SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER CV-200106293
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
John J Zavits
William F. Downes
French & Associates
PC
Defendants
Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY Wednesday April 3, 2002 13:49
Here arethe finalS.
An observer asked Payne if magistrate judge Don Svet was still working at federal court.
The answer is "yes." And says a lot about judge James A Parker.
Patrick is trying out of his problem by using a technicality. Words
ESSENTIAL MATERIAL FACTS
are very important in court matters and may get Patrick.
Along with the fact that judge Dee Vance Benson doesn't have jurisdiction!
Judge Downes rulings, which may have been written by Parker, when he didn't have jurisdiction is what got him sued.
Downes may have been misinformed by Parker.
Settlement is, of course, the best way out of these matter for the feds and state. All of the evidence of defendants guilt is in writing. Thursday March 28, 2002 13:46
|
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS 1 Special attorney Richard Patrick writes Undersigned counsel for defendant William F. Downes, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, hereby responds in opposition to plaintiffs motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Because plaintiffs motion is procedurally and substantively flawed, it should be summarily denied. is false. Contrary to Patrick's statement plaintiffs motion is procedurally and substantively flawed Plaintiffs' motion exactly follows procedures required Pendleton v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, 184 F.R.D. 637, 640 (D. N.M. 1999). As Tenth Circuit judge Paul Kelly, Jr points out Issues regarding sanctions under Rule 11 are collateral and the court has jurisdiction to consider them despite the entry of judgment and dismissal of an action, whatever the reason. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. Plaintiffs follow this rule by filing their collateral motion for sanctions as required by Rule 11. 2 Special attorney Richard Patrick writes Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 l(c)(l)(A), the safe harbor provision, plaintiffs were obligated to serve their motion for sanctions on undersigned counsel in advance of filing. Only if the challenged motion to dismiss was not withdrawn or corrected within 21 days after service is the motion for sanctions to be filed. Compliance with the safe harbor provisions is mandatory within the Tenth Circuit. For that procedural default above, plaintiffs Rule 11 motion should be denied. Pendleton v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, 184 F.R.D. 637, 640 (D. N.M. 1999). The "safe harbor" provision, Rule 11 1993 Ammendment, states The rule provides that requests for sanctions must be made as a separate motion, i.e., not simply included as an additional prayer for relief contained in another motion. Plaintiffs did this. The motion for sanctions is not, however, to be filed until at least 21 days (or such other period as the court may set) after being served. If, during this period, the alleged violation is corrected, as by withdrawing (whether formally or informal)) some allegation or contention, the motion should not be filed with the court. These provisions are intended to provide a type of safe harbor against motions under Rule 11 in that a party will not be subject to sanctions on the basis of another partys motion unless, after receiving the motion, it refuses to withdraw that position or to acknowledge candidly that it does not currently have evidence to support a specified allegation. Under the former rule, parties were some times reluctant to abandon a questionable contention lest that be viewed as evidence of a violation of Rule 11; under the revision, the timely withdrawal of a contention will protect a party against a motion for sanctions.Plaintiffs did both file a motion and give Patrick opportunity to withdraw. We see this in docket entry 29, Exhibit A. 02/01/02 02/04/02 29 MOTION by pltfs for order to correct failure to mail copy of notice of request for John Ashcroft and Richard Patrick to withdraw mtns to dismiss (bap) (118k)Further Notice given: Patrick was notified by phone on January 28, 2002 [Exhibit A, docket entry 28] and corresponded by mail in which intention of the motion for sanctions were discussed. The safe harbor concept is to prevent blind-siding or instant motion. This was not the case here. Rule 11 c(1)A suggests that notice (formal or informal) must be given. Patrick corresponded by mail to plaintiffs and was fully aware of the issues and position that appeared in the Rule 11 motion filed. So he was fully notified. Secondly, plaintiffs reputation for pursuing the issues are well-established. Therefore fair and legal notice was timely. Patrick didn't only fail to withdraw motion within "safe harbor" time but Patrick flaunts ignoring safe harbor IN WRITING in his February 11, 2002 letter to plaintiffs [Exhibit B] where he writes Thus, while I do appreciate your approaching me on an informal basis on the settlement issues, I believe we should await the Courts ruling on my motions to dismiss. and then again in his February 22, 2000 [Exhibit C] reasserts Accordingly, at this point, I do not believe that settlement discussion is my client's best interests. Patrick boldly ignore plaintiffs' request to withdraw motion. Patrick continue to hope that this Court, judge Dee Vance Benson, will rule, rather than remand, a New Mexico state case which was improperly removed to federal court. Federal court and judge Benson has no jurisdiction over state case of harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel]. 3 Special attorney Richard Patrick writes Substantively, plaintiffs motion is premised upon the argument that the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Chief Judge Downes is frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. (Plaintiffs motion, p.1.) The merits of Chief Judge Downes motion to dismiss remain for resolution by this Court. Here it is sufficient to say that that motion is both legally and factually well-supported. As to plaintiffs assertion that the motion to dismiss was filed for an improper purpose, that argument is specious. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is so settled in American jurisprudence that any litigant who sues a judge for judicial acts within his jurisdiction must expect a responsive motion to dismiss as a threshold hurdle to overcome. is again frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.. Patrick was given opportunity to withdraw motion. Patrick continues to hope that this court would act improperly, as defendant judge William F Downes did, and rule on substantive issues, plaintiff rightly filed motion for sanctions under Rule 11. 4 Special attorney Richard Patrick writes Accordingly, undersigned counsel hereby requests that the Rule 11 motion be summarily denied. must be denied. And Patrick be sanctioned to the fullest extent under the law for attempting to get this court to improperly rule on a motion to dismiss New Mexico state cases of harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel]. 5 Lastly we should also learn from Pendleton v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility that settlement would be the most expeditious solution to this whole morass of litigation. Plaintiffs have offered to file motion allowed under New Mexico state law to dismiss charges against judge William F Downes as part of settlement. Plaintiffs continue to seek settlement but will continue to pursue justice in the courts if settlement is out of the question. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on March 28, 2002 to Richard G Patrick French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes Judge Dee Vance Benson |
Morales and Payne now get to file a reply to Patrick's response. This, too, must be done within 14 days.
We'll have to look up Pendleton. Reason is that lawyers irrelevant case or a case does not support point to be made.
Note the attempted reliance on the 10th circuit. The tenth circuit was used to extort a cheap settlement from Hispanic FBI agents.
| JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General RICHARD G. PATRICK Special Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 5148 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
John W. Zavitz; William F. Downes; and Defendants. Undersigned counsel for defendant William F. Downes, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, hereby responds in opposition to plaintiffs motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Because plaintiffs motion is procedurally and substantively flawed, it should be summarily denied. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 l(c)(l)(A), the safe harbor provision, plaintiffs were obligated to serve their motion for sanctions on undersigned counsel in advance of filing. Only if the challenged motion to dismiss was not withdrawn or corrected within 21 days after service is the motion for sanctions to be filed. Compliance with the safe harbor provisions is mandatory within the Tenth Circuit. For that procedural default above, plaintiffs Rule 11 motion should be denied. Pendleton v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, 184 F.R.D. 637, 640 (D. N.M. 1999). Substantively, plaintiffs motion is premised upon the argument that the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Chief Judge Downes is frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. (Plaintiffs motion, p.1.) The merits of Chief Judge Downes motion to dismiss remain for resolution by this Court. Here it is sufficient to say that that motion is both legally and factually well-supported. As to plaintiffs assertion that the motion to dismiss was filed for an improper purpose, that argument is specious. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is so settled in American jurisprudence that any litigant who sues a judge for judicial acts within his jurisdiction must expect a responsive motion to dismiss as a threshold hurdle to overcome. Accordingly, undersigned counsel hereby requests that the Rule 11 motion be summarily denied. Respectfully submitted this 21st2002. JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General Richard G Patrick William H. Payne Christina E. Anaya Michael Hoses, AUSA |
We're going to have to add all of the defendants in each lawsuit to the lists.
Morales and Payne must try to get both the state and federal legal systems moving.
Discovery is a great way to do this!
V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY ADVISORY COMMITTEES EXPLANATORY STATEMENT CONCERNING 1970 AMENDMENTS OF THE DISCOVERY RULES
This statement is intended to serve as a general introduction to the amendments of Rules 2637, concerning discovery, as well as related amendments of other rules A separate note of customary scope is appended to amendments proposed for each rule. This statement provides a framework for the consideration of individual rule changes.
CHANGES IN THE DISCOVERY RULES
The discovery rules, as adopted in 1938, were a striking and imaginative departure from tradition. It was expected from the outset that they would be important, but experience has shown them to play an even larger role than was initially foreseen. Although the discovery rules have been amended since 1938, the changes were relatively few and narrowly focused, made in order to remedy specific defects. The amendments now proposed reflect the first comprehensive review of the discovery rules undertaken since 1938. These amendments make substantial changes in the discovery rules. Those summarized here are among the more important changes.
Scope of Discovery. New provisions are made and existing provisions changed affecting the scope of discovery: (1) The contents of insurance policies are made discoverable (Rule 26(b)(2)). (2) A showing of good cause is no longer required for discovery of documents and things and entry upon land (Rule 34). However, a showing of need is required for discovery of trial preparation materials other than a partys discovery of his own statement and a witness discovery of his own statement; and protection is afforded against disclosure in such documents of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories concerning the litigation. (Rule 26(b(3)). (3) Provision is made for discovery with respect to experts retained for trial preparation, and particularly those experts who will be called to testify at trial (Rule 26(b)(4)). (4) It is provided that interrogatories and requests for admission are not objectionable simply because they re. late to matters of opinion or contention, subject of course to the supervisory power of the court (Rules 33(b), 86(a)). (5) Medical examination is made available as to certain nonparties. (Rule 35(a)).
Mechanics of Discovery. A variety of changes are made in the mechanics of the discovery process, affecting the sequence and timing of discovery, the respective obligations of the parties with respect to requests, responses, and motions for court orders, and the related powers of the court to enforce discovery requests and to protect against their abusive use. A new provision eliminates the automatic grant of priority in discovery to one side (Rule 26(d)). Another provides that a party is not under a duty to supplement his responses to requests for discovery, except as specified (Rule 26(e)).
Other changes in the mechanics of discovery are designed to encourage extrajudicial discovery with a minimum of court intervention. Among these are the following: (1) The requirement that a plaintiff seek leave court for early discovery requests is eliminated or reduced, and motions for a court order under Rule 24 made unnecessary. Motions under Rule 35 are continued. (2) Answers and objections are to be served together an enlargement of the time for response is provided. ...
Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules 1991 Revised Edition, West Publishing Company
And its really fun to write admissions[yes/no responses], interrogatories [short answers], and production of audio, video, electronic media, notes, documents, etc.
Here are the first drafts.
We are submitting one for each of the five federal lawsuits. And for the two open state lawsuits. Saturday March 16, 2002 09:35
|
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. DISCOVERY PLAN 1 As this court may know
and
However, Local Rule 26.4 Timing of Discovery and Initial Disclosures states
3 Nothing appears to be getting done in this lawsuit. It appears the Court is stalling. Plaintiffs must request discovery to find out what is causing the delay. Plaintiffs demands their right to conduct discovery under Rule 26. This court has not scheduled required by local rule Initial Scehduling Conference, therefore plaintiffs submits their plan to court. 4 DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on March 18, 2002 to Richard G Patrick French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes Judge Dee Vance Benson |
| SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO civ - 2000 10289 Arthur R Morales Plaintiffs v Robert J Gorence Defendants DISCOVERY PLAN 1 As the court may realize from RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS 1-026. General provisions governing discovery.and LR2-602. Settlement facilitation program.2 Case civ - 2000 10289 is an open jury trial lawsuit. 3 Nothing appears to be getting done in this lawsuit. It appears the Court is stalling. Plaintiffs must request discovery to find out what is causing the delay. Respectfully submitted |
Here's what was filed on Friday.
Let's hope some finally see the merits of settlement before this get worse. Monday March 11, 2002 09:50
|
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson
JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY RICHARD G PATRICK FOR FAILURE TO WITHDRAW MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS MOTION Note: Relevant material from exhibits are reproduced for sake of continuity 1 Sanction Assistant US Attorney Richard G Patrick for failure to withdraw MOTION AS TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM F. DOWNES [Exhibit A, docket entry 26] and MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AS TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM F. DOWNES [Exhibit A, docket entry 27] which is frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. MEMORANDUM 2 Assistant US Attorney Patrick and attorney general John Ashcroft were asked 1/29/02 01/30/02 24 NOTICE by pltfs of request for John Ashcroft and Richard Patrick to withdraw mtns to dismiss as to deft Downes (bap) (259k)Exhibit A, docket entry 24. Docket sheet, Exhibit A shows that requested MOTION and associated MEMORANDUM not withdrawn. 3 New Mexico chief judge James A Parker 10/25/01 10/26/01 6 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Judge James A. Parker reassigning case to Chief Judge Dee V. Benson for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) (bap) (8k)and judge Dee Vance Benson were asked to provide Anti-Injunction act 28 USC Sec. 2283justification for removal of case from state to federal court. Exhibit A, docket entry 9. 11/08/01 11/08/01 9 NOTICE by pltfs of request for Anti-Injunction Act justification for removal of NM case CV-2001-6293 to federal court (bap) (109k)Parker and Benson provide no justification for removal of case involving harassment and replevin from state to federal court. Exhibit A, docket entry 16. 11/29/01 11/30/01 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal (bap) (86k)No response means affirmation to plaintiffs' pleading that there is no jufication for removal under the anti-injuction act. Therefore the conclusion is that judge Benson has no jurisdiction over state case of harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel]. 4 Rule 11(b). Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions state in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (b) Representations to Court.Assistant US Attorney Patrick and attorney general Ashcroft submitted frivolous MOTION TO DISMISS and associated MEMORANDUM to judge Dee Vance Benson who does not have jurisdiction in case for harassment, replevin and defamation [libel]. Lawyers Patrick and Ashcroft have presented their MOTION and associated MEMORANDUM in hope that federal chief judge Benson will dismiss claim against fellow judge William F Downes. Patrick and Ashcroft's actions are therefore premeditated and malicious. 5 Assistant US Attorney writes plaintiffs, Exhibit B, February 11,2002Plaintiffs respond to Patrick to explain the errors in his thinking. Exhibit C. Friday 2/15/02 12:53 PMExhibit D. 6 While plaintiffs believe their February 15, 2002 letter to Patrick adequately explained why these unfortunate matters should be settled and what plaintiffs were prepared to do with Downes, Patrick responds February 22, 2002Exhibit E. 7 Patrick's statement As I understand the law, and the effect of the federal removal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§1441 et seq., a state case, upon removal and unless remanded, becomes a federal case.appears not only to be incorrect, but frivolous. Sec. 1441. - Actions removable generally states (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.First, of course, any removable case must meet the qualifications set forth by the Anti-injunction act. Second, judge Martha Vazquez ordered a stay of proceeding until results of the New Mexico court hearing were final. But this never occurred making removal improper. Third, the court's credibility is at question A The court does not follow its own rule by NOT allowing plaintiffs their due process. B When the court ignore a vital request of interpretation of law. [Anti-injunction Act justification] C The court cannot admit it is human and need to be corrected. These have a chilling effect to the meaning of justice in our courts. Harassment, replevin, defamation [libel] make the cases not removable from state to federal court. And, of course, Sec. 1331. - Federal question states The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United StatesHarassment, replevin, defamation [libel] are not federal questions. Defendant judge Downes merely broke New Mexico state laws against harassment IN WRITING. 8 Patrick's statement As the United States Supreme Court has explained once a case has been removed to federal court, it is settled that federal rather than state law governs the future course of proceedings. Granny Goose Foods. Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 437 (1974). The Supreme Court, also long ago, held that removal of state cases to federal court is not an invasion of the sovereignty of a State. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257,266-67 (1879).is misleading. Summary of Granny Goose Foods is Petitioner employers brought suit in California state court alleging that respondent Union was engaging in a strike in breach of collective bargaining agreements. The court issued a temporary restraining order on May 18, 1970. Two days later, the case was removed to federal court, and on June 4, the District Court denied the Union's motion to dissolve the restraining order. Strike activity then stopped, and the labor dispute remained dormant until the Union, after the petitioners had refused to bargain, resumed its strike on November 30, 1970. Two days later, the District Court, on petitioners' motion, held the Union in criminal contempt for violating the restraining order. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the order had expired long before November 30, 1970, reasoning that, under both state law and Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(b), the order expired no later than June 7, 1970, 20 days after its issuance, and rejecting petitioners' contention that the life of the order was indefinitely prolonged by 28 U.S.C. § 1450 "until dissolved or modified by the district court."And Tennessee v Davis summary is Tennessee v. Davis (1879)This makes it appear that Patrick is citing a case which has nothing to do with removal of a New Mexico state lawsuit for harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] to federal court. Further defendant Downes has been caught TWICE IN WRITING violating his "lawful powers." Patrick then writes Unless, however, you are successful in getting them remanded, they are federal cases to be decided under federal law, unless, again, you are successful in appeals in federal court. Once the federal decisions become final, New Mexico state courts are bound by the federal decisions under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.which is a deliberate malicious and frivolous attempt to deceives plaintiffs. Benson has no jurisdiction under the Anti-injunction Act. So, since Patrick's letters are not part of a judicial proceeding but an ex parte communication with plaintiffs , it therefore appears that Patrick's statements may violate Title 18 Chapter 47 FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS Sec. 1001. - Statements or entries generallyPatrick concludes I again thank you for your letter. Unfortunately, we still seem to be at odds as to what the governing law is.The law is quite clear. Patrick may be violating Title 18 criminal laws. But plaintiffs continue to be conciliatory and pray these unfortunate matters are settled soon. For the court to continue on this path without some attempt to negotiate or resolve these issue gives the appearance of stalling. Stalling means delay justice. Delayed justice is just another term for injustice. 9 However, Rule 11(c) goes on to state (c) Sanctions.Patrick and Ashcroft were given opportunity to withdraw their MOTION and associated MEMORANDUM. More than 21 days have elapsed since request was made. Patrick must PUNISHED WITH THE HARSHEST OF FINANCIAL SANCTIONS to prevent the chilling effect of misuse of federal courts. 10 WHEREFORE sanction Assistant US Attorney Richard G Patrick for $300,000 for filing frivolous MOTION and associated MEMORANDUM. Plaintiffs ask for $2,000 labor to prepare this filing. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on March 8, 2002 to Richard G Patrick French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Chief District Judge, Division XIV Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes Judge Dee Vance Benson http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
Morales and Payne decided to respond to both of Patrick's LONG filings for dismissal by short filings.
Judge Dee Vance Benson doesn't have jurisdiction.
We asked all judges to give us an affidavit to show why they did have jurisdiction. We got no response. So we filed out affidavits that judges Parker, Benson, and Downes didn't respond. And sued Downes twice, of course, in New Mexico state court.
We will research all legal citations in Patrick two filings when we move for Rule 11 sanctions for his two frivolous filings. They are frivolous because Patrick is filing in a federal court which does not have jurisdiction. Wednesday February 13, 2002 09:02
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. RESPONSE TO MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM F. DOWNES 1 US Special Attorney Richard G Patrick writes Chief Judge William F. Downes, by undersigned counsel, hereby moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), that this action, as to him, be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 A Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this motion is filed herewith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) states Rule 12. Defenses and Objections When and How Presented By Pleading or Motion - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Since Patrick writes 1 Movant specifically preserves his defense of insufficiency of service of process. Rule 12(b)(5) states Patrick's claim of insufficiency of service of process must be summarily rejected. Judge Downes was properly served by a sheriff in New Mexico state lawsuit 01 cv 6293. 01cv 6293 was improperly removed to federal court and labeled federal Civil No. 01-1198. This court does not have jurisdiction over New Mexico state lawsuit 01cv 6293. Judges Benson and Parker were given opportunity to give justification for jurisdiction. 11/08/01 11/08/01 9 NOTICE by pltfs of request for Anti-Injunction Act justification for removal of NM case CV-2001-6293 to federal court (bap) (109k) But Benson and Parker failed to give justification for jurisdication. 11/29/01 11/30/01 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal (bap) (86k) Exhibit A. See arrows. New Mexico state lawsuit 01cv 6293 was for Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. Harassment and perjury in New Mexico state court are not federal issues. Patrick's argument motion to dismiss (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, does not apply since complaint against Downes is in New Mexico state court. Plaintiffs have made NO STATEMENT OF CLAIMS against Downes in federal court. US special attorney Patrick harasses us using the federal court as instrument of harassment. This court does not have jurisdiction over New Mexico state issues of Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. 2 This improperly removed lawsuit has its roots in New Mexico state lawsuit 00:CV:10289. This lawsuit remains to this day as an active jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico. New Mexico state lawsuit 00:CV:1028900 was improperly removed to federal court and labeled 01cv 1574. Plaintiffs use word IMPROPERLY with authority. Federal judge Martha Vazquez ORDERED 01cv 1574 stayed until outcome of New Mexico hearing was final! 12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10- 1], Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10] Exhibit A. Plaintiffs have continually been denied right to be heard in New Mexico state court. Money was taken from plaintiffs without due process. US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file ORDER OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don F Svet on April 20, 1999 against plaintiff Morales with no cause of action again him. Judge Downes, presiding over improperly removed federal 1574, is instrumental in continuing the denial of due process before jury. Downes has joined plaintiffs list of unacceptable acts of harassment. 3 WHEREFORE Patrick's MOTION must be rejected. Patrick's repeated appeal for judicial immunity for judge Downes is clearly frivolous for the reason that judge who commit state crimes are not doing so in their official capacities and must be REJECTED. Downes did and does not have jurisdiction in federal 1574. Downes and Parker were given opportunity to claim jurisdiction in 1574 but did not 8/30/01 08/30/01 47 NOTICE by plaintiff Arthur R Morales of non-compliance of Judge William Downes to provide anti injunction affidavit (sl) (302k) Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on February 12, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
Here's the draft of the REPLY to Hoses' RESPONSE
We're updating as Morales phones in changes!
We like, and respect the problems with, high tech computer stuff. 1
While what we're doing is hopefully going to result in a legal disaster for the feds, there is another interesting potential disaster we should all be aware of.
Japan Inc. may go bankrupt!
Then, too, is the NASDAQ.
And the microcontroller IP core meltdowns.
Let's all hope these unfortunate matters get settled so the feds can concentrate on other issues. Tuesday February 12, 2002 11:50
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE OF MICHAEL HOSES TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY MICHAEL HOSES FOR FILING DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1 Assistant US Attorney Michael H. Hoses writes In their motion for sanctions against Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hoses Plaintiffs complain that Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hoses violated D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.4 when he filed a motion and memorandum to dismiss Defendant John W. Zavitz based on absolute immunity (Docs. Nos. 11 & 12). Plaintiffs motion for sanctions at 3.1 Undersigned counsel complied with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.4 when he filed the motion and memorandum to dismiss based on absolute immunity D.NM.LR-Civ. 83.4 provides: Hoses' statement sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorneys name, address, and telephone number. is not a federal rule but a state of New Mexico rule for entry of appearance. LR2-117. Counsel of record; appearance; withdrawal. Hoses tries to deceive this court and plaintiffs by lying in writing. The clause "and file a written entry of appearance" clearly requires a separate entry of appearance to be filed. Therefore, Hoses convicts himself with his own writing. Here's the local federal rules on entry of appearance. Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. The word MUST in "An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. 2 Hoses writes Mr. Hoses complied with Local Rule 83.4 because he is eligible to appear in the United States District Court for the district of New Mexico since he is a member of the Federal Bar.2 and he signed the initial pleading filed on behalf o Defendant John W. Zavitz (the Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1). Furthermore, Mr. Hoses included his name, address and telephone number in that initial pleading and every pleading filed subsequent to that pleading. No separate entry of appearance was necessary and the fact that a separate entry of appearance was not filed is immaterial. Further, Mr. Hoses was already the attorney of record for Defendant Zavitz at the time he filed the motion to dismiss. Hoses statement No separate entry of appearance was necessary and the fact that a separate entry of appearance was not filed is immaterial. is false. Hoses failed to comply with Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4 when he failed to file entry of appearance. 2 Hoses writes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs most certainly objected to removal on the basis that this court done not have jurisdiction in state lawsuit. Plaintiffs directed their concerns to judge Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker for improper removal by filing 11/08/01 11/08/01 9 NOTICE by pltfs of request for Anti-Injunction Act justification for removal of NM case CV-2001-6293 to federal court (bap) (109k) and 11/29/01 11/30/01 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal (bap) (86k) Exhibit A. See arrows. Plaintiffs are under no obligation to objections to Hoses, who has no standing in this improperly removed lawsuit 3 Hoses writes Wherefore, Michael Hoses respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. must be rejected as an improper conclusion based on Hoses' arguments made in his RESPONSE based on false statements. 4 WHEREFORE sanction Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses an additional $200,000 for filing his RESPONSE. Award plaintiffs $600 for having to REPLY to Hoses frivolous RESPONSE based on Hoses' false statements made before this court which does not have jurisdiction over original New Mexico state lawsuit. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on February 12, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
As we know chief Utah judge Dee Vance Benson does not have jurisdiction. We've established this by affidavit.
Judges Parker and Benson, along with judge Downes were warned.
Of course, Downes got sued twice because he didn't heed the warning and ruled twice when he had no jurisdiction..
Ashcroft and Patrick have been warned, as required by Rule 11, to remove the below motion.
Ashcroft and Patrick are harassing Morales and Payne by making them respond to a motion in a State of New Mexico lawsuit which was improperly re/moved to federal court.
Federal judge Martha Vázquez agreed our lawsuit must first be heard in New Mexico state court.
|
|
Also, the original state lawsuit is still listed as an active jury trial lawsuit.
The reason they removed the case to federal court is that the feds believe that they have judge Benson under their control. This may or not be true. We will all see.
The citations in the Ashcroft/Patrick filing look so interesting, that we may have to look them all up. A lawyer ploy is to make false reliance on citation hoping the opposition won't look them up.
But since we will be doing a Rule 11 sanction violation on Patrick, we will look up the citations.
Note the frivolous "insufficiency of process." Defendants were served in state court. Patrick may claim that they we're served properly in federal court! Only a lawyer would think of this. Wednesday February 6, 2002 10:49
|
RICHARD G. PATRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendants. Plaintiffs, in the above-captioned action, have named Chief Judge William F. Downes as a defendant and seek money damages from him in his individual capacity. Their claims for relief against Judge Downes are grounded in Judge Downes judicial rulings in two cases removed to federal court fromNew Mexico State courts. In those cases, CIV-00-01574 and CIV-0l-00634, plaintiffs argued to Judge Downes that the cases were improperly removed, should be remanded and that continued federal court retention ofjurisdiction violated the Anti-Injunction Statute (28 U.S.C. § 2283). Because Judge Downes disagreed with plaintiffs legal positions, plaintiffs sued him (and others) in New Mexico State Court. That case has been removed to this Court on October 16, 2001 and bears the above-captioned docket number. Because as a matter of undisputed fact and clear law Judge Downes judicial immunity bars this action as to him, he should be dismissed from this lawsuit.
To the extent plaintiffs claims against Judge Downes are characterized as common law tort claims, rather than constitutional tort claims ,tlie result will be the same. For such claims the United States will substitute itself for Judge Downes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), which immunizes Judge Downes from liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(l). Salmon v. Schwarz, 948 F.2d 113, 1141-42 (10thCir. l99l);Christensen v. Ward, 916F.2d 1462, 1472 (l0thCir. 1990); (continued ...) JUDICIAL IMMUNITY BARS PLAINTIFFS DAMAGE CLAIM FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Judges are protected by an absolute immunity that was recognized at English common law. The Supreme Court adopted the immunity early in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (12 Wall.) 335 (1872), explaining that judges must be protected from inhibiting damages suits because they frequently must determine [c]ontroversies involving not merely great pecuniary interests, but the liberty and character of the parties, and consequently exciting the deepest feelings *** [where] there is great conflict in the evidence and great doubt as to the law which should govern their situation. Id. at 348. This immunity is a complete immunity from suit and not simply protection from ultimate assessment of damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11(1991) (per curiam). Judges are protected by absolute immunity for judicial acts except when they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has consistently adhered to that rule, observing that Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction. Cleavingerv. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193,199(1985), [quotingPierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967)]; see also, Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). The Court summarized the breadth and nature of the immunity in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. at 199-200 (citations omitted): Such immunity applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences [the judicial act] may have proved to the plaintiff. *** Nor can this exemption of the judges from civil liability be affected by the motives with which theirjudicial acts are performed. *** And in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), the Court once again enunciated this principle, despite any informality with which [the judge] proceeded, and despite any exparte feature of the proceeding. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when
1 (....continued) Sandersk v Williams 160 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D.Col. 2001.) he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citation omitted). Unfairness or injustice to a litigant resulting from application of the immunity cannot preclude it. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 10. Similarly, judicial immunity will not be defeated by allegations that a judge acted in conspiracy with private individuals who are not immune and who sought to bribe him, so long as the judge did not act in the absence of all jurisdiction with respect to the challenged conduct. See Holloway v. Walker, 765 F. 2d 517, 522-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037 (1985). As these authorities demonstrate, The absolute immunity from suit for alleged deprivation of rights enjoyed by judges is matchless in its protection ofjudicial power. Mc Cray v. State of Maiyland, 456 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1972). There are two requisites inherent in the Supreme Courts formulation of absolute judicial immunity: (1) that the challenged act be judicial in nature and (2) that it not be done in the absence of all jurisdiction. See Mire/es v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 11-12; Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (l0th Cir. 1994). The factors determining whether a challenged act by a judge is a judicial one for purposes of immunity relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 362. Judicial acts are those in which ajudge is perform[ing] the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429,435-36(1993) (citation omitted). The inquiry thus goes to the nature and function of the act and not to the act itself. Mire/es v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 13. The judicial nature of ajudges act is not altered by virtue of an allegation of malice or corrupt motive. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,227(1988). Similarly, ajudges immunity is not pierced by allegations that he conspired with others to do an allegedly unlawful act so long as the act is within his judicial powers. Green v. Seymour, 59 F.3d 1073 (loth Cir. 1995); Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904 F2d 1475 (lOth Cir. 1990). As to plaintiffs claims against Judge Downes, the gravamen of their complaint is their assertion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the case upon removal. Complaint, 8. Furthermore, plaintiffs complain that Judge Downes ruled on matters before him IId]espite repeated warnings in plaintiffs pleadings that [he] does not havejurisdiction. Complaint, 9. Because of those alleged facts, plaintiffs must believe that Downes is engaged in a conspiracy with defendants Zavitz and French & Associates to harass plaintiff (sic) using federal court. Complaint, 9 2 As is demonstrated by the docket sheet in CIV-00-01574 and CIV-0l-00634, Judge Downes issued orders and ruled upon motions characterized as unfavorable by the plaintiffs.3 These acts were judicial in nature. Indeed, all of the actions of which plaintiffs complain may only be performed by judges. Moreover, Judge Downes actions also appeared judicial, supporting the obvious fact that plaintiffs believed they were dealing with the judge in his judicial capacity. The actions occurred by way of written orders andlor while the judge was on the bench. Given these circumstances, there is not doubt that plaintiffs dealt with Judge Downes in a judicial capacity and not, for example, as an employer or administrator. Because the challenged actions were judicial in nature, the second inquiry for judicial immunity is whether the judge was wholly without jurisdiction to act in the premises. Under
2 Plaintiffs also complain that Judge Downes tried to intimidate plaintiff Payne regarding communication withthe Court via the internet. Complaint, 9. Plaintiffs apparently refer to Judge Downes July 23, 2001 Order on Ex Parte Communication in CIV-00-00634 That order was wholly consistent with Canon 3 .A(4), Code of Conduct For United States Judges (A judge should ... neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications on the merits or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or impending p roceeding). By requiring that communication with the Court comply with the Courts Local Rules and Federal Ru es o Civil Procedure, Judge Downes protected, rather than violating, plaintiffs constitutional rights. See, LB. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d 919,926 (lOth Cir. 1997). The exercise of control overthat which reaches the Court is, of course, ajudicial act. Martinez V. Winner, 771 F.2d 424,434 (lOth Cir. 1985). 3 The Court can and is requested to take judicial notice of the Clerks Docket Sheet in those proceedings. Van Woudenber v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568 (l0th Cir. 2000). On a motion to dismiss, the Court can judicially notice matters outside the pleadings. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing cases). the Supreme Courts formulation, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 12. The notion of jurisdiction is thus broadly construed where the issue is the immunity of the judge. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Id. at 356-57 (citation omitted). Jurisdiction is construed broadly where the issue is the immunity ofajudge. Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court in Stump v. Sparkman, supra, referred to Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 352 (1872), to illustrate the want ofjurisdiction that would bar immunity: In Bradley, the Court illustrated the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction with the following examples: if a probate,judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence ofjuris diction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune. 435 U.S. at 357 n.7. Thus, if ajudge is colorably acting pursuant to the powers with which he is invested, he is not acting in the absence of all jurisdiction. For example, in Rolleston v. Fidridge, 848 F.2d 163, 164-65(1 lthCir. 1988), a state court trial judge who failed to follow procedural rules and who issued an order after the plaintiff had filed a notice of interlocutory appeal did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Similarly, a judge who issued a civil contempt order after a notice of appeal had been filed acted, at most, in excess of his jurisdiction but not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). It must be apparent that under no circumstances would the judge have had authority to act in the manner that he did before immunity can be denied. Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 760 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1085 (1990). To determine whether a judge has acted in complete absence ofjurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit, in Harvey v. Waidron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001) noted that The Supreme Court has clearly held that as long as a judge has jurisdiction to perform the general act in question, he or she is immune however erroneous the act may have been, ... however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff and irrespective of the judges motivation. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200, 106 S. Ct. 496, 88 L. Ed. 2d 507 (1985); see Stump v. Sparkman ,435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 5. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2cf 331 (1978) (holding that because some of the most difficult and embarrassing questions which a judicial officer is called upon to consider and determine relate to his jurisdiction, the scope of the judges jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge (citations, quotations and ellipses omitted)). Thus, a clear absence of all jurisdiction means a clear lack of all subject matterjurisdiction. Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, plaintiffs claim that the case over which Judge Downes presided was improperly removed, was not subsequently remanded and, because it was not remanded, its continuation in federal court was violative of28 U.S.C. § 2283. Even if these assertions were true (which they are not), such claimed deficiencies would be judicial errors of law. The acts or omissions complained of were judicial in nature and within the colorable jurisdiction of the Court; accordingly, judicial immunity applies. Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1478 (lOth Cir. 1990); see also, Hunt v Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (lOth Cir. 1994). As the Tenth Circuit said under analogous circumstances in Crabtree v. Muchm ore, 904 F.2d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1990), in response to plaintiffs contention that the defendant judge was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity because he lacked personal jurisdiction over their children: If we accepted the Crabtrees theory, no judge could claim judicial immunity for his actions if he incorrectly determined that his court had personal jurisdiction over parties to a suit, or over persons who held an interest in property in which the court was adjudicating ownership at the behest of another. We hold that no attorney, charged with the responsibility of reading the Supreme Courts decision in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 5. Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed. 2d 331 (1978), and our opinion in Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 (lOth Cir. 1986), could believe that absolute judicial immunity would not bar the action against Judge Cook. Of course, Judge Downes did not err as alleged by plaintiffs. First, constitutional tort claims against federal actors are inherently federal questions claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Switzer v. Coan, 261 F.3d 985, 988 (lOth Cir. 2001) (describing federal question jurisdiction as a jurisdictional basis necessary for a Bivens claim); Leavell v. Kieffer, 189 F.3d 492,495 (7th Cir. 1999). Removal of such actions against federal actors filed in state courts is statutorily provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1483 (lOth Cir. 1990); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 86 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 391 n.4 (1971) recognized that such actions in state court would be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. As the Supreme Court noted in Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981), the right of removal is absolute for conduct performed under color of federal office. Finally, plaintiffs reliance on the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, is wholly misplaced. The federal removal statutes themselves, at 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), provide that upon compliance therewith the state court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act itself permits the injunction since 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is an authorization by Act of Congress. 28 U.S.C. § 2283; Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & KogerAssociates, Inc., 77 F .3 d 1063, 1069 (8th Cir. 1996). If needed, the Anti-Injunction Act permits a district court to enjoin proceedings in a state case that has been removed to federal court. Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386, 1395(1 1th Cir. 1997); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, because Judge Downes acts complained of by plaintiffs were judicial in nature and were done consistent with the Judges proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the cases assigned to him, Judge Downes is immune from suit for damages and should be dismissed as a party-defendant. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462 (l0th Cir. 1990); Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904 F.2d 1475 (lOth Cir. 1990); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 (l0th Cir. 1986);Martinezv. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (l0th Cir. 1985). As noted by the Tenth Circuit in Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686-87 (lOth Cir. 1990): The rationale for according absolute immunity in the civil rights context is to incorporate traditional common law immunities and to allow functionaries in the judicial system the latitude to perform their tasks absent the threat of retaliatory§19 83 itigation. Because the judicial system often resolves disputes that the parties cannot, the system portends conflict. Win or lose, a party may seek to litigate the constitutionality of circumstances which re q uired him to endure a lawsuit or suffer defeat. Such suits by dissatisfied parties might target judges, see Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 (lOth Cir. 1989), prosecutors and witnesses. Cf Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. at 2813-14. Though such suits might be satisfying personally for a plaintiff, they could jeopardize the judicial systems ability to function. The Courts wisdom applies with full force as to this action against Judge Downes. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing analysis, dismissal of Judge Downes should be granted since plaintiffs, as to him, have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of January, 2002. JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General Special Attorney Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne Christina E. Anaya Michael Hoses, AUSA |
Looks like Patrick and Ashcroft are trying to put-up a diversion. Another lawyer ploy.
The real issues are the documents http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/ http://members.home.net/bpayne37/nmol/nmolindex.htm and the money illegally taken from Morales and Payne. It's important to keep focused. Wednesday February 6, 2002 09:41
Hoses response is dated January 31, 2002.
By federal rule you have 10 days plus 3 plus day if response mailed, any holidays to respond. But local rule states you have 14 days.
It's always a good idea to be timely.
We are entitled to a REPLY to a RESPONSE.
Hoses takes a different approach than the French law firm which belated filed an Entry of Appearance.
Let's see what works. Tuesday February 5, 2002 15:24
|
JOHN ASHCROFT RICHARD G. PATRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT William H. Payne, CIV-Ol-1132 DVB Defendants. Plaintiff, in the above-captioned action, has named Chief
Judge William F. Downes as a defendant and seeks money damages from him in his
individual capacity. His claims for relief against Judge Downes are grounded in
Judge Downes judicial rulings in two cases removed to federal court
fromNew Mexico State courts. In those cases, CIV-00-01677 and CIV-0l-00634,
plaintiff argued to Judge Downes that the cases were improperly removed, should
be remanded and that continued federal court retention ofjurisdiction violated
the Anti-Injunction Statute (28 U.S.C. § 2283). Because Judge Downes
disagreed with plaintiffs legal positions, plaintiff sued him (and others) in
New Mexico State Court. That case has been removed to this Court on September
28, 2001 and bears the above-captioned docket number. Because as a matter of
undisputed fact and clear law Judge Downes judicial immunity bars this
action as to him, he should be dismissed from this lawsuit. 1 1 To the extent plaintiff s claims against Judge Downes are characterized as common law tort claims, rather than constitutional tort claims, the result will be the same. For such claims the United States will substitute itself for Judge Downes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), which immunizes Judge Downes from liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(l). Salmon v. Schwarz, 948 F.2d1131, ll41-42(10thCir. 1991);Christensen v. Ward, 916F.2d 1462, 1472 (l0thCir. 1990); Sanders v. Williams, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D.Col. 2001.)
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY BARS PLAINTIFFS
DAMAGE CLAIM FOR Judges are protected by an absolute immunity that was recognized at English common law. The Supreme Court adopted the immunity early in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (12 Wall.) 335 (1872), explaining that judges must be protected from inhibiting damages suits because they frequently must determine [c]ontroversies involving not merely great pecuniary interests, but the liberty and character of the parties, and consequently exciting the deepest feelings *** [where] there is great conflict in the evidence and great doubt as to the law which should govern their situation. Id. at 348. This immunity is a complete immunity from suit and not simply protection from ultimate assessment of damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11(1991) (per curiam). Judges are protected by absolute immunity for judicial acts except when they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has consistently adhered to that rule, observing that Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction. Cleavingerv. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199 (1985), [quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,553-54 (1967)]; see also, Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). The Court summarized the breadth and nature of the immunity in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. at 199-200 (citations omitted): Such immunity applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however injunous in its consequences [the judicial act] may have proved to the plaintiff. *** Nor can this exemption of the judges from civil liability be affected by the motives with which theirjudicial acts are performed. *** And in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) the Court once again enunciated this principle, despite any informality with which [the judge] proceeded, and despite any exparte feature of the proceeding. A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 3 56-57 (1978) (citation omitted). Unfairness or injustice to a litigant resulting from application of the immunity cannot preclude it. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 10. Similarly, judicial immunity will not be defeated by allegations that a judge acted in conspiracy with private individuals who are not immune and who sought to bribe him, so long as the judge did not act in the absence of all jurisdiction with respect to the challenged conduct. See Holloway v. Walker, 765 F. 2d 517, 522-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037 (1985). As these authorities demonstrate, The absolute immunity from suit for alleged deprivation of rights enjoyed by judges is matchless in its protection ofjudicial power. McCray v. State of Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1972). There are two requisites inherent in the Supreme Courts formulation of absolute judicial immunity: (1) that the challenged act be judicial in nature and (2) that it not be done in the absence of all jurisdiction. See Mire/es v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 11-12; Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (lOth Cir. 1994). The factors determining whether a challenged act by a judge is a judicial one for purposes of immunity relate to the nature of the act itseW i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 362. Judicial acts are those in which ajudge is perform[ing] the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429,435-36(1993) (citation omiffed). The inquiry thus goes to the nature and function of the act and not to the act itself. Mire/es v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 13. Thejudicial nature of ajudges act is not altered by virtue of an allegation of malice or corrupt motive. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988). Similarly, a judges immunity is not pierced by allegations that he conspired with others to do an allegedly unlawful act so long as the act is within his judicial powers. Green v. Seymour, 59 F.3d 1073 (loth Cir. 1995); Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904 F2d 1475 (lOth Cir. 1990). As to plaintiffs claims against Judge Downes, the gravamen of his complaint is his assertion that Judge Downes had no jurisdiction to entertain the case upon removal. Complaint, 8, 9. Furthermore, plaintiff complains that Judge Downes ruled on matters before him despite numerous requests to remand. Complaint, 9. Because of those alleged facts, Downes continues to conspire with Dow and Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb to harass plaintiff. Complaint, 92 As is demonstrated by the docket sheet in CIV-OO-01677 and CIV-Ol-00634, Judge Downes issued orders and ruled upon motions characterized as unfavorable by the plaintiff.3 These acts werejudicial in nature. Indeed, all of the actions of which plaintiff complains may only be performed by judges. Moreover, Judge Downes actions also appeared judicial, supporting the obvious fact that plaintiff believed he was dealing with the judge in his judicial capacity. The actions occurred by way of written orders and/or while the judge was on the bench. Given these circumstances, there is not doubt that plaintiff dealt with Judge Downes in a judicial capacity and not, for example, as an employer or administrator. Because the challenged actions were judicial in nature, the second inquiry forjudicial immunity is whether the judge was wholly without jurisdiction to act in the premises. Under the Supreme Courts formulation, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. at 12. The notion of jurisdiction is thus broadly construed where the issue is the immunity of the judge. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356. A judge will not be deprived of immunity
2 Plaintiff also complains that Judge Downes tried to intimidate him regarding communication with the Court via the internet. Complaint, 8. Plaintiff apparently refers to Judge Downes July 23,2001 Order on Ex Parte Communication in CIV-OO-00634. That order was wholly consistent with Canon 3.A(4), Code of Conduct For United States Judges (A judge should ... neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications on the merits or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or impending proceeding). Byrequiring that communication with the Court comply with the Courts Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Downes protected, rather than violating, plaintiffs constitutional rights. See, LB. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d 919,926 (lOth Cir. 1997). The exercise of control over that which reaches the Court is, of course, a judicial act. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 434 (lOth Cir. 1985). 3 The Court can and is requested to take judicial notice of the Clerks Docket Sheet in those proceedings. Van Wouden berg v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568 (lOth Cir. 2000). On a motion to dismiss, the Court can judicially notice matters outside the pleadings. Henson v. CSC r~a;t .Sortirp( 9Q P 3d 9RO~ 2R4 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing cases). because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Id. at 356-57 (citation omitted). Jurisdiction is construedbroadlywhere the issue is the immunity of ajudge. Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court in Stump v. Sparkman, supra, referred to Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 352 (1872), to illustrate the want ofjurisdiction that would bar immunity: In Bradley, the Court illustrated the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction with the following examples: if a probatejudge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence ofjuris diction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune. 435 U.s. at 357 n.7. Thus, if a judge is colorably acting pursuant to the powers with which he is invested, he is not acting in the absence of all jurisdiction. For example, in Rolleston v. Eldridge, 848 F.2d 163, 164-65(1 lthCir. 1988), a state court trial judge who failed to follow procedural rules and who issued an order after the plaintiff had filed a notice of interlocutory appeal did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Similarly, ajudge who issued a civil contempt order after a notice of appeal had been filed acted, at most, in excess of his jurisdiction but not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). It must be apparent that under no circumstances would the judge have had authority to act in the manner that he did before immunity can be denied. Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 760 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1085 (1990). To determine whether a judge has acted in complete absence ofjurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit, in Harvey v. Waidron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001) noted that The Supreme Court has clearly held that as long as a judge has jurisdiction to perform the general act in question, he or she is immune however erroneous the act may have been, ... however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff and irrespective of the judges motivation. Cleavingerv. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200, 106 S. Ct. 496, 88 L. Ed. 2d 507 (1985); see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2cf 331 (1978) (holding that because some of the most difficult and embarrassing questions which a judicial officer is called upon to consider and determine relate to his jurisdiction, the scope of the judges jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge (citations, quotations and ellipses omitted)). Thus, a clear absence of all jurisdiction means a clear lack of all subject matterjurisdiction. Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, plaintiff claims that the case over which Judge Downes presided was improperly removed, was not subsequently remanded and, because it was not remanded, its continuation in federal court was violative of 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Even if these assertions were true (which they are not), such claimed deficiencies would be judicial errors of law. The acts or omissions complained of were judicial in nature and within the colorablejurisdiction of the Court; accordingly, judicial immunity applies. Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1478 (iOth Cir. 1990); see also, HuntvBennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (lOth Cir. 1994). As the Tenth Circuit said under analogous circumstances in Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904 F.2d 1475, 1477 (1 0th Cir. 1990), in response to plaintiffs contention that the defendant judge was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity because he lacked personal jurisdiction over their children: If we accepted the Crabtrees theory, no judge could claim judicial immunity for his actions if he incorrectly determined that his court had personal jurisdiction over parties to a suit, or over persons who held an interest in property in which the court was adjudicating ownership at the behest of another. We hold that no attorney, charged with the responsibility of reading the Supreme Courts decision in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed. 2d 331 and our opinion in Van Sicklev. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 (lOt Cir. 1986), couldbelieve that absolute judicial immunity would not bar the action against Judge Cook. Of course, Judge Downes did not err as alleged by plaintiff. First, constitutional tort claims against federal actors are inherently federal questions claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Switzer v. Coan, 261 F.3d 985, 988 (iOth Cir. 2001) (describing federal question jurisdiction as a jurisdictional basis necessary for a Bivens claim); Leavell v. Kieffer, 189 F.3d 492,495 (7th Cir. 1999). Removal of such actions against federal actors filed in state courts is statutorily provided for in 28 U.S.C. § l442.~ Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1483 (lOth Cir. 1990); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 86 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 391 n.4 (1971) recognized that such actions in state court would be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. As the Supreme Court noted in Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981), the right of removal is absolute for conduct performed under color of federal office. Finally, plaintiffs reliance on the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, is wholly misplaced. The federal removal statutes themselves, at 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), provide that upon compliance therewith the state court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act itself permits the injunction since 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is an authorization by Act of Congress. 28 U.S.C. § 2283; Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., 77 F.3d 1063, 1069 (8th Cir. 1996). If needed, the Anti-Injunction Act permits a district court to enjoin proceedings in a state case that has been removed to federal court. Peterson v. BMI 4 To the extent plaintiff asserts that Judge Downes erred by maintaining jurisdiction over the New Mexico state case (CV 2001-03118) removed to federal court by Judge Theodore C. Baca, he is also incorrect. Plaintiff in that case colorably asserts claims cogmzable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such cases are properly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Wil/iamsv. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700 (8hClr. 1998) (citing cases); Cheny v. Studstrup, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (D. Utah 1998); Oylerv. City and County ofDenver, 1990 WL 134485 (D. Col. 1990). Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386, 1395(1 1th Cir. 1997); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, because Judge Downes acts complained of by plaintiff were judicial in nature and were done consistent with the Judges proper exercise of subject matterjurisdiction over the cases assigned to him, Judge Downes is immune from suit for damages and should be dismissed as a party-defendant. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9(1991); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462 (lOth Cir. 1990); Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904 F.2d 1475 (lOth Cir. 1990); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 (lOth Cir. 1986); Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (lOth Cir. 1985). As noted by the Tenth Circuit in Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686-87 (loth Cir. 1990): The rationale for according absolute immunity in the civil rights context is to incorporate traditional common law immunities and to allow functionaries in the judicial system the latitude to perform their tasks absent the threat of retaliatory § 1983 litigation. Because the judicial system often resolves is utes that the parties cannot, the system portends conflict. Win or lose, a party may seek to litigate the constitutionality of circumstances which required him to endure a lawsuit or suffer defeat. Such suits by dissatisfied parties might target judges, see Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 (l0th Cir. 1989), prosecutors and witnesses. Cf Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 523, 105 2813-14. Though such suits might be satisfying personally for a plaintiff, they could jeopardize the judicial systems ability to function. The Courts wisdom applies with full force as to this action against Judge Downes. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing analysis, dismissal of Judge Downes should be granted since plaintiff, as to him, has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted this 29 day of January, 2002. JOHN ASHCROFT United States Attorney General Special Attorney William H. Payne Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Michael Hoses, AUSA |
Hoses response is dated January 31, 2002.
By federal rule you have 10 days plus 3 plus day if response mailed, any holidays to respond. But local rule states you have 14 days.
It's always a good idea to be timely.
We are entitled to a REPLY to a RESPONSE.
Hoses takes a different approach than the French law firm which belated filed an Entry of Appearance.
Let's see what works. Tuesday February 5, 2002 15:24
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES and Plaintiffs, CIV NO. 01-1198 DVB/LFG vs. JOHN W. ZAVITZ Defendants. RESPONSE OF MICHAEL HOSES TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY MICHAEL HOSES FOR FILING DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY COMES NOW Michael H. Hoses, undersigned counsel, and in response to Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against him states as follows: In their motion for sanctions against Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hoses Plaintiffs complain that Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hoses violated D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.4 when he filed a motion and memorandum to dismiss Defendant John W. Zavitz based on absolute immunity (Docs. Nos. 11 & 12). Plaintiffs motion for sanctions at 3.1 Undersigned counsel complied with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.4 when he filed the motion and memorandum to dismiss based on absolute immunity D.NM.LR-Civ. 83.4 provides: (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must:
1 It is interesting to note that Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael H. Hoses previously signed and filed a Noticeof Removal, Notice and Answer on behalf of Defendant Zavitz with no objections from Plaintiffs that D.N.M.LR-civ. 83.4 had been violated because no entry of appearance was filed. be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorneys name, address, and telephone number. Mr. Hoses complied with Local Rule 83.4 because he is eligible to appear in the United States District Court for the district of New Mexico since he is a member of the Federal Bar.2 and he signed the initial pleading filed on behalf o Defendant John W. Zavitz (the Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1). Furthermore, Mr. Hoses included his name, address and telephone number in that initial pleading and every pleading filed subsequent to that pleading. No separate entry of appearance was necessary and the fact that a separate entry of appearance was not filed is immaterial. Further, Mr. Hoses was already the attorney of record for Defendant Zavitz at the time he filed the motion to dismiss. Wherefore, Michael Hoses respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, United States Attorney MICHAEL H. HOSES 2 Arguably, Mr. Hoses has leave of the court to sign
and file any pleading, motion or other paper based on the fact that he is
a member of the Federal Bar. That being the case, he would not be required to
enter an appearance. D.N.M.LR-civ. 83.4(a). |
You and we are going to make mistakes in the course of litigation. Rule 60 is how you correct them. This is done by motion, not notice.
We're going the ratchet-up the pressure on both the state and fed legal system with the Sandia/EEOC documents distributed on Payne. What a screw-up on the feds' part! But holding the feds accountable is more of a problem than it should have been.
Just think, Sandia labs is supposed to be making sure the US nuclear arsenal is secure.
And if you search through these web sites, you will find that Sandia labs caused a product recall with land-based nuclear bombs with its faulty computer chips. 1
The false and defaminng documents distributed about Payne don't point to competence at Sandia or EEOC.
Always be conciliatory. Settlement is the best way. Monday February 3, 2002 08:40
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. MOTION TO CORRECT FAILURE TO MAIL COPY OF
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JOHN 1 This motion is brought under Rule 60 Rule 60. - Relief From Judgment or Order <> (a) Clerical Mistakes. 2 Plaintiffs inadvertently failed to mail Special Attorney Richard G Patrick copy of NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JOHN ASHCROFT AND RICHARD G PATRICK TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM f. DOWNES, CIV-01-1132 AND CIV-01-1198 on January 29, 2002. Letter to Patrick, Exhibit A, shows that he has been mailed copy. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on February 1, 2002 to Richard G Patrick French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ Friday 2/1/02 12:59 PM Richard G Patrick Dear Mr Patrick: Purpose of this letter and enclosed NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JOHN ASHCROFT AND RICHARD G PATRICK TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM f. DOWNES, CIV-01-1132 AND CIV-01-1198 is to correct an error. We failed to send you a copy and list you on the mailing list. After our Monday January 29, 2002 phone conversation, we feel that would be a good idea to gain a greater knowledge of the unfortunate New Mexico lawsuits. The reason for this is that we feel these unfortunate matters should be settled. We filed two New Mexico state lawsuits. Plaintiffs Morales and Payne sued for replevin and harassment in cv - 2000 10289. Plaintiff Payne sued for defamation and harassment in cv 2000-10278. As a result of both lawyer and judicial misconduct, these two original lawsuits have escalated into 11 lawsuits. This is not our doing but lawyers and judges breaking New Mexico state laws trying to escape justice. All of our evidence of wrongdoing on the part of defendants is in writing. We have posted this evidence at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/. In particular, the false and libelous documents distributed by the federal government posted at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/ and http://members.home.net/bpayne37/nmol/nmolindex.htm break the criminal provisions of the Privacy Act, http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm § 552a. Records maintained on individuals i)(1) Criminal penalties as well as New Mexico state laws against libel. 30-11-1. Libel. While you and other defendants appear to wish to continue to fight disobeying both state and federal laws and abusing federal courts, we continue to believe that settlement is the best way to resolve these about ten year conflicts. We ask that you and Mr Ashcroft help to get these unfortunate matters settled. Sincerely Arthur R Morales William H Payne Distribution John Ashcroft Paul K Charlton |
We finally got a response from Jerry Shipman of the BBB. This creates an appearance of a conspiracy to cover-up wrongdoing.
Please let the BBB know your comments.
jerry@bbbnm.com
bureau@bbbnm.com
members@bbbnm.com
comments@bbbnm.com
We discovered we forgot to send US Special Attorney Patrick a copy of our filing against him. We'll correct this formally with a Rule 60 motion. And write Patrick, Charlton, and Ashcroft a sweet letter suggesting settlement before things get worse. Wednesday January 30, 2002 11:04
Both the motion and notice were filed this afternoon.
Federal judge Leroy Hansen sanctioned Morales for $2,200 several years ago. The opposition claimed Morales violated court rules. Morales says he did not.
Therefore, Morales 8 CONCLUSION must be understood with lost $2,200 in mind.
Morales is a catholic.
Morales expresses his moral indignation at what the courts and lawyers are doing in his inclusion.
Payne is a bit less religious. But the conclusion is left as Morales writes it.
Hey, we need all the help we can get.
We are dealing with organized crime. These criminals are ripping-off taxpayer money. Tuesday January 29, 2002 16:42
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHRISTINA E. ANAYA AND FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES FOR FILING MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS 1 French and Associates file ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Exhibit A on January 17, 2002. This is shown as docket entry 18 in 01cv01198. 01/17/02 01/18/02 18 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for deft French & Associates by Stephen G. French and Christina E. Anaya (bap) (22k) Apparently French and Associates feel compelled at last to follow Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, to attempt to defend themselves against well-deserved sanctions. Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. The word MUST in " An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. Yet French and Associates file MOTION and MEMORANDUM show on the docket as 10/22/01 10/23/01 5 MEMORANDUM by defendant French & Associates in support of motion to dismiss [4-1] (vv) (318k) Re: MOTION to dismiss [4] These docket references are seen in Exhibit B. Belated entry of appearance must be regarded as some sort of an attempt to undo damage already done. As well as attempt to argue before this court why well-justified rule 11 sanctions should be levied. This attempt must be viewed as an affront to this Court and plaintiffs. 2 French & Associates, P.C. write I. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2001, Defendant John Zavitz 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 October 16, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. Defendant Zavits improperly removed 10/16/01 10/16/01 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial District Court Case Number: 1:01:CV:6293 w/state court complaint (referred to Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia) (eg) (72k) Re: ANSWER [22] ANSWER [3] to federal court, Exhibit B. This court has no jurisdiction is state lawsuits. And, most important, judges James A Parker and Dee Vance Benson failed to give any justification for removal 1/29/01 11/30/01 16 NOTICE by pltfs of non-response of Judges Dee Vance Benson and James A. Parker for notice of request for anti-injunction act justification for removal of state case CV-2001-6293 to federal (bap) (86k) Plaintiffs are being harassed in Federal court by defendants and judges. 3 French & Associates, P.C. write On October 22, 2001, Defendant French & Associates, P.C., through undersigned counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss and a memorandum in support of the Motion in lieu of filing an answer. See Docket Nos. 4 and 5. Plaintiffs response to the Motion to Dismiss was due November 5, 2001. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs are under no legal obligation to respond to improper Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs purposely did not respond to improper motion. French and Associate must be harshly sanctioned for the preposterous paragraph above. 4 French & Associates, P.C. write Instead, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 17] on January 11, 2002. In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs argue that the undersigned counsel could not file the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of French & Associates without first having filed a formal entry of appearance. Plaintiffs also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions against the undersigned counsel in the amount of $2,400,000.00 in addition to labor and filing costs of $1,000.00 for having filed the Motion to Dismiss without first having filed an entry of appearance. is correct. French & Associates, P.C. have justifiably earned extraordinarily harsh sanctions, not only for violating Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4 but, of course, deserve addition even harsher sanction for belated filing of Entry of Appearance and creating the appearance that judge Dee Vance Benson is going to be an accomplice to covering-up French & Associates, P.C. rule violation by not awarding harsh sanctions. 4 French & Associates, P.C. write H. LEGAL ARGUMENT Then somehow conclude A. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO FILE AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL COURT RULES AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. from the paragraph In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should sanction the undersigned defense counsel and her firm for not filing an entry of appearance as required by local court rules. Undersigned counsel concedes she has not filed a formal entry of appearance. Nonetheless, counsels representation of Defendant French & Associates is obvious as she signed the initial pleading filed by French & Associates which was the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. which apparently attempt to justify not following rules. This attempt to justify a lawyer and law firm not following rules cannot be accepted. French and Associates apparently feel that this Court will cover-up for them and this is the argument to help that cover-up. Thereafter, the undersigned counsel has also signed each pleading filed on behalf of French & Associates. Plaintiffs are well aware that the undersigned counsel represents French & Associates in this case. They cannot demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the undersigned counsels inadvertent failure to file a formal entry of appearance. Nonetheless, the undersigned counsel files an entry of appearance concurrently with this Response in order to comply with Local Court Rule 83. Plaintiffs are being harassed by having to respond of ALL of these bogus filings. This court has no jurisdiction other than to fine crooked lawyers to bring state matter before this federal court. Plaintiffs have not cited this Court any authority to support their argument that French & Associates Motion to Dismiss should be disregarded because the undersigned counsel did not file a formal entry of appearance. Plaintiffs are under no obligation to respond to any improper filing. Onus is not on plaintiffs to defend actions. It upon French and Associates who violate Court rules in this sham federal action. In the interest of justice, this Court should waive the entry of appearance requirement in order to resolve French & Associates Motion to dismiss expeditiously. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 1.7 (stating that local rules may be waived by a judge to avoid injustice); Glendora v. Sellers, Civ. No. 00-1695 JP/LCS, slip op., pp.2-3 (D.N.M. filed January 7, 2002) [Docket No. 841 (unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order wherein the Honorable James A. Parker waived local rule requiring entry of appearance in order to resolve defendants dispositive motion expeditiously). Therefore, this Court should deny Plaintiffs request that it disregard French & Associates Motion to Dismiss or sanction the undersigned counsel for not having filed a formal entry of appearance. In the interest of justice French and Associates must suffer some of the hashed sanction in their attempt to get defendants case dismissed in the sham federal court action by not even following rules. French and Associates along with other defendants create the appearance that they have instigated sham federal court case to have bought judge dismiss complaint. Judge James A Parker allowed this and other of plaintiffs' lawsuits to be improperly removed to federal court. Judge James A Parker assigned defendant judge William F Downes to harass plaintiffs using federal court. And as a result caused Downes to be sued twice in New Mexico state Court. Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these state issues. Federal judge Martha Vazquez early-on recognized this when she issued 12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1], Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10] in 00cv1574. Improper removal of New Mexico 1:00:CV:10289 11/08/00 11/09/00 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 (vv) (207k) to federal court as 00cv1574 and assignment of judge Downes by judge James A Parker precipitated this lawsuits. This and other lawsuits are not plaintiffs' wishes but necessary actions as a result of alleged criminal acts by the federal government trying to avoid state justice. 5 French & Associates, P.C. write B. PLAINTIFFS FARED TO FOLLOW RULE 11(C)(1)(AYS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND ARE THEREFORE BARRED FROM OBTAINING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL UNDER FED.R.C1V.P. 11. is A FALSE STATEMENT. In 11/29/01 11/30/01 15 RESPONSE by pltfs to notice of completion of briefing package for deft French's motion to dismiss [4-1] (bap) (65k) Re: MOTION to dismiss [4] plaintiffs stated Stephen G French has been given until 13:30 November 29, 2001 to respond by telephone telling plaintiffs that French and Anaya will withdraw filing or face Rule 11 sanctions motion. French and Associates did not respond. Therefore motion for sanctions was filed. 7 French & Associates, P.C. write WHEREFORE, French & Associates respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Christina E. Anaya and French and Associations for Filing Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss, award defense counsel fees and costs for responding to the instant Motion, and order all other relief this Court deems just and proper. must be rejected in view of the evidence that French and Associates submit its RESPONSE in hopes a federal judge with no jurisdiction will rule favorably, in violation of the law, for them. 7 WHEREFORE, increase sanction against French and Associates to $3,600,000 and award plaintiffs $2,000 for having to prepare this reply. Remand 01cv01198 to New Mexico state court. Discontinue harassing plaintiffs. 8 CONCLUSION Pro se Plaintiffs have learned that one cannot assume but must follow the laws and the rules to the best of one's ability. Plaintiffs, not being experts in the law have made procedural mistakes and have paid the consequences. As an advocate of the court, Ms Anaya is an expert in the law and needs to follow the rules, not assuming that it is obvious to the court. It is heartbreaking to see the advocates of the courts make light of obeying the rules and procedures of the court. Ms Anaya states: In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should sanction the undersigned defense counsel and her firm for not filing an entry of appearance as required by local court rules. Undersigned counsel concedes she has not filed a formal entry of appearance. Nonetheless, counsel's representation of Defendant French & Associates is obvious as she signed the initial pleading filed by French & Associates which was the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. What is becoming obvious is that the officials of the court are also making light of obeying the rules. This whole series of lawsuits began with a very serious issue of the court not following its own rules. There were open legal issues that could seriously jeopardized the Plaintiffs' lives, therefore, the Plaintiffs were forced to file the initial lawsuit. The court is the interpreter of the law. The court should not be expected to be perfect, and should be allowed to make some mistakes but when discovered admit them. However, when the interpreters (the court) deliberately ignore or misuse the law, then God help us all for that is not just heartbreaking, but devastating and chilling to the very survival of our Great American Society. No matter the out come of the case, there is a higher court and the Judge is powerful and merciful but is just and firm. The Advocate needs no discovery for He knows the truth. That case is eminent. 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 January 29, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
The justice department appears to control judges.
Vazquez got out of control for a bit. But something happened to cause her to issue ruling which got her sued.
We have to find out what this is. This, of course, is the purpose of discovery.
Here's our final notice. Tuesday January 29, 3003 13:29
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JOHN ASHCROFT AND RICHARD G PATRICK TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM f. DOWNES, CIV-01-1132 AND CIV-01-1198 1 Plaintiffs phone US Special Attorney Richard G Patrick at 602-514-7733 as request seen in Exhibit A on Monday January 29, 2002 in the afternoon. Patrick asks if we concur in his motions to dismiss. Exhibits B and C. Plaintiffs decline to concur. 2 Plaintiff explain to Patrick that both 1132 and 1198 were improperly removed to federal court. Morales explains to Patrick that lawsuit which resulted in 1198 being filed, 00cv1574 was stayed pending New Mexico state outcome 12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10- 1], Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10] Exhibit D. Morales points out to Patrick that New Mexico state lawsuit 00:CV:10289 is still active jury trial lawsuit. 11/08/00 11/09/00 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 (vv) (207k 00:CV:10289 is improperly removed 00cv1574. 3 Patrick was informed that this Court does not have jurisdiction or have judges Benson or Parker ever claimed that federal court does have jurisdiction. Patrick is informed that if he files MOTIONS and MEMORANDA in support of motions seen in Exhibit B and C, then plaintiffs will file Rule 11 violation sanction. Otherwise Ashcroft and Patrick must be added to plaintiffs list of harassers because of these bogus federal proceedings. Jurisdiction for harassment, replevin, and defamation [libel] lie in state, not federal, court. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on January 29, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
Morales and Payne phoned assistant US Attorney Richard Patrick [602-514-7733].
Morales left a message on Patrick's answering machine. Patrick return our call several minutes later.
Morales asked Patrick if he knew the history of these lawsuits. Morales informed Patrick that judge Martha Vazquez issued ORDER in our first lawsuit removed to federal court, 1574,
12/21/00 12/21/00 19 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting motion for stay [10-1] , Case stayed until the outcome of the New Mexico hearing is determined re [19-2] (cc: all counsel) (msm) (29k) Re: MOTION for stay [10]
And that the removed case
11/08/00 11/09/00 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial Dist with complaint for writ of replevin and relief from harassment with jury demand Case Number: 1:00:CV:10289 (vv) (207k)
is still active in New Mexico state court.
This appeared not to phase lawyer Patrick.
Patrick said that he merely wanted to conform to local rules by asking our concurrence to his motion.
Near the end of the conversation Payne told Patrick that federal court had not jurisdiction. Therefore, Patrick's motions were frivolous. And that if Patrick filed his motion in federal court, then we would move for Rule 11 violation sanctions.
We told Patrick that we would file a NOTICE of rule 11 violation with the court.
This terminated our conversation.
We continue to believe that judge Martha Vazquez was pressured by the feds after her ruling staying, NOT OUR'S, but the feds case in federal court.
And that she may be retaliating by giving winning plaintiffs large monetary awards against the government.
Now to reply [remember, MOTION, RESPONSE, REPLY, ... and
surrepply with leave of court] to French's response to motion for rule 11
sanctions. Tuesday January 29, 3002
08:24
As we all realize the feds don't have jurisdiction in the Morales
and Payne lawsuits.
We're being harassed by the department of justice, in general, and now Attorney General John Ashcroft, in particular.
Judge Dee Vance Benson 1 has not yet harassed us directly since he has not ruled. But there is implicit harassment by non-action.
Judge William F Downes made the mistake of ruling twice, one ruling a threat, when he did not have jurisdiction. These two rulings, of course, got Downes sued twice in New Mexico state court.
Morales and Payne have decided to give Patrick a conference phone call.
We will give Patrick and Ashcroft an opportunity to withdraw their motion. Otherwise face a rule 11 violation motion for sanctions for a frivolous filing before a judge who does not have jurisdiction.
Patrick and Ashcroft mistakenly sent Morales a copy of 1132. The feds are getting confused too.
The feds got caught in writing breaking the criminal provisions of the privacy action and state criminal defamation [libel] law for distributing the false and defaming documents see at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/.
One of our goals is to make sure the feds don't repeat this type of behavior with other citizens who may be less able to defend themselves than Morales and Payne.
The feds do to hundreds of other citizens what they are trying to do to Morales and Payne, we are told. Usually the feds succeed.
We will not try to make Patrick mad in our phone call. But we will be firm.
Note that Patrick filed an entry of appearance. After Zavitz, Hoses, and French and Associates not having followed rules and thereby getting motions for rule 11 violation sanctions, the lawyers may be learning! Let's hope.
We will, of course, suggest we get these unfortunate matters settled before they get worse. Monday January 28, 2002 09:06
|
|
After failing to file entry of appearance, French and Associates is compelled to file entry of appearance to file its response. Lawyer logic.
Morales and Payne now get to file a REPLY to the RESPONSE. French and Associates must get leave of court to file any surreply.
Let's hope the courts are getting wise, at last, to this nonsense and get things settled before they get worse! Wednesday January 23, 2002 10:10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR MORALES and Plaintiffs, v. NO. CV 01-01198 Dee V. Benson JOHN J. ZAVITS, Defendants. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS Defendant French & Associates, P.C., through Stephen G. French, Esq. and Christina E. Anaya, Esq., state the following for their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Christina E. Anaya and French and Associates for Filing Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss (Motion for Sanctions): I. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2001, Defendant John Zavitz 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 October 16, 2001) [Docket No. 1]. On October 22, 2001, Defendant French & Associates, P.C., through undersigned counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss and a memorandum in support of the Motion in lieu of filing an answer. See Docket Nos. 4 and 5. Plaintiffs response to the Motion to Dismiss was due November 5, 2001. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Instead, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 17] on January 11, 2002. In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs argue that the undersigned counsel could not file the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of French & Associates without first having filed a formal entry of appearance. Plaintiffs also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions against the undersigned counsel in the amount of $2,400,000.00 in addition to labor and filing costs of $1,000.00 for having filed the Motion to Dismiss without first having filed an entry of appearance. H. LEGAL ARGUMENT Plaintiffs allegations that the actions of the undersigned counsel and her firm warrant the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 wholly lack merit. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. ifs procedural requirements prior to filing the instant Motion for Sanctions. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, the following: (b) Representation to Court. By presenting to the Court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasOnable under the circumstances, -- Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(2001). A. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO FILE AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL COURT RULES AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should sanction the undersigned defense counsel and her firm for not filing an entry of appearance as required by local court rules. Undersigned counsel concedes she has not filed a formal entry of appearance. Nonetheless, counsels representation of Defendant French & Associates is obvious as she signed the initial pleading filed by French & Associates which was the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. Thereafter, the undersigned counsel has also signed each pleading filed on behalf of French & Associates. Plaintiffs are well aware that the undersigned counsel represents French & Associates in this case. They cannot demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the undersigned counsels inadvertent failure to file a formal entry of appearance. Nonetheless, the undersigned counsel ifies an entry of appearance concurrently with this Response in order to comply with Local Court Rule 83. Plaintiffs have not cited this Court any authority to support their argument that French & Associates Motion to Dismiss should be disregarded because the undersigned counsel did not file a formal entry of appearance. In the interest of justice, this Court should waive the entry of appearance requirement in order to resolve French & Associates Motion to dismiss expeditiously. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 1.7 (stating that local rules may be waived by a judge to avoid injustice); Glendora v. Sellers, Civ. No. 00-1695 JP/LCS, slip op., pp.2-3 (D.N.M. filed January 7, 2002) [Docket No. 841 (unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order wherein the Honorable James A. Parker waived local rule requiring entry of appearance in order to resolve defendants dispositive motion expeditiously). Therefore, this Court should deny Plaintiffs request that it disregard French & Associates Motion to Dismiss or sanction the undersigned counsel for not having filed a formal entry of appearance. B. PLAINTIFFS FARED TO FOLLOW RULE 11(C)(1)(AYS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND ARE THEREFORE BARRED FROM OBTAINING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL UNDER FED.R.C1V.P. 11. Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule lis 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 l(C)(l)(A) (emphasis added). 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 1 ls safe harbor provision is mandatory and Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule ils procedural requirements requires the denial of their Motion. See Aerotech. Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1528-29 (10 Cir. 1997) (citing Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5 Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs failed to serve defense counsel with this Motion for Sanctions in advance of filing it. Instead, Plaintiffs bypassed this requirement and filed their Motion for sanctions directly with the Court on January 11, 2002. Plaintiffs are therefore procedurally barred from obtaining sanctions against defense counsel under Rule 11 and the Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion. See id. WhEREFORE, French & Associates respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Christina E. Anaya and French and Associations for Filing Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss, award defense counsel fees and costs for responding to the instant Motion, and order all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, FRENCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Stephen G. French 500 Marquette Ave. N.W., Suite 600 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail this 17th day of January, 2002 to: Arthur R. Morales, Pro Se Plaintiff William H. Payne, Pro Se Plaintiff Michael Hoses Christina E. Anaya |
Morales added his contributions, then we filed.
Here's the really imporant addition.
D Hoses writesAlthough government defense counsel, not having selected the other party as the target of the litigation, is in a more passive position than a prosecutor or plaintiffs representative, he nevertheless functions in an adversarial arena.. .and since he is charged with a public trust he should not be inhibited in the faithful performance of his duties by the threat of harassing lawsuits against him.Much like the extraordinary writ, the adversarial arena should only be used in extraordinary conditions.
Plaintiffs would normally say these are extraordinary conditions of judges and lawyers not following the law. But unfortunately this is becoming too common.
When an individual or entity with any source of power is not held accountable, they will eventually go out of control with wrongdoing using their power.
This appears to be the case here.
It is for these reasons that the harshest sanction must be imposed again lawyer Hoses.
Friday January 18, 2002 16:16Payne met Ian Hoffman and Dan Stober authors of A Convenient Spy: Wen Ho Lee and the Politics of Nuclear Espionage at Page One last evening.
More than about 60 people attended the talk and book signing.
CSPAN had Comcast videotape the talk. The talk will apparently be presented on CSPAN.
Ian Hoffman told Payne that he didn't think Payne and Morales would be able to stop what they are doing because they were having too much fun.
We, of course, deny this. We are ready to settle.
However, we must confess some delight in filing Exhibit B today.
Holy Moses! Look what Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses filed with Judge brother Dee Vance Benson!
Subtlety is wasted on the judiciary. So we're being direct.
Payne learned from Convenient Spy that Senator Pete Dominici's daughter and Gorence are getting divorced.
There are good reasons for this. Like
Clearly Gorence is a liability to any political family like the Dominicis.
Today is the deadline for the BBB to respond to Morales and Payne last letter.
Let's all continue to hope for settlement before things get worse.
Here's the first draft of the motion for sanction again Michael [Moley] Hoses. Friday January 18, 2002 07:31
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY MICHAEL HOSES FOR FILING DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1 Sanction Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses for failing to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. And Albuquerque US Attorney's office for filing DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY which is frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY MICHAEL HOSES FOR FILING DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses files below MOTION and MEMORANDUM shown on the docket as 11/19/01 11/21/01 12 MEMORANDUM by deft John W Zavitz in support of motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11-1] (bap) (197k) Re: MOTION to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11] Exhibit A. 2 Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. The word MUST in " An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. The docket sheet for the case shows NO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses. Exhibit A. 3 Hoses was given until 14:00 November 29, 2002 to withdraw his improperly filed MOTION and MEMORANDUM in 11/29/01 11/30/01 14 RESPONSE by pltfs to deft Zavitz' motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11-1] (bap) (67k) Re: MOTION to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11] INTRODUCTION Exhibit A. Hoses does not respond. 4 Rule 11(b). Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions state in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (b) Representations to Court. Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses and Albuquerque US Attorney's office submitted improper DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY in violation of Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. 5 Rule 11(c) goes on to state (c) Sanctions. 6 Docket as of January 17, 2002, Exhibit A, show that Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses failed to make and entry of appearance and withdraw DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY More than 21 days, as required in Rule 11 has elpased as required by Rule 11 c(1)(A). Therefore this motion for sanctions is applicable and warranted. 7 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses writes DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ' MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY must be rejected as an improper filing before this court since Hoses never filed Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. Hoses' filing is therefore frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 8 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses writes in MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging claims for damages and other relief against, among others, Assistant U.S. Attorney John J (sic) Zavits (sic)1 based on actions taken by him in connection with pending litigation in other matters before this Court, i.e., Arthur J. Morales and William H. Payne v. Theodore C. Baca. Norman C. Bay. Phyllis A. Dow. Raymond Hamilton. Rodey. Dickason. Sloan. Akin & Robb. P.A.. and Martha Vazpuez, CIV No. 01-0634 WFD/WWD. See Complaint, Ex. I The acts alleged against Mr. Zavitz include failing to file an Entry of Appearance pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ 83.4, Complaint 110 and conspiring to subvert both state -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 AUSA Zavitz proper name is John W. Zavitz and the proper spelling of his name will be used in this memorandum. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and federal courts using the felony of perjury, Complaint 11142. All of the cited actions were taken in Mr. Zavitz official capacity in connection with the defense of Civil No. 01- 0634. Plaintiffs claims against Mr. Zavitz are barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity and should be dismissed. Hoses tries to make issue over plaintiffs' misseplling of Zavitz name Assistant U.S. Attorney John J (sic) Zavits (sic)1 yet Hoses himself mispells Zavitz name in his memorandum title! Exhibit B. Hoses writes in above Arthur J. Morales Correct spelling is Arthur R. Morales. Hoses above statements are frivolous and clearly being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 9 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses writes in MEMORANDUM AUSA JOHN W. ZAVITZ IS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THE ACTION ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have extended the absolute immunity available to judges to other persons whose functions are intimately or closely associated with the judicial process, particularly government attorneys, witnesses, and court personnel, such as clerks, reporters, and probation officers. The touchstone for the immunity is whether the activity in question is intimately associated with the judicial process, for it is that process which the immunity protects. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478,492(1991). See also Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Absolute immunity is designed to free the judicial process from the harassment and intimidation associated with litigation. Burns 500 U.S. at 494. It extends only to matters connected with judicial proceedings; it is not for every litigation-inducing conduct. Id. First, the court has no jurisdiction over this case as evidenced by non-response of judge Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker, Exhibit A, entry 16. Second, Hoses failed to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. Hoses cannot, according to court rules, file MEMORANDUM. New Mexico state court has jurisdiction. In New Mexico state court defendant cannot move to dismiss except for reason of improper pursuit of case in court. 10 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses writes in MEMORANDUM The Supreme Court developed the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine principally in the context of prosecutors See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), Again, the court has no jurisdiction over this case as evidenced by non-response of judge Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker, Exhibit A, entry 16. Second, Hoses failed to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. Hoses cannot, according to court rules, file MEMORANDUM. New Mexico state court has jurisdiction. In New Mexico state court defendant cannot move to dismiss except for reason of improper pursuit of case in court. A This court must disregard fillings of Hoses because he is not a party to this lawsuit and this court does not have jurisdiction. Hoses must PUNISHED WITH THE HARSHEST OF FINANCIAL SANCTIONS to prevent the chilling effect of misuse of federal courts. B Hoses flaunts ignoring court rules by not filing Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. Hoses has no standing in this lawsuit to file MEMORANDUM. C This court does not have jurisdiction. Hoses continues to try to make state legal arguments to a federal court without jurisdiction. D Hoses writes Although government defense counsel, not having selected the other party as the target of the litigation, is in a more passive position than a prosecutor or plaintiffs representative, he nevertheless functions in an adversarial arena.. .and since he is charged with a public trust he should not be inhibited in the faithful performance of his duties by the threat of harassing lawsuits against him. Much like the extraordinary writ, the adversarial arena should only be used in extraordinary conditions. Plaintiffs would normally say these are extraordinary conditions of judges and lawyers not following the law. But unfortunately this is becoming too common. When an individual or entity with any source of power is not held accountable, they will eventually go out of control with wrongdoing using their power. This appears to be the case here. It is for these reasons that the harshest sanction must be imposed again lawyer Hoses. 11 Hoses writes CONCLUSION must be rejected as an improper filing submitted to a federal court without jurisdiction. This is an attempt for defendants found guilty of their crimes IN WRITING to avoid justice. 12 WHEREFORE sanctions Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses for $600,000 for filing 11/19/01 11/21/01 12 MEMORANDUM by deft John W Zavitz in support of motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11-1] (bap) (197k) Re: MOTION to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11] Exhibit A. Lawyer and Assistant US Attorneys must be send a clear message that legal misconduct in federal court must not be tolerated. Plaintiffs ask for labor and filing costs to respond, Exhibit A, docket entry 14 11/29/01 11/30/01 14 RESPONSE by pltfs to deft Zavitz' motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11-1] (bap) (67k) Re: MOTION to dismiss based on absolute immunity [11] to Hoses' improper filings for $1,000 and another $1,000 for this motion for sanctions. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on January 18, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
Morales and Payne met for lunch then added paragraph 4. We then went to Sandia Credit Union to notarize our affidavits.
Here is a reason why Morales and Payne didn't respond to the French law firm's pleadings.
French and Anaya violated court rules and, therefore, have no standing in lawsuit! Thursday November 29, 2001 13:54
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING
PACKAGE 1 Defendant French and Associates write Defendant, French & Associates, P.C., through counsel of record, French & Associates, P.C. (Stephen G. French, Esq. and Christina E. Anaya, Esq.), state the following for its Notice of Completion of Briefing Package for French & Associates, P.C. s Motion to Dismiss (filed October 22, 2001) [Docket No. 4]. 2 Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. The word MUST in " An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. The docket sheet for the case shows NO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for Christina E Anaya, Stephen G French, or French and Associates, P.C. Exhibit A. 3 Christina E Anaya and Stephen G French have no standing in this lawsuit. Therefore Plaintiffs are not required to respond to illegitimate documents filed by court clerk. 4 Plaintiffs find French and Anaya's words A responsive pleading was therefore due from Plaintiffs on or before November 5, 2001. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed or served Defendant with a responsive brief. offensive since French and Anaya attempt to show that pro se Plaintiffs aren't following rules when, in fact, lawyers French and Anaya aren't following rules of the court. 5 WHEREFORE strike docket entries 4, 5, 13 from the docket as unauthorized and illegitimate entries. Stephen G French has been given until 13:30 November 29, 2001 to respond by telephone telling plaintiff s that French and Anaya will withdraw filing or face Rule 11 sanctions motion. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on November 29, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
French and Associates attempted to show that Morales and Payne weren't following rules. If we didn't follow rules, then we might have been in a bit of trouble.
Always try to follow the rules. But if you make an honest mistake, then acknowledge it and try to more forward.
Hoses, it appears, is simply arrogant in blatant disregard for the rules especially since Zavitz got zinged for the same violation. Thursday November 29, 2001 14:01
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses writes COMES NOW Defendant John W. Zavitz, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Michael H. Hoses and moves the Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint and cause of action with prejudice based on the following: 2 Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. (b) Appearance by Member of a Law Firm. Entry of appearance by one member of a law firm in an action allows any member of that firm to participate in the action; however, each attorney in the firm wishing to receive papers from the Clerk must make a written entry of appearance in the action. The word MUST in " An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. The docket sheet for the case shows NO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for Michael H. Hoses. Exhibit A. 3 Michael H. Hoses has no standing in this lawsuit. 4 Hoses' DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY creates the appearance that a federal court is merely a tool of the Justice Department to do what it wants irrespective of court rules. It creates an appearance of a conspiracy between the federal court system and the Department of Justice to subvert justice by ignoring rules. Further, no citizen can be above laws of their state. Zavits and other defendants got caught in writing violating New Mexico state laws. They must be brought to justice. 5 WHEREFORE strike docket entries 11 and 12 from the docket as unauthorized and illegitimate entries. Michael H. Hoses has been advised by phone that if he does not respond by l 14:00 November 29, 2001 to withdraw DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY and accompanying MEMORANDUM he will face Rule 11 sanctions motion. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on November 29, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Here's the final motion for sanctions.
It's important to keep text of all citations in the document presented. The reason is that a reader most-usually not going to waste their time going to the library to look up citations.
But you must be different. Lawyers purposely misquote law knowing that you will not take the time to look up the citation.
We quote back all of what French and Associates wrote. It is absurdly long.
And, of course, is state matters directed toward a federal judge who has no jurisdiction.
It even makes us angry to have to include all of French and Associates nonsense in our pleading. Our documents is too long.
But we are trying to make the point that French and Associates filed a nonsense frivolous pleading so all of the text helps us to this end
Now to do Assistant US Attorney Michael [Moley] Hoses. Wednesday January 16, 2002 09:06
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHRISTINA E ANAYA AND FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES FOR FILING MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS 1 Sanction law firm of French and Associates for failing to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. And for French and Associates filing MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS which is frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHRISTINA E ANAYA AND FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES FOR FILING MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS 1 French and Associates file below MOTION and MEMORANDUM show on the docket as 10/22/01 10/23/01 5 MEMORANDUM by defendant French & Associates in support of motion to dismiss [4-1] (vv) (318k) Re: MOTION to dismiss [4] These docket references are seen in Exhibit A. 2 Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4, Entry of Appearance, states (a) Individual Attorney. An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper. To enter an appearance, an attorney must: be eligible to appear under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.2 or 83.3; and sign the initial pleading filed on behalf of a party and file a written entry of appearance which includes the attorney's name, address, and telephone number. The word MUST in " An attorney must enter an appearance or obtain leave of the Court to sign and file any pleading, motion or other paper." is quite clear. The docket sheet for the case shows NO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for Christina E Anaya, Stephen G French, or French and Associates, P.C. Exhibit A. 3 "Stephen G French has been given until 13:30 November 29, 2001 to respond by telephone telling plaintiffs that French and Anaya will withdraw filing or face Rule 11 sanctions motion." 11/29/01 11/30/01 15 RESPONSE by pltfs to notice of completion of briefing package for deft French's motion to dismiss [4-1] (bap) (65k) Re: MOTION to dismiss [4] French does not respond. 4 Rule 11(b). Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions state in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (b) Representations to Court. French and Associates, Stephen G French, and Christina E Anaya submitted improper MOTION TO DISMISS and associated MEMORANDUM in violation of Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. 5 Rule 11(c) goes on to state (c) Sanctions. 6 Docket as of January 9, 2002 show that French and Associates failed to make and entry of appearance and withdraw motion to dismiss. More than 21 days, as required in Rule 11 has elpased as required by Rule 11 c(1)(A). Therefore this motion for sanctions is applicable and warranted. 7 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their motion, docket entry 4, Exhibit A Defendant French & Associates, P.C., by and through French & Associates, P.C. (Stephen G. French, Esq. and Christina B. Anaya, Bsq.) and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7, respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss. does not apply since French and Anaya never filed Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Anaya's filing is therefore frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 8 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their motion As required by D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a), the undersigned counsel wrote a letter to each of the pro se Plaintiffs to determine if they opposed or concurred with the instant Motion. Plaintiffs have not responded and French & Associates, P.C., therefore assumes they oppose the filing of this Motion. Plaintiffs are not required to respond to individuals who have not standing in this case. And plaintiffs purposely did not respond. French and Anaya's letter is therefore frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, to harass, to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase in the cost of litigation. French and Anaya's letter is a legal contention unwarranted by existing law. French and Anaya failed to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. 9 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their motion WHEREFORE, Defendant French & Associates, P.C., respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss, dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against it with prejudice, award French & Associates, P.C., its attorney's fees and costs, and order all other relief this Court deems just and proper. French and Anaya failed to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Anaya cannot, according to court rules, move to dismiss. French and Anaya's claim is therefore frivolous and is being presented for an improper purpose, to harass, to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase in the cost of litigation. Instead of awarding French and Associates, P. C. attorney's fees and cost, this court must levy heavy sanctions on French and Associates, P. C. as required by Rules 11 c(1)(A). Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. 10 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their MEMORANDUM, Exhibit A, entry 5, Defendant French & Associates, P.C., by and through French & Associates, P.C. (Stephen G. French, Esq. and Christina E. Anaya, Esq.), states as follows for its Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss: First, the court has no jurisdiction over this case as evidenced by non-response of judge Dee Vance Benson and James A Parker, Exhibit A, entry 16. Second, French and Anaya failed to file Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Anaya cannot, according to court rules, file MEMORANDUM. New Mexico state court has jurisdiction. In New Mexico state court defendant cannot move to dismiss except for reason of improper pursuit of case in court. 11 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their MEMORANDUM In addition, because the Plaintiffs in this case are appearing pro Se, the Court must keep in mind additional considerations while reviewing a motion to dismiss. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. We believe that this rule means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite plaintiffs failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. At the same time, we do not believe it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. The broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging specific facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based . . . . [Conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based. This is so because a pro se plaintiff requires no specialized legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted. Moreover, in analyzing the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint, the court need accept as true only the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual contentions, not his conclusory allegations. Pro se plaintiffs follow court rules to best of their ability. Law firm French and Associates, P. C. flaunt ignoring court rules by not filing Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Associates, P. C. have established pattern and practice of rule 11 violation. MOTION FOR SANCTION FOR FILING FRAUDULENT CIVIL COVER SHEET, Exhibit B, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHRISTINA E ANYA AND FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES FOR PERJURY, Exhibit C. Such repeated flagrant violation of court decorum warrants great financial sanctions against French and Associates, P. C. 12 Lawyers French and Anaya write in their MEMORANDUM As stated in the Complaint, the facts for the purposes of this Motion are as follows: French and Associates argument is truly absurd to be making before this court for the reason A This court has no jurisdiction to consider this argument B The statement Even accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint as true for purposes of this Motion only, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. New Mexico has not recognized a civil cause of action for perjury and harassment. and Likewise, New Mexico has not recognized the tort of "malicious defense." For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant French & Associates, P.C.'s Motion to Dismiss. indicates that French and Associates are trying to make an argument about New Mexico state law a federal judge in Utah. This belongs is New Mexico state court. This is frivolous and warrant the gravest monitory sanctions to prevent other law firms from trying similar tactics. Plaintiff and this court have had enough. For the reasons given in A and B above, what French and Associates write In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that French & Associates, P.C. conspired with others to commit the felony of perjury and to harass Plaintiffs. To establish French & Associates, P.C. 's liability for a civil conspiracy Plaintiffs need to allege(1) that a conspiracy between two or more individuals existed; (2) that specific wrongful acts were carried out by the defendants pursuant to the conspiracy; and (3) that the plaintiff was damaged as a result of such acts." Silva v. Town of Springer, 1996 -NMCA-022, 25, 121 N.M. 428, 912 P.2d 304. Unlike a conspiracy in the criminal context, a civil conspiracy by itself is not actionable, nor does it provide an independent basis for liability" 'unless a civil action in damages would lie against one of the conspirators."' Armijo v. National Sur. Corp., 58 N.M. 166, 178, 268 P.2d 339, 347 (1954) (quoting Pullen v. Headberg, 53 Cob. 502, 127 P. 954, 955 (1912)). A civil conspiracy must actually involve some independent, unlawful act that causes harm-- something that would give rise to a civil action on its own. See Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard, 92 N.M. 297, 300, 587 P.2d 444, 447 (Ct. App. 1978). ... The purpose of a civil conspiracy claim is to impute liability to make members of the conspiracy jointly and severally liable for the torts of any of its members. See Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1099 n. 18 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keaton on the Law of Torts § 46 (5th ed. 1984)). Without an actionable civil case against one of the conspirators, however, an agreement, no matter how conspiratorial in nature is not a separate, actionable offense. See Armijo, 58 N.M. at 177, 268 P.2d at 346. A This court must disregard fillings of French and Associates because they are not a party to this lawsuit and this court does not have jurisdiction. French and Associates must PUNISHED WITH THE HARSHEST OF FINANCIAL SANCTIONS to prevent the chilling effect of misuse of federal courts. B The French and Associates removal of this case to federal court was erroneously based on the claim plaintiffs' request for trial was meant for state court not federal. Because they asserted a federal claim against Judge Baca, French & Associates, P.C. properly removed the case to federal court. Law firm French and Associates, P. C. flaunt ignoring court rules by not filing Entry of Appearance as required by Federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Associates have no standing in this lawsuit to file MEMORANDUM. C This court does not have jurisdiction. French and Associates continues to try to make state legal arguments to a federal court without jurisdiction. D French and Associates got caught in demonstration of pattern of crimes committed IN WRITING as evidenced in the documents seen in Exhibit B and C. E Law firm French and Associations, P.C flaunt ignoring court rules by not filing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE as required by federal local rules of civil procedure 83.4. French and Associates have no standing to file in federal court for this lawsuit. 13 French and Associates are not only violate court rules but are criminals by an attempt to get out of their crime by having this court, which does not have jurisdiction, dismiss a STATE COMPLAINT. 14 French and Associates write WHEREFORE, Defendant French & Associates, P.C. respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to Dismiss; dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint against it with prejudice, award French & Associates, P.C. its attorney's fees and costs and order all other relief this Court deems just and proper. must be rejected as an attempt to have a federal court without jurisdiction dismiss and state complaint. Then attempt to have plaintiffs pay for their action. 15 WHEREFORE instead sanctions of $2,400,000 must be levied against French and Associates in an attempt to prevent any lawyers or law firms from trying such a blatant and absurd defense of their criminal acts. Plaintiffs ask for labor and filing costs to respond to filing of French and Associates. Exhibit A, docket entry 15 11/29/01 11/30/01 15 RESPONSE by pltfs to notice of completion of briefing package for deft French's motion to dismiss [4-1] (bap) (65k) Re: MOTION to dismiss [4] $400 and this filing, $600. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on January 9, 2002 to French and Associates, P.C. Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker William F. Downes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ |
Morales and Payne file today their affidavits.
It is just an interesting statement without an affidavit. An affidavit makes it true. Thursday November 29, 2001 10:24
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and Defendants. NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE OF JUDGES DEE VANCE BENSON AND JAMES A PARKER FOR NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF NEW MEXICO CASE CV-200106293 TO FEDERAL COURT 1 Plaintiffs file NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF NEW MEXICO CASE CV-200106293 TO FEDERAL COURT on November 8, 2001. Exhibit A, docket entry 9, arrow 1. 2 Plaintiffs state and ask 11 28 USC Sec. 2283 statesAnti-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 AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM PAYNE As of November 28 2001 just after mail delivery at about 13:30 I have not received any affidavit from either judges Benson or Parker to comply with the anti-injunction act to show federal exemptions to permit removal of Complaint for relief from Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY New Mexico state lawsuit CV-200106293 to federal court. I regard judges Benson's and Parker's inaction as a conspiracy with Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and FRENCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. firm to harass us using federal court. This violates New Mexico state law. We are unfairly and illegally being denied my right to a jury trial for a prima facie case of from Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. We paid $322 for our right under the New Mexico constitution for this jury trial. Verification SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________ by William H. Payne ________________________________ 43 AFFIDAVIT OF ARTHUR R. MORALES As of November 28 2001 just after mail delivery at about 13:30 I have not received any affidavit from either judges Benson or Parker to comply with the anti-injunction act to show federal exemptions to permit removal of Complaint for relief from Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY New Mexico state lawsuit CV-200106293 to federal court. I regard judges Benson's and Parker's inaction as a conspiracy with Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and FRENCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. firm to harass us using federal court. This violates New Mexico state law. We are unfairly and illegally being denied my right to a jury trial for a prima facie case of from Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY. We paid $322 for our right under the New Mexico constitution for this jury trial. Verification SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of _____________ by Arthur R. Morales ________________________________ Notary Public ______________________________________ My Commission Expires: 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 November 29, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Assistant US Attorney Michael [Moley] Hoses writes in below
1 AUSA Zavitz proper name is John W. Zavitz and the proper spelling of his name will be used in this memorandum.
to apparently attempt to give us a bad time about misspelling Zavitz name. Then look what Moley does
Moley Hoses too misspells Zavitz name in same document!
Since the feds don't have jurisdiction and Moley knows this, this filing will be responded to [remember motion, response, reply].
And we'll file a motion for sanctions for violation of Rule 11.
Moley's filing is truly frivolous. And stupid too. But stupidity is not a crime. Tuesday November 13, 2001 13:14
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, JOHN J. ZAVITS Defendants. DEFENDANT JOHN W. ZAVITZ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging claims for damages and other relief against, among others, Assistant U.S. Attorney John J (sic) Zavits (sic)1 based on actions taken by him in connection with pending litigation in other matters before this Court, i.e., Arthur J. Morales and William H. Payne v. Theodore C. Baca. Norman C. Bay. Phyllis A. Dow. Raymond Hamilton. Rodey. Dickason. Sloan. Akin & Robb. P.A.. and Martha Vazpuez, CIV No. 01-0634 WFD/WWD. See Complaint, Ex. I The acts alleged against Mr. Zavitz include failing to file an Entry of Appearance pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ 83.4, Complaint 110 and conspiring to subvert both state 1 AUSA Zavitz proper name is John W. Zavitz and the proper spelling of his name will be used in this memorandum. and federal courts using the felony of perjury, Complaint 11142. All of the cited actions were taken in Mr. Zavitz official capacity in connection with the defense of Civil No. 01- 0634. Plaintiffs claims against Mr. Zavitz are barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity and should be dismissed. AUSA JOHN W. ZAVITZ IS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THE ACTION ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have extended the absolute immunity available to judges to other persons whose functions are intimately or closely associated with the judicial process, particularly government attorneys, witnesses, and court personnel, such as clerks, reporters, and probation officers. The touchstone for the immunity is whether the activity in question is intimately associated with the judicial process, for it is that process which the immunity protects. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478,492(1991). See also Cleavingerv. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Absolute immunity is designed to free the judicial process from the harassment and intimidation associated with litigation. Burns 500 U.S. at 494. It extends only to matters connected with judicial proceedings; it is not for every litigation-inducing conduct. Id. The Supreme Court developed the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine principally in the context of prosecutors See ~ Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), 2 Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs complaint relies on two exhibits to the complaint to illustrate that Mr. Zavitz conspired with others to subvert both state and federal courts using the felony of perjury. The exhibits relied on by Plaintiffs include Exhibit G, civil cover Sheet (not signed by Mr. Zavitz) and Exhibit H, receipt from the United States District court in Albuquerque for a filing fee received from French & Associates. A review of these exhibits demonstrates that Mr. Zavitz was not involved in or connected in any to either of these documents. Based on the frivolous, baseless assertion contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs complaint, this allegation will not be addressed further in this Memorandum. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991); lmblerv. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). However, the core principle in the Supreme Courts decisions giving shape to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for prosecutors is the perceived need to provide protection for the judicial process from direct and indirect impairments. Therefore, the touchstone for that immunity is a functional tie to the judicial process. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 277. Litigation that would have an untoward effect on the independence of the prosecutor is seen as also impeding the judicial process; consequently the prosecutor is given absolute immunity as a means to protect that process. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 125 (1997); Burns, 500 U.S. at 492; Mallev v. Briags, 475 u.S. 335, 343 (1986). In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity when he or she acts as an advocate for the government. 509 U.S. at 276-78. By performing that function, the prosecutor becomes associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-31. [Ajcts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of abso- lute immunity. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. This immunity rests on the same rationale as does prosecutorial and other quasi-judicial immunities: the protection of the judicial process from undue interference through damages actions. The basis for absolute immunity for government attorneys participating in civil proceedings was signaled by the Supreme Court in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). There, in the context of a case concerning administrative enforcement proceedings in which penalties and sanctions could be imposed, the Court said, [w]e think that adjudication within a federal administrative agency shares enough of the characteristics of the judicial process that those who participate in such adjudication should also be immune from suit for damages. 438 u.s. at 512-13. That immunity includes agency officials who are responsible for the decision to initiate or continue an administrative proceeding. !~. at 516. As to agency attorneys conducting a trial (or hearing) and presenting evidence, the Court likened their function to that of a prosecutor and held that they were absolutely immune: We can see no substantial difference between the function of the agency attorney in presenting evidence in an agency hearing and the function of the prosecutor who brings evidence before a court. . .. If agency attorneys were held personally liable in damages as guarantors of the quality of their evidence, they might hesitate to bring forward some witnesses or documents.... We therefore hold that an agency attorney who arranges for the presentation of evidence on the record in the course of an adjudication is absolutely immune from suits based on the introduction of such evidence. 438 U.S. at 516-17. Although Butz concerned administrative proceedings in which penalties and sanctions could be imposed, giving them a criminal aura, and the Court used the role of the prosecutor for its analogy, nothing in its reasoning precludes its application to government attorneys functioning in proceedings where traditional civil remedies are the outcome. Cf. 438 U.S. at 516 n.40. The judicial process is what is protected by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and for immunity purposes there is no principled difference between civil and criminal proceedings. Several courts of appeals have ruled that the principles outlined in Butz operate to afford absolute immunity to government attorneys who initiate or participate in civil proceedings. The Ninth Circuit explained that protection in Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1991), a case involving Internal Revenue Service attorneys who handled the tax deficiency claim against the plaintiffs in the Tax Court: We therefore agree with the Second Circuit, as it stated in Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 57273 (2d Cir. 1986), that the principles outlined in Butz should a fortiori apply to the government attorneys initiation and handling of civil litigation in a state or federal court. Whether the government attorney is representing the plaintiff or the defendant, or is conducting a civil trial, criminal prosecution or an agency hearing, absolute immunity is necessary to assure that. . . advocates. . . can perform their respective functions without harassment or intimidation. Butz, 438 U.S. at 512, 98 S.Ct. at 2913. Given the similarity of functions of government attorneys in civil, criminal and agency proceedings, and the numerous checks on abuses of authority inherent in the judicial process, we reiterate our statement in Flood v. Harrington, 532 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1976) that [tihe reasons supporting the doctrine of absolute immunity apply with equal force regardless of the nature of the underlying action. See also Mendenhall v. Goldsmith, 59 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (state attorney absolutely immune with respect to filing of an injunction, forfeiture of plaintiffs property, seizure of property subject to forfeiture, and settlement negotiations with plaintiff), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1011(1995); Saunders v. Bush, 15 F.3d 64, 67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1207 (1994); Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402, 1412 (3d Cir. 1991); MurDhvv. Morris, 849 F.2d 1101, 1104-05(8th Cir. 1988); Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 572-73 (2d Cir. 1986); Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F.Supp. 1381, 1401-1402 (D. Idaho 1996) (civil AUSAs entitled to immunity for alleged use of false declarations and certifications), affd, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997); Brven v. Becker, 785 F.Supp. 484, 486-87 (D.N.J. 1991) (If every government attorney involved in a civil matter were to be subject to suit, and his actions were scrutinized for any possible constitutional error, then the efficacy of these officials would surely be compromised.), ~ 961 F.2d 207 (3d Cir. 1992). The basis for absolute immunity for a government attorney handling civil proceedings, then, is the close association of the challenged conduct with the judicial process, and the scope of its protection extends accordingly. This protection is consist- ent with that provided prosecutors, and the rationale for it is the same. Its application is governed essentially by the principles discussed in connection with immunity for prosecutors, suDra. It is the judicial process that is the interest ultimately protected by quasi-judicial immunity in both civil and criminal adjudication. The action of filing motions and supporting memoranda in a lawsuit in U.S. district courts without first filing an entry of appearance was taken by Mr. Zavitz in his capacity as an Assistant United States Attorney and relate to the defense of the action filed by Morales and Payne (Civil No. 01-0634). This act is clearly an integral part of the litigation initiated by Plaintiffs and is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. As the Second Circuit stated in Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d at 572: Although government defense counsel, not having selected the other party as the target of the litigation, is in a more passive position than a prosecutor or plaintiffs representative, he nevertheless functions in an adversarial arena.. .and since he is charged with a public trust he should not be inhibited in the faithful performance of his duties by the theat of harassing lawsuits against him. The action alleged by Plaintiffs against Mr. Zavitz, failing to file an entry of appearance, should be dismissed based on quasi-judicial immunity. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments set out above, this action against John W. Zavitz hould be dismissed with prejudice based on absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Respectfully submitted, DAVID C. IGLESIAS MICHAEL H. HOSES I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 19th 2001, a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to: Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne Honorable William F. Downes Christina E. Anaya MICHAEL H. HOSES |
The feds, of course, don't have jurisdiction in a Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY CV-200106293 .
This is the docket for the removed case 01cv01198 .
Federal judges Parker, his patsies, Benson and Downes refuse to provide affidavit attesting to justification for removal under
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.
The feds continue to get everyone into more trouble.
Tuesday November 27, 2001 11:05
|
|
We filed.
Now to prepare a complaint against judges Brennan and Schneider. Usually one gives the opposition an opportunity to settle. This time we don't.
We'll only suggest settlement to Bill.Haas@state.nm.us of New Mexico risk management.
Brennan and Schneider are not only lawyers. They're JAG officers. And they got caught! Thursday November 8, 2001 12:32
Litigation is essentially being able to tell a story in writing backed-up by written evidence. And filling-out forms.
A story not backed-up by written evidence is not convincing. So Payne put finishing touches on his version of the story. Morales will review, then we will put-together a final version and file.
Payne discovered that his NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT JUSTIFICATION while filed on 01 NOV-2 11:52AM is not the docket sheet of 01 cv 1132 as of 07:34 this morning by looking at the docket sheet on internet at 1.
This can be a lawyer ploy. Perhaps a Parker ploy? 2 1
Judge Brown's assistant, Chris, asked us to send a copy of all pleading directly to Brown for the reason that the second judicial district was not always sending pleadings.
Judge Dee Vance Benson , an apparent Parker patsy, is likely following pleadings posted on internet.
The next step is for Payne to sue judges Brennan and Schneider for breach of contract and harassment.
Payne learned that Schneider replaced Brennan as a Judge Advocate General several years ago with the New Mexico national guard.
Brennan is slightly older than Schneider.
We have the evidence against both Brennan and Schneider in writing so the complaint should be fairly straight-forward.
We also have the evidence against judges Brennan, Schneider, Serna, and Brown in writing. But we will wait a bit so see if reason sinks-in.
You can see us laying the ground work for the suits in the below pleading. We're being denied justice when we both have prima facie cases supported by all evidence in writing.
While Schneider's secretary, Kerrie, phoned Payne to tell him there will be no state hearing on the 16th, Payne has not received anything in writing.
Everything, as we all now know, must be writing. Otherwise it didn't happen.
Naturally, of course, we hope the opposition is finally thinking about settlement. Things can get worse ... perhaps by megatons. Thursday November 8, 2001 08:23
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND WILLIAM H. PAYNE, Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 Dee Vance Benson JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and FRENCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Defendants. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF NEW MEXICO CASE CV-200106293 TO FEDERAL COURT 1 Plaintiffs files Complaint for relief from Relief from Complaint for Relief from CONSPIRACY OF HARASSMENT AND PERJURY on August 28, 2001. This is NEW MEXICO CASE CV- 200106293. 2 October 16 , 2001 Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses removes New Mexico CV- 200106293 to federal court 10/16/01 10/16/01 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial District Court Case Number: 1:01:CV:6293 w/state court complaint (referred to Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia) (eg) (72k) Re: ANSWER [3] Exhibit AA. 3 October 25, 2001 Judge James A Parker orders 10/25/01 10/26/01 6 ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Judge James A. Parker reassigning case to Chief Judge Dee V. Benson for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) (bap) (8k) 4 History of the now very visible five federal lawsuits seen on internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ reveals pattern and practice of judicial and lawyer misconduct designed to obstruct justice. Plaintiff Morales and Payne filed suit in New Mexico state court for writ of REPLEVIN and relief from harassment on Oct 20, 2000. This is case cv-200-10289. One issue was recovery of $625 taken from Morales without due process. New Mexico federal district court clerk writes Morales, If you want a hearing, you must notify the court within 20 days after receipt of the notice. Your request must be in writing. Exhibit D page 2, lines 4 and 5. Morales requests hearing. The purpose of this letter is to request a hearing of the sanctions and garnishment against Arthur R. Morales for the following reasons: 1. I do not own money to the Government and 2. I disagree with the reason that the Government gives for taking my property Exhibit E dated February 12, 1999. Morales and Payne split the cost of paying the $625. Exhibit B. Most important is a second issue for an ORDER OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don J Svet when there was no cause of action in court. Exhibit J. This ORDER OF GRANISHMENT has never been rescinded and, therefore, is an open issue which has a chilling effect on plaintiffs. This must be decided by settlement or verdict of jury. These two, and several others, which are state issues were to be heard in New Mexico state court in a jury trials paid for by plaintiffs. However, Assistant US Attorney Raymond Hamilton removed cv-200-10289 to federal court. The case was given federal number 00 cv 1574. Replevin and harassment, of course, are not federal questions and no proper justification under 28 USC Sec. 2283, the anti-injunction act has ever been provided by anyone. 5 Judge Parker reassigns case 03/27/01 03/28/01 42 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that this case has been reassigned to Judge William F. Downes (cc: all counsel by dm) (sl) (22k) 6 William H Payne files Complaint for relief of Defamation and Harssment October 20, 2000. This is New Mexico case New Mexico CV 2000-10278. One issue is false and defaming documents distributed about Payne without his knowledge. Exhibit A. A second issue is defendant magistrate judge Lorzeno Garcia ordering sanctions against Payne in Case Number: 99cv00270 Payne v. EEOC et al. 08/05/99 08/05/99 60 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia assessing costs in favor of Sandia defts and against pltf in the amount of $912.50 to be paid within twenty (20) days [55-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) (8k) Re: NOTICE [55] after Garcia was remove from case by affidavit. 6/8/99 34 AFFIDAVIT of William H. Payne to remove Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia from this action (rd) [Entry date 06/09/99] on June 8, 1999 about two months before sanctions of $912.50 are awarded. Payne's cannot refinance their home with out paying unwarranted sanctions. Exhibit D. These are two outstanding issue which must be resolved in New Mexico state court. 7 New Mexico CV 2000-10278 is removed to federal court and given number 00 cv 1677 by Assistant US Attorney Phyllis Dow 11/27/00 11/28/00 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo w/copy of Complaint, Jury Demand & exhibits from State Court Case Number: CV-2000-10278 (bap) (80k) Re: ANSWER [14] RESPONSE [11] Exhibit CC. Defamation and harassment, of course, are not federal questions and no proper justification under 28 USC Sec. 2283, the anti-injunction act has ever been provided by anyone. 8 Judge James Parker assigns 00 cv 1677 to judge Downes too 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) 9 Judge James A Parker has established pattern and practice of aid in removal of four New Mexico state lawsuit without providing justification of removal under 28 USC Sec. 2283. 10 Judge Downes when he ruled twice on federal 01 cv 0634 which he knew was active New Mexico CV-2001-03118 [see Exhibits DD, EE, FF] was asked to provide affidavit for justification of removal under 28 USC Sec. 2283. When Downes failed to comply, he was sued in New Mexico for harassment and perjury. 11 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. 12 WHEREFORE judge Dee Vance Benson and judge James A Parker are both asked to send plaintiffs AFFIDAVITS justifying injunction of New Mexico CV- 200106293 by Friday November 23, 2001. How do harassment and perjury "fall within one of the exceptions specifically set forth in the statute?" 13 If no justification can be formed and referenced then the This Court should remand case to state court BY NOVEMBER 23, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on November 8, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker Lucius D. Bunton, Senior Judge |
Parker transfer the Morales and Payne case to judge Dee Vance Benson in Utah. Harassment, replevin, and conspiracy of perjury are not federal questions. Parker, of course, harasses by these transfers.
The return receipt from judge Brennan arrived with a yet-unopened letter from the justice department.
We are dealing with lawyers. Always use certified return receipt. A lawyer will say, "What letter? Do you have any proof you sent it to me?" We do.
New Mexico state judges have separated themselves into two groups ready for lawsuit
Schneider and Brennan for denying Payne's jury lawsuits
Schneider, Brennan, Brown, and Serna for Morales' and Payne's three lawsuits. Most fascinating is D-202-CV-200106293 of which defendant judge Ted Baca is juding.
The consequences for these judges are grave
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.]
All of the evidence of their guilt is in writing.
The main object is to extract some significant punitive dollars from the state of New Mexico. As a result all judges may be removed from the bench ... but this is secondary to getting the punitive damages.
Morales and Payne filed the below two pleadings in federal court.
We discussed the up-coming state lawsuit against Judge Schneider and the Rodey law firm . We are considering including Brennan as a defendant. And maybe even Serna.
Brennan is responsible for Schneider's irresponsible judicial conduct.
Brennan and Serna applied the law. Serna appointed judge Brown. But nothing happened. This cost one additional lawsuit ... which we haven't heard anything from state court about. We paid our money and we want our jury trial!
Morales felt that it is important to give Brennan a chance to remedy what's happened. If he doesn't then, at least, Brennan gets sued on November 5. Maybe Serna too.
Evidence of guilt in all of our lawsuits is in writing. This is why the opposition is trying to get crooked judges to dismiss the lawsuit before trial. We have to force a trial.
This up-coming lawsuit will be different than before in that none of the defendants are feds. They won't be able to remove to federal court where the feds are guaranteed of a win.
Judge Parker is in a real jam again.
Rice University is sending Payne a copy of an article about Parker and the Wen Ho Lee case.
What comes out in this article, Payne was told, is that Parker was very pro government. Parker should have tossed-out the entire case. But instead helped to extort Lee to plead guilty to the one count. Say tuned for the posting.
Notice the JP on the judge specification. This was done because Assistant US Attorney Michael Hoses ,aka Moley, specified this on his filings. The docket was not posted on internet. But it recently appeared and Parker is NOT listed as the assigned judge.
Parker needs help desparately.
Let's hope Parker gets Lucius Bunton to help get another Parker mess setted! Wyoming chief judge William Downes blew his opportunity ... and got sued. Twice.
Bunton has a copy of the Buehler tape. Bunton knows what happened. Thursday October 25, 2001 13:25
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 JP/LFG JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and 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." http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/files/lcvrules.html#Consent_to_Trial_or_to_Rule_on_Dispositive_Matt ers Plaintiffs Morales and Payne DO 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 plaintiffs' related New Mexico state lawsuit civ - 2000 10289. Garcia's involvement in 01-1198 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 harassmentand 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. 2 Plaintiffs again objects to the improper removal of New Mexico state lawsuit No. CV- 2001-06239 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 01-1198 as required by 28 USC Sec. 2283. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on October 25, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
|
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARTHUR R. MORALES AND Plaintiffs, v Civil No. 01-1198 JP/LFG JOHN J ZAVITZ, WILLIAM F. DOWNES, and 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 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 01-1198 as required by 28 USC Sec. 2283. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on October 25, 2001 to Michael H Hoses W. John Brennan Patricio Serna James A Parker |
Morales and Payne decide to go for formal Rule 11 sanctions against Assistant Attorney Hoses.
Payne phones US Attorney David Iglesias 505-346-7274 at 14:50 on Tuesday October 23. Iglesias' secretary Crystal talk. Payne leaves message for Iglesias with Crystal.
Hoses is asked to withdraw ANSWER for the reason that all of the evidence against the judges and other is in writing. ANSWER has Iglesias name on it. Iglesias is asked to look at the evidence.
Payne phone Hoses at 16:29. Payne leaves message on Hoses answering machine to phone him.
Hoses phones Payne at 16:37. Payne asked Hoses to withdraw ANSWER for reason that it is frivolous since all evidence against guilty is in writing. Hoses responds that he will not withdraw ANSWER.
Formally one is supposed to attempt to get concurrence on any motion with the opposition. French & Associates send letter. Payne and Morales open letter on Tuesday.
Morales and Payne both received a letter from French & Associates on Tuesday. We will open the letter at 09:00. If it is what we think, then we will give French and Associates a chance to withdraw. If they don't then we file for Rule 11 sanctions.
Judge James A Parker has problems. He got fellow chief judge William F Downes sued twice. Parker also recused all New Mexico court personnel in previous Morales and Payne legal actions.
Libertad's Max Hernandez refered to Parker as "my favorite judge" in a phone call with Payne last week.
Let's see what happens next. Settlement sure could fix lots of things up. Wednesday October 24, 2001 08:46
|
|
Morales and Payne have decided to go after Hoses with a Rule 11 violation.
Since all of the evidence of guilt of the judges and other are in writing it is frivolous to contend that they didn't commit the crimes. So Iglesias and Hoses are going to be invited to withdraw the ANSWER.
The game, of course, is to get a federal judge to dismiss the complaint. The US Justice Department and all readers of pro se fights know that the federal court system is about totally corrupt.
Lawyer Ricardo Gonzales said that the state system isn't much better. And that the judicial standards committee knows this too. But can't figure-out how to fix the problem.
We hope to help. Removal from the bench, disbarment, humiliation on internet, ....
Now we have to give Iglesias a call about
A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 , but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.
If the opposition commits perjury in writing, like French & Associates law firm, the you shouldn't have to worry about section A rules. Perjury is not correctable.
Guys, look who the judge is. JP.
We can't find the docket on internet yet to see a judge change from defendant judge Martha Vazquez. Note that defendant magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia is still on the case. Tuesday October 23, 2001 13:18
|
|
| Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers;
Representations to Court; Sanctions
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (1) How Initiated. (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 , but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. (B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto. (2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2). (B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. |
Here's where we are going with all of our state lawsuits. Clearly one is not going to do five jury trials. As it stands now we've been bilked by both the New Mexico and Federal court systems. We paid our money and we haven't gotten what we paid for. And we have a pretty good guarantee to get what we paid for. Both New Mexico and US constitutions.
Our last ultimatum was September 10. Our next ultimatum is October 5.
Looks like we have a really good breach of contract lawsuit coming up. But then too settlement might be a good idea.
We will not post for a week while the opposition thinks-over the future of all of this. Things can get worse. Sunday September 23, 2001 06:12
| Saturday September 22, 2001 2:08 PM
Certified - return receipt requested W. John Brennan 1 to join cases D-202-CV-200010289, D-202-CV-200103118 into D-202-CV-200106293 invoking 1-018 shown below D-202-CV-20010289 is a state lawsuit for replevin and harassment. It is still and open lawsuit. Exhibit B. But nothing has happened since it was filed. D-202-CV-20010289 was fraudulently removed in violation of the anti-injunction act to federal court . In federal court D-202-CV-200010289 is labeled 00cv1574. D-202-CV-200103118 is a lawsuit for harassment for, in part, fraudulent removal of D-202-CV- 20010289 to federal court. D-202-CV-200103118 likewise was removed by judge Ted Baca's law firm of French & Associates with a fraudulent CIVIL COVER SHEET to federal court. In federal court it is labeled 01cv0634. Both D-202-CV-20010289 and D-202-CV-200103118 involve involve fraudulent removal in violation of the anti-injunction act cases involving state jurisdiction [replevin and harassment, and plain harassment] to federal court. The laws of joinder for expeditous hearing of cases states 1-018. Joinder of claims and remedies. This is the basis for our request. As for return of our money, we thought the Constitution of the State of New Mexico was adequate guarantee that we would receive the jury trials we paid for but have not gotten. 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. Of course, the filing fee of $322 for D-202-CV-200106293, Exhibit C, will cover the jury trial fee for the joined to join cases D-202-CV-200010289, D-202-CV-200103118 into D-202-CV-200106293. v We feel denying a jury trial when we have air-tight cases [all of the evidence of guilt is in writing], has chilling effect for citizens right to obtain justice. Therefore, we are resolved to get our money back for what we paid for and we haven't so far gotten. A trial by jury. This is guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. Sincerely Arthur R Morales William H Payne Distribution William F. Downes Chief Judge; Stephen G French John W Zavitz Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA 201 Third Street NW Suite 2200 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Phyllis Dow Kenneth G. Brown W. Daniel Schneider Patricio Serna |
|
|
The case number is d-202-cv-0200106293. The assigned judge is Ted Baca!. Baca, of course, is a defendant in the preceeding lawsuit! Susan Salinas of Good News process servers will serve on Monday. Salinas reported on Friday that lawyer Stephen French took $1,600 from her sister for representation in a custody case. French apparently did not do the paper work. Then French demanded an additional $1,600 in advance from Salinas' sister for a court appearance. Salinas hope we get French disbarred. We're working on this ... and other stuff too. Sunday September 16, 2001 07:09
|
The beginning