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.