From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:47:28 +0800
To: j orlin grabbe <jy@jya.com
Subject: judicial authentication
Message-ID: <34EB8A58.AC4@nmol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Wednesday 2/18/98 6:04 PM

J Orlin Grabbe
John Young

Authentication

John Young has been sent a copy of  ORDER with SEPARATE
PAGE marked

	FILED
	UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    	ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
	February 10, 1998



	US District Court
	District of New Mexico
	Digital File Stamp

...

 This document consists of an official stamp of the Court and, if
attached to the
document identified above, servers and endorsed copy of the pleading. 
It may be
used in lieu of the Court's mechanical file stamp for the named document
only, and
misuse will be treated the same as misuse of the Court's official
mechanical file
stamp.  The Court's digital signature is a verifiable mathematical
computation unique
to the filed document and the Court's private encryption key.  This
signature assures
that any changes can be detected.

Attached is Svet's ORDER.  WITH NO MARKINGS ON IT.

Grabbe, perhaps I should modify the ORDER SLIGHTLY and return this to
the court
claiming that I believe that I have recieved a COUNTERFEIT COPY of
Svet's
decision.

And, would the court please verify if the copy I sent them was authentic
or not.

And, too, tell me WHY they knew that it was a counterfeit or authentic.

But this is why we have back-ups.

ALLAHU AKBAR!

Perhaps the opposition has more brains than our [?] side.

But first things first.

bill


                     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                   			)


PLAINTIFFS'  RESPONSES TO JUDGE SVET'S ORDER FILED January 28, 1998, ORDER FILED February 10, 1998, AND AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITHCOURT ORDER FILED 98 FEB-9


1  COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne  and Morales [Plaintiffs] to respond

to two ORDERs and AFFIDAVIT.

2  Magistrate judge Svets [Svet] writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT sanctions will be granted and 
  counsel for Defendant shall submit an affidavit outlining her costs
  and fee in bring the Motion within ten days of entry of this Order.
  Plaintiffs may respond within ten days of service of Defendant's     
  affidavit.

3 Svet states in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

 Plaintiff's attempt at discovery violates this Court's Order entered June
 11 , 1997.

4 June 11 order states,

  THIS MATTER come before the Court sua sponte following 
  an Initial Scheduling Conference held June 5, 1997.  The 
  establishment of deadline for discovery and pre-trial pleading is 
  necessary for the orderly hearing of this case. However, this case 
  in not one in which an Initial Pre-trial pleading will assist the 
  Court.  Accordingly, such a document will not be entered.  Further, 
  the parties will not be permitted to undertake any discovery in this 
  matter absent Court permission.  The parties shall submit any 
  proposed discovery to the Court for approval, accompanied by a 
  motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of points and 
  authorities explaining the need for that discovery.

     IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following deadlines 
  are hereby established:

     1.   The parties shall complete discovery necessary by 
     September 3,
     1997.
     2.   Motions relating to discovery shall be filed no later 
     than September 23, 1997.
     3.   All pretrial motions regarding matters other than 
     discovery shall be filed by October 3, 1997.
     4.   The Pre-Trial Order shall be provided as follows:
     Plaintiffs to Defendants by November 3, 1997;  
     Defendants to the Court by November 18, 1997.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in the matter shall only be 
  undertaken upon obtaining Court permission.  The parties shall 
  submit any proposed discovery to the Court for approval, 
  accompanied by a motion to permit discovery and a memorandum of 
  point and authorities explaining the need for that discovery.

                    signed
                    DON J. SET
                    UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

5 Plaintiff's point out in UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME AND  RESETTING TIME LIMITS FOR DISCOVERY

  Rule 36 states, 
 
  Request for admission (a) A party may serve upon any other 
  party a written request for the  admission, for the  purposes of 
  the pending action only, of the truth of any  matters within the  
  scope of Rule 26(b) set forth the request that relate to statements 
  or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact including 
  the genuineness of any documents described in the request.   
  Copies of documents shall  be served with the request unless 
  they have been or otherwise  furnished or made available for 
  inspection and  copying.  The request may WITHOUT LEAVE  
  OF THE COURT, be served  upon the plaintiff after 
  commencement of  the action and upon any  other party with 
  or after service of the  summons and complaint upon that 
  party. ... 
 
  Plaintiffs capitalize WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT.

6  Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

  On June 11, 1997 this Court ordered that any proposed 
  discovery must be approved by this Court.

Svet's above sentence violations Rule 36 of the Federal Rule
 
of Civil Procedure.

7 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

  Further, Plaintiff's did not seek to take discovery prior to the
  discovery deadline.

Svet FAILED TO RESPOND to Plaintiffs' UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND  RESETTING TIME LIMITS 

FOR DISCOVERY.

8 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

  Finally, Plaintiffs, failed to serve counsel for Defendant and 
  instead served General Minihan.  This violates Fed. R. Civ 5.

Plaintiffs DID SERVE General Minhan with first set of admissions

through US lawyer Mitchell on October 13, 1997 in full compliance with

Fed. R. Civ 5.

9 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

  The fact that Plaintiffs are pro se does not relieve them from the burden
  of complying with court orders and rules of civil procedure.

To the contrary, Svet flaunts in writing his disregard of truth and rules

of Civil Procedure.

  Plaintiff have always attempted to follow the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and were always willing to correct any mistakes.

  Svet, on the other hand, proceeds with an attempt to ignore the laws

IN WRITING of the United States.

  Friday October 24, 1997 08:10 file criminal complaint affidavit with

Supreme Judge Antonin Scalia against judges Svet and Campos.

  Scalia has not yet responded to Plaintiffs' criminal complaint affidavit.

  Svet, by issuing ORDER filed January 28, 1998, must believe that Scalia

is going to cover-up for Svet's and Campos' judicial misconduct.

10 Svet writes in ORDER filed January 28, 1998

  Further, Plaintiffs flagrant disregard of this Court's order warrants
  the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
  Defendant's Motion to Strike and all of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests
  for Admissions to Various Employees of the National Security Agency
  and to Various Employees of Sandia National Laboratories is granted.

Svet cite no law or rules which prevent Plaintiffs' from requesting

admission from non-parties, therefore Plaintiff's must assume in the

interest of justice that Svet agrees with Plaintiff's procedure.

11  Svet ORDER FILED February 10, 1998 states

  THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove
  Docket Sheet Entry 14 and Associated Response file on June 24, 1997.
  The matter of discovery was addressed in and Order entered June 11,
  1997.  Thus, Plaintiff's Motion is moot.

  IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 
  Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove Docket Sheet Entry 14 and Associated
  Response is denied as moot.

Docket Sheet entry 14 posted 6/9/97 is

  RESPONSE  by defendant to motion to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs
  as an unopposed motion before the Court (dmw) [Entry date 06/10/97]

5/23/97 Docket Sheet entry 9 Plaintiffs file 

  MOTION by plaintiff for order to accept discovery plan (dmw)

Defiant misses filing date for response to entry 9.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' file on 6/9/97 Docket Sheet entry 13

  MOTION by plaintiff to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs are an   
  unopposed motion before the court (dwm)

In panic Defendant's lawyer US Mitchell submits on 6/9/97

Docket Sheet entry 14

  RESPONSE by defendant to motion to accept discovery plan of plaintiffs
  as an unopposed motion before the Court [13-1] (dwm) [Entry date
  06/10/97]

Lawyer Mitchell, apparently realizing her legal procedureal blunder, is 

forced to deposit her LATE MOTION in Court outside mailbox since entry was 

not until June 10.

  Svet, again, flaunts disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

by ORDER FILED February 10, 1998 by ruling late motion moot.

  Svet cites no authority to overrule dictates of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and even local court rules, on timeliness.

  Svet demonstrates again, IN WRITING, prejudice toward Defendant.

12 Svet NOT ONLY has shown,  IN WRITING, his attempt to inhibit the legal 

process specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but has engaged 

in a proactive process of attempting to retaliate against Plaintiffs' in 

their attempt to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  Svet NEVER attempted to clarify procedures or rules so that either side 

could correct any mistakes in civil procedure.

WHEREFORE

13  Plaintiffs' invoke 

  28 USC  455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate 

    (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall 
    disqualify himself  in any proceeding in which his impartiality 
    might reasonably be questioned. ...

14  REMOVE judges Svet and Campos from this proceeding for clear
 
demonstration of pattern and practice of judicial misconduct IN

WRITING in this lawsuit.

15  ORDER judge Svet  RESTRAINED from awarding sanctions against

Plaintiffs.

16  APPOINT new magistrate and judge to begin this lawsuit DE NOVO.

17 GRANT such other relief as the Court may deem  just and proper.



Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
                    _________________________ 
                    William H. Payne             	   	     
                    13015 Calle de Sandias NE          	     
                    Albuquerque, NM 87111              	     
 
 			
                    _________________________				 
                    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 memorandum
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, 
525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Thursday February 19,
1998.





7