Subject:
Judge Martha Vazquez summons, jury
DEMAND, and final complaint
Date:
Wed, 02 May 2001 13:03:07 -0600
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/judges/vazquez.html
Be careful in the future what you sign!
______
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALLLLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
Complaint for
Complaint for Relief from HARASSMENT
SUMMONS
TO:
Martha Vazquez
100 S. Federal Place
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Defendant(s). Greeting:
You are hereby directed to serve a pleading or motion in response to
the Complaint
within 30 days after service of the Summons and file the same, all as
provided by law.
You are notified that, unless you so serve and file a responsive
pleading or motion, the Plaintiff(s) will
apply to the court for the relief demanded to the Complaint.
Pro Se Plaintiffs:
Arthur R Morales William H Payne
1024 Los Arboles NW 13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87107 Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 3451381 505 292 7037
WITNESS the Honorable _____________________________ District Judge of
said Court of the
State of New Mexico and the Seal of the District Court of said County,
this______________ day of
20______
BENNINA ARMIJO-SISNEROS
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT
By:________________________________
NOTE: This summons does not require you to see, telephone or write to
the District Judge of the
court at this time.
It does require you or your attorney to file your legal defense to the
case in writing with the Clerk of the Distinct Court within 30 days
after the summons is legally served on you. If you do not do this, the
party suing may get a judgment by default against you.
Revised 1/1/83 CY 4.45-
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF_________________)
RETURN FOR COMPLETION BY SHERIFF OR DEPUTY:
I certify that I served the within Summons in said County on the
____________ day of
_______________ ,20_____, by delivering a copy thereof, with copy of
Complaint attached.
in the following manner:
RETURN FOR COMPLETION BY OTHER PERSON MAKING SERVICE:
I, being duly sworn, on oath. say that I ant over the age of 18 years
and not a parry to this
lawsuit. and that I served the within Summons in said County on the
___________ day of
_____ by delivering a copy thereof with copy of Complaint attached, in
the following manner:
(check one box and fill in appropriate blanks)
_____ To Defendant _________________________________________(used when
Defendant receives copy of Summons is read Summons or Complaint or
refuses to receive Summons or hear reading.)
____ To _________________________________________ a person over the age
of 15 years and
residing at the usual place of abode of Defendant ____________________
who at the time of such service was absent therefrom.
_____ By posting a copy of the Summons and Complaint in the most public
part of the premises
of Defendant ______________________________________________, (used if no
person found at dwelling house or usual place of abode.
_____ To ___________________________________________________, agent
authorized to
an receive service of process for Defendant
_________________________________________
_____ To _________________________________________________, (parent)
(guardian) of
Defendant ____________________________________ (used when Defendant is a
minor or
an incapacitated person.)
____ To _____________________________ ___________________________
name of person title of person
authorized to receive service
(used when Defendant is a corporation or association subject to suit
under a common
name, a land grant board of trustees. the State of New Mexico or any
political
subdivision.)
Fees:
Signature of Private Citizen Making Service
SHERIFF OF _____________________ Subscribed and sworn before me this
_________
COUNTY State of New Mexico day of________________________ ,20_______
_________________________________
Sheriff Notary or Other Officer
Authorized to Administer Oaths
By: ____________________________________________________
DEPUTY
_________
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
Defendants
DEMAND for twelve-person jury trial
Plaintiffs Morales and Payne exercise their right under ARTICLE 6
1-038 B to
DEMAND twelve-person jury trial in Complaint for Relief from HARASSMENT
lawsuit.
I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants.
_________________________________
__________________________________
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
____________
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CASE NUMBER
Arthur R Morales
William H Payne
Plaintiffs
v
Theodore C. Baca
Norman C. Bay
Phyllis A. Dow
Raymond Hamilton
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA
Martha Vazquez
Defendants
Complaint for Relief from HARASSMENT
Note of clarification: The two separate New Mexico state lawsuit
[Numbers 0200010289 and
0200010278 herein] have been referenced and consolidated in the lawsuit
to emphasize the alleged illegal
pattern and practices of named defendants.
1 Plaintiffs Morales and Payne file New Mexico state lawsuit
0200010289 for Writ of REPLEVIN
and Relief from HARASSMENT on October 20, 2000.
Plaintiff Payne files a separate New Mexico state lawsuit 0200010278 for
relief from Relief from
DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT on October 20, 2000.
2 Defendant Raymond Hamilton submits NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF
REMOVE OF A
CIVIL ACTION in Morales and Payne case 0200010289 on November 8, 2000.
Exhibit H.
3 Defendant Raymond Hamilton submit NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION on November
16, 2000 to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Exhibit B.
4 Defendant Norman Bay falsely submits CERTIFICATION in UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO on November 16, 2000 that
defendants were acting
within the scope of their employment. Exhibit C.
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
for which there was no cause of
action before the court. Exhibit J.
Attempting to take money from a citizen with no legal cause is clearly
not supposed to be within the scope
of any federal employee.
In addition, Morales was dismissed as plaintiff from 97-0266 before APR
20, 1999, the date of filing of
Exhibit J.
Defendant Bay's CERTIFICATION, seen in Exhibit B, is both false and
improperly submitted because it
violates
28 USC 1746 CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE;
Sec. 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,
regulation, order, or
requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted
to be
supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration,
verification,
certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person
making the same
(other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to
be taken before
a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with
like force and
effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn
declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person
which is subscribed by
him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the
following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify,
verify, or state)
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions,
or
commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty
of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.
5 Defendant Martha Vazquez signs ORDER FILED at Santa Fe, NM JAN 2 -
2001 prepared by
defendant Hamilton and submitted to magistrate judge Richard Puglisi.
Exhibit D.
Puglisi was previously removed from case and replaced chief magistrate
William Deaton.
A copy of Exhibit D was never received by plaintiff Payne in the mail.
Morales received a copy of Exhibit D in the mail on January 19, 2001.
This exceeded 14 days which is
the legal time by which plaintiffs are able to respond to order seen in
Exhibit D.
These mail anomalies were brought to attention of United States Postal
Service employee on February 2,
2001.
Two formal United States Postal Service form 1510 complaints were filed
on April 14, 2001.
Vazquez commits perjury by her signature on Exhibit D.
Vazquez harasses plaintiffs Morales and Payne by continued process of
improper action in UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
Replevin and harassment are not federal questions. Defendants cannot be
allowed to break the laws of the
State of New Mexico as part of their federal employment.
6 Defendant Phyllis Dow files NOTICE OF REMOVAL of New Mexico state case
0200010278 on
November 27, 2000 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW MEXICO.
Exhibit E.
7 Phyllis Dow files NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION on December 4, 2000 in
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Exhibit F.
8 Defendant Norman Bay again files false and improper CERTIFICATION
under 28 USC 1746
in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Exhibit
G.
The false, defaming and libelous documents seen in Exhibit A distributed
without plaintiff Payne's
knowledge clearly violate New Mexico state laws of libel and the
criminal provisions of the Privacy Act.
But instead of prosecution of those who have been caught violating both
state and federal laws IN
WRITING, defendants in this case mount an attempted cover-up involving
both federal and state cases.
9 Defendant Martha Vazquez signs ORDER on January 11, 2001 authored by
defendant Dow and
submitted to magistrate judge Don J Svet who is defendant in Morales and
Payne New Mexico state case
0200010289! However, Svet was removed as magistrate and replace by
chief magistrate judge William
Deaton.
Vazquez commits perjury to harass plaintiff Payne with improper action
in UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Defamation and harassment are not
federal questions
10 Defendant Ted Baca denies plaintiff Payne's motions by order data
December 20, 2000 [Exhibit
J] and January 25, 2001 [Exhibit K] without plaintiff's right to hearing
which plaintiff paid.
For these reasons plaintiff Payne files RECUSAL OF JUDGE TED C. BACA BY
AFFIDAVIT on
February 8, 2001. Exhibit L.
Plaintiff Payne file Motion and Memorandum Support for Injunction on
March 7, 2001.
March 13, 2001 Baca responds that "[t]his court will not entertain
motion while the above references
case is in U.S. Federal Court." AFTER BACA WAS REMOVED BY AFFIDAVIT!
Exhibit M.
Docket sheet shows FILING RECUSAL OF JUDGE TED C BACA BY AFFIDAVIT <NOT
PROCESSED, NOT TIMELY>. Exhibit N.
Plaintiff Payne never receives any notification on his affidavit for
removal.
11 Plaintiff Payne gives Baca opportunity to correct error of not
honoring recusal by affidavit. Exhibit O.
Baca does not respond.
12 State docket sheets for the Morales and Payne case show that it is a
pending jury trial case.
Exhibit P.
State docket sheet for the Payne case show that it is FINAL CLOSED.
Exhibit Q.
This violates both New Mexico state constitution and federal
constitution on right to jury trial which
plaintiff Payne paid for.
Baca harasses Payne by continuing on case when Baca was properly removed
by affidavit for denying
Payne due process.
25 The docket sheets in Morales et al v. USA et. al 00cv001574 [Exhibit
R] and the dockets sheet
in Payne v. Sandia Corporation et al. 00 cv 01677 [Exhibit S] are prima
facie evidence of using UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO as a tool of
harassment,
defamation, and cover-up.
Morales and Payne ask the jury to award $300,000 PER INCIDENT against
each personal defendant for
harassment and defamation for removing New Mexico state lawsuits
0200010289 and 0200010278 to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
Harassment, replevin, and defamation are not federal questions.
Defendants attempt to cover-up for other
federal defendants in 0200010289 and 0200010278 who got caught in
writing violating New Mexico
state and federal laws.
Award $1,200,000 from the law firm of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin &
Robb which forced
plaintiff Payne to respond to its firm's federal court filings, when by
admission of Rodey law firm lawyer
Larry Montaņo, who knew and admitted 0200010278 was not a federal
matter.
26 GRANT further harassment financial compensation for damages which
includes stress, pain and
suffering, loss of quality of life caused by defendants illegal action
in UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
27 ORDER defendants to cease and desist harassment.
28 GRANT other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Repectively Submitted
Arthur R Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
505 3451381
Date
William H Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 98111
505 292 7037
Date
