cypherpunks
I was looking-up one of my former phd students, Lou Banderet, on google
and found
http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1998.03.02-1998.03.08/msg00025.html
This former phd student of mine http://www.mhpcc.edu/general/john.html
lives several miles away.
Sobolewski help implement the hardware for Banderet's phd thesis work.
Morales and I are going to attack tomorrow. I attach.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/
http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/
http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/
Did you hear Zinni predict a wdm terrorist attack on TV tonight? Zinni
may be right.
Keep up-wind
THEY ARE PISSED! For between 1/8 to 3/4 million good reasons.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html
There are better things to do. And more fun too.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/load1.html
I'm still smarting over looking up biru gomez on google.
But I think it's true.
Public key was broken in about 1990 without factoring.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/rsa2.htm
nsa, I learned at sandia, started pulling-out public key from all its
weapons products. Ron Kulju told me.
best
b
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
William H Payne
Plaintiff
v
Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories
American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn
John A. Bannerman
R. C. Bonner
Charles Burtner
C. W. Childers
M. B. Courtney
R. B. Craner
D. B. Davis
R. L. Ewing
Lorenzo F. Garcia
W. R. Geer
J. D. Giachino
G. H. Libman
Linda Vigil Lopez
J. D. Martin
J. J. McAuliffe
D. S. Miyoshi
Michael G. Robles
Carol Lisa Smith
A. M. Torneby
Defendants
Complaint for
Relief from DEFAMATION [libel] and HARASSMENT
1 Citizen Richard Gallegos gives documents in Exhibit A to citizen Arthur
Morales.
Morales gives documents to Payne on Saturday March 22, 1997.
Exhibit A 4 show that the documents clearly refer to plaintiff W. H. Payne since
his signature is affixed to that document.
Payne had not seen Exhibit A documents before March 22, 1997.
The documents contain false and defaming information.
Release of documents like those seen in Exhibit A without written consent is a
criminal
violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm
5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states,
CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE - No agency shall disclose any record which is
contain in a systems of records by any means of communications to any person,
or
to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
written consent of, the individual to who the record pertains, ...
5 USC 552a(i)1 applies.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES. - Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue
of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to,
agency
records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of
which
is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established
thereunder, and
who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited,
willfully
discloses of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed the
material in
any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty
of a
misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
Further,
The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency denies access to a
record or refuses to amend a record. An individual may sue an agency if the
agency fails to maintain records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination
and the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the individual. An
individual may also sue an agency if the agency fails to comply with any other
Privacy Act provision in a manner that has an adverse effect on the
individual.
An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the Federal District
Court in
which the individual lives, in which the records are situated, or in the
District of
Columbia. A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date on which the
basis for the lawsuit arose.
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/citizens_guide_93.html
EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES
I. Generally
In recent years the trend has become for employers not to give detailed or
even
meaningful employment references when asked to do so. Most employers today
either give no employment reference information or merely confirm that the
(former) employee worked for the employer during specified dates and at a
certain
rank or position. The rationale for the unwillingness to provide more complete
or
specific information is that employers must minimize their risk of exposure
to
workplace defamation liability.
Generally, an employer is liable to an employee for defamation if the employer
publishes a false statement about the employee that harms the employee's
reputation and that is not privileged.
Each element of a defamation action is examined briefly below.
First, employers cannot make false statements about an employee. Employers can
now be held liable for false statements only if they are responsible for the
falsity.
This means that the employer can be held liable for a false statements only if
they
were negligent in attempting to ensure the truthfulness of the statement. In
other
words, employers are not liable for a false statement if they were not
negligent in
their attempts to ensure that the statement was true before they published
it.
RISK-FREE HIRING: How to Interview, Check References and Use Pre-
employment Testing without Triggering Liability PRESENTED TO: COUNCIL
ON EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
JUNE 25, 1997
PRESENTED BY: DEBRA J. MOULTON, ESQ. KAREN KENNEDY &
ASSOCIATES, P.C. 6400 UPTOWN BLVD., NE, SUITE 630-E
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87110 (505) 884-7887
_____
7-1 Defamation Defined
The test for defamation is not merely a statement that hurts one's reputation.
Defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement of fact. When
defamation
occurs in written form it is called libel. When the defamation is an oral
communication, it is called slander. In order to prove that one has been
defamed,
the New Mexico courts rely on proof of the following facts:
1. that there was a defamatory statement of fact concerning another (i.e. a
statement, as opposed to an opinion, that tends to lower the employee in the
esteem of the community or other respectable individuals);
2. the statement must be published; that is it must be spoken or otherwise
communicated to at least one person, usually a "third party," other than the
complaining party;
3. fault amounting at least to negligence (should have known it was false) on
part
of the publisher, or, if the employer is a public official, the statement must
have
been made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for
the
truth; and
4. that the statement was the proximate cause of actual injury to the
employee.
It is imperative that employers take action to stop all defamatory actions by
their
employees, even in the realm of horseplay, since there exists in New Mexico
both
criminal, and civil liability for such actions.
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT IN NEW MEXICO: A Complete Desktop
Guide to Employment Law, ERIC SIROTKIN Butterworth, 1994.
While it may seem obvious to readers of Exhibit A that both Sandia National
Laboratories
and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission got caught in writing
violating both the criminal and civil portion of the Privacy Act and should settle,
the
federal government decided to fight in federal court relying on cooperation of
federal
judges to protect it.
However, in this case the federal judge violated New Mexico state law in by mounting a
campaign of harassment instead of administering a fair jury trial his zeal to protect
the US
government from liability.
Therefore, legal remedy reverts to state court.
2 Payne brought suit CIV 99-270 against defendants and others on March 12,
1999 in US District Court for the District of New Mexico for violation of the
Privacy
Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals and pendant Defamation.
Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 1.
3 Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia presides.
4 May 12, 1999 Payne moves in CIV 99-270 for summons service by US marshal
for defendants Larry Trujillo, R A Polansacz, and C A Searles. Exhibit B page 8
docket
entry 12.
5 Garcia denies service in CIV 99-270 May 24, 1999 claiming that Payne can only
use US marshal service in a in forma pauperis case. Exhibit C, Exhibit B page 8
docket
entry 18.
Payne never claimed he filed in forma pauperis and can, in fact, use US marshal
service if
he pays about $25 per summons.
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.
6 On 8/4/99 in CIV 99-270 defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,
Smith and Bannerman file
MOTION by defts R A Poloncasz, C A Searls, and E Dunckel |to dismiss this
action against them without prejudice| (rd) Re:MEMORANDUM, OPINION,
AND ORDER dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and ... [87]
Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 58.
7 On 11/12/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia grants
MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F.
Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss this action against them without
prejudice
[59-1] dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and R A Poloncasz without
prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (11k)
Re: MOTION to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59]
Exhibit B page 3 docket entry 87.
Garcia gives as reason that Dunckel, Searls and Poloncasz have not been properly
served.
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.
8 Payne in CIV 99-270 files Docket entry 34 Exhibit D. Exhibit B page 7 docket
entry 34.
6/8/99 34 AFFIDAVIT of William H. Payne to remove Magistrate Judge
Lorenzo F. Garcia from this action (rd)
[Entry date 06/09/99]
9 Garcia falsely identifies Payne's AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia as a "motion" and
denies it. Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 35.
6/9/99 35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying motion
to disqualify (affidavit to remove Judge Garcia) [34-11
(cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) [Entry date 06/10/991
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne.
10 Payne gives Garcia opportunity to correct AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia.
6/16/99 37 MOTION by Payne to alter or amend order denying
motion to disqualify (sl)
Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 37.
Garcia's refuses to obey law.
6/16/99 38 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying
pltf's motion to alter or amend order denying motion
to
disqualify [37-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically)
(rd)
Citizen Garcia continues to harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law,
11 May 25, 1999 Payne left for an extended business trip. Payne informed the
court.
Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 20.
12 On 06/02/99 in CIV 99-270 Defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn,
Smith and Bannerman file
MOTION by Sandia defts |for sanctions due to violations of Rule 11(b)(2)| (rd)
Re: RESPONSE [76] MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER [52]
MEMORANDUM [24]
Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 23.
13 June 18, 1999 Payne files for Motion for time extension of 90 days to answer
Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 39.
14 On 08/05/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia files
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia assessing costs in favor of
Sandia
defts and against pltf in the amount of $912.50 to be paid within twenty (20)
days
[55-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) (8k) Re: NOTICE [55]
Garcia was removed from CIV 99-270 on 6/8/99 and, therefore, has no authority to order
sanctions against Payne.
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.
15 On August 12, 1999 Payne files for writ of prohibition by certified mail with
judge
Antonin Scalia.
Payne wrote
I sued under the Privacy Act as a result of false and defaming documents about
my self distributed by Sandia Labs and EEOC.
These are seen at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/congress/8327/robles.htm
Exhibit B shows that magistrate judge Garcia dismisses my air-tight Privacy
Act
Defamation lawsuit.
Exhibit C shows that judge Garcia has the gall to attempt to assess me with
fees.
2 I ask that you issue a writ of prohibition to judge Garcia to stay his
August 5 ORDER ASSESSING COST IN FAVOR OF SANDIA DEFENDANTS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF WILLIAM H. PAYNE because written evident seen at
http: //www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/robles.htm
controverts Garcia' s claims.
Scalia does not respond.
Garcia, of course, was removed from case on June 8, 1999 and had no authority to
rule.
Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.
13 Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file lien again Payne's and
wife property on January 19, 2000. Exhibit D.
Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman, knowing that Garcia was removed
by affidavit harass Payne by filing illegal lien.
Rule 11(b)(2) states
Rule 11. Signing of Pleading, Motions, and other Papers; Representations to
Court; Sanctions
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or
unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances,--
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
Evidence in documents in Exhibit A clearly violate the both the criminal and civil
provision
of the Privacy Act. These documents are obviously defaming too.
CIV 99-270 is not frivolous.
Citizens Garcia, Smith and Bannerman law firm Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn
harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law.
14 Payne files DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL in CIV 99-270 on March 24, 1999.
Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 3.
On 03/17/99 paid the filing fee for this jury trial guaranteed him by the
Constitution and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Garcia, however, judged case without a jury trial.
Citizen Garcia denied Payne's right for jury trial and thereby harasses Payne in
violation of
New Mexico state law.
15 New Mexico state law, ARTICLE 3A, defines
Harassment and Stalking
30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.
A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is
intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which
serves
no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable
person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.
17 15 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of Garcia's, Smith's
and
Bannerman's harassment acts by certified letter on February 26, 2000.
Administrative settlement of these and other misconduct was proposed.
Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000.
Deaton does not respond.
WHEREFORE
18 Order Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Bannerman and Smith to pay Payne $912.50
to satisfy lien.
19 Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Garcia for disallowing
service
by US marshal, failure to remove himself from CIV 99-270 after affidavit was file,
ordering Payne to pay $912.50 after Garcia was removed from case, and denying trial by
jury which Payne paid for and was guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Garcia is engaged in pattern and practice of harassment to deny rights due Payne
under
the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn for
allowing lawyers Smith and Bannerman to harass him.
Smith and Bannerman have engaged in pattern and practice of harassing Payne.
20 Punitive damages of $1,000,000 each from Sandia Corporation - Sandia National
Laboratories, American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Lockheed Martin
Corporation for the preparation and distribution of libelous and defaming false
documents
distributed without Payne's knowledge seen in Exhibit A.
21 Punitive damages of $50,000 each from citizens R. C. Bonner, Charles Burtner,
C. W. Childers, M. B. Courtney, R. B. Craner, D. B. Davis, R. L. Ewing, W. R. Geer, J.
D. Giachino, G. H. Libman, Linda Vigil Lopez , J. D. Martin, J. J. McAuliffe, D. S.
Miyoshi, Michael G. Robles, and A. M. Torneby for authoring and distributing the
false,
libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A.
22 No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law.
Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for
prosecution of citizens Lorenzo Garcia, John Bannerman, and Carol Smith, for violation
of the New Mexico state laws on harassment.
23 Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified -
return receipt requested mail.
_________________________________
_________________________________
Date
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 292 7037
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Robert J Gorence
John J Kelly
Manuel Lucero
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Don F Svet
Defendants
Complaint for
Writ of REPLEVIN and Relief from HARASSMENT
1 Citizens Morales and Payne file pro se Freedom of Information Act lawsuit
97cv0266 against the National Security Agency in New Mexico District federal court
on
February 27, 1997.
Magistrate judge Don J. Svet was assigned case.
US attorney John J Kelly assigns assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell to
defend
National Security Agency.
2 FBI agents Moore and Kohl hand-deliver May 29, 1997 at 08:29 harassment
letter
authored by First Assistant US Attorney Robert J Gorence on May 19, 1997. Exhibit
A.
3 01/28/98 Svet issues
ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet granting defendant's motion to strike any and
all of plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions to various employees
of the
National Security Agency & to various employees of Sandia National Laboratory
(see order for further specifics re sanctions & communication) [28-1] (cc:
all
counsel, electronically) (dmw) (7k)
4 02/09/98 Mitchell submits
AFFIDAVIT of attorney fees by Jan Elizabeth Mitchell in accordance with court
order [37-1] (dmw)
BILL OF COSTS is submitted to US District Court on Jun 12, 1998. Exhibit B.
On June 30, 1998 Mitchell places liens on both Payne's and Morales personal
properties.
Exhibit L.
5 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on
March 18, 1998 to halt attempted sanctions.
Scalia does not reply.
6 On April 30, 1998 court order (docket #42) removes Morales as plaintiff in
this case.
7 US Attorney John J Kelly orders initiates garnishment against Morales on
February
2, 1999. Exhibit C1.
8 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file
CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR with US District
Court on February 2, 1999. Exhibit C2.
Clerk notifies Morales of right to hearing in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT
GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Exhibit D.
9 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly and US District Court Clerk Robert
March of his request for hearing on February 12, 1999 delivered by Payne. Exhibit E.
10 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT is received at Sandia National Laboratories on
February 17, 1999. Exhibit G and H.
11 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly, US Assistant Attorney Manuel
Lucero,
US District Court Clerk Robert March, and Sandia employee Mary Resnick on February
22, 1999 DEMAND that garnishment proceeding be held in abeyance pending requested
hearing. Exhibit F.
12 $625 is garnished from Morales wages without due process in Sandia pay period
02/12/1999 to 03/25/1999 and 02/26/199 through 03/11/1999. Exhibit I.
13 Payne pays Morales $312.50 for his share of expenses in NSA lawsuit.
14 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file ORDER
OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don F Svet on April 20,
1999. Exhibit J.
There is no cause of action before the court for such order of garnishment.
15 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on
April 27, 1999 to halt attempted unwarranted garnishment.
Scalia, again, does not respond.
But no money has yet been garnished from Morales' wages by Sandia.
16 On July 21, 1999 Rio Grande Title refunds Morales' $625 [Exhibit M] which
was
taken from escrow account from property lien being held since November 25, 199.
Exhibit L.
17 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of the these and other
illegal
acts on February 26, 2000.
Morales and Payne offer administrative settlement of these and other misconduct.
Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000.
Deaton does not respond.
18 Citizens John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell,
and Don F Svet have broken New Mexico state laws by garnishing $625 from Morales'
wages without due process. Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L.
ARTICLE 11
Magistrate Court; Replevin
Sec.
35-11-1. Replevin; grounds.
35-11-2. Replevin; special provisions.
35-11-3. Judgment.
35-11-1. Replevin; grounds.
Whenever any personal property is wrongfully taken or detained, the person
having a right to immediate possession may bring a civil action of replevin
for
recovery of the property and for damages sustained from the wrongful taking or
detention. However, in replevin actions, magistrate courts shall not issue
any writs
of replevin or any other orders providing for a seizure of property before
judgment.
19 Citizens Robert J Gorence harassed William Payne by Sending FBI agents to
Payne's home to deliver threatening letter in Exhibit A.
Don F Svet, John J Kelly, and Manuel Lucero harassed Arthur Morales by attempting to
garnish $1,793.56 from Morales wages when there was no legal cause of action for such
writ. Exhibit J.
ARTICLE 3A
Harassment and Stalking
30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.
A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is
intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which
serves
no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable
person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.
WHEREFORE
20 Morales and Payne ask for their $625 taken from them without due process.
21 Morales and Payne ask for the $1,793.56 since this can be taken from Morales
wages or file an property lien at any time.
22 Payne asks for punitive damages $300,000 from Gorence for harassment for
illegally sending FBI agents to family residence to deliver harassment letter.
23 Illegal garnishment of Morales' salary jeopardized Morales' security clearance
and
employment at Sandia National Laboratories.
Morales and Payne ask for punitive damages from citizens John J Kelly $300,000, Don
F
Svet $300,000, Manuel Lucero $100,000, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell $100,000 , and so that
citizens and federal employees are sent a message to obey the laws they are tasked
to
upheld rather than abuse.
24 No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law.
Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for
prosecution of citizens Robert J Gorence, John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth
Mitchell, and Don F Svet for violation of New Mexico state laws.
25 Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified -
return receipt requested mail.
_________________________________
__________________________________
Date
Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 3451381
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 292 7037
2
