From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: art morales <senator@torricelli.senate.gov
Subject: Judicial Misconduct at Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Message-ID: <358EB07D.2EFD@nmol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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
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 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
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
          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 
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 service
in 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
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=0125475705&LOCATION=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.

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
              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.

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