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