Correcting Public Perceptions

Paul F. Weinbaum
11025 Black Hills Road
Las Cruces, NM 88011-9365
29 October 2009


Judge Lourdes Martinez
U.S. Federal Magistrate
Federal Courthouse
200 East Griggs St.
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Subject: Your failed service to the federal judicial system; My Constitutional rights.

Dear Judge Martinez:

Ever since the truth of how you and Defense Attorney William Babington coordinated the disappearance of over two years of the Pretrial Order in the Chavez/Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education (CIV 03-1043), later changed to Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education (CIV 03-1043), one can only wonder why you are still on the bench?

Your personal bias toward the pro se Plaintiffs was apparent from the outset of the above case. Your selection as the federal magistrate for Weinbaum/Boyd v. City of Las Cruces, etc. (CIV 05-996) only compounded your obvious prejudice toward the Plaintiffs in both cases.

For a judge who had all the authority of this nation’s laws to govern your decisions, you stooped to a low baseness to harangue and discredit the Plaintiffs in your court and in your decisions, a pronounced effort to force them to quit their rightful demands for Justice. An example of your harassment was the order for me to write a report comparing the Decalogue cases in Texas and Kentucky. Remember the time I asked, as was my right, for your assistance to serve a deposition summons on a state employee in Albuquerque? And you so eloquently said, “I’m not helping you do anything!” Your actions continue to bring discredit not only to your continued presence on the bench, but to the courts of the United States.

Contrary to the normal good order of a court as directed in the Federal Civil Judicial Procedures and Rules (FCJPR) that governed both these civil cases, you allowed the Defense Attorney Frank Weissbarth to assail me about some picayune, juvenile problem he had with my e-mails to him. To refresh your memory in my effort to calm his attack, I attempted to apologize to him and you said, “Your apology is not good enough!”

Attorney Weissbarth was Governor Richardson’s defense attorney for the City of Las Cruces case. It is my belief that from your body language when Governor Richardson’s name was invoked by me that he was involved in your federal appointment. Perhaps that is why Attorney Weissbarth appeared to have special privileges in his attacks on me.
You do remember don’t you, the time I asked you for the rules reference you were citing and you told me to “Read further!” Motivated by the rudeness of your admonishment I did. I read the whole book in the previous paragraph, along with several other legal tomes. There I found the names, paragraphs, and chapters of the abuses you covered with your ‘judge’s discretion’ and your misplaced employment as a federal magistrate.

Remember when the Plaintiffs attempted to question the Court’s ‘expert’ witness, history professor (“He’s one of ours.”) Jon Hunner, for a deposition? You and Defense Attorney Frank Weissbarth, who drove 300 miles from Santa Fe with his assistant, Ms. Lord, coordinated the disruption of the deposition, along with the Defense Attorneys William Babington and Matthew Holt. When I demanded these officers-of-the-court show me the rule in the FCJPR book where they were allowed to disrupt the deposition, Defense Attorney Matthew Holt reluctantly said, “They aren’t written down.”

Remember the two telephone calls to you from Attorney Weissbarth that morning, with the second one resulting in a cell-phone discussion with you by all parties. The cell-phone placed in the center of the table was certainly an unusual technique since your office was across the street. Of course, had we appeared in your court to resolve the conflict between the written rules I had to follow and those you continued to make up, there would be a record. You could not afford to have a record of your illegal tryst with the defense attorneys to prevent justice from being served.

Your religious prejudice toward the guaranteed rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and your oath of office was exposed all by yourself. Your blatant avoidance of the truth as a federal judge should have embarrassed you while holding and looking at an example of the basis of the two cases, the three crosses of the City of Las Cruces symbol, when you said, “I just don’t see that third cross you are complaining about, Mr. Weinbaum.” As the sitting federal magistrate deciding the Constitutional illegalities of the City of Las Cruces it was no time to expose your personal religious defense of “mental reservation.”

With that said, you should have recused yourself, as I had asked, as it was obvious you were using your judgeship in collusion with Judge Robert Brack to represent and protect, not the oath you took, not the U. S. Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, not the sanctity of the court, but interests represented by your personal beliefs.

Local Rules allow attorneys to take computers and cell-phones into the courtrooms, and both have silent transmission capabilities to outside the building. While the federal magistrate court does provide CD recordings for purchase, the speed of availability depends upon the purchaser. The local newspaper, the Las Cruces Sun-News, could get the CD within an hour. To your chagrin and that of others my withdrawal from the cases request never materialized, so the CD’s I purchased were delayed several times for several weeks. The pathetic courtroom acoustics, my military service hearing problem, and the delayed CD’s prompted my honest request for a noiseless recorder per the Local Rules. You didn’t find my request valid, so as usual you denied that request for that particular case as the rules dictate.

In the FJCPR I understood it to say that a ruling only applied to that particular case. When I did take a digital recorder into the courtroom in a different case, you claimed that I had disregarded your order, it coming from another case. Then you used me at the hearing you scheduled to harangue several attorneys, who were waiting for their cases to come up, on your obvious expectations of their servility since I wasn’t remorseful enough. “He hasn’t even apologized to me!”

You fined me $500 dollars in front of those attorneys as an obvious warning to them and you didn’t really want to hear what I had to say. You laughed at my hearing-test report I provided the court for consideration.

Then your after-action of levying large fines against the totally innocent security guards following my bringing the non-metallic recorder into the building can only be viewed as bizarre behavior for a judge. A judge with absolutely no idea about justice and fairness. A review panel of honest individuals would find you needing to look for a job elsewhere away from a court bench.

The civil rights damage you have done, the civil rights damage you participated in with Judge Robert Brack, the civil rights damage you supported by favoring one religion over others, the civil rights damage you helped levy on the religious and non-religious minority citizens of Las Cruces and its surrounds, has your black mark, Judge Martinez, for generations.

Every time you and Judge Brack see the symbol of Las Cruces crosses you will know what you both have done. The shadow of disgrace is on you both.


Sincerely,

Signed
_______________
Paul F. Weinbaum


PS: The appearance of the U.S. Marshals at my home was a ‘nice’ touch to the continued harassment.

Oklahoma Shield v. Las Cruces Symbol

" The Oklahoma state flag honors more than 60 groups of Native Americans and their ancestors. The blue field comes from a flag carried by Choctaw soldiers during the civil war. The center shield is the battle shield of an Osage warrior. It is made of buffalo hide and decorated with eagle feathers. Two symbols of peace lie across the shield. One is the calumet, or peace pipe. The other is an olive branch."

The stars, which also represent the cross-stitching of leather strips used in making a shield, are Native American signs which represent high personal ideals.

The mostly white-Christian Oklahoma Legislature ordered that the center mark on the stars be longer to obviously represent a Christian Latin cross.


Las Cruces, New Mexico:

"I just don't see that third cross...." so said federal Magistrate Lourdes Martinez.

The secretly adopted and secretly trademarked religious symbol claimed by the City of Las Cruces to represent the city originated in the 1960s, but the City got tangled in its lies and claims the symbol originated in the 1970s. It wasn't until citizens started openingly questioning in 2001 the increasingly in-your-face displays and use of the symbol on public property that City Attorney Rubio secretly contracted with a law firm in Albuquerque that specializes in trademarks to get the symbol trademarked. Using an outside agency was intentional to hide the process as the City Attorney's office could have done it themselves, it being a simple process.

Once the City's secret actions were discovered, protestations by citizens to the U.S. Trademark Office over the government's application for the ownership of the Christian religious symbolism of the Trinity crosses/Calvary events and the 15-points representing the Gospel of John 15, proved fruitless.

Then enters New Mexico State University History Professor Jon ("He's one of ours.") Hunner who presented himself to the Federal Court as an expert in local history. Hunner admitted during testimony that he had not read most of the standard references from a list about local history. The holes in Hunner's 'expert' report to the Court was the only thing 'holy' about his effort and sworn testimony. The religiously-biased federal Judge Robert C. Brack ignored the three lengthy, yet scholarly rebuttals that destroyed Hunner's sophomoric effort. One of Hunner's most outlandish claims was the Native American symbolism on the Oklahoma state flag justified the City of Las Cruces using Christian crosses as the City symbol. The Plaintiffs had to pay Hunner $2,500 for his "court expert" effort and lawyer-guided report, while this payment does not count for any other payments he received from the slush fund the City maintained from fearful citizens' donations.

The City Manager Terrence Moore had previously been quoted in the local Las Cruces Sun-News as saying the City was accepting donations for the Defense-of-the-City (slush) fund. The City refused to provide an accounting of the amount of money in the slush fund and the distribution.

Using Public School Crossing Guards to Lead the Little Children

The latest means by the City of Las Cruces to use employees to proselytize the little children. What better way than someone wearing Christian crosses leading the children safely across the streets.

This shoulder patch is from the police department. The City was still reeling from the Millennium Scare when the civil rights lawsuit was filed against the City of Las Cruces. It was just too much for the police department to comprehend while wearing the city symbol of three Latin crosses. Apparently not enough protection.

This colorful new design represents the Resurrection as described in the Gospel of John 20. The 20-points of the sun (son) rising over the Organ Mountains with the three Latin crosses represents the story line of Calvary events.

But there is some confusion. The story reports that Jesus told the 'good' thief to come with him. That left the 'bad' thief to fend for himself as he was supposed to go elsewhere. But wait, Judge Brack ruled the crosses weren't religious. What is one to think?

The Trinity/Calvary Crosses that Are Not Religious

Federal Judge Robert C. Brack ruled that these Christian crosses are not religious. Judge Brack also blocked the submission of documented evidence of the illegal, clandestine purchase using public funds and installation on public school property of these crosses.

This seven-foot circle of rusting blood-like steel is mounted on the south wall of the Las Cruces Public Schools football stadium facing Tashiro Drive. The Latin words, Unitas - Fortitudo, Excellentia, as revealed by the 'artist' Ruth Hernandez Bird, in a 'sworn' deposition represent the Greek Olympics. United, fortitude, and excellence are the translations. The code is probably: Excellence and strength from being united in Christ. Bird said the artwork represented "the community." Of course, only Christians can claim an affinity to the crosses. These crosses on a public school district stadium excludes all other non-religious and religious minorities from being a viable part of the community. Is that not the intent?

As one would expect in a Third World Country, this public school football stadium in a bizarre move is nicknamed after the popular baseball movie, 'Field of Dreams.'

The viewer will note that the circle is broken into two parts. Bird said, "Aesthetics." But notice that the upper portion of the circle is 3/12ths of the circle representing the three disciples of the inner circle of Jesus. The lower portion is 9/12ths of the circle and represents the nine disciples of the outer circle of Jesus.

The three crosses are polished stainless steel and the center cross is eight-feet tall. The adaptation of the other two crosses are an artistic means of showing the proposed events on Calvary. Note the 'good thief' is in the favored position to ascend to Heaven with Jesus as recorded in the story and the 'bad thief' is off to the side on his way elsewhere. Note the 'Jesus' cross extends beyond the earth's circle at the top and bottom as to represent the totality of the Christian domain.

On the inside and outside of the lower circle are two omega symbols in opposite positions, one is up and the other is down. If the reader can imagine the circle also representing the earth and as it turns, one of the omega symbols always points up as the turn completes.

'Artist' Bird appeared from the shadows with dubious artist credentials more in tune with farmer's markets displays, and disappeared, after allowing her name and signature to appear on the secret contract provided by the New Mexico Cultural Affairs office, Arts in Public Places. One pure fact is she received $3,500 under the table from the Las Cruces Public Schools Foundation, a 'private' group, signed by disgraced local judge, Larry Ramirez. Bird's belief that she constructed this 800-pound artwork in her garage flew out the window with the pictures of the artwork being constructed in a Tucson, Arizona, foundry.

Bird never did remember the color of her welder. The Richardson-appointee, Cultural Affairs Director Stuart Ashman, refused to act on the illegalities of his department. The New Mexico State Auditor used the previous year's audit to determine nothing was amiss with state money. The New Mexico State Attorney General's office was busy chasing Governor Richardson.

Show your Pride in your Prejudice

This is certainly going to be a best seller in Bigotville (the city formally known as Las Cruces). The support shown for this license plate is an example of how many people take pride in showing their prejudice toward minority religions. All the hype about the city of the crosses is based on fiction and lies from the federal courts. Governor William Richardson approved this license plate - anything for a vote.

"The fix was in, all the way to Santa Fe." (From Moore)

Paul F. Weinbaum
11025 Black Hills Road
Las Cruces, NM 88011-9365
1 October 2009

Judge Robert C. Brack
Federal District Court of Las Cruces
United States Courthouse
200 East Griggs Street
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Subject: Your vacation

Dear Judge Brack:

I have been carefully reviewing the local newspapers for months now, looking for any notice that you are vacating your position. You have had ample time to reflect on what you have done in Las Cruces and the shame you have brought to the bench. While the laws of this nation allow you to remain on the bench for life, one has to believe you knew your appointment to your present position was a sham. The vitae you presented to the U.S. Senate committee for your conformation would not pass muster before a committee truly committed to the welfare of the people they represented. The event was surely a ‘deck-stacker.’

I spelled out the legitimate reasons I requested you to recuse yourself from Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools (CIV 03-1043) and the subsequent sister case of Weinbaum/Boyd v. City of Las Cruces, etc. (CIV 05-996). You mocked my request with an insulting and denigrating out-of-place retort for a federal jurist to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that communicated the very reason I asked for your recusal. Not totally unexpected, there was some hope that justice would be served, but that religiously biased court ruled in your favor further infecting the quest for justice.

In the deposition conducted on me by the Defense Attorney William Babington, he asked the question I knew he would, that being, “What is your religion?” I knew from the beginning of my quest for Constitutional justice in Las Cruces, the real reason for the organized telephone calls, mailings, newspaper, television, radio show attacks, and stalking of me would surface, even though I never mentioned my religion when filing the cases, as was my right. As you know, my quest was only for civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and you denied my evidence. But you did approve the lies of the defense witnesses and the Court’s own ‘expert’ witness, even after I told you the defense attorney described the ‘expert’ thusly: “You know he’s one of ours.”

To refresh your memory, your retort to my recusal request which was based on your religious proclivities in the courthouse was, “I am a Christian.” You had no right to use that as an excuse, no legal basis. You misused your authority. In doing so you also mocked the purity of the law you represent. Your statement to the 10th Circuit Court was a signal and your official announcement that these cases were a battle between opposing religious beliefs and your values, not the law. Apparently you believed then and probably still do, that your religious beliefs put you above the laws of the United States. Have you replaced your reference material, the New Testament on your bench, with a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

You took an oath of office similar to the one I took as a sailor and soldier, “….protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I never wavered at my duty which is also a lifetime appointment. I earned an Honorable Discharge. But you, Sir, are an embarrassment to the judicial system. Your actions in the above cases show your continued presence in any courthouse is a mockery to your oath and to our Constitutional rights which you denied. Comparing your courtroom actions to the federal military system you would have earned a Dishonorable Discharge.

You interjected your religious beliefs into the federal courtroom I entered as a free citizen seeking justice from an oppressive local and state government bent on promoting religion and proselytizing my family and me. You, Judge Brack, knew what you were doing and it was obvious you knew what your minion and subordinate, federal Magistrate Lourdes Martinez, was up to in her senseless, never-ending insulting and harassment of me in court and in her rulings. An outside review will probably determine it was coordinated, it being so obvious.

In Joseph Conrad’s ‘Narcissus’ there is an observation by a sailor about a newly arrived shipmate. It begins, “We all knew him.” (for what he was.) I knew what you are from the beginning of the Schools case. I met you in my home town in Alabama. You were on every Navy ship and military base I ever served on. You were in every town and city I lived in. With all my experience with religious prejudice you caught me off guard though, I never expected you to be a federal judge in a District Court. You knew that I knew what you are. It was in the angst on your face that slipped through every time I stood in your court and challenged your knowledge of your versions of the law with the truth.

You knew I had the law on my side, the truth was clearly there, but you listened to the prejudice in your heart and in your friends’ black hearts. You allowed the harassment by federal Magistrate Lourdes Martinez and the Defense. It went way beyond any distaste for a pro se plaintiff. And you read it all in my submissions to the court for the record. You appeared to be afraid of the truth. How many times did you exercise ‘judge’s discretion’ to block me from introducing the truthful evidence in your courtroom? You even denied my lone witness! You knew I never told a lie.

One of the more bizarre standout events during the intentionally delayed years, created by Judge Martinez by her coordinating the loss of the Pretrial Order with Defense Attorney Babington and blaming it on me, was Judge Martinez punishing the courthouse security guards with large fines for ‘allowing’ me to enter with a digital recorder that would not show on the metal detector. You allowed attorneys and others to bring computers and cell phones into the courthouse. I would be surprised if Judge Martinez did not discuss this with you. My fine by her appeared to be in violation of Federal Civil Procedures along with other violations written off as ‘judge’s discretion.’

The new federal courthouse is almost finished. You have contaminated the present U.S. Federal Courthouse. All the federal and state judges in the state of New Mexico know what you have done; all the employees in the courthouse know it; all the judges in the federal judicial system know it; all your pals know it! Surely you are not so pompous as to not know what you have done. Your behavior as a federal judge is obscene and shameless!

You should go home and not contaminate the new courthouse. But before you go home you should think about your gain. There is a well-known historical event I am sure you are familiar with that set the precedence to your type actions. Surely what you have done is heavy on your heart. Only by your hand can you can provide any temporal relief due you. Some relief would come to you by doing whatever it takes to rescind your intentionally divisive ill-will rulings and the pall you cast on this city and its minority citizens. No amount of supplications will provide relief until YOU correct the wrong YOU have done.



Sincerely,

SIGNED
____________________
Paul F. Weinbaum


Cc: Various addressees

The Englih Language uck in La Cruce

One of the truly pathetic lie to protect religiou_ faction_ in La Cruce_ i_ the public _tatement by federal parrot Judge Brack and public _chool official_ that an 's' i_ not nece__ary in word ending_. One can only wonder how thi_ belief affect_ children in their learning to _peak the American Engli_h language.

According to their under oath _tatement it make_ no difference if an 's' i on a word. I own two car_. When I dre__ up I put on my new shoe_. School kid_ _hould take care of their book_. Your pencil_ are no good to eat.

Enough example_? Point made? The first ignored request went to the Superintendent and the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education. The request was about the Policy 424, Religion in the Schools, statement which reads: "Las Cruces Public Schools recognizes the separation of church and state and does not sponsor, promote, or endorse religion but does have the responsibility to teach about religion." (my bold)

Any casual reader can readily see that the word 'any' should be added between 'endorse' and 'religion' to clarify the meaning and read 'endorse any religion' in this policy statement. This second part of the policy statement tells any reader not encumbered with religious fears that it pertains to the teaching of the beliefs of one religion, that being the Christian beliefs.

A statement in the Procedures of Policy 424 reads, "Public schools have the responsibility to teach about religion but shall neither actively sponsor nor interfere with religions." Here again is an exclusionary statement. First it says "teach about religion" then it says "religions." Well, we all know that means they are going to teach about Christianity, but be kind and not compare it to those 'mongrel' religions.

This other statement would do well if the word 'is' is replaced with the word 'are' and an 's' is added to the word 'religion.' The statement "When religion is included in the curriculum......" would then read "When religions are included...."

When judges lie and public school officials lie to enforce their status quo hegemony those acts exclude a variety of citizens and denigrates their cultures and religions. It makes them invisible.
Is that not the point? You don't want children getting new ideas that would help them understand their school chums.

Any history, geography, choir, music, biology, anthropology, etc., teachers cannot properly teach their subjects without introducing cultures and their religions into the various subjects. Ignoring the other half of the world that is not Christian is certainly disrespectful to the students' learning.