4 June 1997
Source: William H. Payne
See related U.S.A. warning of Payne.
Friday May 30, 1997 16:14
Certified - return receipt requested
Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear judge Scalia:
Purposes of this letter are to
1 seek writs of mandamus and prohibition,
2 file criminal complaint affidavits.
As you may know, Supreme Court Rules, Rule 20. Procedure on a
Petition for an Extraordinary Writ states,
.1. The issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ
authorized by 28 USC is not a matter of right, but of
the discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the
granting of any writ under that provision, it must be
shown that the writ will be in aid of the Court's
appellate jurisdiction, that there are present
exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the
Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief
cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other
court.
.3. (a) A petition seeking the issuance of a writ of
prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both in the
alternative, shall set for the name and office or
function of every person against who relief is sought
and shall set forth with particularity why the relief
sought is not available in any other court. There shall
be appended to the petition a copy of the judgment or
order in respect of which the writ is sought, including
a copy of any opinion rendered in that connection, and
any other paper essential to an understanding
of the petition.
(b) The petition shall be served on the judge of judges
to whom the writ is sought to be directed and shall also
be served on every other party to the proceeding in respect
of which relief is desired. The judge or judges and the
other parties may, within 30 days after receipt of the
petition, file 40 printed copies of a brief or brief in
opposition thereto, which shall fully comply with Rule 15.
If the judge or judges who are named respondents do not
desire to respond to the petition, they may so advise
the Clerk and all parties by letter. All persons served
shall be deemed respondents for all purposes in the
1
proceeding in this Court.
I and Arthur R. Morales both had cases heard on appeal, pro se,
before the Tenth Circuit court appeals.
Essential material fact in our first issue is that Robert L.
Hoecker, clerk of the Tenth Circuit, refuses to send us the docket
sheets for our cases.
Reproduction of the of the following letter will give you some
insight into why Hoecker refuses to send us copies of Payne's
docket sheet.
Thursday March 30, 1995
MAILED CERTIFIED
Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1919 Stout Street, Room C404
Denver, CO 80294
Dear Mr. Hoecker:
Purpose of this letter is to request an authentic copy of
the docket sheet of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case No.
94-2205.
Copy of a letter addressed to lawyer Friedman dated
Wednesday March 29 was forwarded to YOU. I attach a copy. ...
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
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
2
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." ...
Since Plaintiff-Appellant HAS NOT received any FILED
documents showing that Defendant-Appellees,
1 BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEES
2 DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT'S MOTION [SIC] ...
was accepted as filed, then Plaintiff-Appellant must assume
that the Tenth Circuit has followed its own rules and
declined to file Defendant-Appellee late documents.
These Tenth Circuit rules require,
1 Leave of the Court to file late.
2 Motion to request to file late had to be filed AT LEAST
FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DUE DATE (FRAP 27.4.4)
3 Valid grounds (FRAP 27.4.2) must be given.
Lawyer Friedman took none of these necessary three steps.
Lawyer Friedman further FALSIFIED the Certificate of Service
regarding these documents to the Court.
Tenth Circuit Rule 25.4 clearly states,
3
"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 10th Cir. R.
42.1."
Well, judge Scalia, what happened is that the defendants missed
the filing date for their brief of the Appellees. But,
nonetheless, Tenth Circuit and one Third Circuit judge awarded
the victory to defendants when, in fact, I won the case on a
technicality. I did this pro se.
Morales' case is similar.
I reproduce portions of a letter Morales wrote to,
March 19 1996
Chief Judge Stephanie K. Seymour
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
4562 U.S. Courthouse
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
918-581-7416
REF: CASE #95-2204
Dear Ms. Seymour: ...
HISTORY
On June 14, 1991 Plaintiff Arthur R. Morales brought suit
against defendant Sandia National Laboratories (case #91-
0614 JHG) alleging violations of Title VII and ADEA.
Even though, the lower court, after a bench trial, found for
the Defendant on all counts, Plaintiffs motion for new trial
quotes the appropriate law and cites overwhelming examples
and incidents that warrant a new trial.
November 7,1995, Plaintiff-Appellant filed Appeal and
Appellant's Opening Brief (including a copy of Plaintiff-
Appellant's Motion for a New Trial filed in U.S. District
Court in the District of New Mexico) on time and in
compliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures,
or Tenth Circuit Rules.
December 7,1995 the Defendant-Appellee submitted Motion to
Dismiss Appeal and Appellee's Response to Appellant's
Opening Brief.
FIRST RELEVANT INCIDENT
However, the Appellee's responding brief was deficient and
out of compliance as duly noted by the Court in their letter
to Defendant-Appellee dated 12/11/95 (re:95-2204, Morales v.
Sandia National Lab (Lower docket: CIV 91-614-JG))as follows:
4
"Dear Counsel:
Appellee's brief filed in subject case is deficient in the
following respect(s):
There is no table of contents. See Fed. R. App. P.28 (a) (1)
There is no table of cases and other authorities. See Fed.
R. App. P. 28 (a) (1). (Your table of authorities is not
in the proper place at the front of the brief)
There is no list of prior or related appeals, with
appropriate citations nor is there an express statement that
there are no prior or related appeals. See 10th Cir. R.
28.2(a).
There are no statements of subject matter and appellate
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (2).
There is no statement on the front cover of the brief as
to whether oral argument is desired. (Every request for
oral argument must be accompanied by a statement of
reason(s) oral argument is necessary.) See 10th Cir.
R. 28.2(f). (THERE IS NO COVER PAGE!)
There is no statement of reason(s) oral argument is
necessary. 10th Cir. R. 28.2(f).........."
Plaintiff-Appellant [Morales] was never properly notified of
Defendant-Appellee response and compliance to the court's
instructions of Defendant-Appellee's deficiencies as per the
letter from Tenth Circuit, Office of the Clerk, dated
12/11/95 (addressed to Karen C. Kennedy of Simons, Cuddy and
Friedman and Deborah D. Wells of Karen Kennedy and
Associates, both at the same address in Albuquerque, N.M.)
as follows:
"...You must file a corrected brief.
Corrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of
service upon all other parties to the appeal. The time
within which the opposing party(ies) may file an answer or
reply brief shall run from the date of service of the
correction(s).
If you fail to correct the stated deficiency(ies) within 10
days after the date of this letter, the deficient brief or
appendix will be stricken. In addition, ...you may be
barred from further appearance in this appeal except by
permission of court, and you may be disciplined. See 10th
Cir. R. 46.6 and the court's Plan for Attorney Disciplinary
Enforcement, Addendum III to Rules of Court.
5
Without regard to whether you correct the brief, you may
receive a separate notice of rules violations...."
January 16, 1996 in Defendant-Appellee's RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR COURT TO CLARIFY RULING ON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S
MOTIONS FOR COURT TO GRANT APPEAL AND COURT TO
DISCIPLINE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE states, ".... had Appellant
simply made a telephone call to the Tenth Circuit, he could
have established that the Defendant- Appellee's corrected
brief indeed was filed on a timely basis,...."
This statement is an admission that the Defendant-Appellee
did not send copies or proof of service to the Appellant.
This is a violation of the court's instructions as stated
above
January 22, 1996 Plaintiff-Appellant requested filing of the
Tenth Circuit Court the following motions and a request for
a current docket sheet for case# 95-2204: ...
February 5, 1996 Morales again asks the Tenth Circuit for a copy of
the docket sheets to his case. No docket sheets were sent.
The defendants missed the filing date for the brief of the Appellees,
too, in Morales's case.
Morales won his case, pro se, on a technicality.
However, Tenth Circuit judges awarded the victory to the defendants.
As a result of the Tenth Circuit's refusal to provide us docket
sheets of our cases we forwarded West Texas judge Lucius Bunton
criminal complaint affidavits to serve on those involved in
felony judicial misconduct by certified [P 288 537 532] return
receipt [6/4] on June 1, 1996.
June 5, 1996 Lucius D. Bunton, District of Western Texas Fifth
circuit chief writes judge Henry Politz,
Dear Chief Judge Politz:
Enclosed a[sic] a 49-page request sent to me by Mr. Payne, in
Albuquerque. He asked that I issue Warrants of Arrest for
former Chief Judge McKay, current Chief Judge Seymour, and
Judges Kelly, Brorby, Tacha, and Conway, along with Clerks
March, Fisher and Hoecker. I am not sure that I have the
authority to issue Warrants of Arrest for fellow Judges in
another Circuit.
Please advise.
Sincerely yours,
Lucius D. Bunton
6
Bunton did not respond to Morales or me.
Therefore, I wrote Bunton on July 8, 1996 by certified
[P594 875 822] mail, return receipt [7/10] to send us copies of
the docket sheets for Morales and my Tenth circuit cases.
Bunton did not respond.
Therefore, on September 23, 1996 I wrote Fifth circuit chief
judge Politz and asked him to have docket sheets sent to us.
I did this by certified mail [P278 788 767], return receipt
[9-27-96].
Politz did not respond.
We seek relief through a Writ of Mandamus served on Tenth
circuit clerk Hoecker for copies of the docket sheet we have
been illegally denied.
Clearly we have satisfied,
"... writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate
jurisdiction, that there are present exceptional
circumstances warranting the exercise of the Court's
discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot
be obtained in any other form or from any other court."
since we tried to obtain the docket sheets both through the
Tenth and Fifth circuits.
And
.3.(a) "A petition seeking the issuance of a ... a
writ of mandamus, ... shall set for the name and
office or function of every person against who relief
is sought and shall set forth with particularity why
the relief sought is not available in any other court.
There shall be appended to the petition a copy of the ...
and any other paper essential to an understanding of
the Petition.
1 Robert Hocker, Clerk Tenth Circuit,
2 no one will send or cause to have send copies of the
docket sheets,
3 Attached are copies of the above mentioned letters [2] to
Bunton and [l] Politz.
Next there is the matter as to why the warrants of arrest have
not been issued by Bunton.
Some Department of Justice appear to be threatening and attempting
to intimidate me for issuing criminal complaint affidavits.
Here is an example of several individuals who have done this.
Wednesday February 5, 1997 11:24
7
Certified - Return Receipt Requested
James K. Weber
Special Agent in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
415 Silver SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Mr. Weber:
Purposes of this letter are;
1 seek verification of information learned from US
Marshal Arthur Lester,
2 present applicable criminal statutes,
3 seek information.
Friday January 24, US Marshal Arthur Lester showed me two
fax coversheets. One contained your name. The other
Third Circuit Court of Appeals clerk Toby Slawsky's name.
March 11, 1996 I informed District of Northern California
judge Fern Smith that Sandia patent lawyer Gregory Cone had
committed Title 18 felony perjury in an affidavit submitted to
New Mexico District Court regarding the Atari v Nintendo
decision. I received no response from Smith.
Therefore, on May 31, 1996 sent a criminal complaint
affidavit to Smith to have Smith issue a Warrant of Arrest
for Cone.
June 13, 1996 your predecessor, Thomas J. Knier, and Fern
Smith, dispatch agents Kohl and Schum visited my home to
investigate me for threatening Smith.
I did not threaten Smith: I sent a valid criminal complaint
affidavit to Smith.
Conclusion was that Kohl and Schum were sent by Smith
and Knier in an attempt to intimidate me.
Therefore, I filed criminal complaint affidavits against
Knier and Smith with judge Wallace.
Now apparently you are involved in yet another attempt to
intimidate me. This time apparently you, Smith, again, and
Slawsky sent US Marshals Lester and Lopez to attempt to
intimate me.
Lester and Lopez did not properly serve me with notice
for an investigation. Lester had no letter of
authorization for an investigation when we asked him
for one. And Lester stated that I was under
investigation for "Inappropriate communications,"
8
which surely is not a proper reason for an
investigation by US marshals.
Nonetheless, I cooperated with Lester and Lopez. At the
end of the investigation, I asked Lester, "Have I done
anything wrong or improper?" Lester responded,
"absolutely not."
But Title 18 felony violations appear to have been
committed by Lester, Lopez, Smith, Slawsky, and you.
Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended states,
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation ...
threatens, ... or engages in misleading conduct toward
another person with intent to -
(3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law
enforcement officer or judge of the United States of
information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense ...
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and
thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any
Person from -
(1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United
States the commission or possible commission of a Federal
offense ...
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned ...
Lester and Lopez have a prima facie case against of attempted
intimidation them for the reason they apparently did not follow
rules.
Article 1512 states,
(d) In a prosecution for an offense under this section,
it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant
has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful
conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was
to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to
testify truthfully.
Slawsky and other Third circuit clerk, Bradford Baldus,
attempted to mislead me by insisting that I file a
judicial misconduct report when I was attempting to report
a criminal act on the part of Third Circuit judge Joseph
Weis to Third Circuit Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter. The
American Judicature Society advised to me report to
9
Sloviter.
Since you, Slawsky, and Smith were identified by Lester as
causing Lester and Lopez to attempt to intimidate me, it
appears you have violated my civil rights in an attempt to
prevent me from filing a criminal complaint affidavit.
I am entitled, as a citizen, under the Constitution and
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to
file a properly prepared criminal complaint affidavit. I
have done this with selected magistrate judges Bunton,
Wallace, and Edwards.
Therefore, it appears to me that you, Slawsky and Smith have
violated Article 241, as amended, Civil Rights, Title 18,
Crimes and Criminal Procedure,
Conspiracy against rights
If two or more person conspire to injure, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, 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 nor more
than ten years or both; ...
If you did not conspire with Slawsky, Smith, or others to
have Lester and Lopez attempt to intimidate me, then I ask
you to write me and tell me this.
If I do not receive a response from you within ten working
days after you receive this letter I will assume [on
information and belief] that you were involved in this attempt
to intimidate me. ...
Marshals Lester and Lopez were so well-versed about the
facts stated in my criminal complaint affidavits that it
appeared that they were investigating or helping to
investigate for parties, unknown to me, the factual
correctness for probable cause under Rule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint
(a) Issuance. If it appears from the complaint, or
from an affidavit or affidavits with with the complaint,
that there is probable cause to believe that an offense
has been committed and the defendant has committed it,
a warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall issue
to any officer authorized by law to execute it.
Judge Scalia, here are the facts,
10
1 Morales and I forwarded properly executed criminal
complaint affidavits to Bunton on June 1, 1996.
2 Bunton has not responded to say that the criminal
acts did not occur. All are in writing or non-response by
those accused.
3 US Marshal's Lester and Lopez appeared to interested
in the verification of the facts alleged in the complaints.
Therefore, we ask that you issue a Writ of Mandamus to Bunton
to issue the warrants of arrest.
We have satisfied the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 20.1.
and .3.
FBI agents Kohl, again, and Steve Moore visited my home
yesterday May 29, 1997 08:29.
Kohl handed me a copy of the unfortunate attached letter from US
Department of Justice, United States Attorney, District of New
Mexico, May 19 [sic], 1997
My name is Robert J. Gorence. I am the First
Assistant U.S. Attorney and the Chief of the Criminal
Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of New New Mexico. I am in receipt of your
February 13, 1997 to Judge Frank John Magill as well
as your September 20, 1996 Request for Examination of
Report File by a Judicial Officer. In your letter
to Judge Magill, you assert on page 2, paragraph 4
that you have filed a "criminal complaint affidavit"
with Judge Bunton. On page 4 you accuse Judge Paul
Kelly of Felony. On page 8 you assert that you are
waiting receipt of an arrest warrant for Judge ][sic]
Kelly.
I do not understand the basis of you assertions.
However, I will tell you that any attempt by you to
privately execute any type of "arrest warrant,"
against any member the federal judiciary would
constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C Section 1201 -
Kidnapping, a felony which carries a potential of
life imprisonment. Also, attempts on you part
to file private "criminal complaint affidavits"
or "arrest warrants" regarding members of the
federal judiciary would constitute a violation
of 18 U.S.C Section 111 - Impeding a Federal
Officer in the Performance of Their Official
Duties. I trust you will take my warnings
seriously and that you will cease the
obstreperous conduct. If you do not, criminal
charges will be filed against you.
11
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. GORENCE
First Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Judge Scalia, you now have a copy of the criminal complaint
affidavit naming judge Kelly.
Here is the reason for the criminal complaint affidavit.
ORDER
________________________________
Filed March 9, 1995
________________________________
Before BRORBY and KELLY, circuit judges.
_________________________________
This appeals is before the court based on a motion by
Defendants to enforce this court's sealing order of
November 14, 1994.
Upon consideration whereof, within 14 days after the
date on this order Plaintiff William H. Payne shall show
cause in writing, an original and three copies, why he
should not be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the
court's November 12, 1994 Order.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
I was never sanctioned or was there any reason to sanction me.
Gorence's threat to file criminal charges against me for,
18 USC Section 1201. Kidnapping
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles,
decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds
for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except
in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, ...
or
18 USC Section 111. Assaulting, resisting, or
impeding certain officers or employees
Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes,
impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person
designated in section 1114 of this title while engaging
in or on account of the performance of his official
duties, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.
Whoever, in the commission of any such acts uses a
deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined not more than
12
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
is a threat. I did not do any of the above.
Morales and I follow the laws of the US and rules of the court.
The reference to judge John Frank Magill in Gorence's letter
deserves some comment since, it too, generates one addition
criminal complaint affidavit for you to process in your
upcoming role of magistrate judge.
The Albuquerque Journal Wednesday May 28, 1997 page A6
editorializes
No Conflict Seen For Federal Judge
A U.S. Supreme Court-appointed committee has made it
official: U.S. District Judge James A. Parker of
Albuquerque committed no ethical breach in hearing a
case which involved an oil firm which the judge
receives a royalty interest.
"Neither receiving royalty payments nor leasing
a mineral estate to a party qualifies as a 'financial
interest' in (that) party," the U.S. Judicial Council's
Committee on Code of Conduct concluded. "We believe
that the judge's presiding over a suit involving a
party who pays royalties to a judge on unrelated
mineral production will not ordinary give rise
to a reasonable appearance of impropriety."
Parker was accused by the Branch Law Firm of failing
to disclose his royalty interests in a company that
was a defendant in six consolidated lawsuits before him.
The Branch firm alleged Parker had violated the public
trust, the Code of Judicial Conduct and a federal
statute governing judge's disqualification. ...
Max Hernandez is a member of Libertad. Here is Libertad's
official notice.
LIBERTAD is a New Mexico based civil rights organization
that advocates on the behalf of government employees. If
you want to contact them to find out more about this
organization, please write to LIBERTAD, PO Box 23067,
Albuquerque, NM 87192-1067.
John Gowan is also a member of Libertad.
Hernandez asked me to write the letter to Magill.
I reproduce the essential material part of my letter to Magill.
"I was shown a copy of a FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of US
District Judge James A. Parker.
This report was requested the Branch law firm.
13
Parker received 2,000,000 shares of Amoco stock for $.05 per
share. The shares had apparent market value of about $1.25, I
was told.
Parker ruled favorably for Amoco in an environmental pollution
lawsuit in the Farmington area.
But the Albuquerque Tribune reported on Sunday November 3,
Judge Reverses Water Ruling,
The federal judge now hearing a group of lawsuits arising
from alleged water contamination from oil and gas drilling
in the Four Corners area has reversed the previous judge's
ruling regarding expert testimony.
Senior U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton of Midland, Texas,
sitting by designation as a federal judge in New Mexico,
decided this week to allow testimony by the plaintiffs'
experts who had been disqualified by Judge James A.
Parker. ...
Parker and another judge to who water contamination cases
were assigned transferred all of them - about 20 - to
Bunton.
Gowan was the individual who showed me lawyer Branch's motion to
recuse which contained the revelation of Parker having receive
the 2,000,000 shares of AMOCO stock at an unreasonably low price
while judging an action involving AMOCO.
So, judge Scalia, we can move on to the criminal complaint
affidavits against Gorence, Weber, and Parker.
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
14
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
93, 794]
The complaint must be accompanied by an oath.
[Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No
21261
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)]
Any attempt to bring criminal complaints to government authorities
would, of course, be futile.
I am a citizen of the United States and , judge Scalia 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
15
knowledge of the complainant.
[Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d
1503, 78 S Ct 1245, rev. (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]
So as to keep contiguous the requirements of the law and the
criminal complaint affidavit, I will include this complaint in
this letter to you.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT:
James K. Weber [Weber]
Essential material facts are:
1 Friday January 24, 1997 Weber others dispatch
US Marshals Lester and Lopez to attempt to
intimidate citizen Payne for expressing his First
Amendment-protected opinions.
2 Thursday May 29, 1997 Weber and Robert J
Gorence dispatched FBI agents Kohl and Moore to
attempt to threaten citizen Payne with attached
Gorence letter dated May 19, 1997.
COUNT 1
Title 18, Civil Rights, Article 241, Conspiracy against
right to citizens states:
"If two or more persons conspire to ... oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or law of the
United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same: ... They shall be fined
not more than $10,000 or imprison not more than
ten years or both;..."
Weber and Gorence are the two persons who conspired to
threaten and intimidate Payne for exercising his lawful
of Payne's right as a citizen to file criminal complaint
affidavits.
COUNT 2
Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended states,
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation ...
threatens, ... or engages in misleading conduct toward
16
another person with intent to -
(3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law
enforcement officer or judge of the United States of
information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and
thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any
person from -
(1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the
United States the commission or possible commission
of a Federal offense
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned ...
Weber , by sending FBI agents to citizen Payne's home on May 29,
1997 attempted to both threaten and intimidate 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 criminal complaint 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.
5/30/97 [Signature]
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT:
Robert J. Gorence [Gorence]
1 Thursday May 29, 1997 Weber and Robert J
Gorence dispatch FBI agents Kohl and Moore to
attempt to threaten citizen Payne with attached
Gorence letter dated May 19, 1997.
COUNT 1
Title 18, Civil Rights, Article 241, Conspiracy against
right to citizens states:
"If two or more persons conspire to ... oppress,
17
threaten,or intimidate any citizen in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or law of the
United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same: ... They shall be fined not
more than $10,000 or imprison not more than ten
years or both;..."
Weber and Gorence are the two persons who conspired to
threaten and intimidate Payne for exercising his lawful
of Payne's right as a citizen to file criminal complaint
affidavits.
COUNT 2
Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as amended states,
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation
threatens, ... or engages in misleading conduct toward
another person with intent to -
(3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law
enforcement officer or judge of the United States of
information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense ...
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and
thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any
person from -
(1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United
States the commission or possible commission of a Federal
offense ...
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned ...
Gorence, by writing and signing his May 19, 1997 attached
letter attempted to both threaten and intimidate 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 criminal complaint 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.
18
5/30/97 [Signature]
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
Now, judge Scalia, we have the start of what could prove to be
many criminal complaints.
Evidence, as it looks to me and other, points to,
1 Lawyer Turner Branch did not mention the charge
of felony bribery in his motion to recuse. But only made
lesser charges regarding receipt of royalty interest.
2 Judges Bunton and Conway colluded to 'fix the
problem' regarding Parker's rulings.
3 The U.S. Supreme Court-appointed committee appears
to have overlook evidence of felony bribery.
But, Gorence's letter permits us to correct this unfortunate
oversight.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT:
James A. Parker [Parker]
1 Libertad member John Gowan [Payne] showed
Payne the motion to recuse in Gowan's home authored
by NM lawyer Turner Branch [Branch].
2 Gowan explicitly showed Payne Parker's
financial disclosure statement showing that Parker had
received 2,000,000 shares of AMOCO stock at a
suspiciously low price.
3 Gown advised Payne to request financial
disclosure statements on judges Kelly and Conway. Gowan
made a copy of the Committee on Financial Disclosure
address for Payne copied from Branch's document.
4 Payne did not get a copy of the AMOCO stock
disclosure from Gowan. Payne is not involved with Parker
at that time.
COUNT 1
Parker is accused of Title 18 Section 201. Bribery of
public officials and witnesses. ...
for accepting the alleged 2,000,000 shares of AMOCO
stock while judging a case involving AMOCO.
VERIFICATION
19
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 criminal complaint 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.
5/30/97 [Signature]
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
Judge Scalia, many Americans are unhappy with US Courts.
Denial of rights and due process could possibly lead to
unfortunate expressions of disapproval.
Morales and I work within the legal system to bring positive
change.
And we also have lost millions as a result of denial of due
process.
Morales and I are currently engaged in an internationally-
publicized lawsuit posted on Internet at jya.com involving
an uncovered spy sting against the States of Iran and Libya.
The full text of the included letter to Weber can be found by
accessing jya.com, click on Cryptome. Then entering the file
threads starting at,
whppena.htm Payne Notifies Secretary of Energy Pena,
May 29, 1997
I now follow Rule 20.3.(b).
Sincerely,
[Signature]
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing demand was mailed
20
to Lucius Bunton, US Courthouse, 200 E Wall St, Room 301, Midland,
TX 79701 and Robert L. Hoecker, Clerk, United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1919 Stout Street, Room C404,
Denver, CO 80294 this Friday May 30, 1997.
[Signature]
William H. Payne
21
[End]
Hypertext by JYA/Urban Deadline.