This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Case No: D-0721-CV-2009-132 Judge: HON. KEVIN SWEAZEA City of Truth or Consequences Commissioners: Lori Montgomery, Fred Torres, Evelyn Renfro, Jerry Stagner, and Steve Green Appellees MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FOURTH DEGREE FELONY FRAUD AND COERCIVE COLLECTION TACTICS UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT NOW COMES Appellant Kim Audette, representing herself, to submit this Complaint to the District Court. District Court has jurisdiction because a Writ of Execution was issued in District Court on Dec. 21, 2011 under this case number, and the error is corrected by NMRA Rule 1-060(A). The fraudulent cause for Application for the Writ is corrected by NMRA Rule 1-060(B)(3 and 6), fraud and fraud on the Court. The felonious seizure of Appellant's possessions is the substantial purpose of the Application for Writ filed Dec. 21, 2011, with process of service on Jan. 6, 2012. NMSA 52-10-3 states: “Unfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are
Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 1
unlawful.” As will be shown in below and in the Affidavit of Kim Audette (filed concurrently), the Writ of Execution, issued Dec. 21, 2011, qualifies as a Fraudulent Transaction of “rights” to unspecified “assets” belonging to Appellant Audette. A Fraudulent Transaction (NMSA 30-16-6(A)) of $1,276.02 is a fourth degree felony. NMSA 30-16-6(D) The City Commissioners, represented by the Mayor, signed contracts. Under those contracts, City Attorney and City employees participated in frauds on the behalf of City Commissioners. The City Commissioners individually signed written contracts called the Oath of Office. The City Commissioners therefore do not have immunity, pursuant to NMSA 37-1-23, and are jointly and severally liable for their actions and the actions of their appointed public officials. NMSA 55-1-103(b) allows “supplemental principles of law” such as “fraud” and “coercion” to “invalidate” City's “cause” of the “Writ of Execution” of Dec. 21, 2011. The loss of items of sentimental value would cause irrepairable harm. Therefore Appellant prays for NMRA Rule 1-060 injunctive relief. A proposed form of the order is attached. NMSA 56-10-20(D) allows Appellant Audette to pray for relief from frauds and coercive collection tactics conducted in violation of statutes by the City of Truth or Consequences Commissioners (“City”), and several participants, named
Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 2
“Law of the case doctrine is discretionary. and in the Affidavit of Kim Audette (filed concurrently and incorporated herein). and the penalties are statutory.02 has “justly indebted” Appellant Audette to City. ¶41. NMSA 49-2-1(G) allows Appellant Audette to cross-claim for treble and punitive damages on the fraudulent and felonious transaction that resulted: the Dec. 21.02. making the orders “arbitrary”. For reasons described below. Fraudulent and coercive conduct in transactions and collections by entities is prohibited by the Unfair Trade Act. Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 3 .276. and “without supporting evidence”.2d 305 The Affidavit of City. 2011 at #3 and #5. 21. 965 P. that a fraudulently obtained judgment of $1. 125 N.herein and in the Affidavit filed concurrently.1(D) and the proposed form of the order is attached. 1998NMSC-031. the “debt” is unjust and fraudulent. 721. Appellant prays for the District Court to vacate the “law of the case” under NMRA Rule 1-060 and NMSA 39-3-1.276. The “law of the case” is “unreasoned”. and courts will not use the doctrine when the decision to be applied preclusively is clearly erroneous or when it would result in manifest injustice.” Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque. 2011 Writ of Execution for seizure of Appellant Audette's assets and conversion for $1. swears under the oath of City Attorney Jay Rubin.M. filed Dec.
lack of a contract validating a “debt”. NMSA 57-12-10. NMSA 42-9-1 and 42-9-5. 4) Applicable law is NMSA 55-1-103(b). The pleading demonstrates unconscionable trade practices as defined by NMSA 52-12-2(E)(1) for neglect to serve process as “notice” before filing.INTRODUCTION 1) City filed a pleading on Dec. NMSA 57-12-2. NMSA 56-10-20(D) states that “a transfer is not made until the debtor has acquired the right to the asset”. lack of findings and conclusions validating the claim that Appellant Audette is “justly indebted”.1(D). lack of a “reasonable time” between “demand” and “default”. 21. 2) The Writ of Execution is a coercive collection tactic on a fraudulent debt under the Unfair Practices Act as defined in NMSA 52-12-2(D)(1-15). NMSA 30-16-6(A) and (D) and NMSA 39-3-1.1(D). The “law of the case” is voided by the frauds. 1998-NMSC-031. such “right” being in the Writ of Execution to collect “assets” belonging to Appellant Audette. NMSA 57-12-3. ¶41 Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 4 . NMSA 56-10-20(D). 2011styled an Affidavit and Application for Writ of Execution. and no “cause under NMSA 42-9-1” for a Writ to issue. 3) The Fraudulent Transactions Act applied when the Writ of Execution was issued without valid cause. Trujillo . 5) “Fraud” is cause to reverse Ordinance 599 pursuant to NMSA 39-3-1.
786. Distinguishment has not happened to date. orders. NMRA Rule 1-060(B)(3) from fraud and NMRA Rule 1-060(B)(6) for Fraud on the Court. A change of jurisdiction in a zoning appeal requires a written order. to give Ordinance 599 the factual and legal basis required Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 5 . City of Santa Fe. 2007-NMSC-055. It is continuously apparent that City neglected.M. District Court has not issued any letters.1(D) is the controlling law of the case. Smith v.6) Appellant Audette respectfully moves the Court for Declaratory Judgment under NMSA 44-6-4 and 44-6-13 to provide the collateral relief under NMRA Rule 1-060(A) from clerical error. nor Findings and Conclusions. ¶15. Grounds in support of this motion are: DISCUSSION NMSA 39-3-1. that specifically changed that jurisdiction. 142 N.1.3d 300 stood for the proposition that a change of jurisdiction in an appeal of an administrative decision requires a written order. 1). 171 P. While the court may access any of its forms for relief simultaneously. District Court took jurisdiction under NMSA 39-3-1. (Affidavit of Kim Audette filed concurrently #1-#3) 2). NMRA Rule 1-052 Smith (Id) 3). while empowered to do so in their quasi-judicial role. In 2009. the Supreme Court cautioned in Smith that a written order must distinguish the features of each.
2011 nor on the County Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 6 . Ashbaugh. then no judiciary action can fix that. If City's needs are not met through Ord. Appellant Audette respectfully requests Judicial Notice that applicable law was not cited. did not find cause for denial of standing. Williams v. and also did not authorize contracts. 25. City has the authority to decide zoning issues in accordance with NMSA 3-21-1 et seq and weight the factors of zoning in accordance with NMSA 3-21-5. Yet. While creating a zoning ordinance.to meet the City's needs. City's Findings justified the zone change by stating that it met the City's needs. City Commissioners neglected to do so. 1986) “it "is a situation which calls for legislative therapy and not judicial therapy"” 5). 11-2-2(G)(1-7) and 11-7-2. and did not find authority for inventorying the laundry of zoning opponents. T or C Codes 11-2-3. 4). did not find authority for sanctions. 731. App.M. City has the responsibility of finding facts and creating the legal authority to act (ordinances) while in the quasi-judicial role at the public hearing on zoning Ordinance 599 pursuant to NMSA 3-21-1 et seq. that relevant facts were not found. 266 (Ct.2d 263. 120 N. Ord. 7). 734. 599 simply must be remanded for a legal and factual basis. 906 P. the case continues to use the Court's time. and the Cost bill was not served for review and there is no Certificate of Service on the Judgment dated Feb. 599. 6).
worked a Fraud on the Court with his filing of Dec. With every additional unauthorized action in violation of administrative law by the District Court and City Commission. 28.2d 981 (1976) 8). acting on behalf of City Commissioners under contract.Clerk's filing of Feb. 2011. This action is still under NMSA 39-3-1. 89 N. 599 becomes more and more arbitrary.1(D). 138 N. 117 P. Commissioners. 2005-NMSC021.3d 240 ¶ 26 10). 2011. City Attorney Rubin.” Worland v. and was not supported by substantial evidence” Paule v. 82. Santa Fe Co. The “district court” should reverse “the Commission's decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious. “A judgment cannot be sustained on appeal unless the conclusion upon which it is based finds support in the findings of fact. Worland.1 and is still a zoning appeal. District Court is authorized by law to remand under NMSA 39-3-1. zoning Ord.02 without cause.M. through volunteer efforts to require a viable zoning ordinance from the Commissioner-Manager form of municipal government.M. 21. and now 4th degree felony fraud can be added to the many flaws of Ordinance 599.276. Appellant has in good faith acted in the public interest with public approval. resulting in the felony of a Writ of Execution for $1. Appellees did not move the Court for a change of jurisdiction and so their Post Trial Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions was outside of the jurisdiction of District Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 7 . 9). 291. 551 P.
Vill. If the facts are not in the Record. a party to a lawsuit is not entitled to recover attorney fees from an opposing party. Inc. v Public Service Co. The grant of the sanction was a significant error that reaches for new depths of error.. Even if jurisdiction is changed to that of the Declaratory Judgment Act.Court. Appellant Audette therefore moves the Court for a change of jurisdiction to the Declaratory Judgment Act to correct the errors of the Court. 2005-NMCA-090. where the use Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 8 . 138 N. of NM. District Court did not file a statement of relevant fact and applicable law in this case in violation of NMRA Rule 1-052(A). There is still no evidence of a statute or contract to enforce in the Record on Appeal that gives weight to the order granting the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. the Record Below stands as the sole source of evidence. 907 P. 12). 11).M. then District Court can only remand to obtain factual basis that City neglected to find. 208. 778 at 782-85. Id) District Court cannot “find facts” that City did not find. 2007-NMSC-055. 120 N.M." 13).3d 716 "In the absence of such statutory or contractual authority. Paule 2005-NMSC-021 ¶26 Zamora v. A timely Motion for NMRA Rule 1-052 Court's Findings and Conclusions was made on March 4. Summit Properties. 118 P. 201.2d at 186-89 (1995) “describing district court's scope of review when reviewing final agency decision”. of Ruidoso Downs. (Smith. City did not find a statute or contract.
The Application is therefore fraudulent. 25. By submitting the Application for Writ of Execution of Dec. 2011 claim of “justly indebted” is required under the Writs statutes by the use of the word “SHALL” (NMSA 42-9-5). A judgment without reason is arbitrary and unenforcable. the Writ was applied for. the Feb. 976 (Ct. District Court is still forbidden from finding facts by NMSA 39-3-1. making it arbitrary. Paule 2005-NMSC-021 ¶16 Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 9 . swearing it is “just”. 21. 106 N.2d 973. 2011. 15). Appellees once again asked this Court to exceed its authority by finding facts that would validate a non-existent contract. 21. 2011 order and judgment has no weight. Without the relevant fact and applicable law that can only be provided by the Court's Findings and Conclusions. 16). 2011 judgment enforcing a non-existent contract is “unjust” --it is has no weight of Findings and Conclusions. Rowley v.of the word “shall” does not allow avoidance of Findings and Conclusions. so the Application is required by law to have a cause that involves a “just” “debt”. 1987) (noting "[t]his standard reflects a respect for the governing body's legislative function "). 676.M. The Dec. unreasonable and outside of the Court's authority.1. Yet. 2011 Application for Writ relies upon an “unjust” judgment. 14). 21. The Dec. App. Murray. City is the fact finder when in the quasi-judicial role at the public hearing. Even if it was not specifically used. the Feb. 25. 679. unreasoned. 748 P.
2011. 18). filed concurrently. Brazos Lodge Corp. 2010. Appellant Audette is an individual who has not signed a contract. False allegations were made of the existence of contracts by City Attorney.2d at 956. 808 P. NMRA 1060(B)(3. Jay Rubin. 2010. is not an authorized action of the District Court. …” Rivera v.M. 2). Issuing a fraudulent Writ of Execution on Dec. 21. is not an authorized action of the District Court. The authority cited was common law on contracts. #3. at 671. NMSA Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 10 . Filing a fraudulent judgment on Feb. without support of the Court's Findings and Conclusions. On October 20. Exhibit A. 2011.17). fraudulently applied to this court for sanctions for enforcement of a non-existent contract. NMRA Rule 1-052(A) 19). a fourth degree felony. 111 N. The serious errors involving City Attorney's frauds on the Court have resulted in actions that are in excess of the District Court's authority. “Appellate courts may vacate or remand sanctions that lack the support of specific evidence in the record. 25. 5 and 6) allows the Court to vacate actions based in fraud. City Commissioners by and through their City Attorney. (Id) How the Felonious Frauds came about. 1). #13-#15) See Motion for Sanctions filed October 20. (Affidavit of Kim Audette. NMRA Rule 1-060(A) allows the District Court to vacate the clerk's error.
. 92. • “ Candor and honest are a lawyer's stock and trade. 137 N. • NMRA Rule 16-303.3d 566 at ¶32 • 3). “A district court abuses its discretion when it misapprehends the law or if the Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 11 .. Inc.55-1-103(b). we hold that there was insufficient evidence” City of Sunland Park v. “ In the Matter of Stein. 20. 588. ¶ 20.3d 513. 489 (1985). 81 P. 630.3d 573 ("In the absence of evidence in the record of a meeting of the minds. Jay Rubin never produced relevant fact and substantial evidence of a contract. because there is no contract to which to apply the common law of contracts. 2011 (Hearing log 2:35:32). Inc. Halliburton Energy Servs. 2005-NMCA-028. As an officer of the court. 102 N."). 124 P.M. Truth is not a matter of convenience.3d 532 (stating that counsel's arguments are not evidence and are insufficient to support proposed facts). 16. Phillips Petroleoum Co.. Jay F. 138 N. Therefore the law applied by City was not “applicable law”.M. Rubin fraudulently represented that a contract with Appellant Audette existed. 2010 and in the hearings of Feb.. in his motion of Oct. 2008-NMSC-013.M. 177 P. 333. Boergadine. 107 P.2d 483.M. 4). 2005-NMCA-128. ¶ 37. • “Lawyers are officers of the court and are always under an obligation to be truthful to the court. followed by a ruling in the attorney's favor “undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process”. DeArmond v. the trial court could not find that there was mutual assent. 462. 2003-NMCA-148.M. Jay Rubin is forbidden from deception. Harris News. under committee Commentary states that a misstatement or omission of fact by the City Attorney. 339. See State v. 695 P. 134 N. 143 N. Therefore. • “[T]here was not any evidence of such a promise.” Woodson v.
which can only be done by an officer of the court.2d at 298. Jay F. Rubin. Rivera. 137 N. 654. 7). Without citation to statute or contract.02 on Feb. 2005-NMCA-028.3d 532 stating that counsel's arguments are not evidence and are insufficient to support proposed facts. 92. The City Attorney could only offer statements.M. 96 N.M. ¶¶ 6-7. when City served process that is clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Rubin worked a fraud on the court. 630 P. at 346. 2012.M. 25. 111 N. The Feb. Robertson v. 25.decision is not supported by substantial evidence. State v. Right to Choose/NARAL v.”.M. at 671 Mr. Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 12 . Carmel Builders Real Estate 135 NM 641 2004-NMCA-056 “An omission as well as an act may constitute fraud. and without the support of the Court's Findings and Conclusions. Boergadine.” See N. 107 P.M. Wirth. 986 P. an individual. an officer of the Court and a public official appointed under T or C Code 2-141. Johnson.2d 450 (emphasis added) 5). The fraud was not apparent until January 6. and statements of attorneys are not evidence. ¶17 127 N. fraudulently obtained grant of the sanction and judgment for $1. 1999-NMSC-028. in violation of contract law. 2011 order granting sanctions to enforce a non-existent contract is abitrary for lack of contract to enforce. 6).276. ¶ 37. 2011. City has never been able to produce a contract that placed Appellant Audette.
¶17.276. 421.02 was a fraud not fully ripe. The first step in the fraud. at 346. 2011.M. 9). 25. ¶ 14. N. State Bd.8). so that “notice” is controlled only by the process of service described in NMRA Rule LR7-004 and Rule 1-004. Rivera v. Summit. 25. arbitrary grant of a judgment for $1. 11). Appellant Audette objected on March 4. 2005-NMCA090. 941 P. Appellant Audette is an individual who is not under the Uniform Commercial Code. Summit. Process of service on the judgment filed Feb.2d 502 10). NARAL. 96 N.2d at 298. ¶¶ 6-7.M. 1999-NMSC-028. 2012. 2005-NMCA-090. 630 P. 111 N. “[D]ue process requires notice” Mills v. at 671.M. and requested the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pusuant to NMRA Rule 1-052(A). of Psychologist Exam'rs. An order and judgment which are granted without substantial evidence and applicable law have no weight. 2011 did not occur until January 6. Brazos Lodge Corp. 2011. supra As Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 13 . 123 N. Robertson 2004-NMCA-056. An award of attorney fees cannot be collected until there are Findings and Conclusions in support thereof. Following the grant of the motion and award of the arbitrary judgment on Feb. Wirth.M. 1997-NMSC-028. City neglected service of process of the judgment. NMSA 37-1-13 states that the judgment does not commence until served. The order and judgment are therefore arbitrary and unreasoned and should be vacated. NMRA Rule 1-060.
1(D) The Unfair Practices Act 1).276. there was no “damage”. Inc. 2011. 2008NMSC-054. “The UPA makes it unlawful. 21. issuance of the Writ of Execution on Dec. which is not “just”. a fourth degree felony in a coercive collection action of $1.long as City did not attempt collection. is knowing and willful violation of the NM Constitution preclusion against acts in excess of authority. no “default date” and was not “served”. a law-abiding citizen. The second step of the fraud.2012.M. to engage in unfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices. The NM Supeme Court has discussed the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) at length in Salazar v. 12). visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale. lease. Prior to January 6. 828.3d 1205 ¶24. is not legally allowed to validate an illegitimate bill. tends to or does deceive or mislead any person. Particularly since this step is a Court error that participates in a fraudulent conversion of property. 1. in the conduct of any trade or commerce. rental or loan of goods or services or in the extension of credit or in the collection of debts by any person in the regular course of his [or her] trade or commerce. An unfair or deceptive trade practice is defined in the UPA as “any false or misleading oral or written statement.” (emphasis added) Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 14 . Section 57-12-3. 144 N. Appellant Audette.02.. NMSA 30-16-6(A) and (D) and NMSA 39-3-1. Article 3. 192 P. which may. Sec. DWBH. has no “due date”.
#3. Rubin's oath four times that the “judgment” was “due” and in “default”. 2011 attachment to the affidavit. and #6 are frauds. Even if the Dec. and #6 are frauds. NMSA 56-5-3 (#19 Affidavit of Kim Audette filed concurrently) In this second context. #3. 2011. At #1. filed an Affidavit on behalf of City. 21. (A). In this first context. 21. There has not been a phone call. Exhibit A. 3). #4. 21. and #6. 4). who has communicated a statement of a “reasonable time” before default. it was delivered by process of service on Jan.2). a letter. 6. 2012. The “demand” could not be in “default” until after “a reasonable amount of time” had expired after process of service. 5). The “reasonable” time required by statute on a Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 15 . 2011. A judgment without a due date on its face cannot be in “default” until well after it is demanded. is considered “the demand” for “payment” of “the debt”. #4. #1. #3. an email or a person. it must be communicated in some way. City swore through Mr. NMSA 56-5-3 For the time to be “reasonable”. Appellees' counsel. A judgment that was served for the first time on Jan. #4. Jay Rubin. On Dec. #1. 2012 cannot be “due” and in “default” on Dec. The “debt” could not be “demanded” until “process of service”. 6.
#2. None of the conditions under NMSA 42-9-1 were alleged. but not a felony. never occurred. 6). 134 N. In this third context. a district court must make specific findings that were not made in this case. 77 P. the “judgment” of Feb. NMRA Rule 1-052(A) 7). #3 and #6 are frauds. #4. 21 2011 filing are frauds. 2012. #4. between “notice” and “default”. until the Writ was issued.3d 298. for filing the Application to the District Court to issue a Writ of Execution to sieze “assets” belonging to Appellant Audette Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 16 . #5 and #6 of the Dec. “In order to sanction under its inherent power. In this fifth context. it is a fraudulent cause. Filing on Feb. A Writ for seizure cannot be issued unless the Affiant alleges one of the conditions under NMSA 42-9-1. #1. Johnson. (Affidavit of Kim Audette filed concurrently #4-#16). 2011 and delivered Jan. It was vexatious conduct. 21. 21. 394. in five different ways.demand. 28. 2011 could not be a “just” “debt” until validated by the Court's Findings and Conclusions (NMRA Rule 1-052(A). As discuss under How The Felonious Frauds Came About. #1.M. “Delivery of a demand” is a generous description of the Affidavit of City filed Dec. 25.” Seipert v. In this fourth context. 6. 2011 simply transferred the record of the unjust debt to the County Records. and none apply. Even under generous interpretation. 8). 2003NMCA-119. 2011Application for Writ of Execution is fraudulent on its face. the Dec. #3.
2011.based upon City's own neglect to notice in a timely manner. 10).M. 630 P. “delivery” and “cause” is therefore fraudulent under the statutory requirements for a Writ of Execution or debt collection (NMSA 56-5-3). (Affidavit of Kim Audette filed concurrently. Evelyn Renfro. 21. and had not yet been served. The Dec. Fred Torres. Treble and Punitive damages are authorized by NMSA 57-12-10. violating NMSA 49-2-5 and NMSA 49-2-1. 21. Wirth. Frances Sanchez-Luna. Lori Montgomery. Appellant Audette has the right to sue for attachment as a Creditor for the damages of the fraud of claiming a non-existent contract as a debt under NMSA 429-1(G). #17-#28). City then further escalated the violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The judgment was not “due” nor in “default” as it is “unjustly indebted” for lack of the Court's Findings and Conclusions.2d at 298. 11). Robertson 2004-NMCA056. “default”. 12). Appellant Audette therefore moves the Court for attachment for treble and punative damages against the several and joint assets of each of the participants who were under contract with each other in the frauds and coercive collection tactics: Jay Rubin. A District Court Clerk issued the Writ of Seizure to the Sheriff on Dec. at 346. 9). Steve Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 17 . Working a fraud on the Court for issuance of a Writ of Execution is very serious. 96 N. 2011 claim of a “judgment”. “debt”.
2003NMCA-119. City Commissioners. by and through their attorney.3d 298 14). Appellant Audette's March 4.M. All of the District Courts orders in this case are arbitrary for lack of the weight of District Court's Findings and Conclusions. “In order to sanction under its inherent power. 2011 request for Findings and Conclusions. ¶ 24 ¶ 23. there is no weight to the orders composed and submitted by Jay Rubin.M. 1998-NMCA-134. a violation of NMRA Rule 1-052. the Affidavit on Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 18 . Johnson. Whitehead Auto Towing. never filed. 125 N. 77 P. 786.Green. the Fraudulent Transactions Act and common law. NMRA Rule 1-052. City's Affidavit of Dec. 965 P. Maggiore. 21. and Maliza Apodaca. Four times. Completely lacking in factual or legal basis. 134 N. as required by NMRA Rule 1-052. controlling fraudulent collections. the Unfair Practices Act. a district court must make specific findings that were not made in this case. 394. Atlixco Coalition v. 13).2d 370 noting that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it "entirely omits consideration of relevant factors or important aspects of the problem at hand" 15). Ken Reidermann. 2011 swears the proposed fact that Appellant is “justly indebted” at #3 and #5. The violation of NMSA 49-2-5 is in the lack of the Court's Findings and Conclusions. Without the relevant fact and applicable law that in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. violated the Unfair Practices Act.” Seipert v.
M. City Commissioners. 91. filed concurrently #32) Seipert 2003-NMCA-119 NMRA Rule 1-052 17). (Affidavit of Kim Audette. Jay F. 135 N. (B). (Affidavit of Kim Audette. City's fraudulent writ of seizure is a malicious abuse of color of law for coercive collection. violated the Unfair Practices Act by swearing it was not neglectful of the law. #3. #33-38. City. by and through the City Attorney. Rubin violated the statutes controlling Writs (NMSA Chapter 42). by and through their attorney. Neglecting process of service of the judgment in violation of 19 Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics . but was neglectful: (A). Maliza Apodaca. #41) 18). Neglecting the Court's Findings and Conclusions in violation of NMRA Rule 1-052. "[W]ith an improper purpose to intimidate and frighten" Valles v Silverman 2004-NMCA-019. 16).3d 1056 A form of “arbitrary” is “tyranny”. by fraudulently claiming a “debt” that cannot exist until the District Court files the Court's Findings and Conclusions and Appellant Audette receives process of service. 84 P. The fraudulent affidavit was used to obtain a fraudulent Writ of Execution from the District Court Clerk. filed concurrently and incorporated herein.behalf of City fraudulently swore the illegitimate “debt” was “just” and in “default”.
#3. Neglecting to communicate a due date for a “justly indebted” judgment. still awaiting the Court's Findings and Conclusions. The fraudulent claim of “default” on Dec. (G). 2011 by City on the Record at #1. #4.#. (D). 21. NMSA 52-12-10(D) allows for the additional penalties of Tort Law. is “now due” and #1.NMRA Rule LR7-004 and NMRA Rule 1-004. 21. NMSA 44-4-4(D)(2) specifies that City must pay for the damages to property or rights caused by City's neglegence. (C). Neglecting to communicate a “reasonable amount of time” after which the “justly indebted” judgment goes into “default”. Neglecting to serve a demand for payment of a “justly indebted” judgment. The neglect of a governing body resulting in damages is subject to Tort Law (Chapter 41). #5 and #6 of the Affidavit created evidence of Unfair Practices. 19). 20). This filing is also notice of Tort violations that will be dealt with separately in due time. #4. (F). and #6 say it is in “default”. #5 of the Affidavit of Dec. 2011 simply says that the “unjustly indebted” judgment. and (E). Abusive Collection Tactics followed in the City's prayer for a Writ of Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 20 .
fraudulently obtained judgment filed Feb. (C). and fraudulent Writ filed in District Court on Dec. based upon fraudulent claims at the last paragraph on page 2 of the Dec. Appellant Audette's prayer for relief under the remedies provided by the Unfair Practices Act is supported by the evidence of (A).02 as a fourth degree felony. City's neglect is a violation of NMRA Rule 1-011. City and City Attorney are under the Uniform Commercial Code as organizations who have Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 21 . NMSA 30-16-6 (A) and (D) describe the fraudulent Writ of Execution for $1. NMSA 52-12-10 and NMSA Section 57- 12-3 provide for the statutory penalites in the prayer for relief below. fraudulent claim of “justly indebted”.276. 21. 2011 filing. NMSA Section 57-12-2. 2011. 2011 in District Court and Feb. Each person under the Uniform Commerical Code who participates in the perpetration of a fourth degree felony fraud is subject to suit for damages severally and jointly. 28.276. NMSA Section 55-1-103(b) allows the statutory application of law to the fraudulent transactions.02. 2011 in the County Clerk's Office. 25. (E). 23). 21). 21. (D). (B). 22). NMRA Rule 1-011 is intolerant of harmful violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure.Execution for $1.
(NMSA 39-3-1. The frauds require orders affirming Ordinance 599 be VACATED.signed contracts with each other and another contract called the Oath of Office City intends fraudulent conversion of Appellant Audette's property. 6. WHEREFORE Appellant Audette prays for relief as follows: 1. therefore. 5.828.02. The Order granting Sanction be VACATED. 4. assessed jointly and severally as a liability on City Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 22 . REMAND of Ordinance 599 to City for a legal and factual basis.06.276.1(D) 3.276. The judgment for $1. City and participants in the fraud are subject to Rule 11 sanctions for fraudulent filings causing harm. for a total of $3.02 be VACATED. 2. Attached is a proposed Order granting INJUNCTIVE RELIEF from the Abusive Practices and Writ of Execution. TREBLE THE DAMAGE of the judgment of $1. Appellant Audette herein moves the Court for sanction of Appellees under NMRA Rule 1-011 for damages. NMSA 52-12-10(D) allows for the additional penalties of NMRA Rule 1-011 that results in unconscionable trade practices as defined by NMSA 5212-2(E)(1). enjoining the Sheriff from executing seizure of Audette's possessions and enjoining City from further coercive collection practices.
276. #30. which is the substantial purpose of the Writ issued Dec.02 to be filed at the County Clerks office relating to the Book 117. Lori Montgomery.02 are: Jay Rubin. Evelyn Renfro. #29. 2011. Steve Green. The order vacating and enjoining the judgment of $1. Lori Montgomery. the loss of possessions of sentimental value. #38. all a part of defending one's possessions from fraudulent seizure (Affidavit of Kim Audette#3. LLC. Fred Torres. Frances Sanchez-Luna. 8. Ken Reidermann. and #41. Page 2674-5 filing. #33. Additional PUNITIVE DAMAGES caused by the threat of home invasion under color of law. filed concurrently). Ken Reidermann.Commissioners and other participants in the Unfair Practices: Jay Rubin. 21. Frances Sanchez-Luna. Referral to the District Attorney for QUO WARRANTO INVESTIGATION OF THE MALICIOUS ABUSE OF COLOR OF LAW and FOURTH DEGREE FELONY FRAUDULENT COLLECTIONS. Evelyn Renfro. Lori Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 23 . and Whitehead Auto Towing.276. the physical harm caused by stress and the loss of time at work.276. Steve Green. Fred Torres. The perpetrators of the fraudulent collection tactics for $1. and Whitehead Auto Towing. Punitive damages of $1.02 severally assessed against each participant in the abusive collection tactics and frauds under the Uniform Commercial Code: Jay Rubin. 7. 9. LLC.
NM 87901 _________________________ Kim Audette Representing herself 618 Van Patten Truth or Consequences. Fred Torres. Respectfully submitted. Evelyn Renfro. Frances Sanchez-Luna. Kim Audette Representing herself 618 Van Patten Truth or Consequences. • AFFIDAVIT OF KIM AUDETTE. • APPELLANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS and • ORDER of INJUNCTION was delivered by hand to: Jay Rubin Attorney for the City of Truth or Consequences Commissioners 314 Main Truth or Consequences. and Steve Green. Other participants are Ken Reidermann. LLC and some of the District Court staff. NM 87901 Telephone: 575-740-1988 AFFIRMATION OF DELIVERY By my signature below I affirm that a copy of the foregoing: • MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FOURTH DEGREE FELONY FRAUD UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT. whose names are not known. NM 87901 Telephone: 575-740-1988 Motion for Relief from Coercive Collection Tactics 24 . Whitehead Auto Towing.Montgomery.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.