Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-years collection of 46,000 files from June 1996 to June 2008 (~6.7 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,000 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

	Web cryptome.org cryptome.info jya.com eyeball-series.org cryptome.cn

22 May 1998
Source: Hardcopy from William H. Payne

See related documents: http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm

[From docket: Doc. No. 44, May 21, 1998]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Santiago E. Campos memorandum Opinion and Order Filed 98 Apr 30 AM 11:45, filed May 8, 1998 [Doc. No. 43].¹ Plaintiff requests that the Court "amend" its Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. No. 42], filed April 30, 1998, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, replacing the entirety of its holdings with the holding that the Court disqualifies itself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

_______________________

¹ Arthur R. Morales joined, as a plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. However, Arthur R. Morales continues to be dismissed from this lawsuit. In addition, Plaintiff listed Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan as the Defendant. Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan continues to be dismissed from this lawsuit. The proper defendant in this case is the National Security Agency (NSA).

[1]

Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is really q request that the court disqualify itself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and vacate the Court's April 30, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order. The primary ground for Plaintiff's Motion is that the Court demonstrated bias or partiality by "basing much of [its Memorandum Opinion and Order] on materials not contained in [the] pleadings before the Court." Pl. Mot. Amend at 8. Plaintiff contends that the Court "was supposed to rely on legal citations presented" only by the parties and to judge arguments only presented by the parties. Pl. Mot. Amend at 1. The Plaintiff's contention is meritless. The Court's actions were an unexceptional and traditional juridical enterprise. A court decides issues in a lawsuit based upon the relevant law of jurisprudence. The Court's conducting of independent legal research, citation, and analysis was in now way improper and certainly does not indicate partiality.

The Plaintiff's secondary contention is that the Court made a mistake of material fact concerning the discovery restrictions in this case. This contention, too, is utterly without merit.

The Court reminds Plaintiff of his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and applicable caselaw. Motions, pleadings, or other papers are not be presented to the Court to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or for any other improper purpose. Under rule 11, by presenting a motion, pleading, or other paper to the Court, Plaintiff is also certifying that his claim or other legal contentions made therein are warranted by existing law, have evidentiary support, or are otherwise nonfrivolous. Violation of Rule 11 can result in sanctions.

2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend should be, and is hereby, DENIED.

[Signature: Santiago E. Campos]

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Counsel for Plaintiff Payne: William H. Payne, Pro Se, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Counsel for Defendant: Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, Albuquerque, New Mexico

3

[End]

Transcription and HTML by JYA/Urban Deadline