[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

REPLY to Mitchells RESPONSE.



Saturday 1/17/98 3:37 PM

John Young

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.

Later
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                   )


  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 
  3, 1997. 

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

affidavits.

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 

Procedure.

  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 
  Civil Procedure.

REPLACEMENT JUDGES of the Court should realize the outcome

of the lawsuit has attained international interest as a result

of the

  1  bungled NSA spy sting on Iran 
  2  US government agencies NSA, NIST, and the FBI's
     attempt to control cryptography.

Mitchell's 
  
  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 
  government.  
 
  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
  Richard Reeves
  Syndicated Columnist

  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   
  great? ...

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

events?  

Or does this Court order release the lawfully requested 

documents to help settle this American tragedy?


WHEREFORE.

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

Procedure.

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.

                    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  John J. Kelly, US Attorney, 525 Silver 
SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this  Tuesday January 20, 1997. 




5