EXHIBIT A MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60

MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60 (B) (4), VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE POWERS OF AND RIGHTS GUARANTEED THEREIN AND VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW

COMES NOW Plaintiff, having been away for the Christmas holiday, has just received this Court’s Order. Since Defense counsel Komer filed late pleadings and moved the court to accept them as timely, to which Plaintiff did not object, Plaintiff hereby moves the Court to extend equal consideration to her and accept this motion as timely. Plaintiff moves this Court to void the judgment issued December 13, 2004. As grounds therefor and by brief in support thereof, Plaintiff states:

1. The court order issued by Judge Brack in paragraph III C states: “This court acknowledges Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and recognizes its duty to uphold the law in this case and in every other case. There is no need to issue an order restating the obvious.” Brack’s order is part of the public record and cannot be denied in this and in future proceedings. In spite of his statement, Brack, pursuant to his oath, by his order which denies the very Rights claimed before this court by Plaintiff, immediately proceeds to deny, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Plaintiff’s Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights; (B) All the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to Plaintiff; especially: (C) Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights; (D) Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights; (E) Plaintiff’s Seventh Amendment Rights; (F) The entire Bill of Rights; (G) Due Process of Law; (H) Plaintiff’s Rights to present evidence, based in fact and law, but unconsidered and most-likely unread by this court; (I) Plaintiff’s evidence and pleadings which specify charges against Defendant that Defendant failed to rebut, with particularity, in its responsive pleadings, thus, pursuant to FRCP 8(D), Defendant admits to the charges, yet this court failed, pursuant to the oath of the presiding judge, to uphold Plaintiff’s Rights and Federal rules.

Plaintiff, based on present and previous actions and rulings of this court, anticipated this denial of her Constitutional Rights, which was and is the reason for her Motion. Because of reasons stated herein, Brack’s order is unconstitutional, without authority or jurisdiction, is null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever, upon Plaintiff.

2. This Nation is a Constitutional Republic created and ruled by the law of this land - the Constitution of the United States of America. Plaintiff’s Motion is based on and supported by the Constitution and can be demonstrated before any court, including the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary. Plaintiff hereby challenges Brack or any other Federal judge in any court to deny what is stated in this Motion, pursuant to their oaths and pursuant to the Federal Constitution. Brack’s oath is taken to support and uphold the Constitution and Citizens Rights guaranteed therein and is required to act and rule pursuant to his oath. However, Brack perjured his oath by his order which denies Plaintiff’s Motion and the powers of the Constitution and the Rights guaranteed therein to Plaintiff. Since Constitutional Rights are inviolate, they cannot be violated or denied by anyone, especially one who has previously taken an oath to the Constitution. By his order, Brack has invoked the self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment and no longer is a lawful judge, entitled to no benefits of office, including salary and pension. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails for the reasons herein stated.

3. The American Citizen is sovereign in this Nation, not that government or court, pursuant to oaths taken, sworn to support the Constitution and serve the Citizen. No sovereignty is delegated by the Constitution to the machinery of the National and State governments, or divisions thereof. Sovereignty is inherent in the People and governmental powers are derived from the People, and the People, for good reason, did not delegate sovereign powers to the government. The only sovereignty associated with the States is that arising from the true nature of the State, which is the People, the body politic. It is the duty of the Federal courts to uphold the Constitution, the powers thereof and the Rights guaranteed therein, yet Brack, by his order, acts in perjury of his oath and in defiance of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution states that judges may serve in times of good behavior. For Brack to issue such an order, denying the Constitution and Rights guaranteed therein to Plaintiff, an American Citizen, who claimed all her Rights before this court, is not serving in good behavior.

4. Since the American Citizen is Sovereign in America, no Constitutional court of due-process has authority to, or will, deny this. The United States of America is the People, the American Citizens, not simply the ground or the government which has specific, limited, delegated powers provided by the Constitution and by the People, whom the government has sworn to serve, pursuant to oaths taken by all government officers and officials. The government, in essence, has a fiduciary contract with the People. The instruments of that contract are the Constitution and oaths taken to uphold the Law of the Land. The only reason government was instituted in America was to uphold the Rights of the People. The three branches of government are designed, in part, to place checks and balances on each other to assure that the law is faithfully followed and that Citizens are provided their Constitutional Rights. The checks and balances of this court appear non-existent, therefore, Brack’s ruling is unconstitutional and fails.

5. Any government in this Nation serving under limited powers delegated to it from the Constitution and from the People is NOT SOVEREIGN. A sovereign government does not need or operate on powers delegated to it from the People whom it rules. Treason consists, in part, in adhering to the enemies of this Nation (The People) and giving the enemy aid and comfort. Any public officer or judge who denies the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to an American Citizen, as did Brack, commits treason against the Sovereign American Citizen, in the instant case, Plaintiff. The enemies of America are enemies to the Sovereign and the Constitution, thus, denying the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to the Sovereign, which is adhering to the enemies of the People and giving them aid, is treason. Insurrection and sedition against the law of the land and treason against Plaintiff, a Sovereign American Citizen, does not constitute good behavior. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails for the reasons stated herein.

5. “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., 436. None of the procedures, rules, regulations and rulings of this court which deny Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights or which are not in compliance with the Constitution are valid, lawful, or have any force or effect whatsoever. Brack, by his order, violated this Supreme Court ruling and all Plaintiff’s Rights since he denied her Motion she placed before this court to claim her Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The court is obligated to follow the law of the land, which this court has failed to do, and has no Constitutional or legislative authority to create or change law. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails.

6. Another case heard in this court in which a Federal judge, namely, Bruce Black, committed treason is now before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. In a further case heard by this court, the Gutierrez Qui Tam case, it was made known to Plaintiff that Black, who was not the presiding judge, and without authority, struck Docket Number 31 from the public record. By the actions of the judges of this court, it appears that insurrection and sedition against the Constitution and treason against the Sovereign American Citizen is commonplace and part of the customs and practices of this court. It further appears that court proceedings, Brack’s order and other orders from this court, in spite of oaths taken and duties required, are nothing but star chamber proceedings against Sovereign Citizens. Further, it appears that Brack’s ruling and other rulings by this court demonstrate discrimination against the Sovereign American Citizen who acts on his/her own behalf in his own court, and show blatant favoritism for the incompetent attorney, not well versed in law, but excellent in deception and fraud. In pleadings, Plaintiff has demanded that Komer prove his authority to act before this court and to represent Defendant, yet the court has taken no notice of this. As Plaintiff stated in her pleadings, pursuant to state statutes, the Attorney General is required to defend all state departments and officials, not a private attorney. Komer and Defendant violated these statutes, made known to this court, yet the court allows violation of state law; therefore, the court condones, aids and abets violations of state law by attorneys and departments of state, yet holds the Sovereign American Citizen to law that the state and the court violate. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails for the reasons stated herein.

7. The government vociferously advocates that the Constitution is the law of this land. As such, all laws created for the American Citizen by Congress must comply with the Constitution. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S., 137, 174, 176; “A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law.” Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S., 238. Numerous Supreme Court rulings express the same lawful principal. When a law, rule, regulation or procedure does not comply with the Constitution, it is null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever. Further, the law must be specific to be valid, and it must exist to be enforced. The law cannot be added to or deleted from by anyone, including courts, which are sworn to uphold the law. Again, courts have no Constitutional or legislative authority to create or change law, and all laws must be in compliance with the Constitution, and if not, they are null and void. Brack’s order is not pursuant to laws in compliance with the Constitution, thus, unconstitutional, and fails.

8. Case law is not law; law is law, and that law must be Constitutionally compliant. Case law is interpretation of law, yet there is no Constitutional Article or Amendment that authorizes “interpretation” of the law or the courts to make law. Therefore, case law that is unconstitutional is unlawful, not valid, and cannot be lawfully used by a court as a basis for a ruling or an order, which order would be unconstitutional and null and void, as is Brack’s order. The only case law that is Constitutional is that case law based on and in compliance with a Constitutional Article or Amendment. Most of the case law cited by Brack in his order is not so based, thus, unconstitutional. However, that case law cited by Brack so based is supportive of Plaintiff’s case. “The judicial branch has only one duty … to lay the article of the Constitution which is involved against the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former ... The only power the court has is the power of judgment.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. Brack, in his order, cited little law for his decision; he cited case law which is not in compliance with the Constitution, as is the cited law, thus, null and void. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails for the reasons provided.

9. Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant, which Defendant violated by, including, but not limited to, firing her while on FMLA, which is prohibited by federal law, thus, impaired the obligations of contract, prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the federal Constitution; thus, D.O.L. violated the Constitution and federal law. The State Personnel Board overturned the D.O.L. firing, and the D.O.L., without authority, appealed to the state courts, which also impaired the obligations of contract and violated federal law. Brack’s ruling also impairs the obligations of contract and violates federal law. Defendant lacks authority since no Defendant employee with whom Plaintiff dealt and no state judge who ruled on this case has a surety bond on file, as required by state statute, a condition precedent to office. Without the bond, no duties can be discharged, therefore, Defendant’s appeal and the court rulings lack jurisdiction and are void.

10. Brack’s order denies Plaintiff’s case because, in part, he states that the Eleventh Amendment provides sovereignty to the State, making it immune, and Plaintiff may not sue a sovereign entity. In America, the only Sovereign is the American Citizen, not the machinery of the State, government or any division thereof. The Eleventh Amendment does not extend sovereignty to the States or immunity from suit by a Citizen of that State being sued. The States only have powers delegated to them by the Constitution and by the People, and sovereignty and immunity from suit by a Citizen of the State being sued are not delegated powers. Further, no state, including New Mexico, has sovereignty over or immunity from an American Citizen, in the instant case, Plaintiff. As stated, any government which operates on powers delegated to it from the Constitution, State Constitutions and from the People it serves is not sovereign. Since this court states that the States are sovereign and have immunity, let this court produce the Constitutional Article or Amendment that so states, or its ruling is fraud. As previously stated, the law must exist to be enforced, and these do not exist in the Constitution. The law is specific and cannot be added to or deleted from, and cannot be interpreted beyond the exact language of the law. If language is uncertain, a dictionary can be consulted. For the court to base an order on non-existent laws or laws not in compliance with the Constitution is fraud. For the court to base an order on case law not in compliance with the Constitution is fraud. Brack’s order is unconstitutional and fails, for reasons cited.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. (Emphasis added.)

This language of the Eleventh Amendment does not give the States sovereignty or immunity from being sued by a Citizen of that same State. Again, interpretation is not a power delegated by the Constitution, nor are courts are authorized to make or change the law of the land. The law is specific, and cannot be added to or deleted from. Therefore, Brack’s ruling is unconstitutional and, further, fraudulent. No immunity is granted to the States by this Amendment and no authority is provided to violate Citizens’ Constitutional Rights, in the instant case, Plaintiff’s Rights; therefore, Brack’s ruling is unconstitutional and fails. Plaintiff is a Citizen of New Mexico, not a citizen of another state, as defined in the Eleventh Amendment, and the Defendant is a division of New Mexico government. Brack, by his order, shields, exonerates and holds the Defendant harmless from wrongdoing and crimes committed against Plaintiff, a Sovereign American Citizen and Citizen of New Mexico, thus it is unconstitutional. No state has sovereignty over the Sovereign American Citizen, namely, Plaintiff, and no state can be shielded by a Constitutional court from wrongdoing and crimes committed against a Sovereign American Citizen, namely, Plaintiff. There is no Constitutional authority for Brack to provide immunity to and shield the machinery of New Mexico government, in the instant case, the Defendant from wrongdoing and crimes committed against a Sovereign American Citizen and Citizen of New Mexico. Brack told Plaintiff that he would extend her every consideration due to her disability, yet Brack’s actions and ruling show no consideration. The case law Brack cited to support his order is not Constitutionally compliant, exonerates a State from wrongdoing and crimes against a Citizen of that State, denies powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to a Sovereign American Citizen and denies Federal Laws designed to protect Citizens, thus, is unconstitutional and null and void, as is Brack’s order, which is fraudulent, and fails for all reasons stated herein.

10. Brack’s order addresses the smallest aspects of this case, isolates them and uses unconstitutional case law to support his ruling to grant summary judgment to a Defendant who failed to rebut Plaintiff’s charges, with particularity, in its responsive pleading. This ruling denies Plaintiff’s evidence, based in fact and law, and dismisses the case without due process, due consideration of evidence, jury trial and Constitutional Rights provided, all of which are required of this court. The court and order ignore the largest aspect of this case, which is why Plaintiff filed suit. That aspect is that Plaintiff was fired while on FMLA, which is prohibited by federal law, but ignored by Brack in his ruling. Thus, Brack, pursuant to his oath, condones, aids and abets violation of Federal Law by the Defendant.

11. In paragraph II of his ruling, Brack states that a motion for summary judgment may be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Plaintiff presented genuine issues of material fact in her pleadings, which Defendant failed to rebut in its responsive pleadings. Thus, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff’s genuine issues of material fact, pursuant to FRCP 8(D), which admissions and federal law were ignored by this court. Brack’s ruling ignores Plaintiff’s pleadings and federal law; thus fails.

12. In paragraph II, Brack states: “the court examines the record and makes all reasonable inferences in light most favorable to the non-moving party.” This statement is blatant fraud and totally unsupported. Plaintiff doubts that the court examined the record, because had it done so, it would have determined that Plaintiff’s pleadings are based in fact and law and her charges made were not rebutted by Defendant in responsive pleadings. The record speaks for itself to any competent and honest jurist who deals in truth.

13. In paragraph III, Brack states: “Suits in Federal court by state employees against a state to recover money damages under Title I of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” The Eleventh Amendment, quoted above in paragraph 10 of this document, contains no language which prohibits a Citizen from filing suit against a state under Title I of the ADA, and no unconstitutional “interpretation” can make it so. Brack’s ruling is fraud. Further, when Plaintiff filed the suit she was not a state employee. As previously stated, all laws created by Congress for the American Citizen and all case law must be in compliance with the Constitution, or they are null and void. The case law cited shields and exonerates government from wrongdoing and crimes committed against the American Citizen, thus, is unconstitutional, unenforceable and null and void.

14. In paragraph III B (4), Brack states requirement conditions, which Plaintiff has met in numerous pleadings, and which Brack apparently missed because he most likely failed to read her pleadings. Defendant failed to rebut Plaintiff’s statements and charges in its responsive pleadings, therefore, admits to them, which Brack failed to observe.

15. In paragraph III B (5), Brack states that the Supreme Court defined adverse employment action, in part, as firing, but apparently fails to comprehend that Plaintiff was fired, which action against Plaintiff meets the Supreme Court definition. He also fails to comprehend that the State personnel Board overturned Defendant’s firing of Plaintiff as unjust.

16. In paragraphs III B(9) and (10), Brack states that Plaintiff was unable to explain “discrepancies” in her report and that the hearing officer and court found that Plaintiff violated state policies and “lied”. Brack fails to comprehend the fact that because Plaintiff has a disability, she took measures to accommodate it, then, explained her actions as a means to protect her safety due to the disability. This was unaccepted by Defendant, fully explained in Plaintiff’s pleadings, and unrebutted by Defendant in its responsive pleading; thus, admitted to, but ignored by Brack. Further, Brack fails to recognize that The State Personnel Board said that Plaintiff could have been disciplined for her actions, but not fired, and overturned Defendant’s firing of Plaintiff. Defendant had no authority to appeal this decision to state court since Defendant employees and the state court judges lacked condition precedent surety bonds and could discharge no duties of office.

17. There is only one federal district court or District of New Mexico, and that court is legally aware that a state of anarchy exists and has existed within the State Government of the Sate of New Mexico. See Tast v. Gaming Control Board et al[1] CIV04-320/DJS: MEMORDANDUM OF LAW EXPOSING AND OPPOSING THE STATE OF ANARCHY IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, filed May 14, 2004.

18. Attempts to acquire surety bond coverage, valid for current state public officers, has been obfuscated by persons claiming to hold office in state government at every turn. The best information provided to date, by letter under seal from the Secretary of State (See Exhibit “A”), is that no record of official bonds for state public officers is kept or maintained in that office, as required by state statutes, which reach back to territorial days (See NMSA §§ 10-2-1 through 10 (1896 – 1905) as Acts of Congress and which cannot be altered except by permission of the Congress. See Sections 9 and 10, Enabling Act, Article XXI, Constitution of New Mexico.

19. The Court judgment, therefore, knowingly aided and abetted a state of anarchy engaged in by persons claiming to be public officers of the New Mexico Government, for which the judicial officers of the Court are without jurisdiction and, thus, prohibited from doing. See 18 U.S.C. § 2384; In Re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828; Sections 3 and 4, Fourteenth Amendment, Const. U.S.; the Court, therefore lacked jurisdiction to act as it did; it was powerless to enter the judgment, which for good cause shown, voids that judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4) as addressed in Airco; V.T.A. Inc. v. Airco, Inc. , 597 F. 2d 220, 234 (10^th Cir 1979). Further, there is no statute of limitations on void judgments, which the Court was powerless to issue for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 60(b)(4). See Orner v. Shalala, 30 F. 3d 1307, 1310 (10^th Cir. 1994). See also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 352 (1872) for the distinction between lack of jurisdiction, which renders the actors liable, and excess of jurisdiction, which provides for immunity.

20. Those who either engage in anarchy or support anarchy undermine the integrity of government which is both a federal question and an insurgency as addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment and defined in In Re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828; such activity subjects the offenders of the Constitution and laws to liability for doing so when they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 – 357. It is rather easy for the Court to verify at its leisure the said insurrection against the lawful government. The Court has authority to acquire the Declaration of Candidacy forms signed by incumbents and filed with the Secretary of State for placing their names on the Year 2004 General Election Ballot. If they were not covered by a valid surety bond for the faithful performance of assigned duties and discharged the duties of office anyway, in violation of state statutes, they were not qualified to be on the Year 2004 General Election Ballot, and by getting their names on the ballot under those circumstances, they may have become felons and ineligible to enter on January 1, 2005 and hold the current office claimed.

21. There is a way around this debacle which the Court is also empowered to do, and which can settle the question with finality: Order the Governor of the State of New Mexico to exercise his vested executive power, while taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, to report, under seal of his office, to the Court, with evidence, if available, within 36 hours of receipt, whether the public officers of the State of New Mexico are covered by surety bonds for the faithful performance of assigned duties by a bonding company lawfully conducting business within the State of New Mexico before they discharge assigned duties of the offices claimed, within ten (10) days of taking office, and that such information is kept in the record of official bonds within the Office of the Secretary of State for public scrutiny at their leisure. Failure to do so could be evidence of further aiding and abetting the state of anarchy being imposed upon the People of New Mexico in time of war, most of whom are American Citizens.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands the Court void the Judgment because it has no authority to deny the Constitution and the powers of and Rights contained therein to Plaintiff, an American Citizen, for violation of federal law, fraud, and pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), for lack of jurisdiction and for thereby being powerless to render it.

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this ___ day of December, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Void Judgment was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid to:

Mark Komer

Long, Pound & Komer, P.A.

P.O. Box 5098 – 2200 Brothers Road 87501

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502

_______________________________________________________________

[1] Case was removed by government defendants from Eleventh Judicial District Court, New Mexico to this Court and later remanded. Case is before the Court on Motion to Reinstate because the State Government of New Mexico has clearly and decisively demonstrated that it cannot and will not enforce its own laws; and thereby, is extremely defective. Osborn v. Banks of the United States, 9 L. Ed. 728, 819.