an SCI Access. But you are getting a pretty good idea watching all of their legal crap on pro se fights.
Lawyer Gonzales tell us the feds try to, and usually do, ruin thousands of citizens. Most citizens can't fight back. We hope we can show to you how to fight back.
Looks like Schneider needs a career change. Perhaps chasing suspected terrorists in Afghanistan with the national guard?
Let's continue to hope for peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.
Peaceful settlement is the ultimate goal, of course. We don't want to fail at this. Saturday October 27, 2001 10:18
| Friday 10/26/01 2:10 PM
Certified - return receipt requested W. John Brennan Dear Judge Brennan: Citizen Morales and I wrote you a certified letter on September 22, 2001 2:08 PM. In that letter we asked We ask that the Second judicial district return the $594 filing fees for D-202-CV-20010289 and D-202-CV-200103118 by October 5, 2001. You did not respond to our letter. I attach NOTICE OF RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF JUDGE. I paid a $297 filing fee for jury trial CV 2000-10278. But I haven't gotten the jury trial I've paid for and am guaranteed under the New Mexico constitution. CV 2000-10278 and civ 2001-05900 are similar. The laws of joinder for expeditous hearing of cases states 1-018. Joinder of claims and remedies. I ask that CV 2000-10278 and civ 2001-05900 be joined. And, of course, a new impartial judge be assigned to civ 2001-05900 to conduct the alternate dispute resolution or, if necessary, the jury trial. I paid an additional filing fee of over $300 for civ 2001-05900. I ask return of my $297 for CV 2000-10278 and $594 Morales and I are owed by Friday November 2, 2001. Otherwise Morales and I will be forced to take formal action to get our money back. We will seek punitive damages from those involved in defrauding us of our filing fees. Let us assure you that this is not an idle threat. It is a promise instead. Morales and I have an excellent record of performance. You can read about this on internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ Morales and I are genuinely concerned with legal industry, state and federal court misconduct. I hope you with counsel with judge Serna and others now see what a chilling effect both lawyer and judicial misconduct has on citizens of the United States of America. Your, first, than judge Serna's ordering hearing of CV-2001-03118 was a positive step in restoring credibility to the New Mexico court system. We ask your and judge Serna's help to make the civil legal system work the way citizens expect it should work. Impartial resolution of disputes based on the evidence. Not trying to sweep problems under the rug hoping they will disappear. Sincerely William H Payne Distribution William F. Downes David C Iglesias Kenneth G. Brown Patricio Serna Chief judge Supreme Court of New Mexico POB 848 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848 James A Parker |
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants NOTICE OF RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF JUDGE 1 The action is brought under 1-088.1. Peremptory challenge to a district judge; recusal; procedure for exercising. 2 Judge W Daniel Schneider was given opportunity to correct A Allowing defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA to represent itself pro se in violation of New Mexico court rules. B Not signing his orders as required by New Mexico court rules. C Not following procedure for drafting orders as required by New Mexico court rules. D Hearing an motion for dismiss by pro se defendant in violation of New Mexico court rules and constitution of state of New Mexico. Plaintiff paid for jury trial not for decision by Schneider. Plaintiff has prima facie case of libel and harassment. All evidence of guilt is in writing. See Exhibit A. Schneider now schedules defendant's hearing motion to dismiss and concurrently plaintiff's motions to be held concurrently on November 16. Exhibits B and C. Plaintiff clearly asked Schneider to correct his errors by Friday November 2, 2001 or face legal consequences. As evidence by the contents of Exhibits B and C, Schneider has no intention of correcting his errors. 3 Schneider was assigned judge in New Mexico D-202-CV-200010289 on October 20, 2000. Exhibit D. Schneider has taken no action on this case in more than a year. Schneider's inaction resulted in a series of state and federal lawsuit documents Morales and Payne sued in feds in New Mexico state court for replevin and harassment. This is New Mexico civ - 2000 10289 2. posted on internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/. 4 Documents containing false and libelous information seen in Exhibit A violate the criminal provisions of New Mexico libel laws. But Schneider does not take responsible to write criminal complaint affidavits. Again Schneider takes no action. 5 Schneider allows civ 2001-05900 to be removed to federal court which is labeled CIV 01-1132. Exhibit E. But continue to attempt to harass plaintiff in November 16 hearing. 6 Schneider and the Rodey law firm and perhaps others will be sued on November 5 for a conspiracy to harass plaintiff. 7 WHEREFORE Schneider's impartiality is not merely in question. Schneider has violated rules of the New Mexico court in writing. Schneider must be recused or removed from civ 2001-05900 as directed by New Mexico 1-088.1, D. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne Date I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 26, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna |
Morales and I opened the two letters. Then we brainstormed. Don't try pro se litigation alone.
It looks like Parker is somewhat trying to do the right thing. Somewhat is necessary because the feds don't have jurisdiction.
Judge Schneider and Rodey law firm get sued on November 5. Jury trial. No federal defendants. The jury will see that Schneider and St John have conspired by breaking New Mexico court rules to toss Payne's case out without a trial. Rodey can't go pro se.
We're going to try to get Schneider removed from the bench and both Schneider and St John disbarred.
Bill.Haas@state.nm.us New Mexico state risk management may have a sizable settlement dollar amount of the Schneider lawsuit.
It is always the taxpayer that suffers.
Judges Brennan and Serna need some encouragement to do the right things. They started but have flagged. Time to motivate them.
What is unusual is that both the two below lawsuits are active in both federal and state court.
But as we all know, both the federal and state judicial systems have problems. We are, of course, working to get some of them fixed. Friday October 26, 2001 10:53
|
|
Payne got two lawyer letters on Thursday. One from soon-to-be-defendant judge Schneider and the other from federal court.
Schneider must go according to 1-088.1
Peremptory challenge to a district judge; recusal; procedure for exercising.D. Recusal. No district judge shall sit in any action in which the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the judge shall file a recusal in any such action. Upon receipt of notification of recusal from a district judge, the clerk of the court shall give written notice to each party.
And then, of course, we have to get Schneider off the bench and hopefully disbarred too. Brennan and maybe even Serna may have to go to ... if they don't correct their errors.
Always give them a chance to correct. This looks better in front of the jury.
Hey, we have the evidence in writing. Schneider, Brennan and Serna gave us the evidence against them in writing. Friday October 26, 2001 06:45
Morales and Payne met on Wednesday morning to open the French and Associates letter. It is a motion to dismiss.
Payne phoned Anaya at French and Associates. Anaya did not return Payne's first phone call. Therefore Payne left a message with Mary of French and Associates at 505 843 7075 that if Anaya did not phone by today at 10:00 to report she was withdrawing the motion to dismiss, we will file Rule 11 violation for sanctions. All of the the evidence of the defendant's guilt is in writing so the case cannot be properly dismissed.
Morales is very annoyed with judge Schneider.
Schneider has done nothing on our first replevin and harassment lawsuit in over a year.
Morales and Payne sued in feds in New Mexico state court for repleving and harassment. This is New Mexico civ - 2000 10289 2.
Delay is not right.
The delay and continued harassment caused two additional state lawsuits which, by attorney action, resulted in three federal lawsuits.
Wyoming chief judge William F Downes, as a result of complicity with a conspiracy, got sued in New Mexico.
Schneider did not correct his errors in Payne's case.
Proposing to hear MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT at the same time he is hearing motion which violates state court rules, is an affront to reason. Therefore, we must take action against Schneider personally.
The only way to stop such judges is to seek significant financial punitive damages against them. And have them removed from the bench.
So. Let's see if we can do this. Thursday October 25, 2001 07:39
|
|
A state lawsuit including at least Hoses and quite likely state judge Dan Schneider is beginning set up.
Harassment and perjury are not federal questions.
Usually you will want to give a terminal date at which time you will take action. Otherwise a lawyer will not do anything, then point out that they were given no completion date.
Most important you must take formal action. No formal action means that a lawyer will not do anything. Monday October 15, 2001 08:14
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne, Plaintiff, v 01 cv 01132 PHYLLIS A. DOW, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A. Defendants RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION, Exhibit A, responds to particulars of NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Conclusion is that New Mexico CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 is removed to federal 01 cv 01132 in violation of 28 USC Sec. 2283, the anti-injunction act. 2 Judge Martha Vazquez is defendant in New Mexico civ - 2000 10289 = federal civ 01 0634. Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia is defendant in New Mexico CV 2000-10278 = federal CIVIL No. 00-1677. All of these cases involve plaintiff. Exhibit B shows that Vazquez is assigned judge in the case and Garcia as magistrate judge. This appears improper. 3 In federal case 00cv01677 Docket Report for: Payne v. Sandia Corporation et al. which gave rise to New Mexico civ 2001-05900 lawsuit docket shows 03/27/01 03/29/01 69 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of NM and reassigning case to Chief U.S. District Judge William F. Downes of District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel) (bap) (24k) For the same reason all judicial officers, especially Vazquez and Garcia, should be recused. 4 Unless Hoses submits an affidavit to plaintiff and state and federal courts by October 26 showing that he is in compliance with 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. by showing that harassment and perjury are covered, then appropriate legal remedy will again be sought in state court for Hoses' harassment. 5 WHEREFORE close 01 cv 01132 as improperly removed from state court. And discontinuing harassing plaintiff using federal court as harassment instrument. Respectfully submitted, William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on October 12, 2001 to Michael H Hoses Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Schneider will hopefully correct his errors but if not simply sue. Politicking doesn't work.
The state then will have to process a new claim. Not that new US Attorney Iglesias worked for risk management.
Also the new case must be referred to New Mexico supreme court since Schneider is a judge. Note that the evidence against Schneider is in his two rulings. He didn't sign either. But he is on notice that he must correct or acknowledge that he issued documents.
Payne noticed on posting that page 5 was missing from filing. Errors will be made. Merely file a notice of correction. Monday October 15, 2001 08:10
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION 1 Assistant U.S. Attorney MICHAEL H. HOSES writes The United States of America, acting on behalf of its employees, Phyllis A. Dow and United States District Court Judge William F. Downes,' gives notice of the removal to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1442(a) (1) of a civil action commenced in the Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, Cause No. CV— 2001—05900, entitled William H. Payne v. Phyllis A. Dow, William F. Downes, and Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. and shows: Title of civ 2001-05900 is Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. 28 USC Sec. 2283 states 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. Hoses has not provided any affidavit stating or showing that harassment and perjury in a New Mexico court is an injunction falling with an exception specifically set for in the statue. Of course Hoses can't. Harassment and perjury are crimes in the state of New Mexico and must be dealt with in New Mexico state courts which have jurisdiction. Hoses harasses plaintiff with illegal NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION in violation of New Mexico state law. 2 Hoses writes 1. A civil action has been brought in the Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, Cause No. CV—2001-05900, and is now pending. is false. CV—2001-05900 is in progress and a hearing for MOTION TO DISMISS which violates 1-041. Dismissal of actions. is scheduled for November 16, 2001 in judge Schneider's chambers. Schneider has been asked to correct his error to scheduling hearing. Schneider should strike illegal MOTION TO DISMISS. 3 Hoses writes 1 These Defendants have not been properly served, nor has the United States, and they reserve their right to raise this as an affirmative defense after removal. is false. Good New Processes Servers reports that both Dow and Rodey law firm have been served and the the sheriff's office of Casper, Wyoming is in the process of serving citizen Downes. 4 Hoses writes 3. In the initial State Court action, Plaintiff appears to complain of conspiracy or harassment. Defendant Phyllis A. Dow is an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Defendant William F. Downes is a United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. All bases of Plaintiff's Complaint involve conduct of Defendants during the period they were acting in their official capacities. is patently false. Title of civ 2001-05900 is Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. Harassment and perjury are illegal personal conduct not befitting any federal employee. Defendant William F. Downes is a United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming and has no jurisdiction in state case. Therefore Downes harasses plaintiff. 4 Hoses writes 4. The State Court action is properly subject to removal because under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1), a civil action commenced against an employee of an agency of the United States for any act under color of such office may be removed to federal court. The right of removal is absolute when the suit in state court is for any act under color of federal office. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406 (1969) . Defendants' contact with Plaintiff throughout the times complained of were while they were performing their official duties. See id. at 409. is false. The federal court has no jurisdiction over harassment and perjury committed in a New Mexico state court. In particular " Defendants' contact with Plaintiff throughout the times complained of were while they were performing their official duties" is false for the reason that defendants had no jurisdiction but merely used federal court to harass plaintiff. 5 Hoses writes 5. Additionally, removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action arises out of the administrative and judicial proceedings of a federal agency and the federal court conducted pursuant to federal regulations. is false. Defendants committing perjury in New Mexico state court by telling New Mexico state court that harassment and perjury [committed in writing in New Mexico court documents!] is a federal matter is not "conducted pursuant to federal regulations." Federal regulations require conformance to the anti- injunction act. Harassment and perjury committed in New Mexico state court don't fall into any exemption. 6 Hoses writes This Court has original jurisdiction of actions arising out of the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the extent, if any, Plaintiff complains of common law torts, this action is also controlled by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2671 et seq and arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331Federal question states The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Harassment and perjury and not federal questions. The perjury involves making a fraudulent statement to state court that defamation [libel] and harassment are federal questions. They are not and some defendants perjured themselves by removing a state case to federal court in violation of the anti-injunction act. 28 U.S.C. 2671 specifically states about a federal employee ''Acting within the scope of his office or employment''. Committing perjury by stating that harassment and defamation [libel] are federal questions should be within the scope of any employee of the United States. 7 Hoses writes WHEREFORE, the United States gives notice that Cause No. CV- 2001-05900 in the Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, is removed to this Court. must be rejected for the reason that harassment and perjury are not federal questions. Hoses has not complied with the provisions of 28 USC Sec. 2283, the anti-injuction act, to show that harassment and perjury committed in a New Mexico state court fall with in specified exemptions. WHEREFORE ignore Hoses fraudulent NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION and continue to proceed to jury trial in New Mexico state court plaintiff has paid for and is guaranteed under the constitutions of New Mexico and the United States. All evidence of guilt of defendants is IN WRITING so case is prima facia against defendants. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne Date I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 12, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE Michael Hoses William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna |
Judge Martha Vazquez is defendant in New Mexico civ - 2000 10289 = federal civ 01 0634.
Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia is defendant in New Mexico CV 2000-10278 = federal CIVIL No. 00-1677
But these seeming conflicts do not prevent chief Magistrate judges William W Deaton [WWD] from assigning both Vazquez and Garcia to newly removed case.
Looks like Payne has a really good third New Mexico state lawsuit for harassment coming-up about November 5. If these unfortunate matters aren't settled, of course.
All it takes is Payne to file a 1-041. Dismissal of actions to get Garcia off the hook. Once settlement is reached, of course.
Getting Vazquez off the hook is a bit more complicated since both Morales and Payne have to jointly file a 1-041.
You might think this beyond belief. Not in lawyer land. Thursday October 11, 2001 13:28
Pro se lawyer St John's plan is to get judge W Daniel Schneider
to dismiss Payne's complaint.
Schneider apparently is going along with St John by scheduling a hearing.
In federal court it is common practice for a judge to deny a citizens right to a jury trial by dismissing a complaint. However, the rules are different in state court.
Both St John and Schneider are breaking the rules.
We will try to get St John, Stephen French and Christina Anaya all disbarred. And Schneider off the this case and hopefully off the bench.
Schneider's blunder will likely cost him a lawsuit in state court for which the state Bill.Haas@state.nm.us will have to settle. If we don't get things settled, of course. Tuesday October 9, 2001 08:41
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Pro se lawyer Robert St John for defendant entity Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA writes Plaintiff William H. Payne has filed a motion to strike the Rodey Law Firm’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for relief from conspiracy of harassment and perjury and memorandum in support of motion to dismiss on the ground that it is a pro se pleading and that the undersigned counsel is not permitted to on behalf of the Rodey Law Firm. This argument has previously been raised by motion of the Plaintiff and has been ruled against the Plaintiff by order entered September 19, 2001. Whether or not Plaintiff agrees with the Court’s ruling is not material. The Court’s order of September 19 is now the law of the case and is binding upon the parties. DiMatteo v. County of Dana, 109 N.M. 374, 379, 785 P.2d 285, 290 (Ct. App. 1989) (citations omitted). ‘The doctrine of law of the case has long been recognized in New Mexico, since before statehood ... and since after statehood.” State v. Montoya, 94 N.M. 704, 705, 616 P.2d 417, 418 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) St John's statement is false. Plaintiff has filed motion to for judge Schneider to reconsider his or some other's blatant disregard of state rules. Therefore, until judge Schneider rule on motion to reconsider allowing Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA to represent itself pro se is still in question. If Schneider did, in fact, issue unsigned ORDER which violates state rules, Scheider, of course, will be removed under provisions of 1-088.1. Peremptory challenge to a district judge; recusal; procedure for exercising. 2 Pro se lawyer Robert St John for defendant entity Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA writes Plaintiffs motion should be denied and the Court should proceed to rule upon the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has paid $322 for a jury trial which he is guaranteed under the constitutions of New Mexico and United states. Exhibit A. If Schneider and the second district have not resolved hearing this case before a jury directed by a fair and unbiased judge who follows the law by November 2, 2001, then Schneider and others will be sued for harassment for issuing NOTICE OF HEARING for MOTION TO DISMISS. Exhibit B. The reasons are quite simple A Plaintiff paid to have jury trial not to have Schneider rule. If plaintiff would have wanted a trial by judge, then he would have so requested. B A motion to dismiss must satisfy 1-041. Dismissal of actions. St John's motion does not meet any of the requirement for a motion for dismissal. Further, it is St John who does not " [c]omply with these rules ..." This Court should reject St John's response and grant plaintiff's motion. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne Date I certify that a copy of this reply was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 5, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 1 Pro se lawyer Robert St John for defendant entity Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA writes By his motion for modification of judgment, the Plaintiff William H. Payne seeks to set aside the order of this Court entered September 19, 2001, which denied Plaintiffs earlier motion to strike entry of appearance. Among the arguments made by Mr. Payne in support of motion for modification are that his motion to strike was well taken, that the order of September 19, 2001, was not signed but stamped, that the order did not bear the signatures of the parties or their counsel, and that no hearing was held. None of these arguments is a valid ground to modify or set aside the order of September 19, 2001; and the motion for modification should be denied. Not at all. Either Schneider reverse whoever sent-out order of September 19, 2001 which violates New Mexico court rules or Schneider get removed under 1-088.1. Peremptory challenge to a district judge; recusal; procedure for exercising. and possibly sued for harassment. 1 Pro se lawyer Robert St John for defendant entity Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA writes The motion for modification of judgment is the most recent in a series of frivolous pleadings filed by the Plaintiff William H. Payne. While Mr. Payne is appearing as Plaintiff pro se, he is nevertheless subject to the rules of this Court, including Rule 1-011, Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts. Appropriate sanctions should be entered by the Court to stop the filing of frivolous pleadings by Mr. Payne, and to prevent his continued harassment of the parties and their counsel. It is not plaintiff who is filing frivolous pleadings. It is St John who is representing pro se the law firm of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA against New Mexico court rules. It is St John who frivolously filed motion to dismiss in violation of New Mexico court rules. It is St John who is harassing plaintiff by attempting to get Schneider to dismiss a prima facie case of libel. All of the evidence is in writing! Exhibit A. And the evidence indicates that criminal provisions of New Mexico state law have been broken and well as criminal provisions of the Privacy Act. But no judge, either state of federal, is doing his/her job to bring the criminals to justice. St John has created the appearance that he is part of a conspiracy with judge W Daniel Schneider in an attempt to toss-out plaintiff's prima facie state cases. St John clearly need to be replace by competent counsel outside his law firm of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne Date I certify that a copy of this reply was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 5, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Always get your demand, not request, in for a jury trial.
Crooked magistrate judges Lorenzo Garcia and Don Svet got caught in writing and are trying to save themselves. We don't think this will work.
Chief judge James A Parker now gets a pointed letter about in anti-injunction act and harassment.
Parker, of course, is responsible for sending lawsuits for which feds have no jurisdiction to Downes. For Downes this was unfortunate since he got sued twice in New Mexico.
While Parker's judicial conduct has been good in the Wen Ho Lee case, Parker is still somewhat suspect .
I'm not above suing both judges Schneider and Parker along with Hoses in the next state lawsuit. I have the data in writing.
But let's hope other see the merits of settlement. I could
then file a 1-041. Dismissal of actions. to dismiss the action
against Downes.
Tuesday October 9, 2001 09:16
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT William H. Payne, Plaintiff, v
01 cv 01132 PHYLLIS A. DOW, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A. Defendants NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Local Court rule 73.2 states Consent to Trial or to Rule on Dispositive Matters. (a) Designation of Magistrate Judge on cases not assigned to the Magistrate Judge Pool. Full-time Magistrate Judges are designated to exercise civil trial jurisdiction and, by consent of all parties, may handle any dispositive matter including trial. (1) Consent to Trial. Consent is to trial by the assigned Magistrate Judge only. (2) Consent to Rule on a Dispositive Matter. Parties may consent to refer any dispositive matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (b) Form of Consent. Parties wishing to consent must complete and submit a form, available from the Clerk, entitled "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge and Order of Reference." Plaintiff Payne DOES NOT consent to proceed with magistrate judge. 3 Docket entry 1 in harassing 01 cv 01132 states 09/28/01 10/01/01 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for relief from conspiracy of harassment & perjury Case Number: 1:01:CV:5900 (referred to Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia) (vv) (73k) Re: ANSWER [2] Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia is defendant in plaintiff's related New Mexico state lawsuit civ - 2000 10289. Garcia's involvement in 01 cv 01132 is improper since Garcia is not an unbiased judge. 4 In an another improperly removed New Mexico state lawsuit renumbered 01cv00634 chief judge James Parker properly recused all judicial officers 06/12/01 06/12/01 16 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker recusing all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico; and reassigning this case to the Hon. William F. Downes, Chief U.S. District Judge District of Wyoming (cc: all counsel*) (sl) (8k) However, Parker improperly allowed case to be removed from New Mexico to federal court. We continue to hope that Parker realizes that harassment, replevin, libel, defamation, and perjury are not federal questions. Federal court has no jurisdiction in these matters. Nor has any proper statement that it has been offered. This, of course, is why Wyoming chief judge William F Downes has been sued TWICE in the state of New Mexico for illegally harassing plaintiffs and inteferring the proper New Mexico judicial processing of cases. 5 This Court is notified that it is harassing plaintiff by sending a copy of this NOTICE to chief judge James Parker that it is violating 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. 6 Discontinue processing 01 cv 01132 as required by 28 USC Sec. 2283. 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 October 5, 2001 to Michael H Hoses Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker
|
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT William H. Payne, Plaintiff, v 01 cv 01132 PHYLLIS A. DOW, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A. Defendants DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Plaintiff Payne DEMANDS his right guaranteed under Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Jury Trial of Right 2 Plaintiff again objects to the improper removal of New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV- 2001-05900 to federal court. Harassment and perjury are not federal questions. Hoses and this court harasses plaintiff using federal court as instrument of harassment. This Court is notified of this harassment by sending a copy of this DEMAND to chief judge James Parker that it is violating 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 Discontinue processing 01 cv 01132 as required by 28 USC Sec. 2283. Respectfully submitted, William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on October 5, 2001 to Michael H Hoses Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Motion for sanctions again Assistant US Attorney John Zavits was filed
Downes, of course, is about to be sued in New Mexico for joining a conspiracy to harass and stalk Morales and Payne. We have all of the evidence in writing. And the capability to pull this off.
It is a shame to see judicial record as the one listed below tarnished. But Downes did it in writing.
Email Downes to express your regrets too Webmanager@wyd.uscourts.gov .
Let's all hope for settlement before matters get worse. Wednesday August 22, 2001 12:09
| William F. Downes
Chief Judge; Wyoming Born 1946; appointed in 1994 by President Clinton Education Univ. of North Texas, B.A., 1968; Univ. of Houston Law Center. J.D., 1974 Military Service U.S.M.C.. Captain. 1968-73 Private Practice Clark and Downes, Green River, Wyo., 1976-78; Brown & Drew, Casper, Wyo., 1978-94 Professional Association Wyoming State Bar (Honorary); Natrona County Bar Assn.; Colorado State Bar (Inactive) Noteworthy Rulings 1995: Downes denied a request to stop a federal wolf recovery program, which will return the animals to an rca from which they were exterminated more than 50 years ago. The wolves will be captured in Canada and released in Yellowstone National Park and the wilderness of central Idaho. Downes wrote that the opponents of the wolf-release program, a group of cattle and sheep ranchers, offered only “fear and speculation” that a significant amount of livestock would be lost to the wolves. Downes cited evidence from Minnesota, where wolves live near dairy farms, which indicates that wolves prefer wild game to domestic livestock. The program is the product of nearly $12 million in studies and 20 years of work by federal biologists. New York Times. January 4. 1995. 1996: Downes approved an injunction against a National Park Service ban on commercially guided climbing during the month of June at the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming, the oldest national monument in the United States. Downes said the ban was unconstitutional. The dispute over the monument arose between Native Americans’ religious beliefs and the rights of recreational climbers who want to use the site. Native American spiritual rites axe primarily held in June in honor of the summer solstice. In an attempt at compromise. the Park Service implemented a voluntary climbing ban in 1995, which successfully decreased the number of climbers during the American Indians’ religious use of the tower. But one climbing guide filed suit against the Park Service saving that he considered climbing the rock his own spiritual activity. Downes said that he agreed that people could be encouraged not to climb, but that the ban was “impermissible Government entanglement with religion.” New York Times, June 1, 1996 Lawyers’ Evaluation Lawyers gave Downes high marks for his legal skills. “He is outstanding." "He is a judge of great ability and character.” “He had a lot of trial practice before he went on the bench. lie was the best trial lawyer in Wyoming before he became a federal judge." "He’s a very good judge.” "He is doing a fine job.’’ "He’s very smart.” “He’s highly competent.” “You have got three great men as the judges in this district. All three of them are real team players. They all have a lot of integrity.” “The lawyers in this state are very lucky. All three judges in the District of Wyoming are very good.” “His strength is that he is very knowledgeable about the law. ““He has a good level of ability.” “He's a seven-and-a-half on a scale of one to 10 with 10 being the highest” Lawyers reported that Downes can be demanding. He’s just a wonderful man.” "He generally treats lawyers well.” “He’s very good at trial.” “He was a litigator with vast amounts of experience before he went on the bench Because of his background. he appreciates excellent advocacy. In fact, he really demands that lawyers who appear before him become excellent advocates. When a lawyer appears in front of Judge Downes. the lawyer can at least rely on the fact that Judge Downes knows what it’s like to be in the lawyer’s shoes. He does sometimes lose patience with lawyers who aren’t as good as he was. He has just an incredible record. He knows bow evidence is supposed to be entered, and he expects the lawyers who appear before him to know that too. "He really will interject at trial, all the more so if it appears that a lawyer is bungling the job. Judge Downes was a master litigator before he became a federal judge, and he’s very sharp. He does not tolerate any fumbling by the lawyer”. “His temperament is O.K.” Lawyers said that Downes’ courtroom is well-managed. “He had a lot of trial experience before he went on the bench. Things tend to run pretty smoothly as long as the lawyers are prepared.” “You’ve got to follow the rules with him, but if you do, you’ll be fine.” “He keeps a tight rein on things. He does not allow the lawyers a lot of leeway.” “He runs a tight ship.” “He’s very prompt in getting out his rulings.” “He tends to lose track of time during a trial. A lot of lawyers’ time is wasted as they’re standing around waiting for him to begin. He’s not real efficient with trial time. Downes is not overly active with respect to settlement, lawyers said. “He is not overbearing about settlement.” “He doesn’t force settlement on anyone.” “The magistrates for the most part handle settlement” “The judges in this district pretty much leave settlement to the federal magistrates.” “For the most part, settlement is handled by the magistrates.” “The judges here don’t have to be tough on settlement because they know that Magistrate Judge Beaman will take care of it for them.” “He pushes settlement. He’s reasonably effective at it’ Plaintiffs’ attorneys found Downes to be impartial. ‘He is very fair.” “He is open minded” “He is very willing to keep an open mind.” “He can be persuaded. He doesn’t predetermine the outcome of a case.” “He does not tolerate governmental abuse of its authority.” “He doesn’t have any plaintiff- or defendant-orientation.” “I think he’s fair.” Civil defense lawyers said that Downes is evenhanded. “He’s absolutely impartial.” “I’ve never seen any signs of bias.” “He’s very fair.” “He doesn’t display any bias.” “He is always very fair. I’d be surprised to hear anyone suggest otherwise.” Criminal defense lawyers said that Downes is fair at trial. “He’s good in criminal cases.” “He’s fair at trial:’ “I think he’s about as neutral as can be.” “He’s not prosecution-oriented.” “He’s all right at trial” “He doesn’t tilt toward either side.” Lawyers described Downes as a stringent sentencer. “He is tough on sentencing.” “When it comes to sentencing, he’s strict.” “He is tougher than I expected him to be on sentencing. He doesn’t seem to dislike the sentencing guidelines as much as the other judges in the district do.” “He is not inclined to depart downward from the guidelines.” “He’s tough.” Miscellany From 1986 until his appointment, 90 percent of Downes’s practice consisted of defending physicians in malpractice cases. From 1978 to 1986, Downes practiced general civil litigation with an emphasis in injury and product liability defense. Since 1992. Downes has been a member of the District of Wyoming's Standing Committee on Local Rules. During his tenure, the committee has rewritten the local rules of the district court for civil and criminal cases to implement the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. Inside Litigation. July 1999. Almanac of the Federal Judiciary Volume 1 10th Circuit ©2001 Aspen Law & Business |
Mellissa Cavaleri appears to be the "queen bee" of the second district civil division.
What is unusual about the order which clearly flies in the face of the law about corportations not being able to go pro se is that it is not signed by Schneider.
Court documents generally require signature or even an affidavit. We need to pursue this.
You will likely be horrified at the local rules on Orders, some of which we've posted.
Please note 1-088.1. D. Schneider has been sitting on Morales and Payne's original harassment and replevin lawsuit since October 2000. Looks like it is time to do something. Friday September 21, 2001 06:43
|
A. Judge shopping prohibited. Any order, judgment, decree, or other matter (hereinafter "order") once presented to a judge for signature and refused shall not be presented to any other judge. Proposed orders shall be presented to the assigned judge unless unavailable. The assigned judge's name shall be typed or printed on all proposed orders, directly below the judge's signature line. B. Date of filing and entry. The date of entry of any order shall be the same as the date of filing and shall be shown by the clerk's stamp unless the order is filed in open court. C. Parties' signatures required. Orders shall not be signed by the court unless signed by all parties entitled to notice except upon presentment hearing or consideration by the court pursuant to Subsection D below, or as otherwise provided by Supreme Court rule, second judicial district local rule, or statute. D. Deadline for presentment; presentment hearing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all proposed orders shall be presented to the court within fourteen (14) days after the court's decision. The prevailing party shall be responsible for such presentment, except in domestic relations court cases unless the court orders otherwise both parties shall bear the responsibility. If the signatures of all parties entitled to notice cannot be obtained by the fourteenth day, the prevailing party shall, no later than the fourteenth day, request a hearing on the issue in the manner set forth in second judicial district local rule LR2-123. Before the hearing, all parties shall submit proposed forms of order. The court may review the proposed forms of order and rule on the form without hearing. E. Filing; notice. The submitting party shall promptly file the order after it is signed and mail or deliver endorsed copies to all parties entitled to notice. The court takes no responsibility for the filing of such orders. F. Service of orders filed by the court. The court will mail or deliver endorsed copies of all orders filed by the court, to all parties entitled to notice. LR9-300. Orders and judgments. A. Orders, judgments, and decrees will be submitted to the court for signature not later than four (4) days following the day of announcement by the court of its decision, unless a longer time is granted by the court. B. Every order, judgment, or decree, or other instrument which has been signed by the court shall be immediately delivered to the appropriate clerk for filing. No signed order, judgment, or decree will be taken from the courthouse until after it has been docketed, filed, or recorded. C. Orders, judgments, or decrees will not be signed by the court unless they have been initialed by the attorney or attorneys for all parties to the cause or after proper notice to opposing counsel of record. D. Orders, decrees, and judgments will be submitted and delivered directly to the judge who is trying or has tried the case, and not to the clerk of the district court. LR3-212. Orders and judgments. A. A district judge may sign an order or judgment when the judge who presided is unavailable, if satisfied that the order or judgment complies with the assigned judge's decision. Any order or other matter once presented to a judge for approval or signature and refused shall not be presented to any other judge except the assigned judge. B. Orders and judgments shall be separately filed, and shall not be included as part of any pleading. C. Every order, judgment or other instrument which has been signed by the court shall be immediately delivered to the court clerk for filing. Orders and judgments shall not be dated. The date of filing and of entry shall be the same in all cases and shall be shown by the court administrator's stamp, unless filed in open court. D. Orders and judgments shall not be signed by the court unless legibly signed or telephonically approved by all counsel of record, or until after a hearing on the form of the order or judgment. E. Names or addresses of attorneys shall not appear on any judgment or order except to reflect their approval. F. Subject to Rule 1-058(B) NMRA, all orders, judgments and decrees shall be submitted to the assigned judge within ten (10) days of the decision. The prevailing party shall be responsible for such submission and, if the approval of opposing counsel cannot be obtained by the tenth (10th) day, prevailing counsel shall, no later than the tenth (10th) day, request a setting for a hearing before the assigned judge. At the hearing, counsel shall submit their proposed order or judgment to the court. (1) In matters decided by the court after a hearing or trial, the prevailing party or the party designated by the court shall prepare orders or judgments and shall submit them to opposing counsel within five (5) days from the date the order or judgment was made by the court. (2) If the proposed order or judgment is approved by all counsel as to form or otherwise, the order or judgment shall so indicate and may be signed by the court immediately, if appropriate. Orders may be approved telephonically and so indicated. (3) Any order which the parties have agreed and stipulated to shall be approved without reservation by counsel, and not "Approved as to Form" or in any other way limiting approval. (4) If opposing counsel does not agree as to the form of order or judgment, such counsel shall send written objection, if any, by letter, to the court and counsel within five (5) days from the receipt of the order or judgment and shall not submit a separate order or judgment, unless requested by the court to do so. (5) The court will inform all counsel of its ruling on the objections and the prevailing or designated party shall prepare a proper order or judgment, if different from the one initially submitted, in accordance with the court's decision on the objections. G. A final judgment based upon a written instrument shall be accompanied by said instrument, which shall be filed as an exhibit in the case at the time the judgment is entered, and may be returned to the party filing the same only as in the case of other exhibits, and shall be appropriately marked as having been merged into the judgment and show the docket number of the action. H. Orders to show cause shall be submitted to the judge assigned to hear the case. If, however, such judge is unavailable, then the proposed order may be signed by any judge, but only after the date for hearing has been obtained from the secretary of the judge who will hear the matter. I. The court may award attorney fees and costs required for a judicial inquiry made necessary by failure to comply with this rule. |
| 1-088.1. Peremptory challenge to a district judge; recusal;
procedure for exercising.
A. Limit on excusals or challenges. No party shall excuse more than one judge. A party may not excuse a judge after the party has requested that judge to perform any discretionary act other than an order for free process or a determination of indigency. B. Procedure for excusing a district judge. A party may exercise the statutory right to excuse the district judge before whom the case is pending by filing with the clerk of the district court a peremptory election. The peremptory election to excuse must be: (1) signed by a party plaintiff or that party's attorney and filed within ten (10) days after the latter of: (a) the filing of the complaint; or (b) mailing by the clerk of notice of assignment or reassignment of the case to a judge; or (2) signed by any other party, or that party's attorney, and filed within ten (10) days after the latter of the filing of the first pleading or motion pursuant to Rule 1-012 by that party or of mailing by the clerk of notice of assignment or reassignment of the case to a judge. C. Notice of reassignment; service of excusal. After the filing of the complaint, if the case is reassigned to a different judge, the clerk shall give notice of the reassignment to all parties. Any party electing to excuse a judge shall serve notice of such election on all parties. D. Recusal. No district judge shall sit in any action in which the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the judge shall file a recusal in any such action. Upon receipt of notification of recusal from a district judge, the clerk of the court shall give written notice to each party. [As amended, effective August 1, 1988; January 1, 1995.] |
Handling this is very important. Do it legally. If you don't, then they have you.
You want to get them ... legally, of course.
10-230.1. Modification of judgment.A. Correction of judgment. The court may correct an unlawful disposition at any time and may correct a commitment imposed in an unlawful manner within the time provided by this rule for the reduction of the term of commitment.
B. Reduction of term of commitment. A motion to modify or reconsider the judgment or disposition may be filed by the respondent within thirty (30) days after the judgment is filed. A form of order setting a hearing on the motion shall be submitted with the motion. The court shall determine the motion within ninety (90) days after the date it is filed or the motion is deemed denied.
[Adopted, effective May 3, 1999.]N.M. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 32 Judicial standards commission. (2001 Supp.)
There is created the "judicial standards commission", consisting of two justices or judges, one magistrate and two lawyers selected as may be provided by law to serve for terms of four years, and six citizens, none of whom is a justice, judge or magistrate of any court or licensed to practice law in this state, who shall be appointed by the governor for five-year staggered terms as may be provided by law. If a position on the commission becomes vacant for any reason, the successor shall be selected by the original appointing authority in the same manner as the original appointment was made and shall serve for the remainder of the term vacated. No act of the commission is valid unless concurred in by a majority of its members. The commission shall select one of the embers appointed by the governor to serve as chairman.
Thursday September 20, 2001 18:41
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO WILLIAM H. PAYNE, vs. CASE NO. CV-2001-5900 PHYLLIS A. DOW, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Entry of Appearance and the Court having reviewed the motion and being well-advised in the premisesFINDS Plaintiffs Motion is not well-taken; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Entry of Appearance is hereby denied. stamp W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER District Court Judge, Division VII |
Both of these were filed on Friday. Sunday September 23, 2001 06:07
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants MOTION TO STRIKE THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 1 New Mexico rules LR3-202, LR13-410, LR2-116 are all very clear. "No pro se appearances by entities." LR3-202. Pro se filings. Lawyer Robert St John wrote There is no law or rule of court in New Mexico which prohibits a lawyer from representing a corporation in which the lawyer has an interest. St John's statement appears false in view of New Mexico rules LR3-202, LR13-410, and LR2-116. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA is effectively going "pro se" by having its lawyer St John represent it. 3 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA file THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS on September 14, 2001. This is apparently done in violation of rules not permitted a corporation to represent itself pro se. WHEREFORE 4 Strike both THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS as violating local rule LR2-116. Pro se appearance and filings; corporations as parties. 5 If plaintiff is harassed by forcing plaintiff to respond to THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY, then grant extension of 30 days after court has ruled against plaintiff on MOTION TO STRIKE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, MOTION TO STRIKE THE RODEY LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS. 6 Plaintiff advises Court and others that he will be out of state between September 23, 2001 and October 1, 2001 and therefore will not be available to respond or attend hearings. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne Date I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on September 21, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna |
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 1 This motion is brought under 2 ORDER dated Sep 19 2001, Exhibit A, states THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Entry of Appearance and the Court having reviewed the motion and being well-advised in the premises FINDS Plaintiffs Motion is not well-taken; is incorrect. This motion is well-taken New Mexico rules LR3-202, LR13-410, LR2-116 are all very clear. "No pro se appearances by entities." LR3-202. Pro se filings. 3 ORDER then states IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Entry of Appearance is hereby denied. This ruling violates "No pro se appearances by entities." ORDER is not signed by Schneider but stamped. Exhibit A. 5 Second judicial district rule LR2-130. Orders, judgments and decrees, states. A.[P]roposed orders shall be presented to the assigned judge unless unavailable. The assigned judge's name shall be typed or printed on all proposed orders, directly below the judge's signature line. ORDER is not signed by Schneider but stamped. Exhibit A. This violates LR2-130. No Schneider signature. 6 LR2-130 goes on to require C. Parties' signatures required. Orders shall not be signed by the court unless signed by all parties entitled to notice except upon presentment hearing or consideration by the court pursuant to Subsection D below, or as otherwise provided by Supreme Court rule, second judicial district local rule, or statute. Plaintiff or other parties signatures not on Exhibit A. ORDER in exhibit A violates LR2-130 7 LR2-130 goes on to require D. Deadline for presentment; presentment hearing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all proposed orders shall be presented to the court within fourteen (14) days after the court's decision. The prevailing party shall be responsible for such presentment, except in domestic relations court cases unless the court orders otherwise both parties shall bear the responsibility. while Plaintiff requested hearing and file return stamped evelope, no hearing was held. ORDER was returned in envelope plaintiff gave Scheinder for hearing notification. Exhibit B. 8 WHEREFORE compel the entity hire legal counsel as required by law and not represent itself pro se. Rescind ORDER and comply with LR2-130. Since Schneider's signature is not on ORDER we must assume that Schneider did not see ORDER. Therefore, it is important that Schneider correct his order and follow court rules on the next attempt to issue an order. Respectfully Submitted William H Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 505 292 7037 Date I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on September 21, 2001 ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE William F. Downes Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. John Brennan Patricio Serna |
The Rodey law firm and perhaps its insurance carrier are working hard so that it doesn't have to hire a law firm to defend it. But the law doesn't appear to favor its position.
On the other hand, if there are crooked judges ... as in federal court ... then legal arguments based on the law don't go far.
Let's see what the state court does ... if anything.
It, of course, is in the state court system's interest to enforce its rules. This has an added benefit of forcing the Rodey law firm to spent significant dollars which promotes settlement chances. Wednesday September 19, 2001 08:21
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER civ 2001-05900 William H Payne Plaintiff v Phyllis A. Dow Defendants REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE l Lawyer Robert St John writes In response to the motion of Plaintiff William H. Payne to strike the entry of appearance filed on behalf of Defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., the undersigned, Robert M. St. John, states that he is a member of the bar of the State of New Mexico in good standing, State Bar No. 2558. There is no law or rule of court in New Mexico which prohibits a lawyer from representing a corporation in which the lawyer has an interest. appears to be incorrect. LR3-202. Pro se filings, states in its entirety A. Pro se appearances by individuals. Any party, who is an individual, desiring to proceed pro se in any cause shall include with the first pleadings filed their full name, home address and telephone number, business address and telephone number, if any. Thereafter, it shall be the responsibility of such pro se party to apprise the court of any changes in such information. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. B specifically prohibits the entity Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA from representing itself in this court. St John is wrong when he wrote There is no law or rule of court in New Mexico which prohibits a lawyer from representing a corporation in which the lawyer has an interest. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA is effectively going "pro se" by having St John represent it. 2 If this Court permits a law firm to represent itself pro se, then it would be unfair to not allow other corporations to represent themselve pro se. 3 Allowing Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA a law firm to represent itself would create the appearance that this Court and the Second Judicial District was show favoritism to the legal profession. This would further create the impression that this Court was not unbiased in handling cases where law firms are defendants. 4 WHEREFORE Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA response must be rejected. In addition St John's not knowing or attempting to subvert the law when he wrote There is no law or rule of court in New Mexico which prohibits a l |
Iglesias
LR2-130. Orders, judgments and decrees. 
