19 July 1998
Source: William H. Payne
See related documents: http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm
[July 15, 1998]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
William H. Payne )
Arthur R. Morales )
)
Appellant Plaintiffs, )
)
v ) 98-1257
)
Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF )
Director, National Security Agency )
National Security Agency )
)
Appellee Defendant )
RESPONSE TO TWO ORDERS FILED BY TENTH CIRCUIT CLERK PATRICK FISHER FILED JUNE
30, 1998 AND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
1 COMES NOW appellant plaintiffs [Appellants] Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales]
[Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Tenth Circuit Rules, Effective January 1, 1996.
2 Tenth circuit court clerk PATRICK FISHER [FISHER] writes TWO orders
which are signed by Kathleen T. Clifford, Deputy Clerk-Appeals Expediter.
FISHER’S TWO orders are seen on docket
6/30/98 [1143060] Order filed by PF (ktc) considering this case
for summary disposition under 10 Cir. R. 27. Appellee’s
memorandum brief due 7/30/98 for National Security, -
Appellant’s brief on the merits due 7/30/98 for William H.
Payne. SEE ORDER IN FILE! Parties served by mail. (fg)
[98-2156].
at http://jya.com/whp070198.txt linked from seen at http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm .
3 One SHOW CAUSE order [Exhibit A] reads
June 30, 1998
TO: Pro Se Litigant and Defendants
RE: 982156, Payne v. Kenneth A. Minihan, etc., et al.
The court is considering dismissal of this appeal based on lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Within 30 DAYS after the date on this show cause, Appellant William Payne MUST DISCUSS
in his opening brief on the merits the following JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE:
Please Note: According to the notice of appeal filed in the
district court on June 9, 1998, Plaintiff Payne appeals
from the denial of his “motion to Amend.”
1
WHETHER the district court’s May 21, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order deny
Plaintiff’s motion to amend is final or immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C § 1291
or under any recognized exception to the final judgment rule?
Within 30 DAY after the date on this show cause, Appellees must serve and file a memorandum
brief, and original and 7 copies, discussing only the JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. The
memorandum brief must contain CITATION TO RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITIES.
Appellees do not need to file an answer brief on the merits until requested by this court.
Sincerely,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
signed
Kathleen T. Clifford
Deputy Clerk-Appeals Expediter
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
3 Second SHOW CAUSE order [Exhibit B] reads
June 30, 1998
TO: Pro Se Litigant and Defendants
RE: 982156, Payne v. Kenneth A. Minihan, etc., et al.
Briefing on the merits is TOLLED pending further order of this court.
That part of the district court’s April 30, 1998 Memorandum Opinion
and Order, page 12-14, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Arthur
Morales based on lack of standing is not final or immediately appealable under
under 28 U.S.C § 1291 or under any recognized exception to the final judgment
rule. Many claims remain unadjudicated in the district court.
Within 30 DAYS after the above date, the parties must serve and file in this court
a copy of a district court order EITHER granting certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) as to that part of the district court order dismissing Plaintiff Morales OR
explicitly adjudicating ALL remaining claims. SEE Lewis v. B. F. Goodrich Co.,
850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988).
If the parties do not file a district court order containing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
certification or a final dispositive adjudication within 30 DAYS, this appeal will be
dismissed. See Lewis, 850 F.2d. at 645-46.
Sincerely,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
signed
Kathleen T. Clifford
Deputy Clerk-Appeals Expediter
Attachment (Mailing List)
2
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
4 Tenth circuit clerk FISHER’S SHOW CAUSE ORDERs in 2 and 3
A contain inaccuracies in fact
B may mandate directives not required under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
C contradict New Mexico judge Santiago Campos’ written directives.
D require further legal research.
5 Fisher writes
RE: 982156, Payne v. Kenneth A. Minihan, etc., et al.
Briefing on the merits is TOLLED pending further order of this court.
That part of the district court’s April 30, 1998 Memorandum Opinion
and Order
Payne and Morales ARE APPELLANTS not just Payne. See
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
William H. Payne )
Arthur R. Morales )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v ) CIV NO 97 0266
) SC/DJS
)
Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF )
Director, National Security Agency )
National Security Agency )
)
Defendant )
NOTICE OF APPEAL Santiago E. Campos MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED
98 APR 30 AM 11:45
http://jya.com/whp061098.htm.
FISHER errs in identification of Appellants.
6 FISHER attempts to create the appearance that Appellants made some type of an legal error
in appealing Campos MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED 98 APR 30 AM 11:45
http://jya.com/whp061098.htm and MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED
3
May 21, 1988 [1998] 11:35 http://jya.com/whp060998.htm
However, this is NOT THE CASE .
FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm
is quite clear about timely urgency to file ANY APPEAL.
FRAP 26. COMPUTATION AND EXTENSION OF TIME clearly states
b) Enlargement of Time. The court for good cause shown may upon motion enlarge the time prescribed by
these rules or by its order for doing any act, or may permit an act to be done after the expiration of such time;
but the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal, ...
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26b
Appellants were, therefore, required by FRAP 26 to file notices of appeal viewed at
http://jya.com/whp061098.htm and http://jya.com/whp060998.htm or otherwise forfeit the
legal right to appeal.
7 FISHER writes
That part of the district court’s April 30, 1998 Memorandum Opinion
and Order, page 12-14, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Arthur
Morales based on lack of standing is not final or immediately appealable under
under 28 U.S.C § 1291 or under any recognized exception to the final judgment
rule.
is clearly at odds with Campos’ June 30, 1998 statement
However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for presentment
of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case.
http://jya.com/sec062998.htm.
Campos apparently awaits the outcome of Appellants appeals!
Further FISHER misapplies
§ 1291. Final decisions of district courts
The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have
jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States
District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the
Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in
sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.
1291 applies to APPEALS FROM ALL FINAL DECISIONS.
Campos decided to issue TWO INTERMEDIATE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERs
4
http://jya.com/whp052198.htm and http://jya.com/whp043098.htm rather than wait to issue ONE final
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. As a results Appellants were compelled by FRAP 26(b)
to appeal or lose the right to appeal.
8 FISHER writes
Within 30 DAYS after the above date, the parties must serve and file in this court
a copy of a district court order EITHER granting certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) as to that part of the district court order dismissing Plaintiff Morales OR
explicitly adjudicating ALL remaining claims. SEE Lewis v. B. F. Goodrich Co.,
850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm
Rule 54(b) states
(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-
claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination
that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence
of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not
terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to
revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/frcp/query=[jump!3A!27rule54!27]/doc/{@588}?
Appellants searched for the string “certification” with the result
Search String Not Found!
Failure for Appellants to find reference to “certification” in 54(b) creates the possibility that
FISHER may be inventing rules.
Judge Santiago Campos issued two intermediate rulings instead of waiting to issue one final
ruling.
Appellants were required to timely appeal by FRAP 26(b) Campos’ two intermediate rulings.
Rule 54(b) appears not to have any bearing on Appellants two appeals.
United States Code Annotated [USCA] states about Rule 54(b) 1961 Amendment
This rule permitting appeal, upon the trail court’s determination of “no just reason for delay,”
from a judgment upon one or more but less than all the claims in an action, has generally been
given sympathetic construction by the court and its validity is settled.
5
Judges Campos effectively gives such authorization in his statement,
However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for presentment
of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case.
http://jya.com/sec062998.htm.
USCA also states
Rule 54(b) was originally adopted in view of the wide scope and possible content of the newly created “civil
action” in order to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in judgment of a distinctly separate claim to await
adjudication of the entire case. ...
[U]nfortunately, this was not always understood, and some confusion ensued. ...
Evaluation of applicability of Rule 54(b) in FISHER’s two SHOW CAUSE ORDERs requires additional
legal research.
9 Judge Santiago Campos’ 56 page MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
http://jya.com/whp043098.htm contains more than 144 legal citations. http://jya.com/whp050898.htm
Friday October 24, 1997 08:10 Appellants write Antonin Scalia
US Assistant Attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell filed, copy
attached, DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF ARTHUR R. MORALES
filed 97 SEP 23.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF ARTHUR R. MORALES
filed 97 OCT 6, copy attached, proves that lawyer Mitchell did, in fact, make false statements before the
court in her motion.
Some lawyers cite legal references which only CREATE APPEARANCE of supporting conclusions
which, in fact, legal reference do not have anything to do with argument.
Time is needed to study each of Campos’ 144 legal citations.
10 Appellants have initiated FIRST congressional complaint into judicial misconduct at
the Tenth circuit using Internet.
Subject:
Judicial Misconduct at Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Date:
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:29:01 -0600
From:
bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
To:
6
art morales <armoral@sandia.gov>, senator_hatch@Hatch.senate.gov, senator@thurmond.senate.gov,
chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov, senator_specter@specter.senate.gov,
senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov,
info@kyl.senate.gov, senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov, john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov,
michigan@abraham.senate.gov,
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov,
senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov,
senator@feinstein.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov,
senator@torricelli.senate.gov
CC:
steve dillingham <” Steven.Dillingham”@hq.doe.gov>, Robert Nordhaus <”
Robert.Nordhaus”@hq.doe.gov>, mrgall@ix.netcom.com,
jy@jya.com, art morales <armoral@sandia.gov>, federico pena <” Federico.F.Pena”@hq.doe.gov>,
RJPARK@sandia.gov, cypherpunks@toad.com, ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Monday 6/22/98 1:02 PM
Senate Judiciary Committee
http://www.senate.gov/committee/judiciary.html
Republicans
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman senator_hatch@Hatch.senate.gov
Strom Thurmond, South Carolina senator@thurmond.senate.gov
Charles E. Grassley, Iowa chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania senator_specter@specter.senate.gov
Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov
Jon Kyl, Arizona info@kyl.senate.gov
Mike DeWine, Ohio senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov
John Ashcroft, Missouri john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov
Spencer Abraham, Michigan michigan@abraham.senate.gov
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Democrats
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts senator@kennedy.senate.gov
Joseph R.Biden, Jr., Delaware senator@biden.senate.gov
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
Dianne Feinstein, California senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Richard Durbin, Illinois dick@durbin.senate.gov
Robert Torricelli, New Jersey senator@torricelli.senate.gov
Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial
misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and
Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis and help get this matter settled.
Thursday March 30, 1995 I wrote Tenth Circuit clerk Hoecker to request a
copy of the docket sheets for case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation,
et al
Hoecker did not answer my letter.
On Tuesday March 5,1996 I wrote Judge Lucius D. Bunton to ask his help
7
to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response.
On Monday September 23, 1996 Arthur R Morales and I wrote Henry A.
Politz, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit to ask his
help to get a copy of the docket sheets of my case and Morales’ Tenth
Circuit case 95-2204.
Tenth Circuit also refused to send Morales copies of docket sheets for
his case.
Politz is Bunton’s boss. No response.
Friday May 30, 1997 I wrote Antonin Scalia to get this help to get a
copy of the docket sheets. No response.
5 May 1998 citizen John Young finds docket sheets on
Source: PACER, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1-800-279-9107
and posts them on Internet at http://jya.com/whp-10usca.htm
Docket as of April 10, 1998 0:05 am
Proceedings include all events.
94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al
shows that I filed my Brief of the Appellant on 2/19/95.
2/23/95 [835344] Appellant’s brief filed by William H. Payne.
Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 2/19/95 Oral
argument? pro se. Appellee/Respondent’s brief due 3/24/95
for Thomas P. Wright, for Robert Surran, for Paul A.
Stokes, for Mary J. Stang, for Tommy A. Sellers, for Craig
A. Searls, for Albert Narath, for Preston B. Herrington,
for Peter S. Hamilton, for Roger L. Hagengruber, for James
R. Gosler, for Harold L. Folley, for Robert L. Ewing, for
C. William Childers, for Harvey J. Brewster, for Sandia
Corporation (mbm)
mbm writes “Appellee/Respondent’s brief due 3/24/95”
Sandia had NOT sent me a copy of its brief by 3/28/96.
I filed attached MOTION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S DEMANDS ON BASIS
THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEES FAILED TO FILE BRIEF WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED
BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 31 on Tuesday the 28th day of
March, 1995
My February 28 MOTION at the Tenth Circuit is filed WITHOUT notice of
service logged.
4/4/95 [845484] Appellant’s motion filed by Appellant William H.
Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant’s demands on basis that
appellees’ failed to file timely brief. Original and 3
copies c/s: y (mbm)
In 1995 FRAP 25 (a) stated “[b]riefs shall be deemed filed on the day
8
of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery,
is used.”
FRAP 25 has been changed by 1998 to http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a
Since I mailed Appellant’s motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne
[94-2205] to grant appellant’s demands on basis that appellees’ failed
to file timely brief on 3/28/98, it is likely Sandia’s lawyer Friedman
received it 3/29/95.
Tenth Circuit logs
3/30/95 [844759] Appellee’s brief filed by Sandia Corporation,
Harvey J. Brewster, C. William Childers, Robert L. Ewing,
Harold L. Folley, James R. Gosler, Roger L. Hagengruber,
Peter S. Hamilton, Preston B. Herrington, Albert Narath,
Craig A. Searls, Tommy A. Sellers, Mary J. Stang, Paul A.
Stokes, Robert Surran, Thomas P. Wright. Original and 7
copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/27/95 Oral Argument? y
(appellant is pro se) Appellant’s optional reply brief due
4/13/95 for William H. Payne (mbm)
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [FRAP] 26 (c) states
(c) Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or
permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a
paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed
period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in
the proof of service.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c
While the Tenth Circuit ASSERTS Appellees’ brief was, in fact, served on
3/27/95 evidence given below points to the brief was served, in fact, on
3/29/95.
I allege that Friedman affixed a false date of service to Sandia’s
brief.
I WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED. I wrote
Wednesday March 29, 1995
Dan Friedman
Simons, Cuddy & Friedman
Pecos Trail Office Compound
1701 Old Pecos Trail
POB 4160
Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160
505-988-4476
505-984-1807 FAX
Dear Lawyer Friedman:
Today at 14:00 hours I found a green and white about 9x13
9
inch envelope in our mail box at my home.
Mailing label indicated that the envelope came from your
firm. CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on the mailing label.
I wrote “Received at 14:00 hours on W 3/29/95 with no
POSTMARK OR STAMP by W. H. Payne” at the bottom of the
envelope.
There was no STAMP OR POSTAGE METER LABEL or
POSTMARK on the envelope.
Therefore, I gave the envelope to US Postal Service
supervisor Mel at 14:49 hours today at the Postal Receiving
station at 9904 Montgomery, NW in Albuquerque. Mel has a
copy of the cover of the envelope with Mel’s note written on
it.
Mel told me the post office was going to return the envelope
to your firm for proper mailing.
I ask:
1 What did this envelope contain? Please identify
the documents precisely.
2 If any Certificates of Service were included in the
envelope, then what were the dates affixed to these
documents?
3 Who placed this envelope in our mail box?
Lawyer Friedman: It appears you missed an important filing
date. And are in the process of attempt to correct your
failure. But may be using illegitimate methods to conceal
your failure.
Please respond as soon as possible so that we all may
discover what has happened here.” ...
Lawyer Friedman did not respond to the above letter.
But Friedman did mail me Appellees’ brief many days later in envelope
showing TRUE MAILING date. Certificate of service on received
Appellees’ brief did not reflect postmark date.
10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads
Papers not accepted for filing.—The clerk shall not file papers
that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See
10thCir. R. 42.1
But Tenth Circuit clerks Fisher and Hoecker despite my protests and
submission of evidence may have stamped FILED on Sandia’s IMPROPERLY SERVED
10
Appellee/Respondent’s brief according to the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
Laywer Friedman FALSIFIED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Friedman DID NOT MAIL ME “Served on 3/27/95.”
d) Proof of Service; Filing. A paper presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by
the person served or proof of servicein the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the
name of the person served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were
delivered, certified by the person who made service. Proof of service may appear on or be affixed to the
papers filed. When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing or dispatch in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B),
the proof of service shall also state the date and manner by which the document was mailed or dispatched to
the clerk.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a
Crime apparently committed by Hoecker and Fisher is
§ 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully
sealed
Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any
department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate,
instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its
fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys,
procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate,
instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said
seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1017.shtml
Despite my protests of judicial misconduct Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis
award decision to Sandia
10/6/95 [890055] Order filed by Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis
“...All outstanding motions are denied...” (found in Order
& Judgment of 10/6/95) [879579-1] Parties served by mail.
(pdw)
when these judges should not have had Appellees’ brief before them.
Then in an apparently attempt to conceal what happened
10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on
the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment
Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring
judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205] (pdw)
I WON MY APPEAL, pro se, ON A TECHNICALITY but judges Judges Moore,
Barrett, Weis awarded the win to Sandia Labs!
Members of Congress, judicial misconduct in this matter has been
11
well-documented.
Court records filed with the Tenth Circuit. But CURRENTLY under seal.
Lawyers involved in this matter attempt to use the legal strategy of
IGNORE and STONEWALL to attempt to deny me justice.
Ignoring and stonewalling by lawyers forced Morales and me to seek
visibility so lawyers could no longer ignore and stonewall.
Lawyer attitude apparently is that they ignore rules of civil procedure
or even the law so long as their actions are invisible to public scrutiny.
Visibility was achieved by suing the National Security Agency which
revealed even more judicial misconduct http://www.jya.com/whp052898.htm.
I would like to settle all matters involved with this unfortunate
cyrpto-related matter, which includes criminal violations of the Privacy Act.
DOE lawyer Steve Dillingham asked me to prepare a settlement offer in
1994. I wrote a settlement letter May 22, 1994 to Dillingham. Nothing happened.
June 11, 1998 I made several modifications to my 1994 settlement letter
and sent it e-mail to Robert Nordhaus, Chief Counsel, DOE.
I ask that you
1 help with settlement of my six-year-old since I won my appeal at the
Tenth Circuit,
2 investigate Tenth Circuit case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation,
et al to bring the guilty to justice.
Sincerely
william payne
505 292 7037 I am not reading e-mail
http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm
http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2
http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html
Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science.
http://www.friction-free-economy.com/
Monday 6/22/98 1:04 PM
Members of Congress
Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial
misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and
Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan and request a congressional
investigation.
12
After several years, with Payne, of trying to get Tenth Circuit to send
docket sheets from my case, citizen John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm locates docket sheets
and posts them Morales Case Dockets 10th USCA June 12, 1998
on Internet at http://www.jya.com/arm061298.htm.
Source: Online records Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals via PACER
GENERAL DOCKET FOR
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 95-2204 Filed:
9/29/95
Nsuit: 3440
Morales v. Sandia National Lab.
Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico
I filed
11/9/95 [898274] Appellant’s brief filed by Arthur R. Morales.
Original and 2 copies. c/s: y. Served on 11/7/95. Oral
argument? pro se. Appellee’s brief due 12/11/95 for Sandia
National Lab. (pdw)
Sandia files its FIRST ATTEMPT at
12/11/95 [905033] Appellee’s deficient brief filed by Sandia
National Lab.. Appellee’s corrected brief due 12/21/95 for
Sandia National Lab. additional copies received 12/11/95.
(fg)
Tenth Circuit court clerk Patrick Fisher writes Wells on December 11,
1995 concerning Sandia’s deficient brief
[C]orrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of service
upon all other parties to the appeal. ...
and issues
12/14/95 [905975] FIRST notice of rules violation for Deborah D.
Wells for Appellee Sandia National Lab. (sls)
Wells submits
12/21/95 [907974] Appellee’s brief filed by Sandia National Lab..
Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 Oral
Argument? n Appellant’s optional reply brief due 1/8/96 for
Arthur R. Morales (mbm)
but DOES NOT serve me with a copy.
Wells later admits in
2/1/96 [917660] Response filed by Sandia National Lab.
Appellant/Petitioner motion to clarify Original and 3
13
copies. c/s: y response Null Relief Code (fg)
Certificate of Service date 30th day of January, 1996,
[h]ad Appellant simply made a phone call to the Tenth Circuit, he
could have established that the Defendant-Appellee’s corrected brief was
indeed filed on a timely basis, ...
I protested by filing
1/3/96 [909965] Appellant’s motion “for the Court to Grant
Appeal” filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204].
Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw)
1/3/96 [909966] Appellant’s motion “for New Trial” filed by
Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3
copies. c/s: y. (pdw)
1/3/96 [909967] Appellant’s motion “to Discipline
Defendant-Appellee” filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales
[95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw)
because Sandia did not properly serve me in violation of Fisher’s
December 11, 1995 order.
The Tenth Circuit court of appeals should NOT, by its own rules, filed
Appellee’s brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7
copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95
10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads
Papers not accepted for filing.—The clerk shall not file papers
that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See
10thCir. R. 42.1
And is doubtful whether court clerk Fisher had any authority under
appellate procedure to permit Wells to correct her deficient brief.
Rather Sandia’s brief did not comply with with Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure and should have been summarily rejected for filing.
I WON, pro se, my appeal to the Tenth circuit on a technicality but
Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan awarded the win to Sandia Labs.
4/2/96 [932848] Order filed by Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan
denying parties’ motions for general relief(found in Order
and Judgment of 4/2/96)--“...During the course of this
appeal, the parties have filed various motions for
dismissal, summary grant, and sanctions. We find no merit
to any of these motions, and they are [920851-1] Parties
served by mail. (pdw)
by accepting and judging on a documents which was not permitted to be
before the court by its own rules.
14
Judicial misconduct in my case has been well-documented as it is in
Payne’s case.
Payne and I speculate that similar judicial misconduct may have occurred
at the Tenth Circuit.
Sandia lawyer Robert J Park wrote me a settlement letter on Feb 18,
1998.
I filled in the blanks and made minor handwritten chages and returned it
on February 22, 1998.
But my offer has not yet been accepted.
I ask that you
1 help have my settlement offer accepted,
2 investigate judicial misconduct in case 95-2204 and punish the
guilty.
Some citizens can only express such frustrations with the US court
system with violence.
I seek change by legal reform.
Sincerely
Arthur R Morales
505 345 1381
11 December 1, 1994 Appellant Payne writes Honorable Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judicial Committee
to file a judicial misconduct charges against Federal Court judge John E. Conway [NM] and Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals judges TACHA and KELLY.
Hatch does not respond.
December 21, 1994 follows-up first letter to Hatch with a second letter.
Hatch responds [Exhibit C]
March 2, 1995
Dear Mr. Payne:
Thank you for you letter regarding your litigation and of the other documents you sent. Unfortunately, the
function of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is primarily legislative, and we cannot intercede in matters
which are under jurisdiction of the courts.
While I know that our system of justice can at times be frustrating, I believe it is the finest
system in the world, and I am confident that in most cases, justice will eventually be served.
15
In my role as federal legislator and as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am working to improve
the effectiveness of our system of justice and to ensure that our systems continues to respect the rights
on individuals and honor the rule of law.
I am sorry that I am not in a position to offer individual legal assistance, but I will keep your concerns in
mind when relevant legislation is considered by the Senate. As it seem you went to some expense to provide
the Committee with this information, I am returning it to you.
Hatch was asked to PROPERLY investigate and take action on judicial misconduct.
Hatch did not do this.
Appellant Payne DID NOT ask Hatch “offer individual legal assistance.”
Hatch will be given opportunity to correct Hatch’s previous unfortunate decision to
NOT properly investigate judicial misconduct
Other senators will be asked to help.
12 Almanac of the Federal Judiciary list sitting Tenth circuit judges
1 Seymour
2 Anderson
3 Baldock
4 Briscoe
5 Ebel
6 Henry
7 Kelly
8 Lucero
9 Murphy
10 Porfilio [Moore]
11 Tacha
12 Barrett
13 Holloway
14 Logan
15 McKay
16 McWilliams
Tenth circuit judges Moore [Porfilio], Barrett, Anderson, and Logan are, by docket evidence, involved
in judicial misconduct.
Judges Seymour, McKay, Kelly, Tacha, Lucero and Baldock have been formally charged with Title 18
felony violations of law in this matter. Along with clerks FISHER and Hoecker.
Criminal complaint affidavits have been forwarded to magistrates. But these criminal complaint affidavits
have not yet been properly processed.
Time is required to remove judges and clerks from participation in this appeal.
16
13 Visibility of this lawsuit is increasing. http://www.jya.com/chrysler98.htm
11 July 1998
"The Chrysler Award recognizes the design professions' foremost
innovators, with a special dedication to finding designers (whether
individuals or teams) who challenge the envelopes of their disciplines.
The Award is the only institution that acknowledges designers from each
of the design disciplines - architecture, product design (excluding
automotive), graphic design, landscape architecture and new media
- as well as those designers who cross boundaries to invent new arenas
for creativity." -- The Chrysler Award Co-Chairs
It is a pleasure to nominate these accomplished designers for the
Chrysler Award:
William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales, Jointly ...
Nominee (Joint)
Name William H. Payne
Firm's Name None
Address 13015 Calle de Sandias NE, Albuquerque, NM 87111
Phone # 505-292-7037 Fax # None
Nominee (Joint)
Name Arthur R. Morales
Firm's Name None
Address 1024 Los Arboles, NW, Albuquerque, NM 87111
Phone # 505-345-1381 Fax # None
Nomination Information
Type of Design Information Design for Governmental Accountability
In Your Opinion, Nominee's Most Significant Works:
Research, design and public education for enhanced governmental
accountability.
Please attach a brief explanation of why this individual or team deserves
the award which will be read by the jury.
Nomination for Chrysler Award for Innovation in Design
William H. Payne and Arthur R. Morales
William Payne and Arthur Morales have for several years researched,
planned, designed, implemented and financed an extraordinary and
exemplary public information and education campaign to demonstrate the
tools, procedures and legal mechanisms by which citizens may
constructively challenge two of the most powerful and secretive
governmental agencies in the world, the National Security Agency and
17
Sandia National Laboratory.
Payne is a former senior scientist at Sandia who worked on highly
classified projects involving covert intelligence and controls for
nuclear weapons. Morales is currently employed there as a specialized
technician.
Documents which describe the Payne/Morales information and education
campaign and Payne's distinguished scientific career and bibliography
in fundamental computer programming and cryptography
are available on the Internet at:
http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm
The National Security Agency (www.nsa.gov:8080) is the leading US agency
for assurance of military and governmental communications security
(COMSEC), for the US global electronic interception program (ECHELON),
for electronic intelligence (SIGINT, ELINT, RADINT), for advanced
cryptology, and for computer and internet security.
Sandia National Laboratories (www.sandia.gov) is the premier US nuclear
weapons research laboratory, and also performs highest classified
national security research for the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
CentralIntelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Departments
of Defense and Energy, and other clients in theoretical science and
advanced technology.
Additional time with increased visibility may be beneficial for settlement of this unfortunate
matter.
WHEREFORE
14 CONSOLIDATE two SHOW CAUSE ORDERS filed by tenth circuit clerk PATRICK FISHER filed June
30, 1998 into single order since both address issue of legality of appeal.
14 Remove clerks FISHER and Hoecker from participation in this appeal for felony judicial misconduct IN
WRITING.
16 GRANT Rule 26 (b) and 10th Cir. R. 27.4 FIRST enlargement of time to 1/15/1999 for reasons
A Give congress time to investigate and take action on judicial misconduct at the Tenth circuit and
New Mexico district courts. And possibly help settle this lawsuit.
B Appellants require additional time to perform legal research on Rule 54(b) and
28 U.S.C § 1291
C Appellants require additional time to study Campos’ 144 legal citations.
Respectfully submitted,
18
[Signature]
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
[Signature]
Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Pro se litigants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing response and motion
was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF,
Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000
and hand delivered to Jan E Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney,
9 Floor, Bank of America Building, 3rd and Tijeras, ABQ, NM 87102
an original and three copies as required by FRAP 27(d)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#27d United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1823 Stout Street,Denver, Co 80257 by CERTIFIED
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED mail, July 15. 1998.
[Signed W H Payne]
19
EXHIBIT A
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. (303) 844-3157 Elzabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court Chief Deputy Clerk
June 30,1998
TO: Pro Se Litigant and Defendants
RE: 98-2156, Payne v. Kenneth A. Minihan, etc., et al.
The court is considering dismissal of this appeal based on lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
Within 30 days after the date on this show cause, Appellant William Payne
must discuss in his opening brief on the merits the following jurisdictional issue:
Please Note: According to the notice of appeal filed in the
district court on June 9, 1998, PlaintiffPayne appeals from
the denial of his "motion to amend."
Whether the district court's May 21, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying Plaintiff's motion to amend is final or immediately
appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or under any recognized exception to
the final judgment rule?
Within 30 days after the date on this show cause, Appellees must serve and
file a memorandum brief, an original and 7 copies, discussing only the jurisdictional
issue. The memorandum brief must contain citation to relevant legal authorities.
Appellees do not need to file an answer brief on the merits until requested by this court.
Sincerely,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
[Signature]
Kathleen T. Clifford
Deputy Clerk-Appeals Expediter
Show Cause Order
EXHIBIT B
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. (303) 844-3157 Elzabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court Chief Deputy Clerk
June 30,1998
TO: Pro Se Litigant and Defendants
RE: 98-2156, Payne v. Kenneth A. Minihan, etc., et al.
Briefing on the merits is TOLLED pending further order of this court.
That part of the district court's April 30, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and
Order, pages 12-14, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Arthur Morales
based on lack of standing is not final or imrnediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 or under any recognized exception to the final judgment rule. Many claims
remain unadjudicated in the district court.
Within 30 days after the above date, the parties must serve and file in this
court a copy of a district court order either granting certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) as to that part of the district court order dismissing Plaintiff Morales or
explicitly adjudicating all remaining claims. See Lewis v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 850
F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988).
If the parties do not file a district court order containing a Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b) certification or a final dispositive adjudication within 30 days, this appeal
will be dismissed. See Lewis, 850 F.2d. at 645-46.
Sincerely,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
[Signature]
Kathleen T. Clifford
Deputy Clerk-Appeals Expediter
Attachment (Mailing List)
Show Cause Order
EXHIBIT C
ORRIN G. HATCH ROBERT L. DIBBLEE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
135 Russell Senate Office Building |
UNITED STATES SENATEWASHINGTON, DC 20510-4402
|
JUDICIARY |
March 2, 1995
Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calls de Sandia NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Dear Mr. Payne:
Thank you for your letter regarding your litigation and for
the other documents you sent. Unfortunately, the function of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary is primarily legislative, and
we cannot intercede in matters which are under the jurisdiction
of the courts.
While I know that our system of justice can at times be
frustrating, I believe it is the finest system in the world, and
I am confident that in most cases, justice will eventually be
served. In my role as a federal legislator and as Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, I am working to improve the
effectiveness of our system of justice and to ensure that our
system continues to respect the rights of individuals and honor
the rule of law.
I am sorry that I am not in a position to offer individual
legal assistance, but I will keep your concerns in mind when
relevant legislation is considered by the Senate. As it seems
you went to some expense to provide the Committee with this
information, I am returning it to you.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
OGH:ckk
Enclosure