certified - return receipt requested

Judge Petra Jimenez Maes
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Dear Judge Maes:

Purpose of this letter and enclosed appeal is to have our appeal properly docketed at the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq Chief Clerk of Supreme Court of New Mexico returned our properly submitted appeal without requested justification (by affidavit.

We attach a copy of Gibson's December 18, 2002 letter to us.

We wrote the clerk

Wednesday December 11, 2002

Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear Clerk:

Attach is check for $125 for docket fee for enclosed appeal.

We have followed rules of New Mexico judicial procedures for this appeal.

We do not have to file for writ of writ of certiorari and no one has disputed our claim in any affidavit.

Sincerely,

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

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

Distribution

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street

We attach a copy of above letter with a copy of Morales' returned check.

We exercising our right for direct appeal from appellate court to supreme court.

We do not believe that we need a Writ of Certiorari since

We do have "[a]n absolute right to one appeal" to the New Mexico Supreme court as a statutory right.

Rule 12-502 and associated 12-505 applies only to case where appellant does not a statutory right to appeal.

We have statutory right.

Rule 12-502 does not apply since rule Rule 12-505 states

Certiorari to the district court; decisions on review of administrative agency decisions.

We are not an administrative agency.

Here is the applicable rule for our appeal to New Mexico supreme court.

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

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

(As amended September 28, 1965.)

And NO ONE has even told us we are incorrect despite us making request for justification (by affidavit).

Morales' constitutional rights to

1 paid for trial by jury guaranteed both by New Mexico state constitution and federal constitution

2 represent himself pro se guaranteed by the second amendment

have been violated by perjuring lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown.

Further appeals judge James J Wechsler deliberately, maliciously, and intentionally lied by stating that we did not submit our appeal on time to appellate court.

Our prima facie case [all evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing] involved replevin of $625 improperly garnished without requested hearing from Morales' Sandia National Laboratories wages and seek to nullify federal magistrate judge Don Svet's order of garnishment of $1,793.56 when there was no cause of action.

Svet's illegal document is seen on internet at

http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/svetg1.jpg
http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/svetg2.jpg

We must either settle this case or proceed to paid for trial by jury in New Mexico state court as guaranteed by both federal and state constitution. Districts 2 and 13 are excluded by rule since some defendants are judges in these two districts.

We ask that you see that our enclosed 7 required copies are properly docketed at New Mexico supreme court.

If you feel and can produce law that we are incorrect, then we ask you to inform us by affidavit of our misconceptions.

We ask that you respond by January 24, 2003.

Otherwise we ask that you see that our appeals is properly docketed and we are notified by January 24, 2003.

Sincerely

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

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

Distribution

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah 253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

certified return receipt requested

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Dear Judge Benson:

We have a set of serious legal industry problems we must solve.

I paid for a New Mexico state trial by jury for a prima facie case defamation and harassment to remedy damages caused by distribution of false seen in Exhibit A of 01cv01132 and http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Judge Parker, of course, assigned you as judge in 01cv01132 on October 25, 2001.

Distribution of false and libelous documents have cost me on the order of $1,000,000 is lost wages and benefits. Not to mention personal damage by falsely claiming that I am national security risk.

Not only did distribution of these documents violate the criminal provisions of New Mexico's libel law but they, as well, violation the criminal provisions of the Privacy Act.

Lawyers funded by taxpayer money have lied, removed state cases to federal court, and are now violating Title 18 laws in writing so as to avoid settlement of my prima facie state defamation and harassment lawsuit.

As you know from the criminal complaint affidavit I sent you, lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown committed perjury by saying that my lawsuits were vexatious.

My right to trial by jury in my prima facie case has been denied me. My right to represent myself in a prima facie case has been denied by judge Brown.

I don't need a lawyer for a prima facie case where all of the evidence of guilt is in writing.

In the latest legal misconduct, New Mexico supreme court clerk lawyer Kathleen Jo Gibson will not docket my appeal.

Gibson and supreme court judge Pamela Minzner have repeated refused to justify their denial of my right to appeal removal of my right to trial paid for jury guaranteed me under both federal and state constitutions. My right to represent my self pro se in a prima facie case of libel has been denied me as well.

This appear to be a lawyer industry ploy to illegally deny citizens rights to justice unless they pay a lawyer.

So here's first problem we must solve.

How do we get my appeal docketed in New Mexico supreme court as law requires?

I could request from you a PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DOCKET APPEAL

NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT WILLIAM H. PAYNE Plaintiff-Appellant vs. No. 23,192 Bernalillo CV-01-7794 W. JOHN BRENNAN and W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER Defendants-Appellees

under Rule 20. - Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ.

You might be able to order lawyer Gibson to docket the appeal.

But I think there is a better way.

Lawyers Gibson and Minzner in an apparent attempt to protect the legal profession have committed a Title 18 violation of law in writing.

So perhaps the best way to get my appeal properly docketed is prosecute Gibson and Minzer, then have the replacement clerk docket the appeal.

Prosecution should be quite simple. All of the evidence of guilt of Gibson and Minzner is in writing!

Since judge Parker vested authority to you in these matters, you are appointed magistrate to properly process the attached criminal complaint affidavit.

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled the Complaint provides:

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate.

As you may be aware,

An individual may "make a written complaint on oath before an examining and committing magistrate, and obtain a warrant of arrest." This is in conformity with the Federal Constitution, and "consonant with the principles of natural justice and personal liberty found in the common law."

[United States v Kilpatrick (1883, DC NC) 16G 765, 769]

You may also be aware,

A complaint though quite general in terms is valid if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.

[United States v Wood (1927, DC Tex) 26F2d 908, 910, affd (CA5 Tex) 26 F2d 912.

And for your edification,

The commission of a crime must be shown by facts positively stated. The oath or affirmation required is of facts and not opinions or conclusion.

[United States ex rel. King v Gokey (1929, DC NY) 32 F2d 793, 794]

The complaint must be accompanied by an oath.

[Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No 12126]

A complaint must be sworn to before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States.

[United States v Bierley ( 1971, WD Pa) 331 F Supp 1182]

Such office is now called a magistrate.

A complaint is ordinarily made by an investigating officer or agent, and where private citizens seek warrants of arrest, the practice recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States is to refer the complaint to the United States Attorney. However, further reference to him is rendered futile where a mandamus proceeding is brought to compel him to prosecute and he opposes the proceeding.

[Pugach v Klein (1961, SD NY) 193 F Supp 630, citing Manual for United States Commissioners 5 (1948)]

I am a citizen of the United States and you are the assigned magistrate.

In order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution and Rules 3 and 4, a written and sworn complaint should set forth the essential facts constituting the offense charged and also facts showing that the offense was committed and that the defendant committed it.

And,

As to the requirement that the complaint be made on personal knowledge of the complainant, it is enough for the issuance of a warrant that a complainant shows it to be on the knowledge of the complainant.

[Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d 1503, 78 S Ct 1245, revg (Ca5 Tx) 241 F2d 575, 579 in accord Rice v Ames (1901) 180 US 371, 45 L Ed 577, 21 S ct 406, and United States v Walker, (1952, CA2 NY) 197 F 2d 287, 289, cert den 344 US 877, 97 L Ed 679, 73 S Ct 172]

I ask that you enforce the law and proceed with the criminal prosecution of those accused.

Judge Benson, these are serious criminal violations of our Constitution in writing by members of the legal profession to avoid settlement of a prima facie case of libel.

These crooked lawyers are counting on you to shield them from prosecution of the prima facie evidence crimes.

No action on your part would cause and my family additional grief. We have an over $1,000 lien on our home as result of judicial misconduct. This must be resolved by settlement or paid for trial by jury.

No action would also cause a chilling effect not only to me but to the entire judicial system.

I enclose the seven copies of my rejected New Mexico state supreme court docketing statement in hopes you can get lawyer Gibson's replacement to docket my appeal.

Therefore, I ask that you inform me of your decision by January 10, 2003 so that I can take appropriate Rule 20 action, if required.

Sincerely,

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

Distribution

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

1 William H Payne sends letter

Sunday 11/17/02 2:50 PM

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq Chief Clerk Supreme Court of New Mexico PO Box 858 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear lawyer Gibson:

On Saturday November 16, 2002 I received an envelope containing copies of my appeal docketing statements from your office.

Missing was the letter I wrote to judge Minzner on November 14, 2002.

Therefore I conclude that Minzner received that letter.

In any event you can read my letter to Minzner at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/#minzner

Attached to the original was a green stickem which said

RETURNED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTIION

I enclose a copy labeled GREEN STICKEM.

I reiterate that my appeal was timely and properly filed and that the supreme court of New Mexico does have jurisdiction.

I wrote you on Saturday 11/2/02

I feel that you have two choices.

1 Properly process my appeal.

2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002

This letter is posted at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/#gibson1

You did not reply by affidavit as I requested. Therefore, I have never received any legal document so show that I was incorrect in my appeal filing.

So, lawyer Gibson, I have several questions.

1 Who in your office attached the green stickum to my appeal and returned it?
2 Was this done with judge Minzner's approval and direction?
3 Did judge Minzner receive and read my November 14, 2002.

Therefore, I ask that judge Minzer submit to me an affidavit citing law which justified denial of my right to appeal removal of my right to paid for trial by jury and right to represent myself pro se in court.

I ask that you submit answers to me by affidavit to above questions 1, 2, and 3.

I ask that you and judge Minzner submit these affidavits to me by close of business on November 27, 2002.

If I do not receive the affidavits from you and judge Minzner then I will be forced to conclude that you and judge Minzner have deliberately, intentionally with malice conspired to deny me my rights to a paid for trial by jury for a prima facie case and my right to represent myself in court in violation of criminal provisions of federal law.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Letter is received by both Gibson Minzner on November 20, 2002. Exhibit gibmin1.

2 I swear that I did not receive the requested responses from either Gibson or Minzner by November 27, 2002.

3 I wrote Gibson on Saturday 11/2/02 1:13 PM ERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

[L]awyer Gibson, as a lawyer you should know

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

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

(As amended September 28, 1965.)

I believe that I do have "[a]n absolute right to one appeal" to the New Mexico Supreme court as a statutory right. And as a result I do not have to file a writ of certiorari to appeal a denial of my civil rights to have a paid for jury trial guaranteed me by both the United States Constitution and New Mexico state Constitution, especially for a prima facie case where all evidence is in writing and defendants violated New Mexico criminal laws.

Further I have a right to pro se litigation guaranteed me by the second amendment.

Lawyer Gibson, Debbie Romero, assistant clerk of your office sent me an sample PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTI0RARI on October 4, 2002.

You can see part of what Romero sent me at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

You wrote

The Court of Appeals issued its Memorandum Opinion on September 3, 2002. Your document captioned "Docketing Statement" , which one presumes is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, is untimely, as it was received in the Supreme Court on October 3, 2002. The appellate rules do not permit a second "appeal" in the Supreme Court, thus a "docketing statement" is an incorrect pleading. In direct appeals within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, one must file a "statement of the issues" rather than a docketing statement.

It appears that both you and Romero have attempted to lure me into filing writ of certiorari when I do not have to or denied possibility by time limit violation.

I submit that I have properly filed an appeal with the supreme court of New Mexico. And I submit I did this in a timely manner of 30 day.

So lawyer Gibson, I believe you have seriously erred.

Therefore I am resubmitting my appeal. I ask that it be properly processed.

I feel that you have two choices.

1 Properly process my appeal.
2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002.

I swear that I did not receive the requested response from Gibson by November 13, 3003.

4 My right to appeal to New Mexico supreme court has been violated by Gibson in concert with Minzner without requested justification. Gibson's and Minzner's non-response to received valid requested justification coupled with clear right to appeal in Sec. 2. [Supreme court; appellate jurisdiction.] is evidence of by Gibson and Minzner.

This, of course, is a prima facie case of criminal violation of Title 18 Sec. 241 as all of the evidence of guilt is in writing.

5 I swear in this affidavit that I have forwarded the appeal docketing statement, the six copies returned to me, my docket fee check $125 in an envelope postmarked NOV 15 '20 with return address CLERK OF SUPREME COURT, P.O. 848, Santa Fe, NM 87504 to Judge Dee Vance Benson with this affidavit.

SUBSCRIBED, SWORN TO and ACKNOWLEDGED before me this day of

_____________

by William H Payne ________________________________

Verification

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

William H Payne
Petitioner

v

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq
Pamela B. Minzner, Esq
Respondents

As you probably realize New Mexico judge James A Parker assigned you to New Mexico case 01 CV 1132.

Here's the docket entry.

10/24/01 10/26/01 13 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico recuse in this action, and this case is reassigned to the Honorable Dee V Benson, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) (jrm) (8k)

You is judge Dee Vance Benson.

An argument must be made for jurisdiction!

Let's all hope for settlement before things get even worse.

You can email judge Benson via Louise York.

1. Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a) is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any such writ, the petition must show that the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.

2. A petition seeking a writ authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), Sec. 2241, or Sec. 2254(a) shall be prepared in all respects as required by Rules 33 and 34. The petition shall be captioned ''In re (name of petitioner)'' and shall follow, insofar as applicable, the form of a petition for a writ of certiorari prescribed by Rule 14. All contentions in support of the petition shall be included in the petition. The case will be placed on the docket when 40 copies of the petition are filed with the Clerk and the docket fee is paid, except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a copy of which shall precede and be attached to each copy of the petition. The petition shall be served as required by Rule 29 (subject to subparagraph 4(b) of this Rule).

3.

(a)

A petition seeking a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both in the alternative shall state the name and office or function of every person against whom relief is sought and shall set out with particularity why the relief sought is not available in any other court. A copy of the judgment with respect to which the writ is sought, including any related opinion, shall be appended to the petition together with any other document essential to understanding the petition.

(b)

The petition shall be served on every party to the proceeding with respect to which relief is sought. Within 30 days after the petition is placed on the docket, a party shall file 40 copies of any brief or briefs in opposition thereto, which shall comply fully with Rule 15. If a party named as a respondent does not wish to respond to the petition, that party may so advise the Clerk and all other parties by letter. All persons served are deemed respondents for all purposes in the proceedings in this Court. 4.

ARTHUR R. MORALES,
and WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs No. 23,339 Bernalillo County CV-02-3425

W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,
and WALZ AND ASSOCS.

Defendants-Appellees

ARTHUR R. MORALES,
and WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs No. 23,339 Bernalillo County CV-02-3425

W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,
and WALZ AND ASSOCS.

Defendants-Appellees

DOCKETING STATEMENT FOR APPEAL FROM No. 23,339 Bernalillo County CV-02-3425

Respectfully Submitted

Sincerely

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

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

I certify at a copy of this notice of appeal was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on December 11, 2002

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque,NM 87109
505-344-4848

Marcus Rael
French and Associates
Attorney for Defendant Judge Brown
500 Marquette NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 843-7075

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

certified - return receipt requested

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Dear judge Bossom:

Thursday 8/22/02 I sent you a criminal complaint affidavit for proper processing.

I posted this at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/bossom/bossom.htm#crimcomp

You have not responded to me about that criminal complaint affidavit.

In addition my right to represent myself in court guaranteed me has been denied in violation of federal law.

So judge Bossom, I ask

1 if my Thursday 8/22/02 is invalid for any reason under the law, then I asked you to inform me of this by affidavit.
2 if you can't do this, then I ask that you properly process the criminal complaint affidavit.

Release of the documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm violate New Mexico criminal statues. As a result judge Pamela Minzner was appointed magistrate to supervise prosecution of the guilty on Wednesday 7/24/02.

This criminal complaint affidavit is seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/bossom/bossom.htm#minzner1

Minzner has not responded either.

So I wrote Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq Chief Clerk Supreme Court of New Mexico a follow up letter on 11/17/02 with a copy to Minzner.

Minzner received the letter because I received the receipt postcard

The 11/17/02 letter is posted at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/bossom/bossom.htm#gibmin

In that letter I wrote

So, lawyer Gibson, I have several questions.

1 Who in your office attached the green stickum to my appeal and returned it?
2 Was this done with judge Minzner's approval and direction?
3 Did judge Minzner receive and read my November 14, 2002.
Therefore, I ask that judge Minzer submit to me an affidavit citing law which justified denial of my right to appeal removal of my right to paid for trial by jury and right to represent myself pro se in court.

I ask that you submit answers to me by affidavit to above questions 1, 2, and 3.

I ask that you and judge Minzner submit these affidavits to me by close of business on November 27, 2002.

If I do not receive the affidavits from you and judge Minzner then I will be forced to conclude that you and judge Minzner have deliberately, intentionally with malice conspired to deny me my rights to a paid for trial by jury for a prima facie case and my right to represent myself in court in violation of criminal provisions of federal law.

I have not received any affidavit from either Minzner or Gibson.

So judge Bossom I ask you either properly process my prima facie evidence criminal complaint or explain to me by affidavit why it is legally improper.

I ask that you do this by close of business on December 16, 2002.

If I do not receive a proper response, then I must conclude that you have conspired with judge Minzner and clerk Gibson to deliberately, intentionally with malice conspired to deny me my rights to a paid for trial by jury for a prima facie case and my right to represent myself in court in violation of criminal provisions of federal law.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

KIM KOMANDO 1 2 3
For the Journal

Few of us feel comfortable with the legal system Laws can be difficult to understand, court procedures are intimidating and lawyers are expensive.

The Internet may be able to help you with all three.

Most of us run into the legal system with domestic issues - a will, divorce or the purchase of a home. Theoretically, we can handle those things. In practice, though, we're generally better off going to a lawyer. The attorney's fee could cost much less than a legal mistake.

Remember the old saying: "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." That applies to women, too!

And it goes double for criminal matters. Maybe you can handle a traffic ticket. But a failure to handle properly more serious offenses could cost you dearly.

Let's say your son has been arrested for vandalism. It happens in the best of families. You could go down to the prosecutor's office and strike a deal. Maybe he gets 100 hours of community service and a $500 fine.

Do you know all the ramifications of this? I know I don't. It's entirely possible that an experienced attorney could get a better deal. At the least, the attorney should be able to spot potential land mines. Your son's future could be at stake. Is this a good time to save money?

If you're determined to go it alone, though, what should you do? First, check your city and county online for relevant statutes. Look on the Web for advice and forms. Then pray a lot.

If you decided you need a lawyer, don't just hire your brother-in-law's high school buddy. He may or may not be competent. Check with your local bar association (www.nmbar.org in New Mexico). You'll find links to most local organizations at the American Bar Association, www.abanet.org.

The local bar should be able to point you to a specialist, if that's what you want. Attorneys are often certified by boards for a specialty.

There are numerous sites on the Internet that list specialists on a state-by-state basis. Some are clearly paid advertisements. In other cases, the contractual arrangement is not clear. The lawyers may well pay a fee when they land a client. Some of the sites show board certifications.

Some sites that look interesting are Findlaw (www.findlaw.com), Lawyers.com (www.lawyers.com) and Attorney Locate (www.attorneylocate.com).

Good legal service will not be cheap. But you don't necessarily have to pay through the nose, either. Fees are often negotiable. In fact, the Internet permits you to take bids for your business.

Hunting for a lawyer on a financial basis won't assure you of competence. But if you would like to take bids, there are several sites available. For example, FeeBid.com (www.feebid.com) specializes in intellectual property matters. LegalMatch (www.legalmatch.com) offers attorneys for a variety of problems. It says its members are screened and rated by previous clients.

Even if you hire a lawyer, you'll want to do some research yourself. At the least, an informed client should be helpful to the lawyer. And worst case, you might be able to head off problems caused by lawyerly incompetence.

My favorite site is Nolo (www.nolo.com). Nob has offered legal software, especially will makers, for many years. It has a legal encyclopedia on its Web site that covers a vast amount of territory. It can help with practically anything, whether you want to adopt a child, stay out of jail or fire an employee.

If after looking into your issue you decide that you just can't afford an attorney, consider having a lawyer do part of the work. Many attorneys will fill out forms and let you handle the courtroom work. This is still costly, because an attorney may well charge $100 or more per hour to do the forms.

But the attorney can also give you advice on possible pitfalls. Check with your bar association for lawyers who are willing to do part of the work.

Failing that, paralegal services also will help with the forms But paralegals cannot offer you advice legally. They have legal training but are not licensed to practice law. I urge you to be careful. A courtroom mistake could have far-reaching consequences. Among the paralegal services on the Web are Bankruptcy Paralegal Services (www.bankruptcyparalegalservices.com), Attorney Alternative (christianfamilylaw.org/attorney) and Standard Legal Network (standardlegal.net).

Finally, consider mediation. You may be able to settle your problem without hiring a lawyer. The ABA site lists several mediation services on the Web.

2002, WestStar TalkRadlo Network

Albuqueruque Journal OUTLOOK Thursday November 11, 2002.

ARTHUR R. MORALES,
and WILLIAM H. PAYNE

Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs No. 23,339

W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,
and WALZ AND ASSOCS.

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Robert H. Scott, District Judge

1 Plaintiffs Arthur R Morales and William H Payne, pro se litigants, moves court for rehearing of No. 23,339 by invoking NMRA 12-404.

HISTORY

Plaintiff's have been denied their right to paid for trial by jury in violation state and federal constitutions for prima facie cases where guilt of defendants is in writing.

Judge Robert H Scott should have been automatically recused by court rule

-088. Designation of judge.

Automatic recusal. If a civil proceeding is filed in any county of a judicial district by or against a judge or an employee of the district, no judge of the district may hear the matter without written agreement of the parties. If within ten (10) days after the proceeding is filed, the parties have not filed a stipulation designating a judge to preside over the matter, the clerk shall request the Supreme Court to designate a judge.

Plaintiffs never stipulated to judge.

Since defendant judge Brennan and Scott are both in district 2, Scott should never have heard this case.

Judges Wechsler, Picard, and Castillo violate plaintiffs' right to paid for trial by jury guaranteed under both New Mexico state constitution and federal constitution in violation of federal Title 18 law.

RULE

1 This motion is brought under 12-404. Rehearings.

A. Motion; when filed. A motion for rehearing may be filed within fifteen (15) days after filing of the appellate court's disposition, or any subsequent modification of its disposition, unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply to the time limits set by this rule. The motion shall state briefly and with particularity, but without argument, the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended. If the motion is based upon a point of law or fact not raised, briefed or argued by any party but relied upon by the court in its disposition of the matter, the motion shall specifically so state, and shall be accompanied by a brief in support thereof. In all other cases the movant may, but is not required to, file a brief in support of the motion at the time it is filed. No response to a motion for rehearing shall be filed unless requested by the court. If a motion for rehearing is granted, the appellate court clerk shall give notice thereof and any party who has not filed a brief on rehearing may, within fifteen (15) days after notice, file a brief addressed to the issues on rehearing. There shall be no other briefs or argument unless the appellate court shall otherwise direct. ...

[As amended, effective September 1, 1991; September 1, 1993; January 1, 1997.]

2 Plaintiffs bring lawsuit against defendants for Relief from BREACH OF CONTRACT and HARASSMENT for denying plaintiffs' right to trial by jury paid for by plaintiffs.

Breach of contract results from plaintiff's conspiring to deny plaintiffs' right for trail by jury paid for by plaintiffs and guaranteed by both New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Defendants have illegally attempted to prevent plaintiffs' from seeking legal relief on three separate issues.

These three separate issues, described below, need resolution either by settlement or paid for trial by jury.

Issue 1 is relief from defamation [libel]for the false documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint and at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Distribution of these false and defaming document violate New Mexico criminal laws as well as civil laws.

New Mexico judge Pamela Minzner has been appointed magistrate to properly process an official New Mexico state criminal complaint affidavit.

Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson has been appointed magistrate to properly process an official federal criminal complaint affidavit.

Release without plaintiff Payne's knowledge of the documents seen in

Exhibit A of the complaint and at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm violate the criminal provisions of the federal Privacy Act.

Benson was appointed by federal judge James Parker to judge in two related federal cases.

Issue 2 is relief from harassment from judge Don J Svet signing order of garnishment for $1,793.56 when there was no cause of action.

Exhibit J
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitJ

is the written evidence of Svet's illegal and harassing act of garnishment.

Plaintiff's filed for writ of prohibition to stop this illegal garnishment with judge Antonin Scalia on April 27, 1999.

While no further action after the writ was filed to collect the $1,793.56, this is still an open issue which must be settled or decided by paid for trial by jury.

Issue 3 is relief from $625 taken from plaintiffs without due process.

This is a state issue of replevin.

Again, all evidence of guilt is in writing. See complaint Exhibits

B
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitB

C
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitC

D
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitD

E
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitE

F
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitF

G
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitG

H
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitH

I
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitI

K
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitK

L
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitL

M
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitM

Issues 1, 2, and 3 are all prima facie case.

All evidence of guilt is in writing!

But defendants W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN, WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,and WALZ AND ASSOCS. criminally violate plaintiffs' right to paid for trial by jury guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions to resolve these issues.

We paid our money for right for trial by jury.

See Exhibits EE http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitEE

KK
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitKK

Plaintiffs have both been cheated out of our money by judges W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN, PATRICIO M. SERNA, and Robert H. Scott who also violate Title 18 federal law by denying our right to represent ourselves in two original, issue 1 and issues 2 and3, prima facie lawsuits which, of course, should be settled by court alternative dispute resolution prior to trial by jury.

3 Chief judge and defendant W. John Brennan's legal conduct is especially egregious.

Brennan well knows that all judges from a district must be recused when one of the judge's is a defendant. Like himself in district 2 and Brown in 13.

Brennan has done this twice.

Exhibit CC
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitCC

Exhibit FF
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitFF

However, when Brennan is defendant he does not recuse judge Robert H. Scott who ruling is being appealed here.

This is evidence that Brennan willfully with malice attempt to evade justice by not following court rules he knows well.

And, of course, New Mexico chief judge Patricio Serna is guilty of the same offense as Brennan.

See Exhbit DD. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitDD

and

GG
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/mpexhibits/mpexhibits.htm#ExhibitGG

Judge Robert H. Scott, by rules known well by both defendants judge Brennan and Serna, has no right under the court rules to rule on this case.

Brennan, Serna, and Scott are simply three crooked judges violating court rules in an attempt to evade justice in a case where all evidence of their guilt is in writing.

4 Wechsler writes

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal various orders dismissing their claims against several judges, as well as an order enjoining Plaintiff Morales from filing anything in any court without permission of the judge or without representation by counsel. We proposed to dismiss the appeal in a calendar notice, and Plaintiffs responded with a memorandum in opposition. We dismiss.

Plaintiffs paid for trial by jury for prima facie case against defendants.

Trial by jury is our right under both federal and New Mexico state constitutions.

Plaintiff Morales has right guaranteed under federal constitution to represent himself pro.

Wechsler's above paragraph is proof that Wechsler is committing federal Title 18 crime in writing.

5 Wechsler writes

In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal late. See Rule 12-201(A) (2) NMRA 2002. We also proposed to hold that Plaintiffs incorrectly filed their notice of appeal in this Court rather than in the district court as required by Rule 12-201. Plaintiffs argue that they were "forced" to file their appeal in this Court because the district court was not accepting pleadings. [MIO 3] As discussed in our calendar notice, even if we accept Plaintiffs' claim that the district court would not accept their notice of appeal, the notice filed in this Court was filed late. See Rule 12-201 (A) (2) (requiring that notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the orders appealed from are filed in the district court clerk's office); cf. San Juan 1990-A v. El Paso Prod. Co., 2002-NMCA-041, 26, 132 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083 (stating that filing a notice of appeal one day late is not excused by a claim that the clerk's office was inaccessible at a particular time) . Because Plaintiffs' notice of appeal was untimely, their appeal is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Scott's illegal ruling was filed on July 8, 2002 while plaintiffs were unavailable.

Plaintiff Payne was in Alaska with stated notice filed in federal court that both Morales and Payne would be unavailable until July 24, 2002.

State court would illegally disallowed plaintiffs right to file notice in state court.

Plaintiff Payne filed notice of appeal with Judge Bossom on Tuesday August 6, 2002 by certified mail.

Days elapse between July 8, 2002 and August 6, 2002 are TWENTY NINE DAYS.

A copy of the written evidence is posted at http://downloads.members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/nmls7.html

If Wechsler continues to believe that plaintiffs missed 30 appeal filing deadline, then Wechsler needs to state so in AFFIDAVIT.

Plaintiffs ask that this affidavit be submitted by close of business Friday December 10, 2002.

Otherwise, plaintiffs must assume that Wechsler has made false statement in attempt to deny plaintiffs' civil right which is Title 18 violation of federal law.

By invoking rule 12-404 which states

The motion shall state briefly and with particularity, but without argument, the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended.

The plaintiffs again have been forced to reiterate the facts in evidence of their prima facie case on about three issues.

Apparently the court have either missed or misapprehended these documents and arguments.

Furthermore, judges continue to deny plaintiffs' constitutional rights I.E. plaintiffs right to self representation is court. This allows court to further abuse plaintiffs through misuse of legal technicalities to dismiss cases one by one.

WHEREFORE remand case to supreme court for designation of judge in district other than 2 and 13 to settle case or proceed to paid for jury trial.

Plaintiffs ask that remand by done by close of business Friday December 10, 2002.

Sincerely

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

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

Distribution

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

James J Wechsler
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Lynn Pickard
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Celia Foy Castillo
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Clerk
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

WECHSLER, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal various orders dismissing their claims against several judges, as well as an order enjoining Plaintiff Morales from filing anything in any court without permission of the judge or without representation by counsel. We proposed to dismiss the appeal in a calendar notice, and Plaintiffs responded with a memorandum in opposition. We dismiss.

In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal late. See Rule 12- 201(A) (2) NMRA 2002. We also proposed to hold that Plaintiffs incorrectly filed their notice of appeal in this Court rather than in the district court as required by Rule 12-201. Plaintiffs argue that they were "forced" to file their appeal in this Court because the district court was not accepting pleadings. [MIO 3] As discussed in our calendar notice, even if we accept Plaintiffs' claim that the district court would not accept their notice of appeal, the notice filed in this Court was filed late. See Rule 12-201 (A) (2) (requiring that notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the orders appealed from are filed in the district court clerk's office); cf. San Juan 1990-A v. El Paso Prod. Co., 2002-NMCA-041, 26, 132 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083 (stating that filing a notice of appeal one day late is not excused by a claim that the clerk's office was inaccessible at a particular time) . Because Plaintiffs' notice of appeal was untimely, their appeal is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12-201. Appeal as of right; when taken.

A. Filing notice. A notice of appeal shall be filed:

(1) if the appeal is filed from a decision or order suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the return of seized property pursuant to Section 39-3-3(B)(2) NMSA 1978, within ten (10) days after the decision or order appealed from is filed in the district court clerk's office; and

(2) for all other appeals, within thirty (30) days after the judgment or order appealed from is filed in the district court clerk's office.

The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308(B) does not apply to the time limits set forth in Subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph.

A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, or return of the verdict, but before the judgment or order is filed in the district court clerk's office shall be treated as filed after such filing and on the day thereof. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within ten (10) days after the date on which the first notice of appeal was served or within the time otherwise prescribed by this rule, whichever period last expires.

B. Cross-appeals. If more than one party files a notice of appeal, the party to file the first notice of appeal shall be deemed the appellant, and any opposing party filing a notice of appeal shall be a cross-appellant, unless the court orders otherwise.

C. Review without cross-appeal. An appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal or filing a docketing statement or statement of the issues, raise issues on appeal for the purpose of enabling the appellate court to affirm, or raise issues for determination only if the appellate court should reverse, in whole or in part, the judgment or order appealed from.

D. Post-trial motions extending the time for appeal. If a party timely files a motion pursuant to Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, Rule 1-050(B), 1-052(B)(2), or 1-059 or a motion pursuant to Rule 5-614 based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence, the full time prescribed in this rule for the filing of the notice of appeal shall commence to run and be computed from either the entry of an order expressly disposing of the motion or the date of any automatic denial of the motion under that statute or any of those rules, whichever occurs first. An order granting a motion for new trial in civil cases is not appealable and renders any prior judgment non-appealable. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply to the time limits set forth in this paragraph.

E. Other extensions of time for appeal.

(1) Before the time for filing a notice of appeal has expired, upon a showing of good cause, the district court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this rule.

(2) After the time has expired for filing a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, the district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the expiration of time otherwise provided by this rule, but it shall be made upon motion and notice to all parties.

(3) The district court retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal regardless of whether the notice of appeal has been filed.

(4) No motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal may be granted after sixty (60) days from the time the appealable order is entered. If the motion is not granted within the sixty (60) days, the motion is automatically denied. If a post-trial motion is timely filed pursuant to Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, Rule 1-050(B), 1-052(B)(2), or 1-059 or a motion pursuant to Rule 5-614 based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence, this sixty (60) day period begins to run from either the entry of an order expressly disposing of the motion or the date of any automatic denial of the motion under that statute or any of those rules, whichever occurs first.

(5) In computing time, pursuant to this paragraph, the three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply.

(6) Any party obtaining an order extending the time to file an appeal shall promptly serve notice of the order in accordance with Rule 12-307.

[As amended, effective July 1, 1990; September 1, 1991; April 1, 1998; December 4, 1998; January 1, 2000.]

Officer of Hispanic Bar Says Choices Continue Inequities

By Scott Sandlin
Journal Staff Writer

Two state district judges have been selected for eight-year terms as federal magistrate judges.

The $138,000-a-year positions will go to Bernalillo County District Judges Robert Scott and W. Don Schneider. They and a third magistrate were to be formally announced by the court today.

The candidates, selected from about 100 applicants, will begin their new jobs on staggered dates starting In January, March and April. Two will replace

SCOTT: Appointed to the disctict court bench in 1989

SCHNEIDER: National Guard general in Judge Advocate General corps

retiring Magistrate Judges Don Svet and William Deaton, while a third position is a new judgeship.

They will join Magistrate Judges Lorenzo Garcia in Albuquerque and Karen Molzen in Las Cruces.

An officer in the 25,000-member Hispanic National Bar Association said he was disappointed with the choices.

"While the people selected are obviously well qualified, it's disappointing to see a continuation of institutionalized inequities in a state like New Mexico," said Alan Varela, vice president of the national Hispanic bar.

"We had several extremely and undeniably well-qualified Hispanic candidates," among them a former state bar president and a state Court of Appeals judge, he said. Varela said 18. percent of the state's lawyers are Hispanic.

Sitting U.S. district judges, who hold lifetime appointments from the president, select the magistrate judges who serve under them. Magistrates have assumed an increasingly important role in the federal court in New Mexico in recent years. They conduct settlement conferences in civil cases and prelimmary criminal proceedings such as detention hearings.

With the consent of the parties, they also conduct trials in lieu of district judges - an aspect of the job that Scott said he found especially appealing.

"I'm a career judge," he said. "To me, this is a real opportunity to build on that. It's an exciting job, with great resources and great (district court) judges."

Scott, a Republican, is a veteran of eight judicial elections since his appointment to the district court bench by Gov. Garrey Carruthers in 1989. An Albuquerque native, Scott was a probate judge before going to the district court bench and narrowly lost a bid for the state Supreme Court in 1998.

Scott and Schneider, also a Republican, won retention elections in the Nov. 5 general election.

Schneider, a general in the Judge Advocate General corps of the National Guard, was out of town on military duty Tuesday and couldn't be reached for comment, but an employee in his office and W. John Brennan, chief judge of the state district court, said the appointments were common knowledge.

Albuquerque Journal Wednesday November 20, 2002

Sunday 11/17/02 2:50 PM

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear lawyer Gibson:

On Saturday November 16, 2002 I received an envelope containing copies of my appeal docketing statements from your office.

Missing was the letter I wrote to judge Minzner on November 14, 2002.

Therefore I conclude that Minzner received that letter.

In any event you can read my letter to Minzner at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/#minzner

Attached to the original was a green stickem which said

RETURNED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTIION

I enclose a copy labeled GREEN STICKEM.

I reiterate that my appeal was timely and properly filed and that the supreme court of New Mexico does have jurisdiction.

I wrote you on Saturday 11/2/02

I feel that you have two choices.

1 Properly process my appeal.

2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002

This letter is posted at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/#gibson1

You did not reply by affidavit as I requested. Therefore, I have never received any legal document so show that I was incorrect in my appeal filing.

So, lawyer Gibson, I have several questions.

1 Who in your office attached the green stickum to my appeal and returned it?
2 Was this done with judge Minzner's approval and direction?
3 Did judge Minzner receive and read my November 14, 2002.

Therefore, I ask that judge Minzer submit to me an affidavit citing law which justified denial of my right to appeal removal of my right to paid for trial by jury and right to represent myself pro se in court.

I ask that you submit answers to me by affidavit to above questions 1, 2, and 3.

I ask that you and judge Minzner submit these affidavits to me by close of business on November 27, 2002.

If I do not receive the affidavits from you and judge Minzner then I will be forced to conclude that you and judge Minzner have deliberately, intentionally with malice conspired to deny me my rights to a paid for trial by jury for a prima facie case and my right to represent myself in court in violation of criminal provisions of federal law.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Thursday 11/14/02 2:08 PM

certified - return receipt requested

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Dear Judge Minzner:

Purpose of this letter and enclose appeal is to have my appeal properly docketed at the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq Chief Clerk of Supreme Court of New Mexico twice returned my properly submitted appeal.

Resolution of damages of the false and defaming documents I sent you on Wednesday 7/24/02 2:51 PM seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm should have been a simple matter.

Distribution of those documents broke both New Mexico criminal statutes against defamation and libel as well a criminal provisions of the Privacy Act 5 USC 552a. This is a prima facie case which should have been settled by New Mexico alternate dispute resolution.

On 7/24/02 I sent you a valid criminal complaint affidavit seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/minboz/minzboz.htm#minzer naming those responsible for distribution of the false and defaming [libelous]see at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

You did not respond that there was a problem with the criminal complaint affidavit. Nor have you apparently taken any action since you have not notified me.

You've apparently tried to ignore this.

On November 6, 2002 Gibson writes to me.

Your documents and check for $125.00 are being returned again. Please reference my letter dated November 4, 2002, which describes the direct appeals jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. You already had your direct appeal in the Court of Appeals.

On Saturday 11/2/02 1:13 PM I wrote Gibson in a letter,

I feel that you have two choices.

1 Properly process my appeal. 2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002.

I am exercising my right for direct appeal from appellate court to supreme court.

I do not believe that I need Writ of Certiorari since, as I stated before, I do have

"[a]n absolute right to one appeal" to the New Mexico Supreme court as a statutory right.

Gibson's opinion was not in affidavit form.

I attach a copy of Gibson's November 6 letter.

Therefore I continue to believe that Gibson is pursuing pattern and practice of deception to deny me my constitutional right to appeal a violation of my civil rights.

Not being allowed paid for trial by jury for prima facie case.

And denying my constitutional right to represent myself in a prima facie case.

I enclose my timely appeal.

Gibson writes in her November 6 letter

A copy of the Court of Appeals docket is enclosed which identifies the case number of the district court case that you have appealed in the Court of Appeals. Of the appellate rules and district court rules you quote in your letter dated November 2, 2002, the only applicable rule for your circumstances is Rule 12-502, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, but the time has passed for the filing of this petition.

Rule 12-505 applies only to petitions filed in the Court of Appeals. Rules 1-074 and 1-075 apply only to appeals filed in the district courts.

My constitutional rights to

1 paid for trial by jury guaranteed both by New Mexico state constitution and federal constitution

2 represent myself pro se guaranteed by the second amendment

have been violated by perjuring lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown.

Official valid criminal complaint was sent to designated magistrate judge Richard Bossom on 8/22/02 1:52 PM naming Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown for felony perjury.

This affidavit seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/minboz/minzboz.htm#bossom

And Walz and Brown's perjured documents are seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/minboz/minzboz.htm#walz

Now, judge Minzner, I believe that it is time to do your to jog and properly process the criminal complaint affidavit I sent you.

And I ask you to correct Gibson's apparent mistake and see that my appeal is properly docketed.

Judge Minzner, Gibson's statement

[t]he only applicable rule for your circumstances is Rule 12-502, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

is clearly incorrect and outrageous.

When should any citizen have to get permission of any state court to appeal when a right guaranteed the citizen by both state and federal constitution was removed from that citizen by individuals committing felony?

I think NEVER, judge Minzner.

Citizens have a right to fair judicial process when their cases are not frivolous.

In my case, defense is frivolous since all of the evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing.

Lawyers in the frivolous defense again my lawsuit are being funded by taxpayers.

So, judge Minzner I ask

1 properly process the criminal complaint affidavit I sent you on 7/24/02 2 correct Gibson's apparent mistake see that my appeal is docketed at the New Mexico Supreme court.

I ask that you respond in writing by close of business on Monday November 25, 2002.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear lawyer Gibson:

You write in your November 4, 2002 letter

In response to your letter dated November 2, 2002, a copy of Appellate Rule 12-102 is enclosed, which enumerates in which appellate court one may bring a direct appeal as opposed to filing a petition for writ of certiorari to invoke the court's discretionary jurisdiction. As you can see, the Supreme Court has very limited direct appellate jurisdiction. Your right to an absolute appeal is not being questioned; however, the proper appellate forum is governed by constitution and/or statute and court rules of procedure.

I believe that I did, in fact, follow proper procedure and filed a valid and correct appeal in the proper form.

I reiterate

1 Properly process my appeal. 2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002.

You chose not to honor my request.

You write

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information.

I do not believe that I need additional information.

I believe that you and Debbie Romero deliberately attempted to mislead me into filing a writ of certiorari. And you both did this in writing.

All of the evidence of guilt is in writing as seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Not only did release of these false and defaming violate New Mexico criminal statutes, criminal provisions of the federal Privacy Act were also violated.

My second amendment right to represent myself pro se has been taken away from me by lawyers who committed felony perjury in writing.

But judges Minzer, Bossom, and Benon have not yet done their jobs as required by law.

The legal profession has cost me over $1,000,000 and caused me and my family great grief for over 10 years.

We are going to try to do something about this. You can read about this at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear lawyer Gibson:

You wrote in your letter dated October 7, 2002

Your check for $125.00 and your documents are being returned. Rule 12-502 permits the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari within 20 days of the final ruling from the Court of Appeals.

Rule 12-502 states

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

A. Scope of rule. This rule governs petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari seeking review of decisions of the Court of Appeals and of actions of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 12-505 of these rules.

B. Time. The petition for writ of certiorari shall be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within twenty (20) days after final action by the Court of Appeals and served immediately on respondent. The petition shall be accompanied by the docket fee or a free process order. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply to the time limits set by this paragraph. Final action by the Court of Appeals shall be the filing of its decision with the Court of Appeals clerk unless timely motion for rehearing is filed, in which event final action shall be the disposition of the last motion for rehearing which was timely filed.

C. Petition; contents. The petition, not exceeding ten pages in length, shall have attached: a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals; and, if decided on the summary calendar, a copy of any calendaring notices. In any case in which a motion for rehearing was filed, the motion and the order of the Court of Appeals on the motion shall be attached. The cover of the petition shall show the names of the parties with the plaintiff or petitioner in the trial court listed first (e.g., State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. John Doe, Defendant-Petitioner). The petition shall contain a concise statement of the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked, showing:

(1) the date of entry of the decision and any order on motion for rehearing thereon;
(2) the questions presented for review; only the questions set forth in the petition will be considered by the Court;
(3) the facts material to the questions presented; (4) the basis for the granting of the writ specifying where applicable:

(a) any decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico with which it is asserted the decision of the Court of Appeals is in conflict, and showing of such conflict, including a quotation from that part of the Court of Appeals opinion, if any, and a quotation from the part of the Supreme Court opinion showing the alleged conflict;

(b) any decision of the Court of Appeals with which it is asserted the decision from which certiorari is sought is in conflict, and showing of such conflict including a quotation from that part of this Court of Appeals opinion, if any, and a quotation from that part of the prior Court of Appeals opinion showing the alleged conflict;

(c) what significant question of law under the Constitution of New Mexico or the United States is involved; or (d) the issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the Supreme Court;

(5) a direct and concise argument amplifying the reasons relied upon for allowing of the writ, including specific references to the briefs filed in the Court of Appeals showing where the questions were presented to the Court of Appeals; and

(6) a prayer for relief, including whether the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of issues not raised in the petition if the relief requested is granted.

D. Response. A respondent may file a response to the petition within ten (10) days of service of the petition or within ten (10) days of the granting of the petition. The response shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. No other response may be submitted other than a motion directed to a jurisdictional defect in the petition.

E. Failure to act. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any petition for a writ of certiorari not acted upon by the Court within thirty (30) days after filing shall be deemed denied, and mandate shall issue pursuant to Rule 12-402.

F. Notice to Court of Appeals. A copy of the petition for a writ of certiorari shall be delivered by the Supreme Court clerk to the Court of Appeals clerk who shall deliver the record of the cause to the Supreme Court on request, and recall any previously issued mandate.

G. Briefs. In the event the writ of certiorari is issued, additional briefs may be filed only as directed by the Supreme Court.

H. Oral argument. Oral argument shall not be allowed unless directed by the Supreme Court.

I. Service. Service of any paper shall be made and proof thereof accomplished in accordance with Rule 12-307.

J. Copies. If the petition for writ of certiorari has been filed pro se by a petitioner adjudged indigent, only the original petition shall be filed. In all other cases, copies shall be filed in accordance with Rule 12-306.

[As amended, effective July 1, 1990; August 1, 1992; October 1, 1995; January 1, 2000.]

I, of course, am filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of New Mexico, not the Court of Appeals.

And, lawyer Gibson, you apparently erred in your decision to return my appeal.

Rule 12-505 states

Certiorari to the district court; decisions on review of administrative agency decisions.

A. Scope of rule. This rule governs review by the Court of Appeals of decisions of the district court:

(1) from administrative appeals pursuant to Rule 1-074 NMRA and Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978; and

(2) from constitutional reviews of decisions and orders of administrative agencies pursuant to Rule 1-075 NMRA.

B. Scope of review. A party aggrieved by the final order of the district court in any case described in Paragraph A of this rule may seek review of the order by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which may exercise its discretion whether to grant the review.

C. Time. The petition for writ of certiorari shall be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals within twenty (20) days after entry of the final action by the district court. A copy of the petition shall be served immediately on the respondent. Unless the petition has been filed by the state, a political subdivision of the state, a defendant determined to be indigent by the district court or a defendant represented by a public defender or court appointed counsel, the petition shall be accompanied by the docket fee. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply to the time limits set by this paragraph. Final action by the district court shall be the filing of a final order or judgment in the district court unless timely motion for rehearing is filed, in which event final action shall be the disposition of the last motion for rehearing which was timely filed.

D. Petition; contents. The petition, not exceeding ten (10) pages in length, shall have attached a copy of the final order or judgment of the district court and any district court findings or decision leading thereto, as well as a copy of the administrative decision under review by the district court. The cover of the petition shall show the names of the parties with the plaintiff or petitioner in the administrative agency listed first (e.g., State of New Mexico, Plaintiff v. John Doe). The petition shall contain a concise statement showing:

(1) the date of entry of the judgment or final order of the district court and any order entered by the court on a motion for rehearing;

(2) a copy of the appellant's and appellee's statements of appellate or review issues filed in the district court;

(3) the questions presented for review by the Court of Appeals; only the questions set forth in the petition will be considered by the Court;

(4) the facts material to the questions presented;

(5) the basis for the granting of the writ specifying where applicable:

(a) the citation to any opinion of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals with which it is asserted the final order of the district court is in conflict, including a quotation from the part of the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court opinion showing the alleged conflict with the district court decision;

(b) the citation to any statutory provision, ordinance or agency regulation with which it is asserted the final order of the district court is in conflict and appropriate quotations from the statutes, ordinances or regulations showing the alleged conflict with the district court decision;

(c) what significant question of law under the Constitution of New Mexico or the United States is involved; or

(d) the issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the Court of Appeals;

6) a direct and concise argument amplifying the reasons relied upon for allowing of the writ, including specific references to the statement of appellate or review issues filed in the district court, showing where the questions were presented to the district court; and

7) a prayer for relief, including whether the case should be remanded to the district court for consideration of issues not raised in the petition if the relief requested is granted.

. Notice to district court. The petitioner shall file with the clerk of the district court a copy of the petition for a writ of certiorari.

. Response. A respondent may file a response to the petition within fifteen (15) days of service of the petition. The response shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. No other response may be submitted other than a motion directed to a jurisdictional defect in the petition.

. Grant of petition; assignment. If the petition for certiorari is granted by the Court, the case may be assigned to a calendar and the appellate court clerk shall give notice of the assignment in accordance with Rule 12-210. Upon receipt of the calendar assignment, the district court clerk shall transmit a copy of the record on appeal which shall include the record on review filed in the district court by the administrative agency, as well as any other papers and pleadings filed in the district court.

. Oral argument. Oral argument shall not be allowed unless directed by the Court of Appeals.

. Review by Supreme Court. Within twenty (20) days after the disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals, a party may seek further review from a decision of the Court of Appeals or a denial of certiorari by the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 12-502 of these rules.

[Approved, effective September 1, 1998; as amended effective September 1, 2002.]

And lawyer Gibson Rule 1-074. states

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

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

I am appealing to the New Mexico Supreme court from an illegal decision which denied my right to a paid for trial by jury for a prima facie case here defendants committed felony perjury is writing.

Criminal complaint affidavits have been filed with magistrates judge Bossom and Minzer. Both have not yet been properly processed.

I am not filing "Administrative appeals; statutory review by district court of administrative decisions or orders."

And lawyer Gibson Rule 1-075 states

1-075. Constitutional review by district court of administrative decisions and orders.

A. Scope of rule. This rule governs writs of certiorari to administrative officers and agencies pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution when there is no statutory right to an appeal or other statutory right of review. For purposes of this rule, an "agency" means any state or local government administrative or quasi-judicial entity. This rule does not create a right to appeal or review by writ of certiorari.

I underline "when there is no statutory right to an appeal or other statutory right of review"

Lawyer Gibson, as a lawyer you should know

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

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

(As amended September 28, 1965.)

I believe that I do have " an absolute right to one appeal" to the New Mexico Supreme court as a statutory right.

And as a result I do not have to file a writ of certiorari to appeal a denial of my civil rights to have a paid for jury trial guaranteed me by both the United States Constitution and New Mexico state Constitution, especially for a prima facie case where all evidence is in writing and defendants violated New Mexico criminal laws.

Further I have a right to pro se litigation guaranteed me by the second amendment.

Lawyer Gibson, Debbie Romero, assistant clerk of your office sent me an sample PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTI0RARI on October 4, 2002.

You can see part of what Romero sent me at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

You wrote

The Court of Appeals issued its Memorandum Opinion on September 3, 2002. Your document captioned "Docketing Statement" , which one presumes is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, is untimely, as it was received in the Supreme Court on October 3, 2002. The appellate rules do not permit a second "appeal" in the Supreme Court, thus a "docketing statement" is an incorrect pleading. In direct appeals within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, one must file a "statement of the issues" rather than a docketing statement.

It appears that both you and Romero have attempted to lure me into filing writ of certiorari when I do not have to or denied possibility by time limit violation.

I submit that I have properly filed an appeal with the supreme court of New Mexico. And I submit I did this in a timely manner of 30 day.

So lawyer Gibson, I believe you have seriously erred.

Therefore I am resubmitting my appeal. I ask that it be properly processed.

1 Properly process my appeal.

2 If you continue to believe that you are correct about me having to submit writ of certiorari, then I ask that you cite law supporting your view.

I ask that you respond to me by affidavit by close of business on Wednesday November 13, 2002.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Citizens

I wonder a next submittal will take another six years.

Certified mail return receipt requested
and by fax to 443-479-3612

PAMELA N.
Chief
FOIA/PA Services
National Security Agency
Central Security Service
Fort George G Meade, Maryland 20755-6000

Re: FOIA Case: 8687 (Formerly J9496-96)

Dear Ms Phillips:

You wrote in your 16 October 2002 letter to me

This relates to the Privacy Act (PA) portion of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/(PA) request of 10 June 1996. Before processing the documents responsive to your request, we want to establish your continued interest in receiving a copy of all documents containing the name of William H.Payne, Bill Payne, etc. between the dates of 1 January 1970 to 10 June 1996.

Ms Phillips, your letter appears unusual in that it is written more than 6 years after my request was made. However, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to renew my request and enlarge it because of new information released about me without my knowledge or permission.

The delay in response by NSA created the appearance that NSA is attempts to defeat the purpose of the Freedom on Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

However, your letter give hope that NSA has finally realized the importance of following the law.

You go on to write

Please advise this office of your continued interest in receiving the requested material within 30 days of the date of this letter either in writing(FOIA/PA Office (DC32 1), National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road STE 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248) or by facsimile (the fax number is 443-479-3612). We have enclosed a copy of your original request. If no response is received by the end of the 30 days, we will assume you no longer require this information, and processing will be discontinued. Please be advised that your case was previously assigned case number J9496-96. Due to a processing system upgrade, all cases were assigned new case numbers. Your new case number is 8687.

Not only do I have a continued interest in receiving the material within 30 days of the date of this letter, I expand my request between the dates to between 1 January 1970 to 24 October 2002.

Further I ask that the search to be expanded in to include documents covered under THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 5 U.S.C. § 552A As Amended http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm.

The reason I do this is that false and defaming documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm are current subject of state libel/defamation and federal violation of the criminal provision of the Privacy Act criminal complaint affidavits.

There is another unfortunate aspect of this matter. The spy sting on Iran.

You can read about this at http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm and http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html.

We sued former NSA director Minihan under the FOIA for documents related to this unfortunate spy sting.

No documents were released.

I ask you to approach current NSA director Michael V. Hayden http://www.nsa.gov/dirnsa/hayden.html to ask him to see that the requested documents are posted on NSA's website at http://www.nsa.gov/.

Internet technology makes it possible for all of us to know what happened. And even who likely masterminded the Iraq-Iran war. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ghwbush1.html

A number of people are concerned that those who masterminded this spy sting may have failed to consider the consequences for the United States of America or other countries, particularly Germany, of NSA's getting caught.

I ask that you and General Hayden consider possible consequences. Both of not releasing the requested documents and releasing them.

I believe that there is only one intelligent choice considering all of the information on the Iran spy sting which is now available in newspapers and on internet.

I ask General Hayden to order the requested documents posted and help get these matters settled.

I ask that NSA post these documents within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

I look forward to receipt of all of the documents about me between 1 January 1970 to 24 October 2002 within 30 days.

Perhaps this will help in settlement of my case.

In light of increased government and business cover ups it's important for the public to have access to correct truthful information.

Sincerely,

William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

Distribution

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Payne hasn't faxed in years, so he installed QuickLink and sent.

10/22/02 4:15 PM

Pamela Phillips

I'm checking your fax number and our modem http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/

Give me an ack on email.

best
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html

June 10, 1996? Only 6 years to get question response? Tuesday October 22, 2002 16:34

Let's be optimistic. Maybe Phillips, in fact, is trying to help get things settled. . Friday October 25, 2002 08:01

Payne got about the ultimate BS letter in history today.

Because of internet this letter can be shared.

Before internet such a letter would go buried.

October 7, 2002

William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

Your check for $125.00 and your documents are being returned. Rule 12-502 permits the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari within 20 days of the final ruling from the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued its Memorandum Opinion on September 3, 2002. Your document captioned "Docketing Statement" , which one presumes is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, is untimely, as it was received in the Supreme Court on October 3, 2002. The appellate rules do not permit a second "appeal" in the Supreme Court, thus a "docketing statement" is an incorrect pleading. In direct appeals within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, one must file a "statement of the issues" rather than a docketing statement.

Sincerely,

ARTHUR R. MORALES, AND WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs No. 23,339 Bernalillo County CV-02-3425

W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,
AND WALZ AND ASSOCS
Defendants-Appellees

RESPONSE TO NOTICE PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION

1 New Mexico Appellate judge James J Wechsler writes

You are hereby notified that the:

Record Proper

was filed in the above-entitled cause on August 22, 2002. This case has been assigned to the SUMMARY CALENDAR pursuant to Rule 12- 210(D) NMRA2002.

Summary dismissal is proposed.

Rule 12-210(D) NMRA2002 states

12-210. Calendar assignments.

D. Summary calendar. If the case is placed on the summary calendar:

1) a transcript of proceedings shall not be filed;

(2) the appellate court clerk's notice shall state the basis for proposed disposition;

(3) appellate counsel or trial counsel shall have twenty (20) days from date of service of the appellate court clerk's notice of proposed disposition to serve and file a memorandum setting forth reasons why the proposed disposition should or should not be made and why the case should or should not be assigned to the summary calendar, but the party shall be restricted to arguing only issues contained in the docketing statement. The docketing statement or statement of the issues may be amended at this time for good cause shown with the permission of the appellate court. A motion to amend the docketing statement or statement of the issues may be combined with a memorandum in opposition;

(4) no oral argument shall be allowed concerning the proposed disposition;

(5) after reviewing the memorandum or memoranda in support of or in opposition to the disposition proposed in the notice, the appellate court will either reassign the case to a nonsummary calendar, issue another notice of proposed summary disposition or proceed to decide the case by opinion or order. The Court's disposition of cases on the summary calendar may be in any form permitted under Rule 12-405 NMRA. In the Court of Appeals, every case decided on the summary calendar will be decided by a three-judge panel; and

(6) if there is no summary disposition, the case will be reassigned to the appropriate calendar.

[As amended, effective July 1, 1990; August 1, 1992; January 1, 1997; January 1, 2000; September 15, 2000.]

2 Wechsler writes

Note: This is a proposal of how the Court views the case. It is not a final decision. You now have twenty (20) days to file a memorandum telling the Court any reasons why this proposed disposition should or should not be made. See Rule 12-210 (D) NMRA. 2002.

Wechsler's NOTICE PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION is filed Stamped 02 OCT-2.

Today is October 16, 2002.

This response is timely.

3 Wechsler writes

Issues: Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's orders granting Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints against William Haas, Walz and Associates, W. John Brennan, Kenneth G. Brown, and Patricio M. Sema. Plaintiffs also appeal the trial court's order granting Defendants' motion for injunctive relief prohibiting Arthur R. Morales from filing lawsuits in New Mexico courts without representation of licensed counsel. All orders appealed from were filed on July 8, 2002. [R.P. 648, 650,652,654] Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal in the district court. Instead, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in this Court on August 8, 2002. Our appellate rules require the notice of appeal to be filed with the district court clerk within the time allowed by Rule 12-201 NMRA 2002. Rule 12-202(A)NMRA 2002. The time for filing the notice of appeal is within thirty days after the orders appealed from were filed in the district court clerk's office. See Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA 2002. Our Supreme Court has held that the appellate rules for the time and place of filinga notice of appeal govern the proper invocation of the appellate court's jurisdiction. Lowe v. Bloom. 110 N.M. 555, 556, 798 P.2d 156, 157 (1990). In a later opinion, the Supreme Court modified the holding in Lowe, stating that the appellate rule for timely filing notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, but rather a mandatory precondition to exercise of jurisdiction. See Govich v. North American Svs.. Inc.. 112N.M. 226,230,814 P.2d 94 (1991). Therefore, it appears that, because Plaintiffs' filed their notice of appeal in our Court, rather than the district court, and because the appeal was not timely filed, the appeal should be dismissed.

To the extent that Plaintiffs would argue that they were prevented from filing the notice of appeal in the district court, we propose to hold that the appeal must still be dismissed because it was not filed within thirty days of the filing date of the orders from which they appealed. In this case, the notice of appeal was due on August 7, but was filed on August 8, one day late. Cf San Juan 1990-A v. El Paso Prod. Co.. 2002-NMCA-041, 26, 132 N.M. 73,43 P.3d 1083 (noting that filing of notice of appeal one day late was not excused by claim that the clerk's office was inaccessible, and counsel was obligated to investigate whether clerk's office was open at a particular time). Therefore, we propose to hold that, due to the late filing of the notice of appeal, Plaintiffs' appeal should be dismissed.

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT:

Wechsler is right: No oral argument is necessary because this prima facie lawsuit is all documented in black and white.

All evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing.

1 Plaintiffs have been denied right of trial by jury which is required by both state and federal constitutions.

Plaintiffs paid for jury trial if alternate dispute resolution was not reached.

2 Plaintiffs were denied their right to file lawsuits in New Mexico without representation of licensed counsel.

A This denied plaintiffs' right to file and appeal in district court.

B This denied plaintiffs' right to file a notice of non-availability for any court action.

3 Plaintiffs' then were forced to file an appeal to New Mexico Court of Appeals since no pleadings were being accepted by district court.

Wechsler attempts to dismiss prima facie case on invalid technical reason.

The prima facie case evidence is so compelling since all evidence of defendants' guilt is in writing that dismissal amounts to illegal attempt to deny justice.

The seriousness of denial of citizen's constitutional rights is especially egregious when the violator are the very individuals assigned to uphold the state and federal constitutions.

4 WHEREFORE Wechsler's proposed disposition must NOT BE MADE.

Remand case to a fair and impartial jury trial or alternate dispute resolution in districts other than 2 and 13 which is required by New Mexico law.

The evidence of guilt of defendants is so great and all in writing that this lawsuit should be settled prior to trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing notice was mailed on October 16, 2002 to

Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque, NM 87109

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

French & Associates PC
500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505 843 7075

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

James J Wechsler
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Clerk
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

ARTHUR R. MORALES, AND WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs. No. 23,339
Bernalillo County
CV-02-3425
W. JOHN BRENNAN, KENNETH G. BROWN,
WILLIAM HAAS, PATRICIO M. SERNA,
AND WALZ AND ASSOCS.,
Defendants-Appellees.

NOTICE

PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION

You are hereby notified that the: Record Proper was filed in the above-entitled cause on August 22, 2002. This case has been assigned to the SUMMARY CALENDAR pursuant to Rule 12- 210(D)NMRA2002.

Summary dismissal is proposed.

Note: This is a proposal of how the Court views the case. It is not a final decision. You now have twenty (20) days to file a memorandum telling the Court any reasons why this proposed disposition should or should not be made. See Rule 12-210 (D) NMRA. 2002.

Issues: Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's orders granting Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints against William Haas, Walz and Associates, W. John Brennan, Kenneth G. Brown, and Patricio M. Sema. Plaintiffs also appeal the trial court's order granting Defendants' motion for injunctive relief prohibiting Arthur R. Morales from filing lawsuits in New Mexico courts without representation of licensed counsel. All orders appealed from were filed on July 8, 2002. [R.P. 648, 650,652,654] Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal in the district court. Instead, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in this Court on August 8, 2002. Our appellate rules require the notice of appeal to be filed with the district court clerk within the time allowed by Rule 12-201 NMRA 2002. Rule 12-202(A) NMRA 2002. The time for filing the notice of appeal is within thirty days after the orders appealed from were filed in the district court clerk's office. See Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA 2002. Our Supreme Court has held that the appellate rules for the time and place of filing a notice of appeal govern the proper invocation of the appellate court's jurisdiction. Lowe v. Bloom. 110 N.M. 555, 556, 798 P.2d 156, 157 (1990). In a later opinion, the Supreme Court modified the holding in Lowe. stating that the appellate rule for timely filing notice of appeal is notjurisdictional, but rather a mandatory precondition to exercise of jurisdiction. See Govich v. North American Svs.. Inc.. 112N.M. 226,230,814 P.2d 94 (1991). Therefore, it appears that, because Plaintiffs' filed their notice of appeal in our Court, rather than the district court, and because the appeal was not timely filed, the appeal should be dismissed.

To the extent that Plaintiffs would argue that they were prevented from filing the notice of appeal in the district court, we propose to hold that the appeal must still be dismissed because it was not filed within thirty days of the filing date of the orders from which they appealed. In this case, the notice of appeal was due on August 7, but was filed on August 8, one day late. Cf San Juan 1990-A v. El Paso Prod. Co.. 2002-NMCA-041, ^ 26, 132 N.M. 73,43 P.3d 1083 (noting that filing of notice of appeal one day late was not excused by claim that the clerk's office was inaccessible, and counsel was obligated to investigate whether clerk's office was open at a particular time). Therefore, we propose to hold that, due to the late filing of the notice of appeal, Plaintiffs' appeal should be dismissed. For the reasons discussed above, we propose to dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

2

certified return receipt requested

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Dear judge Benson:

Purpose of this letter is to file a criminal complaint affidavit.

As you probably realize New Mexico judge James A Parker assigned you to New Mexico case 01 CV 1132.

Here's the docket entry.

10/24/01 10/26/01 13 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker that all judicial officers of the District of New Mexico recuse in this action, and this case is reassigned to the Honorable Dee V Benson, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Utah (cc: all counsel*) (jrm) (8k)

01 CV 1132 was filed as New Mexico state lawsuit cv 2001-05900 for relief from false and libelous documents distributed by Sandia National Laboratories and the Phoenix Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These are seen in Exhbit A of my attached criminal complaint affidavit and on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled the Complaint provides:

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate.

As you may be aware,

An individual may "make a written complaint on oath before an examining and committing magistrate, and obtain a warrant of arrest." This is in conformity with the Federal Constitution, and "consonant with the principles of natural justice and personal liberty found in the common law."

[United States v Kilpatrick (1883, DC NC) 16G 765, 769]

You may also be aware,

A complaint though quite general in terms is valid if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.

[United States v Wood (1927, DC Tex) 26F2d 908, 910, affd (CA5 Tex) 26 F2d 912.

And for your edification,

The commission of a crime must be shown by facts positively stated. The oath or affirmation required is of facts and not opinions or conclusion.

[United States ex rel. King v Gokey (1929, DC NY) 32 F2d 793, 794]

The complaint must be accompanied by an oath.

[Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No 12126]

A complaint must be sworn to before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States.

[United States v Bierley ( 1971, WD Pa) 331 F Supp 1182]

Such office is now called a magistrate.

A complaint is ordinarily made by an investigating officer or agent, and where private citizens seek warrants of arrest, the practice recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States is to refer the complaint to the United States Attorney. However, further reference to him is rendered futile where a mandamus proceeding is brought to compel him to prosecute and he opposes the proceeding.

[Pugach v Klein (1961, SD NY) 193 F Supp 630, citing Manual for United States Commissioners 5 (1948)]

I am a citizen of the United States and you are the assigned magistrate.

In order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution and Rules 3 and 4, a written and sworn complaint should set forth the essential facts constituting the offense charged and also facts showing that the offense was committed and that the defendant committed it.

And,

As to the requirement that the complaint be made on personal knowledge of the complainant, it is enough for the issuance of a warrant that a complainant shows it to be on the knowledge of the complainant.

[Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d 1503, 78 S Ct 1245, revg (Ca5 Tx) 241 F2d 575, 579 in accord Rice v Ames (1901) 180 US 371, 45 L Ed 577, 21 S ct 406, and United States v Walker, (1952, CA2 NY) 197 F 2d 287, 289, cert den 344 US 877, 97 L Ed 679, 73 S Ct 172]

I ask that you enforce the law and proceed with the criminal prosecution of those accused.

Since lawyer Walz and judges KENNETH G BROWN, W JOHN BRENNAN, A JOSEPH ALARID, LYNN PICKARD, AND JAMES J WECHSLER have chosen to flaunt constitutional violations and disregard any appearance of fairness in writing, these criminals should be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the full extent of Title 18 Sec. 241 as a lesson to lawyers and judges in all states that the Constitution is still in place and must be obeyed.

And these lawyers mange to comiple a prima facie case of guilt against themselves all IN WRITING!

Therefore, I ask that you promptly do your job.

We will be posting progress on internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/.

Sincerely,

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

Distribution

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

---

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM PAYNE AGAINST LAWYER JERRY WALZ, JUDGES KENNETH G BROWN, W JOHN BRENNAN, A JOSEPH ALARID, LYNN PICKARD, AND JAMES J WECHSLER FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

I swear under oath that my efforts to seek relief for the for the false, libelous, and defaming documents posted at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm are not vexatious litigation. Further I swear that AGAINST LAWYER JERRY WALZ, JUDGES KENNETH G BROWN, W JOHN BRENNAN, A JOSEPH ALARID, LYNN PICKARD, AND JAMES J WECHSLER conspired to deny my constitution right to paid for New Mexico state lawsuit and that my rights to resprent myself pro se have violated federal laws: TITLE 18 Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights .

1 I sued in New Mexico state court for relief from damages caused by unauthorized distribution of false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint in New Mexico federal 00 CV 1677 which are posted at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

Sandia National Laboratories Disciplinary Review Committee never interviewed me to determine if their statement were false or not.

This New Mexico paid for jury trial lawsuit is State Court Case Number: CV-2000-10278. CV-2000-10278 is relief from defamation [libel] and harassment. Not only have the false, libelous, and defaming documents caused me to be blacklisted in my line of work, I estimate that I have lost about $1,000,000 in wages and benefits, expense and stress experienced by me to clear my good name after being wrongly terminated from Sandia National Laboratories in 1992.

Since all of the evidence of guilt is in writing, my expectation that a fair and impartial New Mexico judge would invoke New Mexico alternate dispute resolution and settle the lawsuit before trial.

2 Walz and Brown write in Exhibit walzbrown1

The motion seeking injunctive relief against Plaintiff William H. Payne filed on behalf of Defendants W. John Brennan and W. Daniel Schneider having come regularly on for hearing before this Court on May 16, 2002, and after considering the moving and response pleadings, arguments of the parties and all other matters presented to the Court, the Court finding that the pro se pleadings of William H. Payne are impairing, impeding, delaying, and obstructing the orderly administration of justice, and that Plaintiff William H. Payne is a vexatious litigant, and for good cause appearing:

is an intentional and malicious lie since both Brown and Walz had in their possession false and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A and posted on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

My litigation was not "vexatious."

Both Walz and Brown have committed perjury by knowingly and falsely claiming, in the face of written evidence seen in Exhibit A and posted on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm, that attempting to seek remedy either by arbitration or paid for jury trial is vexatious.

3 New Mexico law is explicit.

Plaintiff paid for 12 person trial by jury.

Only plaintiff can move to dismiss under

1-041. Dismissal of actions.

A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Paragraph E of Rule 1-023 and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 1-052. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 1-019, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

E. Dismissal of action with and without prejudice.

(1) Any party may move to dismiss the action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016 or with any written stipulation approved by the court.

(2) Unless a pretrial scheduling order has been entered pursuant to Rule 1-016, the court on its own motion or upon the motion of a party may dismiss without prejudice the action or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim if the party filing the action or asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action in connection with the action or claim within the previous one hundred and eighty (180) days. A copy of the order of dismissal shall be forthwith mailed by the court to all parties of record in the case. Within thirty (30) days after service of the order of dismissal, any party may move for reinstatement of the case. Upon good cause shown, q the court shall reinstate the case and shall enter a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 1- 016. At least twice during each calendar year, the court shall review all actions governed by this paragraph.

(3) The filing of a motion for dismissal pursuant to this rule shall not be taken to be an entry of appearance in said action or proceeding.

F. Applicability. This rule shall apply to all civil cases filed in the district court, including civil cases appealed from the metropolitan or magistrate courts. This rule shall not apply to:

(1) guardianship, receivership, trusteeship or conservatorship cases;
(2) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code;
(3) proceedings commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Probate Code; or
(4) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Children's Code.

[As amended, effective January 1, 1990.]

3 Walz and Brown write in Exhibit walzbrown1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT from the date of entry of this Order forward, Plaintiff William H. Payne is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from filing any pro se pleadings in any New Mexico Court. However, nothing in this order precludes Plaintiff William H. Payne from filing a lawsuit in New Mexico Court if the lawsuit is filed by a licensed New Mexico [HANDWRITTEN ,or if approved by the Judge assigned to the case. INITIALED KGB]

IT IS ALSO ORDERED THAT any pro se filings of William H. Payne are not to be accepted for filing in the Bernalillo County Courts except for cases in which William H. Payne is a defendant, and further that, in any action in which William H. Payne is a Plaintiff, that he be represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New Mexico[HANDWRITTEN , or if approved the Judge assigned to the case.]

Walz and Brown violate my rights under the Sixth amendment of constitution to represent myself pro se.

4 April 8, 2002 I file

NOTICE TO JUDGE KENNETH G. BROWN TO CANCEL HEARING ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY SCHEDULED MAY 16, 2002

which concludes

7 WHEREFORE This Court is asked to correct its mistakeS and cancel May 16, 2002 hearing IN WRITING by close of business on April 16, 2002.

5 Brown ignores the law. Therefore Brown and Walz were used for BREACH OF CONTRACT and HARASSMENT on May 10, 2002 case CV 2002 3425.

Brown was served summon on My 14, 2002.

So Brown and Walz hold hearing and sign Exhibit walzbrown1 four days after both were sued and served summons.

5 I attach affidavit that on June 6, 2002 Deputy Court Administrator Art Gallegos told me that judge W John Brennan told court personnel not to accept my NOTICE OF APPEAL at ordered by Brown in 3 above. Exhibit bren1.

6 Walz and Brown write in Exhibit walzbrown2

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

This matter having come before the Court on May 16,2002 on the Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice filed on behalf of Defendants W. John Brennan and W. Daniel Schneider and after considering the moving and responsive pleadings, arguments of the parties, and all other matters presented to the Court, for good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice is GRANTED. Further, the Court specifically reserves the issue of whether sanctions are proper against Plaintiff William H. Payne upon the filing of a motion by Defendants brought pursuant to NMRA 1-011.

Walz and Brown violate my right to trial by jury.

LAW

New Mexico Bill of Rights Section 12:

The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate.

Federal law:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

7 Lawyer Walz submits PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION on appeal file stamped JUL 12, 2002 while I am in Alaska. Exhibit Walz1.

Walz was notified on June 7, 2002 that I was unavailable.

8 Appeals court judge A Joseph Alarid along with judge Lynn Pickard and James J wechsler approves PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION on SEP 03, 2002. Alarid writes

Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the calendar notice. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

Dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit Alarid1

I file motion for rehearing on September 14, 2002.

Alarid, Pickard, Wechsler write on FILE stamp ORDER on 02 SEP 25 AM 8:52. Exhibit Alarid.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

In this cause, a motion for rehearing having been filed by Plaintiff-Appellant, and consideration having been had by all of the panel members of the original panel,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for rehearing is hereby DENIED.

9 A So as of September 25, 2002 Payne has been denied his trial by jury in New Mexico state

court which he paid for.

B He cannot represent himself pro se.

10 LAW

Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ....

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

11 I swear that LAWYER JERRY WALZ, JUDGES KENNETH G BROWN, W JOHN BRENNAN, A JOSEPH ALARID, LYNN PICKARD, AND JAMES J WECHSLER have denied me my rights under the law to paid for trial by jury and right to represent myself in violation of Title 18 241.

This, of course, is a prima facie case of criminal violation of Title 18 Sec. 241 as all of the evidence of guilt is in writing.

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

by William H Payne ________________________________

Verification

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

---

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff-Appellant

vs. No. 23,192 Bernalillo CV-01-7794

W. JOHN BRENNAN and W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER
Defendants-Appellees

1 Issues on appeal of Exhibits WalzBrown1 and WalzBrown2 include

A Subject to a hearing on an illegal Motion to Dismiss brought by defendants. Only plaintiff can move to dismiss paid for jury trial lawsuit in New Mexico.

LAW

Only plaintiff can move to dismiss under

1-041. Dismissal of actions.

A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Paragraph E of Rule 1-023 and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 1-052. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 1-019, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

E. Dismissal of action with and without prejudice.

(1) Any party may move to dismiss the action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016 or with any written stipulation approved by the court.

(2) Unless a pretrial scheduling order has been entered pursuant to Rule 1-016, the court on its own motion or upon the motion of a party may dismiss without prejudice the action or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim if the party filing the action or asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action in connection with the action or claim within the previous one hundred and eighty (180) days. A copy of the order of dismissal shall be forthwith mailed by the court to all parties of record in the case. Within thirty (30) days after service of the order of dismissal, any party may move for reinstatement of the case. Upon good cause shown, q the court shall reinstate the case and shall enter a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 1- 016. At least twice during each calendar year, the court shall review all actions governed by this paragraph.

(3) The filing of a motion for dismissal pursuant to this rule shall not be taken to be an entry of appearance in said action or proceeding.

F. Applicability. This rule shall apply to all civil cases filed in the district court, including civil cases appealed from the metropolitan or magistrate courts. This rule shall not apply to:

(1) guardianship, receivership, trusteeship or conservatorship cases;
(2) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code;
(3) proceedings commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Probate Code; or
(4) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Children's Code.

[As amended, effective January 1, 1990.]

B Denial of 12 person jury trail which plaintiff paid for and is guaranteed under constitution.

C Declaration that seeking relief for false and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of New

Mexico complaint CV 2002 3425 is "vexatious" litigation. Exhibit CV 2002 3425 complaint.

See attached MOTION FOR REHEARING AND SUPPORTING BRIEF,. Exhbit Rehear1.

D Having judge Brown who was served summon in CV 2002 3425 on May 14, 2002 not recuse himself. Brown, instead, held illegal hearing on May 20, 2002. Plaintiff was subjected to further

harassment by biased judge.

E Brown and Walz deny plaintiff's right to represent himself in court as guaranteed by 6th

Amendment of constitution by falsely claiming that plaintiff's efforts to recover damages for false and defamatory documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm is vexatious.

Distribution of false defaming and libelous documents violate the criminal provisions of New Mexico libel laws and well as the criminal provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a - as amended. See attached criminal complaint affidavit and cover letter to judge Dee Vance Benson dated 9/11/02.

3 Issues on appeal of Exhibits Alarid1 and Alarid2 denial of due process by not allowing Plaintiff to present his case. And judges Alarid, Pickard, and Wechsler have violated my rights under both federal and state consitutuions. See 4 and 5 below.

4 Plaintiff's constitutional right to paid for 12 person trial by jury has been violated.

5 Plaintiff's constitutional right to represent himself pro se has been violated.

6 Plaintiff attaches $125 supreme court docketing fee and 6 requested copies.

7 RELIEF SOUGHT

Remand case to state court, other than the 2nd and 13th district, for arbitration or 12 person paid for trial by jury if arbitration fails.

Respectfully Submitted

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

I certify at a copy of this notice of appeal was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 2, 2002

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque,NM 87109
505-344-4848

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

WILLIAM H. PAYNE
Plaintiff-Appellant

vs. No. 23,192 Bernalillo CV-01-7794

W. JOHN BRENNAN and W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER
Defendants-Appellees

1 This appeal to New Mexico Supreme Court is bought under

Sec. 2. [Supreme court; appellate jurisdiction.] Appeals from a judgment of the district court imposing a sentence of death or life imprisonment shall be taken directly to the supreme court. In all other cases, criminal and civil, the supreme court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law; provided that an aggrieved party shall have an absolute right to one appeal. (As amended September 28, 1965.)

2 Appeal is being taken from two orders authored by lawyer Jerry A Walz and judge Kenneth G Brown. Exhibits WalzBrown1 and WalzBrown2

Appeal is also being taken from two rulings by judges Joseph A Alarid, Lynn Pickard, and James J Wechsler. Exhibits Alarid1 and Alarid2.

Respectfully Submitted

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

I certify at a copy of this notice of appeal was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on October 2, 2002

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque,NM 87109
505-344-4848

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Clerk
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

certified return receipt requested

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear judge Scalia:

Purpose of this letter is to file two criminal complaint affidavits.

One criminal complaint affidavit is against Wyoming federal chief judge William F Downes for PERJURY [VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 Sec. 1621. - Perjury generally].

The second criminal complaint affidavit is against Wyoming federal chief judge William F Downes and New Mexico chief judge James A Parker for criminal VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights.

Both are prima facie complaints since all evidence of guilt of Downes and Parker is in writing filed in federal courts.

The lawyer industry appears out of control in that lawyers sometime do anything they want to regardless of the evidence, with disregard of the law, disregard of rules of the court, and their own professional conduct rules.

We have a unique opportunity to begin to correct our legal system. And we need your and judge Dee Vance Benson's help.

As you may be aware false and defaming documents seen Exhibit A of the criminal complaint affidavit I sent to judge Benson and on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

I sent a copy of my 9/11/02 Benson criminal complaint affidavit package to your office. While I did not receive any return receipt postcard from you office, the Albuquerque post office verified that J Wood of your office received the copy of the complaint on September 18, 2002. Citizens deserve justice not lawyer games.

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled the Complaint provides:

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate.

As you may be aware,

An individual may "make a written complaint on oath before an examining and committing magistrate, and obtain a warrant of arrest." This is in conformity with the Federal Constitution, and "consonant with the principles of natural justice and personal liberty found in the common law."

[United States v Kilpatrick (1883, DC NC) 16G 765, 769]

You may also be aware,

A complaint though quite general in terms is valid if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.

[United States v Wood (1927, DC Tex) 26F2d 908, 910, affd (CA5 Tex) 26 F2d 912.

And for your edification,

The commission of a crime must be shown by facts positively stated. The oath or affirmation required is of facts and not opinions or conclusion.

[United States ex rel. King v Gokey (1929, DC NY) 32 F2d 793, 794]

The complaint must be accompanied by an oath.

[Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No 12126]

A complaint must be sworn to before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States.

[United States v Bierley ( 1971, WD Pa) 331 F Supp 1182]

Such office is now called a magistrate.

A complaint is ordinarily made by an investigating officer or agent, and where private citizens seek warrants of arrest, the practice recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States is to refer the complaint to the United States Attorney. However, further reference to him is rendered futile where a mandamus proceeding is brought to compel him to prosecute and he opposes the proceeding.

[Pugach v Klein (1961, SD NY) 193 F Supp 630, citing Manual for United States Commissioners 5 (1948)]

I am a citizen of the United States and you are the assigned magistrate.

In order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution and Rules 3 and 4, a written and sworn complaint should set forth the essential facts constituting the offense charged and also facts showing that the offense was committed and that the defendant committed it.

And,

As to the requirement that the complaint be made on personal knowledge of the complainant, it is enough for the issuance of a warrant that a complainant shows it to be on the knowledge of the complainant.

[Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d 1503, 78 S Ct 1245, revg (Ca5 Tx) 241 F2d 575, 579 in accord Rice v Ames (1901) 180 US 371, 45 L Ed 577, 21 S ct 406, and United States v Walker, (1952, CA2 NY) 197 F 2d 287, 289, cert den 344 US 877, 97 L Ed 679, 73 S Ct 172]

I ask that you enforce the law and proceed with the criminal prosecution of those accused.

What is particularly offensive about the Parker and Downes crime is that defamation and harassment are not federal questions, yet Parker enlists Downes help to get defendants acquitted abusing federal court.

If I appealed Downes' decision to the Tenth Circuit, the Tenth circuit would likely rubber stamp Downes decision, thus forcing me to appeal to the supreme court if I wished to pursue justice.

However, Downes and Parker both broke federal Title 18 criminal laws in writing so a fresh approach to correcting the judicial system is available.

I have a right to clear my name in New Mexico state court on state court issues of defamation [libel] and harassment.

As a citizen I have pursued my legal rights to the best of my ability.

I have also sought remedy by settlement.

Unfortunately, lawyers and the legal system have prevented remedy through settlement or state trial by jury.

Appearance is that lawyers and the legal system have purposely obstructed justice and perform their constitutional and ethical duties while being paid by taxpayer money.

Therefore, I ask that you promptly do your job.

We will be posting progress on internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/.

Sincerely,

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

Distribution

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

1 I read ORDER ON PRIVATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS authored by judge William F Downes, signed on AUG 2, 2002, and stamped FILED AUG 7 2002. Attached Exhibit DOWNES1.

2 Downes writes

Plaintiffs Complaint is nearly devoid of any factual allegations in support of his defamation claim.

Downes statement is a lie in view of the documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

It's obvious that these documents violate the criminal provisions of the federal Privacy Act 5 USC 552a(b) specifically 5 USC 552(a)(i)1.

Wednesday 9/11/02 10:24 AM criminal complaint affidavit against individuals Burtner, Robles, Libman, David, Gear, Gaichino, Torneby, Childers, Miyoshi, Poloncasz, Courtney, Searls, Ewing, Craner, Dunckel, McAuliffe, Bonner, and Trujillo whose names are seen in Exhibit A and AT&T, Lockheed- Martin, Department of Energy, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accompanied by letter appointed Utah chief judge Dee Vance Benson to serve as magistrate to prosecute this federal crime. All of the evidence of guilt is in writing. This is a prima facie case of criminal violation of the Privacy Act. Payne attests under oath in affidavit sent Benson of 9/11/02 that documents violate both criminal provisions of Privacy Act and criminal provision of New Mexico's libel law.

Plaintiff swears that judge William F Downes has committed felony perjury in the above statement.

3 Downes writes

Except for Plaintiffs illegible signature on the termination letter, the documents provided to the EEOC were redacted to replace Plaintiffs name with his employee number.

is false. My signature is legible. Downes, again, has committed felony perjury in writing.

4 Downes writes

The Private Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint against them, contending that Plaintiffs defamation claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law.

Defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

Downes refused to provide affidavit that defamation and harassment were, in fact, federal questions. See docket sheet 00 CV 1677

08/23/01 08/24/01 91 NOTICE of Non-Compliance by pltf of Judge Downes to provide anti-injunction affidavit (bap) (73k)

The docket of 00 CV 1677 is posted at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/doc1677.htm.

Plaintiff filed suit in New Mexico State Court [CV-2000-10278] for relief from defamation and harassment.

Defamation [libel] is a criminal offense in New Mexico and financial remedies are codified in New Mexico civil law. All of the evidence of guilt is in writing.

This was removed to federal court and assigned to judge Downes. Here the docket entry.

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]

Downes statement "... Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law. " is a malicious and intentional lie. See below.

5 Downes writes citing quote

"Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend."

The is an deliberate and malicious lie. The documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm establish a prima facie case of violation of the criminal provision of the Privacy Act and violation of both the criminal and civil laws of the state of New Mexico..

6 Downes writes

Even if Plaintiff could get past the statute of limitations bar to his claim, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In order to state a defamation claim under New Mexico law, Plaintiff must allege facts as to each of the following elements:

1. The defendant published the communication;
2. The communication contains a statement of fact;
3. The communication was concerning the plaintiff;
4. The statement of fact was false;
5. The communication was defamatory;
6. The person[s] receiving the communication understood it to be defamatory;
7. The defendant knew that the communication was false or negligently failed to recognize that it was false;
8. The communication proximately caused actual injury to plaintiffs reputation; and
9. The defendant abused its privilege to publish the communication. N.M. R. Civ. UJI 13-1002;
see Furgason v. Clausen, 785 P.2d 242, 248 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (citing UJI 13-1002).

" Even if Plaintiff could get past the statute of limitations bar to his claim, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)." is clearly a lie in view of the documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm

The Downes go on to quote New Mexico state law. Downes is a federal judge. Defamation [libel] and harassment are New Mexico state causes of action.

I paid for New Mexico state jury trial lawsuit, not a trial by judge. Let the jury decide issues. Downes admits by citing New Mexico state law that he does not have jurisdiction!

7 Downes writes

However, Plaintiffs Complaint and attached exhibits do not show that Defendants AT&T and Lockheed Martin were in any way involved in the preparation and/or distribution of the documents.

is clearly a lie.

AT&T was administrative contractor in 1992 when false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm were written, therefore AT&T is responsible for not supervising its employees properly.

Lockheed Martin was contractor in 1994 when false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm were distributed by Robles, therefore Lockheed Martin is responsible for not supervising its employees properly.

Both AT&T and Lockheed Martin were given opportunity to remedy damaged caused by unauthorized distribution of documents seen at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm but they refused.

8 Downes writes

Plaintiffs Complaint makes no specific factual allegations as to Charles Burtner, but Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against him for allegedly distributing false, libelous, and defaming documents.

is a false statement.

Burtner violated both the criminal and civil provisions of the Privacy Act by unauthorized distribution of false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm

I swear in this affidavit that I have been blacklisted in employment fore 10 year which has cost me about $1,000,000. Mental anguish created by these actions have taken on toll on me and my family.

Furthermore, the expense and stress experienced by me to clear my good name has been enormous.

This is why I sued in state court for relief in a jury trial lawsuit.

9 LAW

TITLE 18
Sec. 1621. - Perjury generally

Whoever -
(1)
having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2)
in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States

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

by William H Payne ________________________________

Verification

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

1 I sued in New Mexico state court for relief from damages caused by unauthorized distribution of false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint in New Mexico federal 00 CV 1677 which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm. This New Mexico paid for jury trial lawsuit is State Court Case Number: CV-2000-10278. CV-2000-10278 is relief from defamation [libel] and harassment.

Not only have the false, libelous, and defaming documents cause me to be blacklisted in my line of work, I estimate that I have lost about $1,000,000 in wages and benefits, expense and stress experienced by me to clear my good name after being wrongly terminated from Sandia National Laboratories in 1992. Since all of the evidence of guilt is in writing, my expectation that a fair and impartial New Mexico judge would invoke New Mexico alternate dispute resolution and settle the lawsuit before trial.

2 However, the New Mexico US Attorney office removed my defamation and harassment lawsuit from state court to federal court and labeled it 00 cv 1677.

I attach the docket sheet and label it Exhibit doc1677. I also post it on internet as http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/doc1677.htm

3 Docket sheet entry 1 shows removal of state case to federal court.

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]

4 Docket entry 10 shows my demand for jury trial

12/04/00 12/06/00 10 DEMAND for jury trial by pltf William H Payne (ild) (34k) Re: RESPONSE [30]

5 Docket entry 63 show my objection to improper removal of state jury trial lawsuit for defamation and harassment to federal court.

03/09/01 03/12/01 63 MOTION and Memorandum by pltf to remand to state court for lack of jurisdiction (bap) (135k) Re: REPLY [74] ORDER [73] RESPONSE [67]

5 Docket entry 69 shows New Mexico chief judge James A Parker assigning 00 cv 1677 to Wyoming chief judge William F Downs

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)

6 Defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

As we know

LAW

16 Courts 598-1

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

Downes was asked to provide and affidavit by August 30, 2001 to state that defamation and harassment were federal questions. Downes did not comply.

Therefore I filed notice in affidavit form with court.

08/23/01 08/24/01 91 NOTICE of Non-Compliance by pltf of Judge Downes to provide anti-injunction affidavit (bap) (73k)

7 Judges Parker and Downs, being lawyers and judges, both know that defamation and harassment are not federal questions.

8 Judges Parker and Downs, being lawyers and judges, both know that a fundamental right of a citizen in the United States is right to trial by jury.

In federal court the Bill of Rights guarantees me to right to trial by jury

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

New Mexico Bill of Rights Section 12 states

The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate.

9 My state lawsuit is not frivolous since judge Downes improperly rules on it committing perjury. I attach ORDER ON PRIVATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Exhibit DOWNS2. My state lawsuit is not frivolous since all of the evidence of guilt is writing as is seen in the false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A of the complaint in New Mexico federal 00 CV 1677 which are posted at on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm.

10 I swear that judges James A Parker and William F Downes have, in writing - the docket sheet seen in Exhibit doc1677, willfully and maliciously denied me my right to trial by jury in New Mexico court in violation of federal criminal law

LAW

Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ....

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

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

by William H Payne ________________________________

Verification

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

Notary Public ______________________________________

Program Would List Judges’ Names

By Guillermo Contreras
Journal Staff Writer

Federal courts could soon make it easier for the public to complain about judges’ conduct and to find out when the complaints result in punishment.

The federal judiciary's governing body recommended the changes to the federal court system last week, but it’s unclear whether the judicial circuit that includes New Mexico will fully participate in the plan. The proposal, adopted by the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States, would for the first time make public the names of disciplined judges.

This doesn’t mean they can find put anything they want about a judge’s conduct, because some of it is confidential,” said circuit executive Betsy Shumaker of Denver. She serves as administrative manager the 10th Circuit, which includes New Mexico. “When there is public information, the courts are being urged to make it more readily accessible on the Web.”

The Judicial Conference at a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., also asked courts to simplify the filing of complaints by making forms and instructions available online. Participation is voluntary.

Federal courts in New Mexico have long had a local rule explaining how to file a complaint against a judge by mailing form to the lOth Circuit. Shumaker said the circuit plans to put the necessary form online.

As for whether the 10th Circuit will post online the names of disciplined judges, Shumaker said the circuit’s eight-judge Judicial Council is expected to take that up at its meeting in November.

“I would support the proposal of the judicial conference that there be more openness in advising the public of the results of complaints for judicial misconduct,” said New Mexico Chief U.S. District Judge James A. Parker.

Complaints can cover anything from a judge’s demeanor on the bench to allegations that he or she is senile or otherwise unfit to work.

Most of the hundreds of complaints filed each year are dismissed as frivolous. Of 766 complaints filed nationally in the 12 months that ended in September 2001, only one resulted in a penalty. Details were not released,

Only these complaints that result in punishment would be accessible by the public.

The number of complaints for New Mexico was not immediately available.

Complaints are directed to the chief circuit judge, who may act on them alone or refer them to the circuit's Judicial Council. That remains unchanged under the new recommendations.

Federal judges, except magistrates, are appointed for life by the president, and only Congress can remove them from office, However, if a complaint is substantiated, the Judicial Council can reprimand or censure a judge, order that cases assigned to the judge be temporarily reassigned, or ask the judge to retire voluntarily, among other options.

“This is just an openness concept that the judiciary feels is appropriate in this day and time,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II of the southern district of West Virginia, chairman of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee. “There’s a general feeling that the judicial discipline provisions in place are adequate, but there is little reportage of how those complaints are processed and disposed of.”

The Associated Press contributed to this Story.

Albuquerque Journal Sunday September 29, 2002

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Esq
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear lawyer Gibson:

I was surprised to get your July 29, 2002 letter.

Reason I was surprised is that I did not write you. I wrote to judge Pamela Minzer.

You wrote

The Court is receipt of your letter dated July 24, 2002, in which you state as your purpose your intent “to file a criminal complaint affidavit under 5-20 1 ."

which leads me to ask whether

1 did you open my letter to Minzer
or
2 did Minzer open it, read it, then give it to you?

You wrote

The New Mexico Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions on matters not properly before it pursuant to the Appellate Rules of Procedure, nor does it conduct investigations.

I did not ask the New Mexico Supreme Court of advisory opinions on a matter not properly before it pursuant to the Appellate Rules of Procedure or ask it to do an investigation. I appointed judge Pamela Minzer magistrate per state statute 5-201 to prosecute a prima facie criminal act with all evidence in writing.

You wrote

The Court can only rule on matters within its jurisdiction.

I don't believe that I asked the court to do anything. In fact, I did not. I asked Minzer to do her job as magistrate per state statute 5-201.

I'm formally appointing judge Minzer magistrate to prosecute a crime which has cost me about $1,000,000.

You wrote

Criminal complaints are general filed in the District Court of the county in which the alleged aggrieved conduct occurs. Your documents are being returned.

I disagree with your statement because of this unusual situation law calls for unusual action which is to appoint judge Minzer as magistrate.

The criminal acts committed against me violate both New Mexico criminal law and Federal Privacy Act.

So judge Dee Vance Benson has been appointed magistrate to handle prosecution of the prima facie case on federal issues.

I attach my letter to Benson and criminal complaint affidavit for your review.

I am sending my personal letter to dated July 24, 2002 to Minzer again.

This time we will use the criminal complaint affidavit dated September 11, 2002 so that it is common to both the federal and state crimes.

I ask that you allow judge Minzer to open and read her letter from me.

I suggest that you carefully consider the law for this situation.

I am concerned that you letter may create the appearance to obstruct justice by not allowing prompt prosecution of a crime supported by prima facie written evidence.

I would appreciate a letter from you by Friday September 20, 2002 informing me who opened my July 24, 2002 letter to Minzer.

And I await judge Minzer's response by this date too.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160

Alleged Gang Member Held

By Chris Vogel
Journal Staff Writer

A 24-year-old alleged gang member is in jail on suspicion of shooting a Valley High freshman in the face late last month near the campus after school.

Kenneth G. Brown Jr., 24, was booked into the Bernalillo County Detention Center on Tuesday on charges of aggravated battery and tampering with evidence. He was arraigned Wednesday and is in the Bernalillo County Detention Center-West Side facility on a $50,000 bond.

Brown of Bernalillo is the son of Sandoval County District Judge Kenneth G Brown.

Judge Brown’s assistant said Wednesday afternoon that the judge was not at work and had no comment on his son’s arrest.

Judge Brown is also the founder and adjudicator of Grade Court, a Sandoval County program that helps juvenile delinquents earn better grades and stay in school. The younger Brown is suspected of shooting Crystoval “Kiki” Montoya, 14, in the face on Aug. 28 about a block from Valley High in the Matthews Meadows neighborhood during an alleged gang fight. Montoya was released from University Hospital on Sept. 5, a hospital spokeswoman said.

Brown was arrested after several anonymous witnesses told police they saw him shoot into a crowd from an SUV he was driving.

Attorney Thomas Brown, no relation, who has represented Brown on prior occasions, said he again represented him during Wednesday’s arraignment but has not been officially hired.

The suspect was also arrested in January 2000 for aggravated DWI and possession of marijuana and in February 2002 for petty larceny, Metro Court records show.

The day of the shooting, just before Valley let out at 2:25 p.m., a group of about 100 students gathered in front of the school in anticipation of a fight, a criminal complaint said.

The duel between gangs was precipitated by Brew town gang members burning a red bandana during lunch that is a symbol of the North- side gang, Det. Jason Quade said Wednesday afternoon.

Quade said sources have told him that Brown is a member of the Northside 14th Street gang, which is either synonymous with or an affiliate of the Northside gang.

Albuquerque Journal Thursday September 9, 2002

Certified return receipt requested

Postmaster
Steve Schiff Station
9719 Candelaria
Albuquerque, NM 8711-9998

Dear Postmaster:

The purpose of this letter is to request a formal investigation of why two certified return receipt requested letters did not arrive at their Santa Fe destination.

I ask that the USPS investigation culuminate in a written report to me.

I attach a copy of my 9/11/02 Mail Loss/Rifling Report.

I also attach a copy of MOTION FOR REHEARING AND SUPPORTING BRIEF so that you the USPS legal staff can appreciate the damage non-delivery of the two certified return receipt letters has caused.

I ask that I receive your report by Tuesday October 1, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted

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

Distribution

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Lynn Pickard
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

James J Wechsler
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

A Joseph Alarid
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

HONORABLE KENNETH G. BROWN

Recommendation
Retain

EVALUATION: Judge Brown received positive ratings during this evaluation. The judge brings to his position extensive experience on the bench and valuable knowledge in dealing with juvenile matters. The evaluation result reveal his specific strengths to include his over control over the courtroom, his courtesy and fairness those he encounters. The judge is dedicated to improving his performance. For example, he has demonstrated a commitment to improve his oral communication skills and his preparation of cases before trial. The judge has maintained or improved upon the above-average ratings given in his prior evaluation and has consistently expressed a willingness and interest in ongoing self-improvement.

EXPERIENCE & EDUCATION: Judge Brown has been a District Court Judge since January 1, . 1985. In addition to his experience on the bench, the judge has also shown strong commitment to his community by his involvement in various legal and civic activities. For example, the judge is a member of the Rotary Club, American Bar Association, National Council of Juvenile and Family Law, New Mexico Judges’ Association, and the National Conference of State Trial Judges. Judge Brown received both his undergraduate and his law degrees from the University of New Mexico.

WILLIAM H. PAYNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. No. 23,192 Bernalillo CV-01-7794

W. JOHN BRENNAN and W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER,
Defendants-Appellees

1 Plaintiff William H Payne, pro se litigant, moves court for rehearing of No. 23,192 by invoking MMRA 12-404.

RULE

1 This motion is brought under 12-404. Rehearings.

A. Motion; when filed. A motion for rehearing may be filed within fifteen (15) days after filing of the appellate court's disposition, or any subsequent modification of its disposition, unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order. The three (3) day mailing period set forth in Rule 12-308 does not apply to the time limits set by this rule. The motion shall state briefly and with particularity, but without argument, the points of law or fact which in the opinion of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended. If the motion is based upon a point of law or fact not raised, briefed or argued by any party but relied upon by the court in its disposition of the matter, the motion shall specifically so state, and shall be accompanied by a brief in support thereof. In all other cases the movant may, but is not required to, file a brief in support of the motion at the time it is filed. No response to a motion for rehearing shall be filed unless requested by the court. If a motion for rehearing is granted, the appellate court clerk shall give notice thereof and any party who has not filed a brief on rehearing may, within fifteen (15) days after notice, file a brief addressed to the issues on rehearing. There shall be no other briefs or argument unless the appellate court shall otherwise direct. ...

[As amended, effective September 1, 1991; September 1, 1993; January 1, 1997.]

2 A On May 16, 2002 plaintiff was denied his right under both federal and state constitution to file as a pro se litigant any pleadings ANY New Mexico state court.

The exact wording May 16, 2002 of denial of constitutional right is

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERD THAT from the date of entry of this Order forward, Plaintiff William H. Payne is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from fining any pro se pleading in any New Mexico court."

Therefore plaintiff could not file a brief supporting motion for appeal as required by NMRA 12-210(D).

B Since plaintiff was illegally and unjustly denied his right to file, this gave the New Courts the ability of wrongfully dismiss this appeal.

C Further plaintiff was unavailable when NOTICE OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION was filed and notified parties of unavailability.

This did not allow plaintiff to respond in a timely fashion. See 4 and 5 below.

D Since plaintiff was illegally and unjustly denied the right guaranteed under both New Mexico state and federal constitutions to file pro se, a criminal complaint affidavit for felony perjury was sent to Judge Bossom by certified mail.

This complaint was mail certified on Thursday 8/22/02.

However, no bar code record of the criminal complaint affidavits for Bossom and judge Minzer were logged by the United States Postal Service in Santa Fe. This was discovered September 11, 2002 by Albuquerque postal employee.

Since USPS procedures were violated, a formal investigation was initiated. See 6 below. MEMORANDUM OPINION should only be filed after criminal complaint affidavit has been properly processed. See 7 below.

This may create the appearance that Judge Bossom, judge Alarid along with judges Pickard and Wechsler are involved in a conspiracy to enforce a perjured ORDER by not properly investigating and prosecuting plaintiff's prima facie perjury criminal complaint affidavit sent to Bossom. See 7, 8, and 9 below.

3 MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by appeals judges A Joseph Alarid, Lynn Pickard, and

James J Wechsler is file stamped COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE, FILED SEP 03, 2002.

Alarid writes

Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the calendar notice. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

Dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Plaintiff writes to notify Bossom of unavailability.

Friday 6/7/02 1:20 PM

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Dear judge Bossom:

Purpose of this letter is to file an appeal.

I enclose a check for $125 for the filing fee.

Yesterday when I tried to file a NOTICE OF APPEAL second judicial district court but the clerk would not accept my filing.

I enclose copy 1 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL with the docketing statement. This explains what I am appealing and why.

Judge W John Brennan orded the clerks not to accept my NOTICE OF APPEAL.

I attach a copy of a letter and enclosures dated Friday 6/7/02 9:59 AM to New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid which explains the situation involving judges Brennan and Brown, lawyer Walz and why the NOTICE OF APPEAL was not accepted.

I objected at every step of the illegal motion of dismiss and hearing both in writing and once verbally. This earned me a threat from judge Brown. That threat letter is included in the Friday 6/7/02 9:59 AM Madrid letter.

But it become apparent that Walz and Brown and even Brennan were going to ignore they law. So citizen Arthur Morales and I sued judges Brennan, for a second time, judge Brown and lawyer Walz.

I include a copy of that lawsuit. New Mexico complaint CV 2002 3425.

Brown's judicial misconduct is so gross that he hearing with Walz to dismiss and deprive me of my right of pro se representation even after he recieved the summons for CV 2002 3425.

I hopefully will be 65 years old on June 11, 2002. My wife and I have been planning an Alaksa trip for a long time. Ship reservations have been made and paid for.

We will be on this trip from Sunday June 9, 2002 until about July 18. The week on July 29, 2002 I may have to drive to Ausin to pick up my wife who will be visiting our daughter and grandchildren.

So I need to comply with the 30 limit to file an appeal.

I ask the New Mexico court of appeals to docket my appeal.

My initial lawsuit was for Defamation [libel] and harassment.

All evidence of guilt of defendants is in writing. This is a prima facie case.

Criminal violations of the federal Privacy Act and New Mexico state laws on libel were committed by publishing the false and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A in CV 2002 3425 complaint and on internet at http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/index.htm

I have always sought settlement through arbitration which I paid for in my 12 person jury trial lawsuit. I continue to hope for settlement through arbitration.

Sincerely

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

distribution

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

5 Plaintiff is unavailable when NOTICE OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION is stamped COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE was FILED JUL 12, 2002.

Plaintiff was in Alaska at this time.

Both Appeals Court judge Richard Bossom and lawyer Jerry Walz were informed of plaintiff absence.

Here's the official notice.

NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS
William H. Payne

Appellant

v

W. John Brennan
W. Daniel Schneider

Appellees

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABLITY

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

Respectfully Submitted

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

Date

I certify at a copy of this notice was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on June 7, 2002

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque,NM 87109
505-344-4848

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

But, nonetheless Court of Appeals files NOTICE OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION when plaintiff is unable to study the NOTICE and respond.

6 The ORDER appealed is based on perjured statement so plaintiff files criminal complaint affidavit. Criminal complaint affidavit attached as Exhibit CCA.

Here's the cover letter to the criminal complaint affidavit.

Thursday 8/22/02 2:30 PM

certified - return receipt requested

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Dear judge Bossom:

Thank you for your response to my Friday 6/7/02 1:20 PM asking that my appeal be docketed. Although I did not receive a letter from you the appeal was docketed as Appeals Court number 23,192.

Purpose of this letter is to file a criminal complaint affidavit under 5-201.

Law:

5-201. Methods of prosecution.

A. Commencement of prosecution. A prosecution may be commenced by the filing of:

(1) a complaint;

B. Complaint. A complaint is a sworn written statement of the facts, the common name of the offense and, if applicable, a specific section number of New Mexico Statutes which defines the offense. Complaints shall be substantially in the form approved by the court administrator.

Lawyer Jerry Walz and judge Kenneth Brown committed perjury IN WRITING in a submission to state court and appellate court.

I attach my criminal complaint affidavit dated August 22, 2002 which attests to and provides prima facie evidence of that perjury by Walz and Brown.

You are appointed magistrate to preside over prosecution of Walz and Brown for their perjury.

This matter has been going on for ten years as you can see from Exhibit A, page 4. I hope you can help bring this unfortunate to closure.

Sincerely

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

Distribution

Judge Pamela B. Minzner
Supreme Court of New Mexico
POB 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101
(801) 524-6160
care of
Louise_York@utd.uscourts.gov

Criminal complaint affidavits are sent to Bossom [CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT 7001 2510 008 8779 0364] and Minzer Bossom [CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT 7001 2510 008 8779 0371].

No green receipt cards are received.

Plaintiff must wait 20 days before filing trace with post office.

Post office Mail Loss/Rifling Report is file September 11, 2002. Exhibit PO.

Post officer worker Sue discovers that criminal complaint affidavit CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT bar codes are not scanned in Santa Fe.

7 Any ruling by New Mexico Appellate Court should, of course, await investigation of whether Walz and judge Brown appealed ORDER is based on perjured statements. Appeals Court should not grant default approval of perjured ORDER.

8 But judge Alarid, who surely must be in communication with the boss, judge Bossom does not wait to issue MEMORANDUM OPINION on September 3, 2002.

This creates the appearance that criminal complaint affidavit was purposely not properly processed by Bossom. And that Alarid perhaps purposely issued MEMORANDUM OPINION on September 3, 2002.

9 Plaintiff is informed by postal employee Sue that a formal investigation of why certified postal CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT since this violate United States Postal Service procedures.

10 WHEREFORE the court is moved for rehearing of this appeal and court can review MEMORANDUM OPINION file stamped COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE, FILED SEP 03, 2002. Delay is required so that proper investigation of why criminal complaint affidavits were not apparently received by Bossom and Minzer.

This delay will allow Bossom to properly process these criminal complaint affidavits.

Respectfully Submitted

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

I certify at a copy of this motion was mailed to all other parties titled to notice on September 14, 2002.

ALL PARTIES ENTITLED TO NOTICE

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Jerry A Walz
Walz and Associates
3939 Osuna Road NE, Suite 322
Albuquerque,NM 87109

Judge Dee Vance Benson
Chief Judge; Utah
253 United States Courthouse
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Ut 84101

Judge Richard Bossom
Chief judge
New Mexico Court of Appeals
POB 2008
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Lynn Pickard
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

James J Wechsler
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

A Joseph Alarid
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Clerk Court of Appeals of New Mexico
POB 2008
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-2008

Note: This is a proposal of how the Court views the case. It is not a final decision. You now have twenty (20) days to file a memorandum telling the Court any reasons why this proposed disposition should or should not be made. See Rule 12-210(D) NMRA 2002.

Plaintiff is appealing from a district court order [RP 242] dismissing Plaintiffs. complaint and an accompanying order enjoining Plaintiff frcm filing additional lawsuits without assistance of counsel. [RP 240] These orders were filed on May 16,2002, making the notice of appeal due on Monday, June 17, 2002. See Rule 12-201(A) NMRA 2002; Chavez v. U-Haul Company of New Mexico. Inc., 1997-NMSC-.051, 7, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 122. Although Plaintiff accompanied his June 10, 2002, docketing statement with a notice of appeal filed with this Court [Ct. App. file at red clip], no notice of appeal was ever timely filed with the district court, as mandated by Rule 12-202(A) NMRA 2002. As a result, we propose to dismiss the appeal. See Govich v. North Am. Sys.. Inc., 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991) (compliance with notice of appeal time and place requirements are mandatory preconditions to exercise of appellate jurisdictio ii). We also note that, as our Supreme Court has observed, “[o]nly the most unusual circums Lances beyond the control of the parties - such as error on the part of the court - will wanant overlooking procedural defects” such as an untimely notice of appeal.”’ Trujillo v. Serr mo 117 N.M. 273,278, 871 P.2d 369,374(1994). Such circumstances are not present here.

ARTHUR R. MORALES and
WILLIAM H. PAYNE,

Plaintiffs.

vs. No. CIV 01 -0634 (Downes)