[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
REPLY to Mitchells RESPONSE.
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: REPLY to Mitchells RESPONSE.
- From: bill payne <[email protected]>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:53:16 -0700
- CC: j orlin grabbe <[email protected]>, tyler przybylek <[email protected]>, [email protected], Robert Nordhaus <" Robert.Nordhaus"@hq.doe.gov>, [email protected], ray kammer <" kammer"@nist.gov>, marc rotenberg <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], john gilmore <[email protected]>, [email protected], "jennifer, Aronld Intrater and ray" <" napa"@tmn.com>, jeff debonis <[email protected]>, [email protected], jay coughlan <[email protected]>, george breznay <[email protected]>, federico pena <" Federico.F.Pena"@hq.doe.gov>, david sobel <[email protected]>, [email protected], c paul robinson <[email protected]>, audrie Krause <[email protected]>, ann augustyn <" Ann.Augustyn"@hq.doe.gov>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
- Sender: [email protected]
Saturday 1/17/98 3:37 PM
Attached is our REPLY to Mitchell’s RESPONSE.
Morales will have it filed on Tuesday. Monday
is MLK day.
Morales will send a FILED stamped copy to you.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
William H. Payne )
Arthur R. Morales )
v ) CIV NO 97 0266
Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF )
Director, National Security Agency )
National Security Agency )
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS
1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales]
[Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights
guaranteed under the Constitution, Rules of Civil Procedure,
and Local Civil Rules to respond to Defendant's MOTION filed
on 98 JAN-5 within the 14 days allowed by local rule 7.3(b)(4).
2 US Attorney Mitchell [Mitchell] writes,
Counsel for Defendant was not served with copies of any of
said Requests for Admissions until sometime after the
individuals had been served.2
Mitchell WAS SERVED
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO
NSA DIRECTOR KENNETH MINIHAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing request for
admissions was mailed to Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant US
Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Monday November
Michell was not served with any other admissions since
Mitchell is not representing others.
Plaintiffs' served Defendant Minihan properly. And Minihan
failed to respond to Minihan's admissions within the time
allotted by law.
3 US Attorney Mitchell writes,
As grounds for the Motion and Memorandum, Defendant
argued that Plaintiffs had blatantly disregarded this Court's
Order pertaining to the conduct of discovery and the deadline
for discovery in this Freedom of Information Act action.
Judges Svet and Campos willfully violated Plaintiffs' right
to Discovery. And thereby earned criminal complaint affidavits
filed with judge Scalia of the Supreme Court.
4 US Attorney Mitchell writes,
In Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Counsel for Defendant
also objected to Plaintiffs' sua sponte decision to
modify the Court's June 11 Order to reflect the delay of the
Court's October 7 Order and the establishment, without leave
of this Court, of new deadlines for discovery, motions
practice, and the filing of the PreTrial Order. (Motion and
Memorandum 9, at 4.)
Judge Svet and Campos attempt to deny Plaintiffs' right to
Discovery, again, earned Svet and Campos criminal complaint
Plaintiffs exercise their right under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Constitution to conduct Discovery
WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT!
5 US Attorney Mitchell writes,
By their own request, Plaintiffs sought to stay a ruling on
the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum. Absent any ruling on
either the Motion and Memorandum or Plaintiffs' Response,
Defendant Minihan, employees of NSA, and employees of
Sandia National Laboratory, were not obligated to respond to
the Requests for Admissions as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3
For Plaintiffs to now assert in their "Motion for Summary
Judgment On Based On Evidence From Admissions" that because
the individuals have not responded to the Requests for
Admissions they are deemed admitted, flies in the face of
their own prayer to this Court to stay a ruling on the
Defendant's Motion to strike the Requests for Admissions until
the Supreme Court takes action.
Plaintiffs' have REPEATEDLY asked judge Svet and Campos to
disqualify themselves from any rulings on this case because
Campos and Svet do NOT obey the Federal Rules of Civil
Replace judges Svet and Campos because these judges
have demonstrated, IN WRITING, they do not follow the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs' pleas are directed a replacement judge[s]. Not
Svet and Campos.
Therefore, Svet and Campos' failure to remove themselves does
not stop the legal process.
Mitchell cites NO law to support her claim that time
constraints imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.3 are inapplicable
as a result of Svet's and Campos' failure to remove themselves.
6 US Attorney Mitchell writes,
Defendant requests that this Court either rule upon
Defendant's Motion and Memorandum granting the request to
strike the Requests for Admissions, or grant Plaintiffs'
request to stay this action pending the issuance of the order
sought by Plaintiffs in another forum. Should this Court deny
Defendant's Motion and Memorandum, Defendant respectfully
requests that the individuals to whom Requests for Admissions
are appropriate in this action be given the thirty days to
respond to said admissions as provided by the Federal Rules of
REPLACEMENT JUDGES of the Court should realize the outcome
of the lawsuit has attained international interest as a result
1 bungled NSA spy sting on Iran
2 US government agencies NSA, NIST, and the FBI's
attempt to control cryptography.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM ADMISSIONS
was posted on Internet at jya.com, click cryptome
nsasuit8.htm USA/NSA Responds to Payne/Morales Motion
January 16, 1998
Importance of this posting is summed-up in the Toronto Sun,
Jan. 11, 1998
US, Iran Need Each Other
by Eric Margolis
Iran launched a surprise charm offensive last week,
throwing Washington into serious confusion.
In a lengthy interview on CNN, Iran's new president, Mohammad
Khatami, skillfully analyzed the bitter relations between the
two nations and cautiously extended an olive branch to
Washington, calling for an end to their 19-year cold war.
Khatami's diplomatic ju-jitsu flummoxed the Clinton
administration, which was busy trying to rally international
support against Tehran - and to overthrow Iran's elected
Both capitals are split over the question of relations.
In Washington, the military establishment and conservative
Republicans have inflated Iran into a bogeyman to
justify military budgets and keep U.S. forces in the Mideast.
America incited Iraq to invade Iran in 1980. They did this to
crush the Islamic revolution, then provided massive war aid to
Saddam Hussein. Half a million Iranians died.
The US got caught involved in genocide. Using high tech.
This is one subject of this lawsuit.
Albuquerque Journal Tuesday 1/13/98 carried the editorial.
Khatami Move Is Profile in Courage
LOS ANGELES - If an American leader had done what
Iranian President Mohammed Khatami did last Wednesday,
it would have been hailed as a profile in courage. ...
Miscalculation! We armed and pampered Saddam Hussein in
the hope that Iraq would destroy Iran. Now that's policy and
behavior to think about. Here is something to think about: If
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had pursued any kind of
sensible policy toward Cuba and Fidel Castro - opposed to
the policy of trying to assassinate him - there never would
have been a Cuban missile crisis.
I think Iranians have financed and encouraged terrorism
against the interests of the United States and Israel. I
would not be surprised at all if something like proof emerges
soon, perhaps anonymously, from the CIA and other government
agencies, where many officials have built their careers on
sanctioning and isolating Iran, to try to straighten the
backbones of the president and people of the United States.
If they succeed, America fails. What would be more
effective in closing down Iranian terrorism? More hostility,
sanctions and charges? Or beginning the process toward more
normal relations with a country positioned and born to be
Clearly genocide fits into
Now that's policy and behavior to think about.
The wired world is watching what this Court, hopefully
minus judges Svet and Campos, will do.
What is there to be? A series of possibly unfortunate
Or does this Court order release the lawfully requested
documents to help settle this American tragedy?
7 Have replacement judges of this Court DENY Mitchell's
Plaintiffs requested a stay. Absent a ruling from
this Court denying their request, they cannot proceed to
assert that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Motion For Summary Judgment On Based
On Evidence From Admissions" must be denied.
for reason that Mitchell's request to subvert both the Discovery
processes and its time limits have no basis in law. And appears
to plead to judges who do not obey the Federal Rules of Civil
9 IMMEDIATELY ORDER Defendant to release the requested
documents in the interest of national safety so that this
matter can be settled.
Aggrieved victims of US genocide are reading these pleadings.
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 John J. Kelly, US Attorney, 525 Silver
SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Tuesday January 20, 1997.