Metris Case

Introduction to the Case

The Seven Exhibits following this Introduction are the initial letters and affifavit Edwards sent to DMB and

Metris’ attorney.

The objective of these letters was to inform DMB and Metris’s attorney of Edwards’ findings, to ask her questions, make her charges and receive responses pursuant to her charges and questions from these recipients. They were warned that failure to rebut Edwards’ charges was their admission to those charges. These letters and affidavit stated Edwards’ lawful positions and questioned DMB’s operational practices and policies. The full scope of her charges are found in the letters, in detail. Details are very important because they are vital to the proceedings and can win cases. Procedure is also very important and the courts will hold pro-se litigants to procedures.

If Citizens do not abide by court procedures, their cases can be, and most-likely will be, quickly dismissed. Edwards obtained copies of the local rules, and followed them. In their own interests, all Citizens should do the same.

The letters focused on unlawful and illegal activities and business practices of DMB, such as lending credit, rather than money. Edwards’ research uncovered many business practices, some of which are herein described. A national bank can lend money, but not credit, nor can a national bank act as surety for another. See 12 USC, section 24.

In order to lend money, the bank must have that money it intends to lend on deposit or in some bank asset. When a bank lends credit, the “funds” used to fund the credit usually do not exist until the bank’s client signs the credit or debt agreement or contract. In plain language, the bank’s client “creates” the funds for the bank by his/her signature to the credit agreement.

These “funds” did not exist prior to the client’s signature, then the bank charges its client interest, usually high, sometimes usurious, on funds that never existed prior to the client’s signature. The client basically created an asset for the bank that did not exist and did not come from bank assets. Maybe the bank should pay interest to its client.

If a Citizen attempted to create money on this same basis, what do you think would happen to him? The government, as we know, would take severe action against that Citizen, but, yet, allows the banks to “create” money, plunder and rob the very People that government would prosecute for doing the same thing the banks do. Apparently, equal protection under the law means little to “our” government that is sworn to protect our “Rights”. This farce will continue until the Citizens lawfully stop it. Edwards’ initial letters were polite, but direct. The later letters contained presumptive clauses which DMB and the attorneys had to deny or rebut, and if they failed to do so, then they admitted to and agreed with Edwards’ charges, and this admission could be used in Court against them.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.html

These letters are lawful notification and require responses specific to the charges and questions. Failure to respond to the letters and failure to rebut the charges constitute admission to them, which is binding upon the recipients in any court. Edwards sent these letters by certified mail, return receipt requested, which is proof that the recipients received her letters

In her letters to other opponents in other cases, Edwards used the following presumptive clauses as her first and last paragraphs in those letters. These presumptive clauses provided “lawful notification” and positioned her opponent as agreeing with and admitting to her charges if they fail to respond to her letters or rebut her charges, fully binding upon them, in any Court in America, without their protest or objection, or that of those who represent them. A court can only hear matters in controversy. If Edwards’ opponents, by their failure to rebut her charges, agree with her and admit to her statements and charges, then there is no controversy and the case must be dismissed. Harris, by his own actions, is an incompetent, inept fool, or worse, who never should serve as “judge”. He acted contrary to his duties, Constitutional requirements, federal and state law and did not immediately dismiss the case, as he should have. However, he was forced to dismiss it later.

The presumptive clauses:

FIRST: This is lawful notification and is sent pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391 . Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” LAST: If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 30 days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and Constitutionally based law or case law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.

http://www.justia.us/us/269/385/case.html#385


Comments on Presumptive Clauses

These clauses, along with Edwards’ statements, charges, or averments, and questions usually attracted a lot of attention from Edwards’ opponents and alerted them that she was aware of their practices, serious and fully capable of lawfully and legally dealing with them. This is usually not what major corporations and their attorneys receive from ordinary Citizens in response to corporate fraud and extortion. Depending upon what the corporations and their attorneys think they have against the Citizen and what “arrangements” they may have made with the “court” and “judge”, their process could stop upon receipt of such lawful notification. If they “know” or feel that their evidence, although it may be fraudulent, will be receptively received in court, they may continue. However, they realize that they will not be facing an ordinary Citizen who has no knowledge of their practices, the law, of his/her Rights, and who will most likely expose their fraud before the court and Public. Under these circumstances, it may not be worth it for the bank or corporation to continue.

Exposure could be very damaging, and if enough People took similar actions, government “investigations” might occur. Frauds do not like light shined upon them. It is dangerous to their types of business and government condoned fraud. How this fraudulent system operates is explained in the Afterward and in the paper by Pastor Sheldon Emery. For those unfamiliar with creation of our money system, how and why it works and whom it benefits, these sections will explain. The truth will eventually prevail, and Edwards told only and remained with the truth throughout this case. Truth expressed in letters and affidavits and not denied by the recipients of those communications is extremely damaging to them. Lawful notification requires a response to the subject matter of that communication if that subject matter is of importance to the recipient. Further, Edwards pleadings contained the truth which Metris failed to deny, therefore, by law, admitted to her charges made in her pleadings.

Still further, when Edwards served the Requests For Admissions, Metris was required, by law, to admit or deny them, and if denied, factual evidence and fact and law were required to support the denial. They could not deny Edwards charges, so did not, and admitted to them. These and other methods exhibited in this report won Edwards’ case.

The six letters and affidavit follow on the next pages:

(Exhibits. 1 – 7)

Exhibit 1.0Initial Letter to Direct Merchants Bank

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Margaret D. Edwards

c/o 739 Dalbey Drive

Las Vegas, New Mexico

Phone/Fax: 505-425-0659

September 30, 2002

President

Direct Merchants Bank

P.O. Box 21550

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121-1550 Re: Acct. # 5458 0040 4318 2227

Gentle People:

This is to inform you that I have recently learned of how you create a “debt” by, quite literally, creating money out of thin air. You then assess interest at usurious rates upon your “cardholders” who suffer the unfair burden of =/- 24 to 29 per cent interest on “money’ which never actually existed before you “funded” the “debt”. Accordingly, I will not pay any more of your usurious interest charges on any of the “balance” you say that I “owe”. Furthermore, if you hope to recoup the actual amount of credit extended for goods and services purchased via your credit card, you will reduce the interest rate which you are charging me to no more than five (5%) per cent on any part of the actual purchases or cash advances I incurred, readjust the actual dollar amounts I have already paid to reflect the no more than 5% interest rate and credit anything above 5% to reduce the balance owed.

If you fail to reduce the usurious interest rates you are now assessing my account, you can “eat” the entire “balance”. It is your choice. Either work with me in the spirit of fairness and common sense, or get nothing. Because I am a fair and decent human being, I am willing to pay for what I actually purchased or received in goods and/or services. I will not, however, continue to be ripped off and burdened by your usurious and unfair practices which are so draining my resources that I am unable to meet the obligations of my food, shelter and other necessities of life.

As clearly evidenced by the dishonest and unethical practices of Enron, Tyco, Xerox, WorldCom and countless other greedy, thieving corporations currently bilking millions of People in this country, economic truth and justice have been abandoned for sheer profitability and ruthless gain. The banks and their spin-off bank-card corporations are extorting countless billions of actual hard-earned dollars, paid out by decent, barely-making it People, in exchange for NON-EXISTENT “money” created by

the touch of a few computer keys. However, these good People, struggling to survive on woefully inadequate pay from heartless corporations whose CEO’S make unjustified, huge salaries and bonuses as rewards for deception and outright loan sharking, are, like me, waking up to the reality of this FRAUDULENT “SHELL GAME” which has been foisted upon the People. No longer ignorant of the truth of these usurious practices which have left many desperate and broke, I and many others are standing up for our Rights to fair and just treatment in any and all business contracts. For a contract to be valid there must be full disclosure. There was no full disclosure to me by Direct Merchants Bank of the actual methods and means by which money is created out of thin air by Direct Merchants Bank.

These practices amount to outright FRAUD perpetrated by the bank upon its millions of customers, including me. You, now reading this letter, are probably unaware of and subject to the very circumstances of which I write. This country’s laws forbid unequal treatment under the law. To have equal treatment under the law, please explain to me how I can create money out of thin air as you are doing, and demonstrate to me the avenue that you use so I can do the same thing. If you do not, then we are dealing with unequal treatment under the law, favoritism, prejudice and discrimination.

As I stated above, I will pay for the goods and services I obtained using your bank card, but only on the terms as I have outlined. I must advise you, that, in any case, I have a duty as an American Citizen to expose fraud and unlawful practices whenever I encounter them. Accordingly, I will inform those I know, personally, as well as the many others with whom I am in contact through my extensive organizational correspondences, of the fraudulent practices being conducted by Direct Merchants Bank.

If there is anything in this letter with which you, on behalf of Direct Merchants Bank, disagree, then rebut or refute, with particularity, that with which you disagree, in writing, to me within 20 days of the date of this letter. If you do not respond to me as stipulated, then, by your silence, you fully agree and acquiesce that everything stated in this letter is true, correct and fully binding upon Direct Merchants Bank in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Margaret D. Edwards

Exhibit 2.0

Second Letter to Merchants Bank

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Margaret D. Edwards



Phone/Fax: 505-425-0659

October 21, 2002

By Certified Mail, Return Receipt


P.O. Box 22128

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121-4907 Re: Acct. No. 5458 0040 4138 2227

Gentle People:

Your letter, dated October 17, 2002, fails to address the issues I raised in my letter to you. Accordingly, I feel compelled to re-address the concerns which prompted that letter, as well as others augmented by additional disturbing information.

As I previously stated, it has come to my attention that Direct Merchants Bank and other banks within the Federal Reserve System have been perpetrating a fraud on the American public. This knowledge has evoked some questions which I need answered before I continue to make payments on or use my Direct Merchants Bank card, regardless of the interest rate charged. My questions are as follows:

1. From whose account did you withdraw money in order to pay the vendors when I made charges to my account?

2. Was the money created by my signing the voucher when I made the purchase?

3. Is it Direct Merchants Bank’s policy to create checkbook money in amounts equal to the charges made by credit card customers?

4. Does Direct Merchants Bank have on file a contract signed by me with a bona fide signature?

5. Will Direct Merchants Bank provide a copy of the journal entry that is made when I make or have a charge?

Please respond, in writing, with particularity, within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, with answers to these questions. If you fail to do so, I will assume that what I have heard is true and will, therefore, rescind my contract with Direct Merchants Bank, as I do not wish to be a party to fraud.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

All Rights Reserved

Margaret D. Edwards

Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Exhibit 4.0Affidavit of Revocation Of Signature for Cause

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Affidavit of Revocation

Of Signature for Cause

1. COMES NOW Affiant having full, first-hand knowledge of the facts herein and, by making this affidavit of her own first-hand knowledge, affirms that the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge.

2. On or about September 24, 1999, Affiant signed documents without knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon Affiant.

3. That Affiant was coerced into signing documents without any knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon Affiant.

4. That Affiant’s revocation of signature constitutes rescission of signature. Thus, the Contract no longer exists.

5. Affiant hereby revokes and makes void all signatures for cause as per NMSA 1978, Sub. Sec. 55-3-501.

6. Now Affiant is formally and timely removing the aforementioned signature for all time and removing any nexus that Direct Merchants Bank may presume to have over Affiant by virtue of said signature.

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards, Affiant

____________________________ WITNESS:__________________________

Date John F. Flynn

____________________________ WITNESS:__________________________

Date Catherine F. Montano

Exhibit 5.0Initial Letter to Attorney Catherine Sanchez

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/55-3-501.htm


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-207.html

(Representing METRIS COMPANIES LLP )

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Margaret D. Edwards


Las Vegas, New Mexico [87701]

Phone/Fax: 505-425-0659

December 5, 2002

By Certified Mail

Law Offices of Catherine Sanchez

Post Office Box 37290

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176

Re: METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add)

Acct. No. 5458 0040 4138 2227

Dear Catherine Sanchez:

This is to notify you that neither you nor METRIS COMPANIES LLP have any standing in the matter between Direct Merchants Bank and me. I have been in direct correspondence with Direct Merchants Bank since September 30, 2002 regarding serious concerns and questions I raised about their operations and practices, which they have failed or refused to address, answer, rebut or refute, with particularity, within a legal timeframe. Accordingly, they deem, by acquiescence, that the statements and questions contained in my letters, which equate with fraud, their operational practices of creating money and credit upon their own books by means of bookkeeping entries, are deemed true, correct and binding upon them as admitted.

I am enclosing copies of all correspondence sent to Direct Merchants Bank for your files. As I stated in my letters to them, I will not be a party to fraud, and I would assume you would not wish to be party to it either.

Sincerely,

Margaret D. Edwards

Exhibit 6.0Letter to Merchants Bank demanding proof of the cancellation of all of the related computer-generated bookkeeping entries

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Margaret D. Edwards



Phone/Fax: 505-425-0659

January 6, 2003

By Certified Mail


Attn: Legal Department

c/o Kristin Mathis

P.O. Box 550680

Jacksonville, Florida 32255-4150

Dear Ms. Mathis:

Please be so kind to inform your legal department that I am returning your credit card, number 5454 0040 4318 2227, and demanding proof of the cancellation of all of the related computer-generated bookkeeping entries. Failure on your part to cancel your computer records or any action by you or your agents to collect on this account will result in immediate reprisal.

This action is being taken and this refusal is made timely and for cause, pursuant to UCC 3-501 -- Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor; NMSA 1978, Sub. Sec. 55-3-501.

UCC 3-501(b) (3) states:

Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

The reasons for my refusal are as follows:

Bank Fraud

When I first contracted for my credit card, I mistakenly thought that Direct Merchants Bank would be loaning me money which it received from other depositors



http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/refusal_for_cause_without_dishon.htm


and/or investors. Now I have found from reading “Modern Money Mechanics”, which is published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, that Direct Merchants Bank created the money that I borrowed by using my promise to pay to generate computer entries on my account. In effect, your bank created money out of thin air.

In all of my transactions with Direct Merchants Bank, you have failed to notify me that your bank created money out of thin air. Now that I have discovered this, I am prepared to proceed against Direct Merchants Bank for bank fraud. Your transaction with me lacked two of the necessary elements of a contract.

I am aware that the United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confers upon a bank the power to lend its money, not its credit. In First National Bank of Tallapoosa v Monroe, 135 Ga 614; 69 S.E. 1123 (1911) , the court, after citing the statute heretofore quoted, said, “[T]he provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental to the business of banking. A bank can lend its money but not its credit.”

In Howard & Foster Co. v Citizens National Bank of Union , 133 S.C. 202; 130 SE 758, (1927), it was said: “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another. All such contracts being entered into by its officers are ultra vires and not binding upon the corporation.” See also Merchants Bank of Valdosta v Baird , 160 F 642; 17 Lns 526 (1876)

Direct Merchants Bank did not tell me that it was creating money out of thin air, called “bank credit”, because to do so would have disclosed that there was no consideration from Direct Merchants to me. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. See Anheuser Busch Brewing v Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 NW 558 (1890). In short, if there is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.

Peonage

Direct Merchants Bank’s manner of transacting business has made me a debt slave. This is in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which expressly forbids involuntary servitude, also called peonage, in Clyatt v U.S. , 197 U.S. 207 , 215-216; 25 S. Ct. 429; 49 L. Ed. 726 (1905), when it said:

Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply a difference in the mode of origin, but none of the character of servitude. The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor. The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law.

In addition, Direct Merchants Bank’s statement method of creating money out of thin air and charging interest upon the transaction is a violation of the Biblical law of



http://www.suijuris.net/forum/showthread.php?t=718





http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/ultra_vires.htm



http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Court%20Cases/Tallapoosa%20v%20Monroe%20and%20Howard%20&%20Foster%20Co.%20v%20Citizens%20National.htm



just weights and measures. Direct Merchants Bank is able to create money in moments that will take me years of labor to pay off. Direct Merchants Bank has made me a slave by debt, controlling my time by loaning me bank credit in place of money.

Let the record reflect that I can no longer consent to accepting Direct Merchants Banks’ demands upon me for money. Your manner of conducting business is in direct violation of the laws of God, the laws of contracts, the Constitutions of the United States of America, and my Civil Rights.

Revocation of Signature

By refusing Direct Merchants Bank’s statement in a timely manner according to UCC 3-501, I hereby revoke my signature on the original application as presented to Direct Merchants Bank. The original application was fraudulent on its face, as it did not provide full disclosure. The document did not say that Direct Merchants Bank was going to loan me “bank credit” which it created out of thin air.

Had Direct Merchants Bank disclosed to me that I was borrowing “bank credit”, I would have known that the element of consideration was missing from the contract.

It is a well-established principle of law that fraud has no statute of limitations and that its presence cancels every agreement. I demand that you cancel our agreement and return to me every dollar of my labor, plus any interest that I have ever paid you.

Conspiracy

How you and your fellow bankers have been allowed to cheat the American public for so long can only be explained by the knowledge that the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned and operated for profit. For all practical purposes, because of your interlocking activities and practices, all banks in this country are in the law to be related as one and the same bank because each bank in the system is obligated to accept the checks of other member banks as if they were issued by itself. Direct Merchants Bank has been able to transfer my labor to its balance sheet by entering bookkeeping entries into its computer.

NOTICE

UCC 3-503 allows you thirty (30) days from receipt of this Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor to state under oath the following: That Direct Merchants Bank did not create money by loaning its credit and charging interest upon that loan, in violation of the law of contracts.

If you do not respond within thirty (30) days, a default will be created through material misrepresentation which will vitiate anything that occurred from the time we began doing business together until thirty (30) days from now. UCC 1-103.

If within thirty (30) days, you do not either answer to the above under oath or provide me with proof of the cancellation of this computer-generated debt, the return of my application, and the return of all monies that I have paid to you since the beginning




of our business relationship, then I will seek damages for fraud. The Uniform Commercial Code allows me to seek the return of all monies paid to Direct Merchants Bank plus triple damages.

Guard yourselves accordingly.

Sincerely,

All Rights Reserved

Margaret D. Edwards




Cc: Catherine Sanchez, P.C., for Metris Companies

Exhibit 7.0Second Letter to Attorney Catherine Sanchez

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

Margaret D. Edwards



Phone/Fax: 505-425-0659

January 5, 2003

Catherine Sanchez

Law Offices of Catherine Sanchez

Post Office Box 37290

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/without_prejudice.htm

RE: Metris Companies LLP v. Margaret D. Edwards, your file number 802837

Dear Ms. Sanchez:

In regard to your December 17, 2002 unsigned letter to me concerning Direct Merchants Bank, please be advised that I have never received a response to the questions I posed to them, (copies of which were previously sent to you), and, therefore, have concluded that Direct Merchants Bank is operating fraudulently and that it has not loaned me anything but a liability. Until they prove to me that they have advanced me a bank asset, I am under no obligation to them whatsoever. Their records must still show that they owe me an asset because what they were to loan me was created by my note to them. Direct Merchants Bank has not fulfilled its contract with me, and, further, as I have previously stated, the original application which initiated the contract, (a copy of which you enclosed in your letter), was fraudulent on its face, as it did not provide full disclosure.

Since Direct Merchants Bank has failed to respond, with particularity, within the reasonable time frame I stipulated, I consider this matter to be closed on the part of you, Metris Companies LLP and Direct Merchants Bank. Any further contact from you, Metris Companies LLP and/or Direct Merchants Bank will be considered harassment and will be dealt with accordingly. Any and all other correspondence will be refused, and telephone calls will not be accepted. I shall return their credit card and demand proof of the cancellation of all of the related computer-generated bookkeeping entries. Failure on the part of Direct Merchants Bank to cancel their computer-generated records or any further action by them or any of their agents to collect on this account will result in immediate reprisal.

Sincerely,

All Rights Reserved

Margaret D. Edwards


Section 2, Introduction

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in court. The affidavit must be notarized and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.

The following affidavit, Exhibit 8, is a sample one that Edwards composed for this case but did not send. Edwards only made charges that she could support with fact, law and evidence. She made no unsupported charges. Edwards relied upon the six letters and one affidavit attached to one of the letters as sufficient proof to support her lawful positions. Based upon the actions of the court, which showed itself to be corrupt


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/without_prejudice.htm

and/or incompetent, if Edwards were to repeat this case, she would send both the letters and the affidavit, by certified mail, return receipt requested.

The affidavit must be notarized and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in Court. If an opponent fails to respond to and/or fails to rebut charges made in the affidavit, and, further, failed to rebut charges made in previous letters, then the opponent agrees with and admits to the charges made in the letters as well as in affidavit. Since the opponent admits to the charges, there is no controversy, and since the court can only hear matters in controversy, and there is none, then the case must be decided in favor of the one who sent the letters and the affidavit and against the one who failed to rebut them. This is how the matter should be decided by any competent and honorable judge. Unfortunately, since there are a few judges, but not many, who fit these categories, the Citizen must completely understand and be fully prepared to present his case.

The affidavit is located on the following page.

Exhibit 8.0

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

I, Margaret D. Edwards, the undersigned, make this affidavit of my own free will and hereby affirm, under my oath, that the information contained in this affidavit is true and correct.

This affidavit is lawful notification to Metris, LLP. auto add, hereinafter: Metris, and to Direct Merchants Bank, hereinafter: DMB, and to their subsidiaries, parent(s), agents, attorneys, affiliates, assigns, employees or those associated with Metris and DMB in any manor, whatsoever, and is hereby made and sent to the above named Metris and DMB pursuant to the Federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X, and requires your written response to me within 30 days, via your sworn and notarized affidavit, specific to the subject matter specified in this affidavit. Notice to Principals is notice to agents, and notice to agents is notice to Principals. You are hereby noticed that your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, anything with which you disagree in this affidavit, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this affidavit is true, correct, legal, lawful, and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection, or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence.

I, Margaret D. Edwards, hereby affirm that the following actions and events took place:

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Amendments%20I,%20IV,%20V,%20VI,%20VII,%20IX,%20X,XIV.htm


1. I sent six letters to Metris, its attorneys and DMB and its attorneys, dated: (spell out dates);

2. The letters notified recipients: (a) of my charges, averments, statements and questions; (b) that they, within a specified time period, had to rebut my charges and averments made in those letters if they disagreed with them; (c) that if they failed to do so, then they agreed with and admitted to my charges and averments;

3. Metris and DMB received the letters but failed to respond to the subject matter contained in them;

3. Metris and DMB failed to rebut any of my statements, charges or averments made in the referenced letters;

4. Pursuant to the notice contained in the letters, Metris and DMB, by their failure to respond to, and further, by their failures to rebut my charges and averments made in my referenced letters, Metris and DMB agree with and admit to my charges contained in the referenced letters;

5. By their failure to rebut the charges contained in the referenced letters, they admit to all of my charges. Some of those charges to which Metris and DMB agree, by their failure to rebut them, are listed below.

12. Edwards hereby provides to the Court Exhibit’s A through F, excerpted, paraphrased

and highlighted herein, which fully support her lawful position, admitted to by Plaintiff:

From Exhibit A:

1. Direct Merchants Bank creates debt by creating money out of thin air.

2. Direct Merchants Bank charges usurious rates on money which never existed before Direct Merchants funded the debt.

3. Edwards offered to pay balance at five per cent (5%) interest.

4. Direct Merchants Bank deals in usurious rates and unfair practices.

5. Direct Merchants extorts hard-earned dollars in exchange for non-existent money created by touch of computer keys.

6. Direct Merchants Bank perpetrates a shell game foisted upon the people.

7. For contract to be valid, there must be full disclosure and there was no full disclosure to Edwards by Direct Merchants Bank stating that money is created out of thin air.

8. Outright fraud is being perpetrated by Direct Merchants Bank upon Edwards. Edwards has a duty to expose fraud.

From Exhibit B:

1. Direct Merchants’ letter of October 17, 2002 fails to address issues Edwards Raised in her previous letter to Direct Merchants Bank.

2. Direct Merchants Bank has been perpetrating a fraud on the American People.

3. Questions:

a. From whose account did Direct Merchants Bank withdraw money to pay vendors?

b. Was the money created by Edwards’ signature on the voucher when she made the purchase?

c. Is it Direct Merchants Bank’s policy to create checkbook money?

4. Direct Merchants Bank was given an opportunity to rebut statements and answer questions, which it failed to do.

From Exhibit C:

1. Edwards states her questions remain unanswered.

2. Direct Merchants Bank admits by acquiescence to loaning or creating credit on its books.

3. Court decision prohibits banks from creating money and credit upon their books by means of bookkeeping entries.

4. What Direct Merchants Bank is doing is fraudulent.

5. Edwards gave Direct Merchants Bank opportunity to rebut her statements which they did not do.

From Attached Affidavit:

1. Affiant signed documents without knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon affiant.

2. Affiant was coerced into signing documents without any knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon affiant.

From Exhibit D:

1. Edwards has communicated with Direct Merchants Bank since September 30, 2002

regarding serious concerns and issues that required a response, but none of these were addressed or rebutted. By acquiescence, Direct Merchants Bank deems that the statements are admitted, including fraud in their operational practices of creating money and credit upon their own books by means of bookkeeping entries.

2. Edwards will not be a party to fraud and assumes Sanchez would not wish to be a party to fraud.

From Exhibit E:

1. Direct Merchants Bank never responded to Edwards’ questions raised to them, thus, Edwards concludes that Direct Merchants Bank operates fraudulently and did not loan Edwards anything but a liability, and is admitted as true.

2. What Direct Merchants Bank was to loan to Edwards was created by Edwards’note to them.

3. The original application, which initiated the contract was fraudulent upon its face and did not provide full disclosure.

From Exhibit F:

1. Edwards refuses payment for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

2. Bank fraud. Direct Merchants Bank created the money Edwards borrowed by using Edwards’ promise to pay to generate computer entries on Edwards’ account.

3. Direct Merchants Bank created money out of thin air and failed to notify Edwards of this.

4. United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confirms upon a bank the power to lend its money, not its credit.

5. The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental of the business of banking. The courts have ruled that a bank can lend its money, but not its credit.

6. A national bank, under federal law, cannot lend its credit guaranteeing the debt of others.

7. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. If there is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.

8. Direct Merchants is able to create money in moments that will take Edwards years of

labor to pay. Direct Merchants has made Edwards a debt slave, controlling her time by loaning her bank credit in the place of money.

9. The original contract was fraudulent on its face, as it did not provide full disclosure.

10. Fraud has no statute of limitations and its presence cancels every agreement.

11. There is conspiracy amongst banks.

12. Notice is provided to Direct Merchants Bank to rebut the statements, but rebuttal never occurred.

In view of the foregoing, which is admitted to by Plaintiff’s acquiescence, namely, that Plaintiff dealt in fraud and engaged counsel for the purpose of collecting upon a fraudulent contract, fraud cancels any contract. Further, as Edwards stated in her previous communications to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is not licensed to do business in New Mexico, conducted their business through the mails, thus proper jurisdiction is federal district court, and acts in violation of New Mexico Constitution, Article IV, Sections 25 and 26.

Lawful notification has been provided to you stating that if you do not rebut the statements, charges and averments made in this Affidavit, then you agree with and admit to them. Pursuant to that lawful notification, if you disagree with anything stated in this Affidavit of Truth, then rebut that with which you disagree, with particularity, within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof, by means of your written, notarized affidavit of truth, based in specific, relevant fact and law to support your disagreement. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit of Truth is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court of law in America, without your protest, objection or that of those who represent you.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved

________________________________ _______________________

Margaret D. Edwards, Affiant Date

In the State of New Mexico,

County of San Miguel,

I swear that on this_____day of April, 2005, the above named Affiant, _____________________, appeared before me, and of her own free will, signed this Affidavit of Truth.

__________________________

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:______________

Introduction

Section 3 – Exhibits 9 & 10 – filed June 19, 2003

These are Edwards’ Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum Brief In Support Of The Motion To Dismiss, filed June 19, 2003, in response to Metris’ complaint filed by its attorneys on May 23, 2003. Once a complaint has been filed in court, it must be answered, usually by an “answer” or a Motion To Dismiss. Edwards had 30 days to respond to the complaint.

The complaint stated that Metris transacts business in interstate commerce and that it extended credit to Edwards. In its complaint, Metris failed to respond to, address, rebut or deny any of Edwards charges made in her previous letters and affidavit. The wording of the complaint damaged Metris, in the following ways, including, but not limited to: (1) Metris stated it did business in interstate commerce, yet filed suit in state district court. Proper jurisdiction for corporations dealing in interstate commerce is federal district court. The jurisdiction is incorrect. Jurisdiction is a major factor in any case. If the court hearing the case does not have the proper jurisdiction over either the subject matter or the person, the case, by law, must be dismissed; (2) Metris stated it loaned “credit” to Edwards. Metris loaned nothing to Edwards, and its statement that it loaned credit violates federal law – 12 USC section 24. A bank may lend money, but not credit.

Further, since DMB, Metris’ subsidiary, solicited Edwards through the U.S. Postal Service, mail fraud was involved and proper jurisdiction for business solicited through the mail is federal court, not state. Neither Metris nor DMB are licensed to do business in New Mexico, have no authority to conduct business in New Mexico or bring suit in state district court. Edwards’ Motions rebut the charges Metris made. It is imperative that charges made in pleadings by the opposition be immediately rebutted or denied in responsive pleadings, pursuant to applicable time constraints dictated in court rules of procedure. Failure to rebut charges is admission to them.

The Motions follow on the next page.

Exhibit 9.0Motion to Dismiss

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP

Plaintiff-in-Error,

v.

Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, (hereinafter “Edwards”), moving the Court to

dismiss the case captioned pursuant to NMRA 1-060B(3),and as grounds therefor and by

memorandum brief in support thereof to state:

1) The contract alleged to be between Edwards and Metris Companies LLP, is not true.

2) Edwards has never knowingly contracted at anytime with Metris Companies LLP.

3) Edwards questions the veracity of the Complaint for Breach of Agreement and Debt and Money Due on the basis of paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

4) Edwards charges the proper jurisdiction for interstate commerce is federal court.

5) Edwards challenges the jurisdiction of the Court based upon paragraphs 1,2,3,

and 4 above.

Wherefore, Defendant demands the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of

jurisdiction.

Respectfully submitted,

All Rights Reserved

_________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/1-036-038-060.htm

C/o 739 Dalbey Drive


(505) 425-0659

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion and Memorandum Brief were sent first class by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, this 19 th day of June, 2003.

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 4 – Exhibit 11 – filed July 18, 2003

Once a Motion has been filed, the opponent must file a response to that Motion within the days specified by local court rules. It is 15 days after service in New Mexico. Metris failed to file its Response within that time period, thus, by rule, admitted to the Edwards’ Motion To Dismiss and her charges made therein. However, since Harris favored Metris, he failed to hold Metris accountable to this or any other rule, thus, he failed to uphold the rule, the law and his duty as a judge, which he continued to do throughout this case.

On the following page is Edwards’ Reply To Plaintiff’s Response To Motion To Dismiss. Edwards points out that Metris failed to rebut her charges made in her Motion To Dismiss, therefore, by court rule, Metris agrees to her charges and, by rule, the case must be dismissed. Harris, as usual, failed to abide by this or any other rule in this case. In order to fully comprehend the objectives and intent of a case, it is important to understand the mechanics and ingredients of the Motions and pleadings. The laws, rules, procedures and case law Edwards cited in her pleadings support her lawful positions. Most states have similar or related laws, and all state Constitutions mimic the Federal Constitution. Those of you who are interested in such actions should research the laws and case laws cited to understand why Edwards cited them, and act appropriately in your own cases.

Exhibit 11.0REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

______________________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add,

Plaintiff-in-Error,

v.


MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, defendant, and for her reply to state:

1. Plaintiff failed to file a response within the prescribed time-period of 15 days

within receipt of service, pursuant to NMRA 1-007.1D, which constitutes consent to

grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Response should be

struck.

2. Plaintiff failed to address three circumstances raised in Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss and responded with conclusions of law usurping under the authority of the

Court in the process without valid support.

A. Edwards never knowingly contracted at any time with Metris Companies LLP.

B. Plaintiff enters information acquired from a non-party as

authority for Plaintiff’s Complaint attempting thereby to deceive the

Court and for that reason alone becomes subject to NMSA 36-2-17.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/36-2-16%20to%2036-2-17.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/nmra_1-107-108.htm

C. Plaintiff believes jurisdiction of the Court is proper on the basis

that Defendant dwells in the district and signed a contract with a

non-party without any support, whatsoever, after having been given

an opportunity to provide valid support. This adds to the course of

conduct to deceive the Court.

3. Edwards invokes NMRA 1-008D on grounds Plaintiff, by and through counsel of

record, admitted to the veracity of all averments in Edwards’ Motion which required a

response because they were not denied or addressed. NMRA 1-008 is quoted for the

information of the Court; to wit:

Effect of failure to deny. Averments in a pleading to which a

responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of

damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.

Averments is a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required

or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.

Wherefore, Defendant Margaret Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss

must be granted and the Court’s attention is invited to consider the

attached order.


All Rights Reserved

_________________________

Margaret D. Edwards





(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss was sent first class by U.S. Mail postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuqurque, New

Mexico 87176-7290, this 18 th day of July, 2003.

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction Section 5 – Exhibit 12 – filed - September 30, 2003

A plaintiff has the responsibility to prosecute its case, and many courts require that cases be prosecuted within six months. Anything longer can be considered failure to prosecute, and the case can be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Metris failed to file any further Motions until more than three months after its complaint was filed, then filed for Judgment On The Pleadings. Edwards filed her Response to Plaintiff’s Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings, rebuts Metris’ charges and states that Metris is not registered with the Public Regulations Commission and its appearance in court is deceptive by counsel.

The Response follows on the next page.

Exhibit 12.0RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO



Plaintiff

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS

Defendant

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Defendant Edwards and responds as follows:

1. Plaintiff Metris is not registered with the Public Regulatory Commission to

engage in business within the State of New Mexico.

2. Metris’ appearance in Court is therefore deceptive; the deception is by and through counsel of record; and, thus, NMSA 36-2-17 applies.

3. Paragraph 3 of Metris’ motion declares no genuine issue exists as to a material fact entitling them to judgment on the pleadings.

4. The Court has been apprised of the foregoing and Paragraph 3 of Metris’ Motion, by and through the LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE SANCHEZ, becomes an act demonstrating intent to deceive which constitutes an abandonment of the law offices’ client subjecting the attorney of record to NMSA 36-2-16.

5. In view of the foregoing, Edwards disagrees, but alleges the law offices are subject to the provisions of NMSA 36-2-17, with respect to her; and subject to the provisions of NMSA 36-2-16 with the State of New Mexico and the County of Bernalillo.





WHEREFORE, the motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied;

however, the actions required of the Court pursuant to NMSA 36-2-16 and 17 are independent of Metris’ motion.


All Rights Reserved

______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

739 Dalbey Drive

Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701

(505) 425-0659

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing response to motion for judgment on the pleadings was sent first class by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176 this ____ day of September, 2003.

_______________________________

Margaret Edwards

Section 6.0Introduction

Section 6 – Exhibit 13 – filed October 24, 2003

Edwards filed this Objection to Plaintiff’s Reply pursuant to its Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings and Edwards Response thereto. It is imperative to always rebut or deny untruthful charges made by one’s opponent in his/her pleadings. Edwards always rebutted Metris’ charges made in its pleadings, and, again, points out that Metris is not licensed to do business in New Mexico. Again, since DMB solicited Edwards by and through the U. S. Postal Service, proper jurisdiction is federal district court, not state district court. The alleged application is fraudulent, since DMB failed to provide full disclosure, and the “credit” is unsecured. If unsecured, then any action taken to recover anything unsecured is fraudulent.

The Objection follows on the next page.

Exhibit 13.0



OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


METRIS COMPANIES, LLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

_________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, defendant, and hereby objects to the plaintiff’s reply to their motion for judgment on the pleadings. As grounds therefore and in support thereof, Edwards states:

1. The notarized Affidavit of Indebtedness & Debt & Non-Military & Contract,

dated November 13, 2002, does not identify Affiant/Declarant with sufficient clarity and

accuracy to hold the signer accountable for business transactions of a foreign

corporation pursuant to NMSA 53-11-14 [Service of process on corporation. (1967)].

Further, DIRECT MERCHANTS CREDIT CARD BANK is not licensed to do business

in the state of New Mexico.

2. The entire matter related to the alleged debt took place through the United


States Postal service, which places jurisdiction in a federal court, not in state court.

3. The alleged application Account, No. 5480-0040-4318-2227, is shown in

Section 1 to be unsecured, and further, said application is fraudulent because it does not

provide full disclosure.

4. Edwards rebuts statement by Plaintiff’s attorney, Catherine Sanchez, that

“there is no dispute as to any material fact,” since Edwards has rebutted Plaintiff’s

allegations in previous pleadings, and further, Edwards sent letters, dated September 30,

2002, October 21, 2002, December 4, 2002, December 5, 2002, January 5, 2003, and

January 6, 2003, to DIRECT MERCHANTS CREDIT CARD BANK and to METRIS

COMPANIES LLP, by and through attorney Catherine Sanchez, which contained, in

part, charges of fraudulent business practices, in violation of federal law. These letters

required a response to rebut Edwards’ statements and charges, if respondents disagree.

No rebuttal was ever made, ergo, Edwards’ charges stand as true and respondents agree,

by acquiescence, with Edwards’ charges. Legitimate debt is valid; fraudulent debt is

not legitimate.

5. Edwards formally challenges the jurisdiction of this Court to consider this

matter.

WHEREFORE, Edwards objects to the reply submitted by Plaintiff METRIS

COMPANIES, LLP (Auto Add for the foregoing reasons and formally challenges the

Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.


_________________________ Margaret D. Edwards

739 Dalbey Drive


(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing objection to plaintiff’s reply to motion for judgment on the pleadings was sent first class by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176, this ____day of October, 2003.

_______________________________

Margaret Edwards

IntroductionSection 7

Section 7 – Exhibit 14 – filed Dec 23, 2003

Metris made a Motion for a telephonic hearing, to which Edwards objected. In Edwards’ opinion, Metris’ attorneys were well aware that, because of Edwards’ letters, affidavit and pleadings, their case was weak and they did not want to face Edwards, directly, in court, so opted for a telephonic hearing. The accused has a Right to face her accuser, and that is very difficult to do over the phone. Further, it would be difficult to present evidence over the phone in a 15 minute hearing.

Despite Edwards’ Objection, Harris, who is required to be fair and impartial, acted in complete opposition to those requirements, and a hearing was scheduled for January 22, 2004.

Edwards’ Objection is found on the next page.

Exhibit 14 OBJECTION TO TELEPHONIC HEARING

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT


STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff,


v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

OBJECTION TO TELEPHONIC HEARING

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant, and states her objection to the

telephonic hearing, requested by Plaintiff, for the following reasons:

1. Edwards is suffering from diminished hearing, due, in part, to chronic allergies

and resultant congestion, adversely affecting her Eustachian tubes, middle and inner ear,

and causing the condition known as Meniere’s Disease. Thus, a hearing held via

telephone would be a hardship and disadvantage for Edwards.

2. Edwards is not unsympathetic to Counsel for the Plaintiff’s unfortunate

medical condition, however, Plaintiff brought this action into court and must be held to

the same standards as Defendant and given no preferential treatment, pursuant to equal

protection of the law, which must apply.

3. Further, Edwards is in possession of written evidence, referenced in her

Objection to Plaintiff’s Reply, filed October 24, 2003, in defense of her position, which

a telephonic hearing would prevent her from submitting to the court, in violation of due

process of law.

4. Still further, Edwards was not consulted, at any time, and in any manner,

regarding the request for a telephonic hearing and strenuously objects because such

manner of hearing would deprive her of due process of law.

Wherefore, Defendant Edwards respectfully objects to the scheduling of a

telephonic hearing for the aforementioned reasons.


All Rights Reserved

____________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection to Telephonic Hearing was sent first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290 this _____day of December, 2003.

_____________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction Section 8

Section 8 - Exhibit 15 – filed December 30, 2003

The exhibit in this Section is the Motion To Demand Trial By Jury. A Citizen’s

trial by jury is guaranteed in the federal Constitution, either the 6 th or 7 th Amendment , as well as in each state Constitution. Your Constitutional Rights are guaranteed in the federal and state Constitutions, specifically, in the Bills of Rights. The Citizen must obtain a copy of the court rules to ascertain when the Motion for trial by jury is required. In many courts, the Motion is required to be filed within 10 days after notification of suit or within so many days after your answer is filed. Edwards had previously requested a trial by jury verbally, but did not immediately file a Motion because she thought that, based on the evidence she had in comparison to the evidence Metris had, the suit would be immediately dismissed.

Please note that American Citizens are guaranteed a TRIAL by jury, and not TRIALS by judges. A trial by jury is not HEARINGS by judges in which the judge makes decisions and often dismisses cases, without jury participation. This lacks jurisdiction and due process and is more fully explained in those Sections describing the January

22nd and April 8th hearings.

This and the following Motion in the next Section require the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath taken to the federal Constitution, as required by Article VI, clauses 2 and 3, and in the case of a state judge, also to the state Constitution, to grant the Motions. If the judge were to deny these Motions, in writing, by his own court order, then he perjures his oath and denies the powers of and the Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions to an American Citizen. The vast majority of judges are not foolish enough to deny the Constitution, in writing, and hold themselves open to prosecution and civil suit. Harris was.

In future cases, Edwards may combine this and the following Motion, Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, into one Motion. This combination of Motions in one document requires the judge, pursuant to his oath, to grant the Constitutionally-guaranteed jury trial and also, by so doing, uphold the Citizen’s Constitutional Rights. When such a Motion is granted, a Citizen can hold the judge and the court to that Motion and the requirements thereof. By this, the Citizen can feel assured that his Rights will be protected. If the court grants the Motion and then fails to protect Rights, the court can be reminded of its ruling and requirements thereunder. When a Citizen’s Rights are protected, his evidence considered and properly ruled upon, due process provided, as required by the Motion, and the Citizen’s position is lawful, then he has an excellent chance to win.

There is also an advantage in keeping the Motions separate. In this manner, the three Motions in this case that require the judge to abide by his oath and uphold Rights guaranteed in the Constitution are presented in a series rather than in one combined Motion which could be denied. Of course, any judge who were to deny such a Motion denies, in writing, by his own order, the Constitution, the powers thereof and Rights guaranteed therein. By his own order, he commits insurrection and sedition against the

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/article_VI.htm


Constitution and treason against the American People. Most judges are not that stupid. Her Motion follows on the next page.

Exhibit 15.0 Motion To Demand Trial By Jury

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v.


Margaret Edwards,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION FOR CITIZEN’S DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, American Citizen, Defendant in Error, non-

licensed attorney litigant, the undersigned, and, without accepting the jurisdiction of this

court, moves the court as follows:

1. Pursuant to the Rights secured for her in the Constitution of the United States of

America, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 , and in the 6 th Amendment to said

Constitution; and in Article II, Sections 12 and 18, of the New Mexico State

Constitution , Edwards hereby states her demand for trial by jury.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/NM%20Constitution/article_II,sec%2012%20and%2018.htm



http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Article%20III%20Section%202,%20paragraph%203.htm


2. Edwards demands that the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath, honor and abide by

said oath, uphold and support the referenced National and state Constitutions, and

Edwards’ Rights secured therein, and provide due process of law, in a judicial forum, as

required, by law, to honor and uphold the Constitution and Edwards’ unalienable

Rights.


All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards, American Citizen




I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was sent, first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290 on this ____day of December, 2003.

All Rights Reserved

________________________________


Section 9 – Exhibit 16 – filed January 5, 2004

Edwards’ Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights was imperative to her case as it required the “judge”, pursuant to his oath, to grant the Motion, since he swore an oath to the Constitution and to uphold Rights of Citizens. Article VI of the federal Constitution, Sections 2 and 3, known as the Supremacy Clauses, require the

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/article_VI.htm

oath, as do all state Constitutions, federal and state laws. Our experience is that most judges will not openly deny the Constitution and deny this Motion. Those who do, pursuant to their oaths, commit insurrection and sedition to the Constitution and treason against the Sovereign American Citizen.

Treason is defined, in part, in Article III, Section 3, of the federal Constitution, as adhering to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort. The American Citizen is the Sovereign in this nation, not that government which serves him, pursuant to oaths taken. Any “judge” who has previously taken an oath, as is required and as previously referenced, who then denies the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, by denying this Motion, adheres to the enemy of the Sovereign, the enemy of this Nation, the enemy of the Law of the Land, gives that enemy aid and comfort, and, by his own actions, commits treason. By this act, he has invoked the

self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14 th Amendment , vacates his office, all his decisions and rulings are null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever, and he is entitled to none of the benefits of his former office, including salary and pension. Any such judge is a domestic enemy, and it is the duty of all Americans to expose enemies, both foreign and domestic. Any such judge is also a domestic terrorist. The filing of this Motion for Edwards was imperative. Metris made no response to this Motion, so, by rule, the Motion should have been granted. Harris, as usual, failed to abide by court rules and did not grant the Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, and in so doing, he committed sedition and insurrection to the Constitution and treason against the People

Her Motion follows on the next page.

Exhibit 16.0 Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Amendment14.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Article%20III,sec%203.htm

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

Margaret Edwards,

Defendant in Error

MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and REQUIRE THE PRESIDING JUDGE TO RULE UPON THIS MOTION, and ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS OF

THIS COURT TO UPHOLD SAID RIGHTS

COMES NOW Defendant Margaret Edwards, and moves the court, without

accepting the jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to oaths sworn by the presiding judge

and the attending public officers:

1. To acknowledge and act in accordance with a United States Federal

Court ruling, to wit: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be

converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F, 2d 286, 489;

2. To honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge

and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of

America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and the Constitution of the Republic of New

Mexico, Article 20, Section One, in this matter;

3. To provide due process of law, pursuant to the First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

Seventh, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of

America, and pursuant to Article II, Sections 2 , 4, 12 and 18 of the Constitution of the

Republic of New Mexico, and as required by the aforementioned oaths taken by the

presiding judge and attending court officers, in this matter;

4. To provide equal protection under the law, as required by the National

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/NM%20Constitution/Article%20II,%20Sections%201,2,3,%204,%2012%20,18.htm





http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/NM%20Constitution/XX(1).htm



and state Constitutions and pursuant to the referenced oaths;

5. To respect, protect and uphold the Rights of Margaret Edwards, an

American Citizen, in this matter, which Rights are guaranteed in the National and state

Constitutions, pursuant to referenced oaths;

6. To acknowledge and uphold the Constitution of the United States of

America as the Supreme Law of this court, in this matter, pursuant to the mandate, in

Article II, Section One, of the Constitution of the Republic of New Mexico, that the

National Constitution is the Supreme Law of New Mexico;

7. To acknowledge and so rule that any court and/or judge which denies a

Citizen to present evidence in any hearing or trial in total support of her position, which

evidence had previously been sent to Plaintiff and is unrebutted by Plaintiff and counsel,

is perjury of oath and denial of due process of law. Since neither Plaintiff nor counsel

rebut this evidence, then, there is no dispute, and since there is no dispute, there is no

controversy, and since there is no controversy, charges must be dismissed;

8. To acknowledge and so rule that this court and no other court and no

judge in New Mexico has jurisdiction over or can issue a court order against an

American Citizen if that court and/or judge: (a) do not provide due process of law; (b)

do not provide equal protection under the law; (c) do not respect and uphold the

Constitutional Rights of American Citizens, and in the instant action, the Rights of

Margaret Edwards, an American Citizen, pursuant to the Rights guaranteed in the

Constitutions of the United States of America and the Republic of New Mexico; (d) act

with sufficient force so as to deny the powers of the National and state Constitutions.

Wherefore Defendant Margaret Edwards respectfully moves this court to grant

this Motion for the aforesaid reasons.


All Rights Reserved

________________________________



I certify that on this ____ day of January, 2004, a true and exact copy of the aforesaid Motion was sent, first class postage prepaid, by U.S. mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290

All Rights Reserved

_________________________________


Introduction

Section 10

Section 10 – Exhibit 17 – not filed

Because of Harris’ unconstitutional positions, Edwards did not use the following Motion in her case. She will in her next case. This Motion requires the judge, pursuant to his oath, to make his rulings based in the Constitution, Constitutionally compliant law and case law. As previously stated, all judges and other public officers are required to swear an oath, and be bound thereby, to support the Constitution. ARTICLE III requires judges to serve in times of “good behavior” and making rulings


consistent with the Constitution is serving in good behavior. The opposite is not. Judges are also required to be fair, unbiased and impartial.

All laws created for the American Citizens must be Constitutionally supported by an Article or Amendment, or those laws are null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever. Any lawful ruling by a judge must be supported by fact and law, or it is frivolous and without merit, therefore, null and void. Lawful rulings must be based in Constitutionally compliant law or case law. It is our experience that most judges will dismiss the pro se case or find for the opponent of the pro se litigant on some very minor, inconsequential, non Constitutional basis, and ignore the pro se evidence file and pleadings. American Citizens must use the federal and state laws and our federal and state Constitutions to require the judges to abide by the law and not continue to commit fraud against the American Citizens.

This Motion requires the judge to abide by his oath to the Constitution and rule based in the Constitution. To do otherwise is insurrection and sedition to the Constitution and committing treason against the Sovereign American Citizen. When apprised by a Citizen through such a Motion, an honorable judge will usually hold him/herself to his Constitutional responsibilities. Such a judge who grants this Motion will most likely rule based in Constitutional provisions, which will protect American Citizens from unjust and unlawful rulings that are so common today in our courts.

When the opponent realizes that the Citizen will be Constitutionally protected by the court and its rulings will be Constitutionally based, if his case is based in fraud and deception, his unlawful position could be publicly exposed and the corporation damaged. As with Edwards’ case, Metris’ attorneys withdrew because they knew they lost. The Motion follows.

Exhibit 17.0

UNFILED MOTION

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

Margaret D. Edwards

Defendant.

MOTION TO DEMAND THIS COURT READ ALL PLEADINGS PLAINTIFF FILES WITH THIS COURT, AND ADHERE ONLY TO CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT LAW AND

CASE LAW, AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IN ITS RULINGS

________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Defendant, Margaret D. Edwards, and moves this Honorable Court, pursuant

to the oaths sworn by the presiding judge and attending public officers, and their duties to the National

Constitution, in any and all proceedings before this Honorable Court in this matter:

1. To read, consider, comprehend and rule upon all motions and pleadings Garcia files with this Court, with Court rulings based only in and supported by laws, statutes and case law in agreement with, and not in opposition or contradiction to, the National Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights;

2. To honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and Constitutional requirements thereof;

3. Pursuant to those oaths, to base and support all rulings in law or case law

which is Constitutionally compliant and which will not: (A) deny the powers of and

Rights guaranteed in the National Constitution; (B) deny Constitutional Rights to

American Citizens, in the instant case, Edwards; (C) violate federal and/or state

Constitutionally compliant laws; (D) shield, exonerate or hold Defendant(s) harmless

and immune from violating federal or state laws, federal or State Constitutions, violating

Edwards’ Cnstitutional Rights and Rights of due process of law, wrongdoing(s), crimes,

criminal activity(ies), fraud, collusion and conspiracy, insurrection, sedition and

anarchy.

4. To acknowledge that American Citizens, in the instant case, Edwards, are

Sovereign in this Nation, and that the government, this, and other Courts serve the

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Article%20VI,%20Clauses%202%20and%203.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Article%20VI,%20Clauses%202%20and%203.htm

American Citizens pursuant to: (A) limited powers delegated from the Constitution,

which delegated powers are derived from the People; (B) oaths taken to uphold the

Constitution; (C) the Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights; (D) powers authorized

only by the Constitution or laws in full compliance therewith, specifically, the Bill of

Rights, and (E) acknowledge that lack of Constitutional authority precludes any action

and voids any ruling by this Court. See Exhibits “A” and “B”, which address a federal

court ruling which violates all of the provisions specified herein.

Wherefore, since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Land, to which this Court and presiding judge are sworn, Defendant Edwards, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to grant this Motion, based in and supported by the federal Constitution, for the aforesaid reasons, to honor and uphold her Constitutional Rights during all judicial proceedings, to read Edward’s pleadings and rule based only in law and case law compliant with, and not in opposition or contradictory to, the Constitution.


All Rights Reserved

________________________________

Margaret D Edwards, American Citizen



(505) 425-0659

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this ___ day of _________ a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid to attorneys of record for Plaintiff.

All Rights Reserved

_______________________________

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_B.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_A.htm


Introduction

Section 11


This Exhibit is the first Notice of Disqualification of “judge” Jay Harris, filed with the court pursuant to NMSA 21-400. By law, a Defendant or Plaintiff has the Right to disqualify a judge when he knows of or suspects bias, partiality or prejudice from the judge. This Notice specifies Harris’ bias and prejudice, yet he unlawfully denied the Disqualification, and in so-doing, violated the law and rules of the court, which is common for Harris.

The Citizen must comply with all court rules regarding the time requirements for his disqualification of a judge. Disqualification is not the same thing as recusal. Disqualification is the Citizen’s Right to have a judge disqualified for the reasons cited above, or for other valid reasons. Cite you local rules for definition of disqualification and recusal.

The Notice follows on the next page.

Exhibit 18.0NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add

Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/nmra_21-100to400.htm

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant in Error, and gives Notice to the

Court of Disqualification of Jay G. Harris as presiding judge for this case for the

following reasons:

1. Edwards was Foreman of the Grand Jury for San Miguel County in the spring of

2001. During her tenure as Foreman, Edwards and other members of the Grand Jury

became aware of fraud, possible crimes and questionable practices on the part of those

assigned the court duties, the Office of District Attorney, attorneys within that office,

and the police. To address the serious concerns of the Grand Jury members, Edwards, as

Foreman, reported the wrongdoing, in writing, and/or in person, to: (1) Mary Helen

Wickert, Assistant District Attorney, (2) Joe Ulibarri, Chief Deputy District Attorney, (3)

Judges of the Fourth Judicial District, including Jay Harris, (4) Matt Sandoval, District

Attorney, (5) Patricia Madrid, Attorney General, (6) Gary Johnson, Governor.

2. All the public officers listed above were lawfully notified and had a

responsibility, pursuant to their oaths, and to their responsibility to faithfully discharge

their duties, to respond to notification from the Foreman of the Grand Jury. Yet, in

defiance of their duties, none of those notified responded to the subject matter of the

letters nor took any direct, viable action to stop, correct or report the wrongdoing, in

dereliction of their duties, and in creation of possible state liability to those persons

indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned under such conditions, who were wronged by the

frauds.

3. The only “response” Edwards, as Foreman, received to her letters of notification

was the cancellation of all remaining Grand Jury sessions which should have been held

while Edwards was Foreman, even though the Grand Jurors had been previously

apprised by various Assistant District Attorneys of the heavy case load to be heard

during their time of service. Harris, having been notified of wrongdoing, and being

presumably aware of the need for ongoing Grand Jury sessions, could have initiated

correction of the wrongdoing and intervened to continue the remaining Grand Jury

sessions. He did not.

4. Because Harris failed to respond to Edwards’ notification and took no action to

correct the anomalies or to continue the Grand Jury sessions, he perjured his oath and

violated the Public Trust. By his own actions, Harris has demonstrated that he is

untrustworthy and is unlikely to faithfully perform his duties.

5. In an action before Harris, captioned Cochrum v. Rhymes , Case No. 2002-109-CV ,

Harris perjured his oath, violated the Public Trust, violated the Rights of an American

Citizen, impaired the obligations of contract, denied due process of law and denied the

power of both the National and State Constitutions. Harris’ unlawful actions were

observed by approximately 25 witnesses, including Edwards, and he was also heard to

say, in reference to the witnesses, “There goes a pack of fools.” (See In Re Charge to

http://164.64.40.11/caselookup/CaseDetails?case1=D&case2=412&case3=CV&case4=200200109&casestatus=APPEALED&judge=JAY+G+HARRIS&casetitle=COCHRUM+VS+RHYMES&filingdate=2002-04-02&statusdate=2002-11-21


Grand Jury, 62 F 828.)

6. Further, in an action before Harris, captioned State of New Mexico v. Karan

Plagge , Case No. 2002-10-LR , Harris, again, perjured his oath, violated the Public

Trust, violated the Rights of an American Citizen and denied the power of both

Constitutions. Id.

7. Still further, it is likely that Harris does not have a valid surety bond, for assurance

of the faithful performance of his duties, as required, pursuant to New Mexico Statutes

and is, thus, acting without lawful authority.

Wherefore, Edwards respectfully gives Notice of Disqualification to this court for

the aforesaid reasons.


All Rights Reserved

________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that on this____ day of January, 2004, a true and exact copy of the aforesaid Notice of Disqualification was sent, first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290.

All Rights Reserved

http://164.64.40.11/caselookup/CaseDetails?case1=M&case2=48&case3=TR&case4=200102266&casestatus=CL+FINAL+CLOSED&judge=PHILIP+J+ROMERO&casetitle=STATE+VS.+KARAN+PLAGGE&filingdate=2001-08-09&statusdate=2001-10-17




_____________________________




This Exhibit is Edwards’ Reply to Metris’ Objection to the telephonic hearing. Edwards again stated that Metris had failed to rebut her previous charges made in her Objection and she invoked NMSA 1-008(D), Effect of Failure To Deny, so Metris, by law, agrees with and admits to her charges. Edwards further stated that ex-parte communications took place between Harris, the court and Metris’ attorneys, which is prohibited by law. Edwards rebutted Metris’ referral to Edwards’ letters as “ alleged evidence” and states that counsel and DMB received these letters and failed to rebut Edwards’ charges, thus, they stand as admitted. Edwards further presents excerpts from her letters, marked exhibits A-F, which DMB, Metris and their attorneys failed to rebut. Thus, pursuant to the Effect of Failure To Deny, Metris, their attorneys and DMB admit to Edwards’ charges.

The Reply follows on the next page.

Exhibit 19.0REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION

TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO TELEPHONIC HEARING

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v.


MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/ex_parte.htm


REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION

TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO TELEPHONIC HEARING

Defendant-in-Error Margaret Edwards submits the following reply:

1. Plaintiff did not rebut any of the statements and charges made in Defendant’s

Objection to Telephonic Hearing. Edwards invokes NMRA 1-008 (D) on grounds

Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, admitted to the veracity of all averments in

Edwards’s Objection, which required a response, because Plaintiff failed to address or

deny them. NMRA 1-008 (D) is quoted for the information of the Court; to wit:

Effect of failure to deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive

pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when

not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive

pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied, or avoided.

2. Since Plaintiff is in agreement with Edwards’ Objection to Telephonic Hearing,

the Telephonic Hearing must be cancelled.

3. Counsel for Plaintiff states that she suffers from a chronic illness. The question

arises as to whether this “chronic illness” existed at the time Plaintiff filed the action, by

and through counsel. If it did, then, counsel may have suspected or known, early in this

action, that she would be unable to drive to Las Vegas for hearings or trial convened for

the action, which she initiated on behalf of Plaintiff, and bears full responsibility for that

action. If this is the case, then, it appears counsel for Plaintiff may not have informed



the Court, and did not notify Edwards, of her pre-existing illness. This may constitute

fraud, which is an act or an omission which works to the disadvantage of an opposing

party.

4. Edwards, as stated in referenced Objection to Telephonic Hearing, restates

herein that she strenuously objects to any telephonic hearing, especially one based upon

possible fraud. Edwards, while sympathetic to counsel for Plaintiff’s plight, states that

counsel could possibly arrange suitable transportation which would permit her to attend,

in person, any scheduled proceedings for this action.

5. Further, Edwards contends that some form of unlawful, ex parte communication

must have occurred between and/or among Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and the

Court, to account for the issuance of the Notice of Telephonic Hearing for the reasons

given therein. The question here is when and by what means did the ex parte

communication take place. An obligation existed to include Edwards in any discussions

pertaining to this action, however, Edwards was never consulted, in any manner, and any

consideration which should have been given to her was ignored or denied. An ex parte

action, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, and the Court is unlawful and in violation of

NMRA 21-300 and could be considered collusion and conspiracy by Plaintiff and the

Court for the benefit of a licensed attorney to the detriment of an unrepresented

American Citizen.

6. Still further, an ex parte action is a violation of equal protection under the law

and due process of law.




7. Edwards stated in her Objection that she is unable to properly hear through a

telephonic system at this time and any such hearing would be a disadvantage to her and

an advantage to Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, states: “Defendant may and is not prevented

from being present and presenting her alleged written evidence at the hearing.” Edwards

contends it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to present written evidence

through the telephone in a 15 minute telephonic hearing, conducted for the benefit of

Plaintiff’s counsel. Edwards expects any rulings made by the presiding judge to be

made based upon the evidence, fact and law.

9. The “alleged evidence” to which Plaintiff, by and through counsel, refers is not

“alleged”, whatsoever, and, in fact, is well known to Plaintiff and counsel since Edwards

previously sent this evidence, in letter form, as lawful notification to Plaintiff, by and

through counsel, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Edwards made statements,

charges and averments and asked pertinent questions, none of which were rebutted or

answered. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, had a responsibility to respond, with

particularity, if they disagreed with Edwards’ statements and charges. Plaintiff failed to

rebut. An unrebutted statement, charge and affidavit stand as truth, and truth,

purportedly a standard of the Court, must be so recognized. Plaintiff has admitted to

Edwards’ statements and charges, by acquiescence; thus, since there is no dispute, there

is no controversy and charges must be dismissed.

10. The letters sent to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, stated that Plaintiff dealt in

fraud, fraudulent business practices and fraudulent contract, and engaged counsel to

enforce a fraudulent contract, in violation of NMRA 11-503 (D). Plaintiff, at no time,

rebutted this, either directly, or by and through counsel. A fraudulent contract is invalid

and unenforceable, because fraud cancels everything gained by and through fraud. The

Court cannot and has no authority to enforce a fraudulent contract, and if the Court

believes otherwise, the Court must demonstrate by what authority it may condone fraud

and enforce a fraudulent contract. Government and police seize assets and money

gained through fraud. For the Court to publicly condone fraud is unprecedented.

11. The government is the only entity lawfully authorized to create money. (See Art.

I, Sec. 8 of the National Constitution.) Direct Merchants Bank, by acquiescence, admits

to creating money, in violation of Article I, Sec. 8 of referenced Constitution.

12. Edwards hereby provides to the Court Exhibit’s A through F, excerpted,

paraphrased and highlighted herein, which fully support her lawful position, admitted to

by Plaintiff:

From Exhibit A:

1. Direct Merchants Bank creates debt by creating money out of thin air.

2. Direct Merchants Bank charges usurious rates on money which never existed before Direct Merchants funded the debt.

3. Edwards offered to pay balance at five per cent (5%) interest.

4. Direct Merchants Bank deals in usurious rates and unfair practices.

5. Direct Merchants extorts hard-earned dollars in exchange for non-existent money created by touch of computer keys.

6. Direct Merchants Bank perpetrates a shell game foisted upon the people.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/US%20Constitution/Art.%20I,%20Sec.%208.htm


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/11-503.htm

7. For contract to be valid, there must be full disclosure and there was no full disclosure to Edwards by Direct Merchants Bank stating that money is created out of thin air.

8. Outright fraud is being perpetrated by Direct Merchants Bank upon Edwards. Edwards has a duty to expose fraud.

From Exhibit B:

1. Direct Merchants’ letter of October 17, 2002 fails to address issues Edwards Raised in her previous letter to Direct Merchants Bank.

2. Direct Merchants Bank has been perpetrating a fraud on the American People.

3. Questions:

a. From whose account did Direct Merchants Bank withdraw money to pay vendors?

b. Was the money created by Edwards’ signature on the voucher when she the made purchase?

c. Is it Direct Merchants Bank’s policy to create checkbook money?

4. Direct Merchants Bank was given an opportunity to rebut statements and answer questions, which it failed to do.

From Exhibit C:

1. Edwards states her questions remain unanswered.

2. Direct Merchants Bank admits by acquiescence to loaning or creating credit on its books.

3. Court decision prohibits banks from creating money and credit upon their books by means of bookkeeping entries.

4. What Direct Merchants Bank is doing is fraudulent.

5. Edwards gave Direct Merchants Bank opportunity to rebut her statements which they did not do.

From Attached Affidavit:

1. Affiant signed documents without knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon affiant.

2. Affiant was coerced into signing documents without any knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon affiant.

From Exhibit D:

1. Edwards has communicated with Direct Merchants Bank since September 30, 2002 regarding serious concerns and issues that required a response, but none of these were addressed or rebutted. By acquiescence, Direct Merchants Bank deems that the statements are admitted, including fraud in their operational practices of creating money and credit upon their own books by means of bookkeeping entries.

2. Edwards will not be a party to fraud and assumes Sanchez would not wish to be a party to fraud.

From Exhibit E:

1. Direct Merchants Bank never responded to Edwards’ questions raised to them, thus, Edwards concludes that Direct Merchants Bank operates fraudulently and did not loan Edwards anything but a liability, and is admitted as true.

2. What Direct Merchants Bank was to loan to Edwards was created by Edwards’ note to them.

3. The original application, which initiated the contract was fraudulent upon its face and did not provide full disclosure.

From Exhibit F:

1. Edwards refuses payment for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

2. Bank fraud. Direct Merchants Bank created the money Edwards borrowed by using Edwards’ promise to pay to generate computer entries on Edwards’ account.

3. Direct Merchants Bank created money out of thin air and failed to notify Edwards of this.

4. United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confirms upon a bank the power to lend its money, not its credit.

5. The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental of the business of banking. The courts have ruled that a bank can lend its money, but not its credit.

6. A national bank, under federal law, cannot lend its credit guaranteeing the debt of others.

7. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. If there is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.

8. Direct Merchants is able to create money in moments that will take Edwards years of labor to pay. Direct Merchants has made Edwards a debt slave, controlling her time by loaning her bank credit in the place of money.

9. The original contract was fraudulent on its face, as it did not provide full disclosure.

10. Fraud has no statute of limitations and its presence cancels every agreement.

11. There is conspiracy amongst banks.

12. Notice is provided to Direct Merchants Bank to rebut the statements, but rebuttal never occurred.

In view of the foregoing, which is admitted to by Plaintiff’s acquiescence, that

Plaintiff dealt in fraud and engaged counsel for the purpose of collecting upon a

fraudulent contract, fraud cancels any contract. Further as Edwards stated in her

previous pleadings to this Court, Plaintiff is not licensed to do business in New Mexico,

conducted their business through the mails and acts in violation of New Mexico

Constitution, Article IV, Sections 25 and 26.

WHEREFORE, Defendant-in-Error, Edwards, in light of the foregoing evidence,

requests that the scheduled Telephonic Hearing, unlawfully requested ex parte by

Plaintiff, and without any consideration to Edwards, be permanently cancelled.


All Rights Reserved

_________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Objection was sent first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of January, 2004.

All Rights Reserved


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/NM%20Constitution/Article%20IV,%20Sections%2025%20and%2026.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/NM%20Constitution/Article%20IV,%20Sections%2025%20and%2026.htm

___________________

Margeret D. Edwards, American Citizen

Introduction

Section 13 Section 13 – Exhibit 20 – filed January 16, 2004

Edwards replied to Metris’ Response to her Demand For Trial By Jury and stated that Metris failed to rebut her charges. Thus, again, she invoked the Effect Of Failure To Deny, and Metris, by rule, admits to Edwards’ charges. Metris opposed Edwards’ Right to trial by jury, guaranteed in both the federal and state Constitutions. This position advocated by Metris’ attorneys is contrary to and in opposition to the oaths taken by those attorneys to uphold the Constitutions. Harris, as usual, did nothing to support and defend the Constitution, uphold Edwards’ Rights, or reprimand the attorneys for their insurrection, sedition and treason.

The Exhibit follows.

Exhibit 20.0Edwards replied to Metris’ Response to her Demand For Trial By Jury

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error


v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CITIZEN’S DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Defendant-in-Error Edwards submits the following reply:

1. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, did not rebut, with particularity, any of the

statements and charges made in Defendant’s Motion for Citizen’s Demand for Trial by

Jury. Because of the oath required and taken by counsel, counsel could not deny that the

National Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and deny powers of both

Constitutions. Edwards invokes NMRA 1-008 (D) on grounds Plaintiff, by and through

counsel of record, admitted to the veracity of all averments in Edwards’ Motion, which

required a response, because they were not denied or addressed. NMRA 1-008 (D) is

quoted for the information of the Court: To wit:

Effect of failure to deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive

pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when

not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive

pleading is required or permitted, shall be taken as denied, or avoided.

Since Plaintiff is in agreement with Edwards’ Motion for Citizen’s Demand for

Trial by Jury, and since her argument does not supersede the Constitutions or deny the

powers of both Constitutions, the trial by jury must take place.

2. The Court is advised that the demand for jury trial -“as it has heretofore

existed” - was authorized pursuant to Kearney Bill of Rights, Clause 5 in Pamphlet 3,

and New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 12, and remains inviolate; New

Mexico case law and court rules altering the integrity of the inviolate right - “as it has




heretofore existed” - to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Article II, Sec. 12. Const. N.M. [Trial by jury], statute text:

The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and

remain inviolate. In all cases triable in courts inferior to the district court the jury may

consist of six. The legislature may provide that verdicts in civil cases may be rendered

by less than a unanimous vote of the jury.

Phrase “as it has heretofore existed” refers to the right to jury trial as it existed in

the territory of New Mexico immediately preceding adoption of the Constitution. Bliss

v. Greenwood , 63 N.M. 156, 315 P. 2d 223 (1957) ; Gutierrez v. Gover, 43 N.M. 146,

87P. 2d 437 (1939); Young v. Vail, 29 N.M. 324, 222 P.912 (1924); State v. Holloway, 19

N.M. 528, 146 P. 1066, 1915F L.R.A. 922 (1914).

It was the purpose of the Constitution framers to retain the right of trial by jury, as

it theretofore existed in the territory of New Mexico, except in special proceedings, for

which express provision was made in the same instrument. Seward v. Denver &

R.G.R.R., 17 N.M. 557, 131 P. 980, 46 L.R.A. (n.s.) 242 (1913).

Procedure to be followed in securing right to jury. - The right to trial by jury as

guaranteed by the Constitution is to be distinguished from the procedure to be followed

in securing the right. Reasonable regulatory provisions, although different in form and

substance from those in effect at the adoption of the Constitution, do not abridge, limit

or modify the right which is to remain inviolate. Carlisle v. Continental Oil Co., 81

http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=237749




N.M. 484, 468 P. 2d 885 (Ct. App. 1970).

3. All New Mexico public officers, pursuant to the National and State

Constitutions haven taken an oath to support and uphold said Constitutions and are

required to honor that oath in the faithful performance of their duties and in compliance

with their responsibilities to the public trust. As is clearly demonstrated, herein, the

Constitution of the Republic of New Mexico guarantees the Right of jury trial and that

Right remains inviolate, case law, court rules, procedures, statutes and other rules and

regulations, to the contrary, not withstanding.

4. Any fee charged for jury is not authorized or permitted by the New Mexico

Constitution and the National Constitution, and is, thus, invalid, without force or effect.

(See Marbury v. Madison.) Those bodies and those entities which assume power not

authorized by the Constitutions unlawfully usurp power not possessed and deny the

powers of both Constitutions. (See Miller v. U.S.; New Mexico Constitution, Art. II,

Sections 2,3, 4.) Any fee charged for jury is coercion of funds, the “buying and selling”

of “justice”, extortion, unequal protection under the law, deprivation of Rights

guaranteed in both Constitutions, denial of due process of law, disincentive by financial

hardship and intimidation by the state .

5. Article II, Section One of the New Mexico Constitution states that the

Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land. The

National Constitution supersedes and is superior to all other domestic laws, rules,

regulations and procedures, whatsoever. Neither Constitution authorizes or permits fees




http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

for jury. The federal court system does not require the posting of a fee when a litigant

files a demand for trial by jury. That New Mexico does so, is a violation of equal

protection under the law. ( National Constitution, 14 th Amendment, Sec. 1 ; New

Mexico Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 18.)

6. Since neither Constitution authorizes fees, those laws, rules and regulations

which do, are unconstitutional and unlawful, and those who enforce, or attempt to

enforce, them engage in insurrection and rebellion against both Constitutions. (See

National Constitution, 14th Amendment, Sections 3 and 4.)

“But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible to the

fundamental law and no authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to

disregard it.” Yakus v. U.S. 321 U.S. 414, Pg. 468 (1944). The fundamental law of this

Nation and this state is the National Constitution, which guarantees trial by jury without

fees and time qualifications for demand. (See New> National Constitution, 7 th

Amendment.) “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 at 174 and 176 .

7. The Plaintiff, by and through counsel, pursuant to her oath and requirements

thereof, brings a fraud upon the Court, and appears, based upon the foregoing, to be

influencing the presiding judge, through pleadings and ex parte communication, to defy

the Law, deny the powers of the Constitution and perjure his oath.

8. Further, neither Constitution limits time for demand for trial by jury. Edwards

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137









denies that she “waived” a trial by jury. Edwards hereby claims all her Rights, secured

for her in both Constitutions. (See Miller v. U.S.) Edwards states that she did not

submit a demand for trial by jury, earlier, because due to the frivolous charges brought

by Plaintiff and the crimes admitted to by Plaintiff, by acquiescence with Edwards’

letters sent to Plaintiff and counsel, Edwards reasonably expected the charges to be

dismissed. Unrebutted statements stand admitted and as truth. When Edwards was

notified, without ever having been consulted about the possibility of a telephonic

hearing, that such telephonic hearing had been scheduled, apparently, as a result of ex

parte communication between Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and the Court,

Edwards, based upon that unlawful action, then, elected to exercise her Constitutional

Right to demand a trial by jury.

9. Still further, Edwards rebuts Plaintiff’s representation concerning pleadings.

All filings with the Court, by either party, are pleadings.

10. The Court is also advised that District Judge, Carol Vigil, informed Citizen,

Carole Anton, from the bench, during a trial held on December 29, 2003 in City of Santa

Fe v. Anton, D-101-CV-200300523, First Judicial District, New Mexico, the following:

a. The Court Rules, binding the Court, put any unrepresentative litigant at a

clear disadvantage; that the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruling on complaints of that

nature forced district judges to hold litigants, without representation, to the court rule

disadvantages and that she, Judge Vigil, would hold Anton to the disadvantages, in

perjury of her oath, in violation of Anton’s Citizen Rights to due process and equal

protection under the law, and in denial of the powers of both Constitutions.

b. The facts cited above are of record in the December 29, 2003 trial and

those statements were heard and witnessed by numerous Citizens, some of whom had

been held involuntarily in state courts, at all levels, to those conditions of servitude,

denying the power of both the National and State Constitutions.

c. The most recent example can be found in the order of this Court, dated

January 6, 2004, in a case entitled, State of New Mexico v. Plagge, 02-10-LR, which by

litigation trickery, was a New Mexico Supreme Court petition for writ of prohibition,

submitted by Plagge, challenging the legality of Court Rules holding her, as an

unrepresented litigant, to conditions of involuntary servitude. This Court did not have

jurisdiction to decide the legality of Supreme Court Rules imposed on the People of

New Mexico as though they were chattel property owned by that Court. Nevertheless,

by legal trickery, the person improperly assigned the supreme court petition, decided the

matter in favor of the conditions of involuntary servitude.

d. Further, the person assigned the Plagge petition in this Court had several

motions for leave to file with the supreme court as amicus curiae, one of which showed

that public appropriations were being embezzled, with abandon, in San Juan County.

The assigned judge in this Court denied the motion for leave to file and simultaneously

aided and abetted the embezzlement of public appropriations by the said Order, dated

January 6, 2004.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/amicus_curiae.htm

WHEREFORE, Defendant-in-Error, Edwards, files this Reply for the benefit of

this Honorable Court in support of her Right to a jury trial and to avoid any litigation

trickery being exercised because she is a litigant unrepresented by a licensed attorney.


All Rights Reserved

__________________________________



I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Response was sent first class by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290 on this ____ day of January, 2004.

____________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards


Section 14 - Exhibit 21 – filed January 21, 2004

The hearing was scheduled for January 22, 2004. This Notice of Judge Re-Assignment, issued by the court, file stamped January 21, 2004, with a certificate of mailing dated January 20, 2004, was received by Edwards on January 24, 2004, two days after the hearing was held on January 22, 2004. This is a blatant example of the total fraud that occurs within this “court”.

The court administrator, apparently pursuant to Edwards’ Disqualification of Harris, re-assigned the case to another judge who was supposed to have taken over the

case and presided over the January 22nd hearing. Harris, fully knowing of this re-assignment, ignored it, remained as “judge” and fraudulently conducted the hearing. Edwards knew nothing of the re-assignment to another judge until she received the notice by mail on January 24th, two days after the hearing was held. After she received this, Edwards spoke with Judge Mathis, to whom the case had been re-assigned. Mathis

has upheld the Constitution in other cases, yet he failed to abide by the rules and failed to replace Harris, as required by the Notice. Harris is said to have “power”, and a reputation as evil.

The Re Assignment follows.

Exhibit 21

NOTICE OF JUDGE RE-ASSIGNMENT

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

STATE OF NEW MEXICO


STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 ,.' '! "c',' -,<,_

METRIS COMPANIES LLP .

Plaintiff, No. CV-2003-188

VS.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF JUDGE RE-ASSIGNMENT

The above-referenced cause has been re-assigned to the Honorable EUGENIO S. MATHIS, District Judge, Division I, effective as of 01-21-04 due to the Recusal, Disqualification, Excusal of the Honorable JAY G. HARRIS, District Judge, Division II.

MACIE DOMINGUEZ ROGERS

COURT ADMINISTRATOR

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 20TH day of JANUARY, 2004

Recusal/Disqualification-Excusal and the Notice of Judge Re-Assignment was mailed placed in counsel's bin and given to Judge(s)

BY:

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/recusal.htm

DATE PETITION FILED: MAY 23, 2003

TYPE OF CASE: COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF AGREEMENT AND FOR DEBT AND MONEY DUE-CIVIL

FOR PLAINTIFF: CATHERINE SANCHEZ

FOR DEFENDANT(S): MARGARET EDWARDS-PRO-SE

Section 15.0Section 15 – The January 22, 2004, hearing

As is further stated in Section 25, the April 8, 2004 hearing, American Citizens are guaranteed trial by jury, not “trials” by judges. Hearings are trials by judges, without juries, a complete violation of jurisdiction and due process. These hearings provide excellent opportunities for judges to find against the Citizen and for his/her opponent, usually based in some minor and insignificant reason unrelated to the Citizen’s lawful position. Be fully aware of the purpose for which hearings were designed and fully prepared to demand your Rights pursuant to Edwards’ Motions.

Against Edwards’ objections, this hearing took place telephonically, with Edwards present in the court and Harris presiding, with Metris’ attorneys on the phone. Harris and Metris’ attorneys had communicated ex parte, on numerous occasions, without Edwards, a clear violation of the law and court rules. Harris, by his own actions, knows little or cares less about laws and rules. By his own actions, he appears to be a very stupid, incompetent and corrupt man, without any rational or lawful awareness. This man should be an embarrassment to New Mexico, yet, most-likely because this state is also corrupt, it protects him.

Although Edwards was not informed and an ex-parte arrangement was made between Harris and Metris’ attorneys, the hearing was apparently held to determine if the matter could be resolved before it was scheduled for trial. Metris’ attorneys, knowing that they and their client had failed to rebut or deny any of Edwards charges made in her letters, affidavit and pleadings, eagerly stated that they were willing to compromise, and, further, had no idea what Edwards meant about fraud, and, still further, that Metris did not want to waste the court’s time. This was a major mistake by Metris, by and through their incompetent and fraudulent attorneys, since the lead attorney’s statements put fraud upon the court through her lies and fraudulent statements.

Edwards immediately stated that it was Metris that filed this action, not Edwards, and if



Metris was so concerned about wasting the court’s time, then it could drop the suit since Metris has no case. The attorneys said nothing. They did not expect an “ordinary” Citizen to know the law, know the case, and be prepared to argue it. They seemed in shock.

In further response, Edwards stated that she absolutely had no intent or interest in compromise, was eager for the trial, and that Metris and their attorneys were well aware of the fraud and deceit they created by means of their receipt of her letters and affidavit Edwards sent them, which charges were never rebutted, and stand as truth before this court. Edwards stated that the attorneys put fraud upon the court by claiming ignorance of this fraud. She also stated that Metris, in its responsive pleadings, failed to rebut Edwards’ charges made in her Motions and pleadings filed with the court. Thus, pursuant to NMSA 1-008 (D), Effect of Failure To Deny, Metris admits to all Edwards’ charges, and this case must be dismissed. Harris said nothing.

Further, Edwards said that Metris stated it does business in interstate commerce, that DMB solicited Edwards through the U.S. Postal Service, and, as such, that proper jurisdiction is federal district court, not state district court. She stated that neither Metris nor DMB are licensed to do business in New Mexico and have no lawful position to file this case in state district court, and that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. Metris’ attorneys were quiet, said nothing, rebutted nothing. Harris, as we expected, failed to respond to Edwards’ charges. By his prior actions and by his actions in this hearing, it was obvious that he greatly favored Metris and disparaged Edwards. Otherwise, on the available evidence, he should have immediately dismissed the case. He did say that Ms. Edwards is not willing to settle the case, and continued it.

Introduction

Section 16.0Section 16 - Exhibit 22- filed January 20, 2004

Edwards filed this Motion To Challenge The Jurisdiction Of The Court and cited several Supreme Court decisions to support her position. Courts do not have jurisdiction over American Citizens if those courts fail to uphold the Constitution, powers of and Rights guaranteed therein, to American Citizens, the Bill of Rights, due process of law and equal protection under the law. Harris’ court failed all these. Further, if a court does not have either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, it lawfully cannot hear the case and must dismiss it.

When a court flies a four colored flag or has gold anywhere on that flag, that court operates under Article I of the Constitution and not Article III, which is guaranteed to American Citizens. There is a major difference. In an Article III court, that court is required to uphold the Citizen’s Constitutional Rights. Article I courts are military in


which no such rights are observed or upheld. Citizens must know the difference and demand their Rights be upheld in Article III courts. The Citizen must be fully aware of these points because the court will not offer this information to a Citizen.

The Motion follows on the next page.

Exhibit 22.0

MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT and

TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO VERIFYAND PROVE JURISDICTION

IN THIS MATTER or TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v.


MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT and

TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO VERIFY AND PROVE JURISDICTION

IN THIS MATTER or TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and moves the Court,

without accepting jurisdiction, to dismiss the action against Edwards for lack of

jurisdiction for the following reasons:

1. During the spring of 2001, Edwards, as foreman the San Miguel County Grand

Jury, notified, in person and in writing, officers of the San Miguel County District

Attorney’s office, those assigned duties of the Fourth Judicial District Court, including

Jay Harris, the Attorney General and the Governor of New Mexico, of possible crimes

and questionable procedures on the part of those assigned duties of the Fourth Judicial

District Court, the office of the District Attorney and the police regarding their actions

and treatment of Citizens who were named as “targets” by the aforementioned. Not one

body or public officer so notified took any action, whatsoever, in reference to the subject

matter of the notification, including those assigned the duties of the Fourth Judicial

District Court. Pursuant to their oaths, those assigned the duties of the Court, including

Jay Harris, committed misconduct in office, perjured their oaths, acted in gross

dereliction of duty, defied, denied, abandoned and betrayed the Public Trust and denied

the highest laws of our land, namely the power of the jury and the powers of both

Constitutions. Thus, the public officers of the Fourth Judicial District Court, who have

so acted, have no authority and no jurisdiction, whatsoever, over any American Citizen.

(See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266, 270 (1997); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

U.S. 800 815-17, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2736-37 (1982) ; Malley v. Briggs, 106 S. Ct.

1092,1096 (1986).

2. After Edwards presented lawful notification to the aforementioned, all

remaining Grand Jury sessions, which would have been held during her tenure as

foreman were cancelled, even though Edwards and jury members were informed by

officers of the District Attorney’s office that there was a very heavy case load which

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=475&invol=335&pageno=341

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=800


would require sessions of the Grand Jury for the full length of their jury duty. This

cancellation of all remaining Grand Jury sessions and seizure of the powers of the grand

jury for an apparent unlawful benefit of an unspecified, unlawful purpose, defies, denies

and cancels the power of the jury and both Constitutions and is misconduct in office,

dereliction of duty and other violations, as above stated.

3. The Court has no lawful jurisdiction since the public officer assigned duties

therein defied New Mexico court rules by permitting an ex parte communication

between and among Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and the Court, which resulted in

the scheduling of a telephonic hearing, without prior consultation with or agreement

from Edwards, for the advantage of the Plaintiff and a licensed attorney, and to the

disadvantage of Edwards.

4. Fraud is a deception, either by act or omission, by which a person is deceived

into believing that the deception is truth and acts upon it to his own injury. Plaintiff, by

acquiescence, admitted to fraud and fraudulent business practices, by and through letters

Edwards sent to Plaintiff, which letters were specified by Edwards in motions to this

Court. The Court has, therefore, been notified of the fraud, admitted to by Plaintiff, and

yet, the Court entertains an action brought by Plaintiff, by and through counsel, to

enforce a fraudulent contract. No court has authority or jurisdiction to hear an action

brought by a Plaintiff based upon fraud, committed by Plaintiff, to condone fraud or to

enforce a fraudulent contract.

5. Plaintiff conducted all its business with Edwards, by and through counsel, via


the United States Postal Service, and Plaintiff admits to fraud and fraudulent business

practices. Therefore, the proper jurisdiction for fraud conducted through the mails is the

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and not state district court.

6. Any company, not licensed to do business in New Mexico, such as Plaintiff,

which has, by acquiescence, admitted to violation of federal law, specifically United

States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, and Title 12, U.S.C., Sec. 24, par. 7,

invokes federal jurisdiction, not state.

7. Public officers assigned the duties of the court, pursuant to their oaths, who

issue court orders not based in fact, law and evidence, or based in laws inferior to and in

opposition to the law of the land and to Rights guaranteed within both Constitutions, or

who make no rulings based in fact, law and evidence on filed pleadings, and whose

rulings deny the powers of both Constitutions, have no authority or jurisdiction over

American Citizens. Such actions occurred in previously cited cases, namely ; State of

New Mexico v. Plagge, Case No. 2002-10-LR , Cochrum v. Rhymes, Case No. 2002-

109-CV, and during Edwards’ tenure as Grand Jury foreman.

8. There is no evidence that those assigned the duties of the court for the Fourth

Judicial District possess a valid surety bond for the faithful discharge of their duties,

pursuant to their oaths of office, as required pursuant to New Mexico law. Without a

valid surety bond, no judge has authority or jurisdiction to act as a judge or to perform

the duties of a judge.


http://164.64.40.11/caselookup/CaseDetails?case1=M&case2=48&case3=TR&case4=200202006&casestatus=CL+FINAL+CLOSED&judge=LEO+E+GONZALES&casetitle=STATE+VS.+KARAN+PLAGGE&filingdate=2002-05-20&statusdate=2004-11-17

http://164.64.40.11/caselookup/CaseDetails?case1=M&case2=48&case3=TR&case4=200202006&casestatus=CL+FINAL+CLOSED&judge=LEO+E+GONZALES&casetitle=STATE+VS.+KARAN+PLAGGE&filingdate=2002-05-20&statusdate=2004-11-17



9. Further, there is no evidence that the referenced public officers assigned the

duties of the Fourth Judicial District Court have, pursuant to requirements under the

National and State Constitutions and federal and state law, renewed their oaths, before

the Public, upon assuming their duties following their reelection to office. Without a

proper oath and a proper oath taking, as required by law, no judge has authority or

jurisdiction to administrate the lawful duties of the court.

10. No court has jurisdiction if it does not provide due process of law, equal

protection under the law, recognize the Rights of American Citizens, guaranteed in both

Constitutions, and denies the powers of said Constitutions. When those assigned the

duties of the court so act, as in the referenced actions regarding Plagge, Cochrum and

when Edwards was foreman of the Grand Jury, that court, itself, and those assigned the

duties thereof, have no lawful authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever.

11. Edwards makes the point for the foregoing as follows:

In City of Santa Fe v. Anton, D-101-CV-200300523, First Judicial District New Mexico,

the presiding judge, Carol Vigil, on December 29, 2003, informed Anton that the New

Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that district judges must hold litigants, without

representation, to court rule disadvantages. That holding denies due process of law,

equal protection under the law and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in both

Constitutions; therefore, the Court of Appeals denies the powers of both Constitutions

and forces district court judges, by its ruling, to perjure their oaths. Any presiding judge

who so rules, based upon the Appellate Court’s unlawful ruling, as given by Judge Vigil,

http://164.64.40.11/caselookup/CaseDetails?case1=D&case2=101&case3=CV&case4=200300523&casestatus=PN+PENDING&judge=DANIEL+A+SANCHEZ&casetitle=CITY+OF+SF+VS+CAROLE+ANTON&filingdate=2003-03-17&statusdate=2003-03-17

commits insurrection and sedition against said Constitutions and the Rights of the

People, and no judge has any jurisdiction, whatsoever, to act.

12. The aforementioned judges invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment

to the National Constitution, by their own actions in the above-referenced cases, and act,

under color of law, without any authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever. The judges and

other public officers specified herein, charged with administering and enforcing the law,

pursuant to their oaths, have grossly violated the law, yet, hold the Citizens to the law in

blatant malfeasance of office and in abject dereliction of duty to the Public Trust.

13. If the Court disputes any of the above, then, the Court must prove, on the

public record, lawful jurisdiction in this matter, based in fact and law, and in compliance

with both Constitutions, pursuant to the following decisions:

(a) “Challenge to court’s jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss.” Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984);

(b) “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S., 474 F 2d 215;

(c) “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action.” Melo v. U.S., 505 F. 2d 1026;

(d) “Court must prove on the record all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150;

(e) “Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P. 27;

(f) “Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings.” Re. Cavitt,

http://www.paperadvantage.org/AttackingAVoidJudgment.html

254 P. 599.

WHEREFORE, Defendant-in-Error, Edwards, respectfully moves this Court to

grant this Motion for the foregoing reasons.


All Rights Reserved

__________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction was sent first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this _____day of January, 2004.

___________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 17.0Section 17 – Exhibit 23 - filed January 30, 2004

Surety bonds are required for all New Mexico state officers, including judges, as a condition precedent to office, without which no duties of office can lawfully be discharged. A surety bond is a bond for the faithful performance of duty by a public officer. It has nothing to do with liability insurance, but rather, is intended to protect the state, i.e., the Citizens, from having to pay for wrongful or incompetent actions by state officers.

From information available to Edwards, Harris has no surety bond on file, as required by state law, therefore, he cannot lawfully discharge duties of office as a judge.

Here we have a “judge” in violation of the law holding a Citizen to the law, which is common throughout New Mexico. Any judge or state that does not enforce its own laws deals in anarchy, and not in the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitutions. Edwards filed a Verified Complaint In Quo Warranto against Harris, as follows on the next page.

Exhibit 23.0

VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN QUO WARRANTO

FOR JAY G. HARRIS TO SHOW THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

ON WHAT AUTHORITY HE DISCHARGES ASSIGNED DUTIES

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

STATE OF NEW MEXICO




STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel

Margaret Edwards,

Petitioners,

Vs.

JAY G. HARRIS,

Respondent.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN QUO WARRANTO

FOR JAY G. HARRIS TO SHOW THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

ON WHAT AUTHORITY HE DISCHARGES ASSIGNED DUTIES

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Petitioner-Relator, a Citizen living in San Miguel County

and respectfully shows:

1. Respondent Harris was required, as an elected or appointed state judicial

officer, to take an oath of office, in public, as stated in Section 1, Article XX,


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/quo_warranto.htm

Constitution of New Mexico, before entering office. See Section 1, Article XX,

Constitution of New Mexico; to wit:

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

2. Every elected state judicial officer shall post a surety bond provided by the

Judicial Department of the State of New Mexico, as a condition precedent, in the Office

of the New Mexico Secretary of State for the faithful performance of assigned duties

before discharging those duties, and the value of required bond required for state judicial

officers shall be established by the New Mexico Secretary of State. [Emphasis added],

See 1987 Op. Att’y Gen 87-42 and NMSA 10-2-9.

3. Section 10-2-14 C, states; to wit:

“employee” means any officer or employee of the state, including elected or appointed officials and persons acting on behalf or in service of a state agency in any official capacity . . .

Further, Section 10-2-15: Surety Bond Coverage, by its language,

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” evidences legislative intent that the

Surety Bond Act controls surety bond coverage of all state officers and employees. 1987

Op. Att’y Gen 87-42.

4. According to the Open Records Act, there are no faithful performance bonds

among the records in the Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State for Respondent





Harris or any other judge or justice. See 10-2-5, 6 and 7 NMSA.

5. Neither the New Mexico Attorney General nor the District Attorney for San

Miguel County have a surety bond posted and of record in the Office of the Secretary of

State as required by law and cannot discharge assigned duties outlined in Section 44-3-4

or refuse to do so. See 44-3-4 NMSA.

6. The State of New Mexico demands that Respondent Jay G. Harris shall be

enjoined by lawful court order from discharging the duties of the assigned office held

until lawful surety bond coverage for the faithful performance of his assigned duties is

posted and of record in the Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State.

7. The Petitioners order Respondent to demonstrate what authority he has, if any,

to hold public office within seventy two (72) hours of receipt of this Quo Warranto.


All Rights Reserved

______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



Ph/Fax: (505) 425-0659

STATE OF NEW MEXICO )

) ss.

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by Margaret D. Edwards, c/o 739 Dalbey Drive, Las Vegas, New Mexico [87701], this ____day of January, 2004.




My Commission expires: _____________ _________________________________

DATE NOTARY PUBLIC

SEAL


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this ____day of January, 2004 to the following people:

1. Governor Bill Richardson, Office of the Governor, State Capitol Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87503

2. Atty. General Patricia Madrid, 407 Galisteo Street, Bataan Mem. Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87504

3. Dist. Atty. Matthew Sandoval, San Miguel County, P.O. Box 2025, Las Vegas, NM 87701

4. Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, NM 87176-7290

Introduction

Section 18.0Section 18 – Exhibit 24 – filed February 5, 2004

Based on the fraud committed by Harris, the court and Metris’s attorneys, Edwards filed a Complaint For Fraud, centering around the Notice Of Disqualification of Harris and the Judge Re-Assignment, of which Harris was well aware, but ignored. Metris’ attorneys were also aware, but said nothing during the hearing, nor made any effort to inform the court. This is collusion and conspiracy among the attorneys and Harris to defraud Edwards.

The Complaint follows on the next page.

Exhibit 24.0

COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, PUTTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT and UPON DEFENDANT, FOR COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD

and

PUT FRAUD UPON THE COURT and THE DEFENDANT, and DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, PUTTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT and UPON DEFENDANT, FOR COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD and

PUT FRAUD UPON THE COURT and THE DEFENDANT, and DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

1. On Jan 7, 2004, Edwards filed, with this Court, a Notice of Disqualification of

Jay G. Harris. The Disqualification is based upon NMRA 21-400, which carries no

time constraints, and which text is quoted, in part, to wit:

“A. Recusal. A judge is disqualified and shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(1) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . .”

Edwards cited reasons why Harris’ impartiality might reasonably be questioned and


stated Harris’ bias in the Notice of Disqualification, which Harris ignored. In the

January 22, 2004 hearing, held under deceptive and fraudulent conditions, Edwards also

stated to Harris that she had been recently informed that she may be called as a witness

against Harris in a pending Qui Tam action. Harris also ignored this. Further, Harris

stated that he denied the Notice of Disqualification because Edwards had not filed on

time. There is no time consideration for Disqualification pursuant to NMRA 21-400.

2. On January 22, 2004, Harris held and presided over a fraudulent hearing, due to

the fact that a Notice of Judge Re-Assignment, a copy of which is attached and marked

Exhibit A, had previously been issued, which contained a signed certification of service

to Edwards, dated January 20, 2004, and a court filed stamp, dated January 21, 2004, by

which this case was reassigned to Judge Eugenio Mathis, which, re-assignment,

according to the referenced certification of service, was given to Harris and Mathis The

Notice of Re-Assignment, attached to Edwards’ Notice of Disqualification, was sent in

an envelope, postage meter marked January 21, 2004, and received by Edwards by mail

on January 24, 2004, two days after the fraudulent hearing was held. Said hearing was

based in fraud, deception and litigation trickery, and has no lawful validity, force or

effect, whatsoever, as if it had never been held.

3. Harris, being fully aware and apprised of the court-filed Reassignment Notice,

ignored it, and although having no authority, whatsoever, to hold and preside over the

January 22nd hearing, nevertheless, held the fraudulent hearing, committed fraud upon


http://www.quizlaw.com/hremployment_law/what_is_qui_tam_false_claims.php

Edwards, put fraud upon the Court, engaged in collusion and conspiracy with others

herein named to commit fraud and willfully deprived Edwards of her Rights,

information vital to her case, and due process of law.

4. Not before, during or after the January 22nd hearing, did Harris, at any time,

reveal to or mention to Edwards the previously issued Notice of Judge Re-Assignment.

By his own actions, Harris intentionally and willfully withheld pertinent information

known to him, and he kept secret from Edwards, court-issued communication vital to

Edwards’ defense.

5. Since Harris had no lawful authority to hold and preside over said hearing, nor

any authority to act or adjudicate matters, either for or against Edwards, he usurped

powers not possessed, denied the powers of both Constitutions, acted in gross dereliction

of duty, and violated the Public Trust. Harris committed fraud and used deception, and

Edwards accepted Harris’ deception as truth and acted upon it as fact, to her legal

injury. Harris gave effect to the deception both by holding the hearing and by giving the

fraudulent order to attorney Sanchez to write the order denying the Disqualification, to

complete the deception. In the hearing, Harris took illegal and unlawful action, with

intent to deceive, defraud and harm Edwards and the court and to deprive Edwards of

her Rights, to her legal detriment. By his own actions, Harris perjured his oath, in the

presence of Court personnel, witnesses and Edwards, and invoked the self-executing

sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment to the National Constitution, immediately

vacated his office, is no longer a lawful judge, and is entitled to no benefits of his former

office, including salary and pension.

6. Edwards objected to the January 22nd telephonic hearing, by and through an Objection filed with the Court on December 23, 2003, on various grounds, in particular, the ex parte communication between Sanchez and the Court used to arrange the hearing, but Edwards was deceived into attending the proceedings to avoid a contempt of court for failure to appear. During the hearing, Harris orally denied Edwards’ Objection, without valid reason, based in law, and stated “Well, we’re here now”.

7. Those assigned the duties of the Court, with full knowledge of the Judge Re-Assignment: (a) did not inform Edwards of the re-assignment prior to the hearing; (b)

deceived Edwards by mailing the re-assignment to Edwards on January 21st to assure that Edwards would not receive it until well after the hearing; (c) permitted the fraudulent hearing to take place, with Harris presiding, and thereby committed fraud, put fraud upon the Court, defrauded Edwards and participated in collusion and conspiracy.

8. Without authority, Harris involved attorney Catherine Sanchez in the fraud, the deception, the collusion and conspiracy to commit fraud, to put fraud upon the Court, to defraud and deceive Edwards, to her legal injury, and to deprive Edwards of her Rights, by fraudulently ordering Sanchez to write the fraudulent Order of Denial to the Notice of Disqualification made by Edwards, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit B.

During the January 22nd hearing, Sanchez admitted to having prior notification that the hearing had been cancelled due to Edward’s Disqualification of Harris, yet, Sanchez knowingly and willingly participated in the fraud, collusion and conspiracy by writing the Order of Denial. Sanchez aided and abetted the fraud, acted in collusion and conspiracy with Harris, both Harris and Sanchez put fraud upon the Honorable Court, and the hearing gave effect to the deception. Further, Catherine Sanchez is not, lawfully, a “licensed attorney” since the judge who swore her in most likely has no surety bond, as required by New Mexico state law.

9. The collusion and conspiracy, by and between Harris and Sanchez, is further attested to by three known ex parte communications between Harris and Sanchez, specifically: (a) a request from Sanchez for a telephonic hearing, filed December 19, 2003, P. M. 4:52, a copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit C, which was sent and filed with the Court without any notice to Edwards; (b) Harris’ order, filed with the Court the same day and the same time as Sanchez’s request, namely, December 19, 2003, P.M. 4:52, with no consultation with Edwards, a copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit D; (c) during

the January 22nd hearing, Harris acknowledged that Sanchez had received prior notice

that the January 22nd hearing was cancelled because of the Notice of Disqualification. Sanchez concurred. Edwards received no prior notice, whatsoever, on these matters,

which makes them ex-parte. When Edwards was asked by Harris during the hearing if she had received such notice, she answered “No”.

10. The hearing gave effect to the deception, and Edward’s opponent unknowingly benefited, by and through the deceptive, fraudulent actions of their attorney, Catherine Sanchez. Further, the ex parte actions, taken by Sanchez, and presumably without the knowledge and/or permission of her client, undermined the integrity of this Honorable Court. Thus, by conduct which violated Court Rules and by aiding and abetting fraud and deception upon the Court and Edwards, Sanchez compromised the integrity of this Court, abandoned her client pursuant to 36-2-16, and her client cannot claim privilege pursuant to New Mexico Rules of Evidence 11-503(D). Further, Sanchez, upon conviction, shall be fined in an amount double that of any fees she may have received for her services; and all fines that may result shall accrue to the State of New Mexico and San Miguel County, in equal amounts, and she shall be deprived of the exercise of the office of attorney, counselor or defender.

Wherefore, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, excluding Harris, is

obligated to report this matter to the Judicial Standards Commission concerning Harris,

the New Mexico Bar concerning Sanchez, and both the Governor of New Mexico and

the Chairperson of San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners regarding the

fines due and owing by Sanchez.


___________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint for Fraud was sent first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of February, 2004.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/11-503.htm


__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 19.0Section 19 – Exhibit 25 – filed March 23, 2004

Edwards filed another Motion To Dismiss, citing fraud, conspiracy and collusion by and between Harris, the court and Metris’ attorneys. She cited Harris’ duties and responsibilities, which he consistently avoided and evaded, and stated that Metris repeatedly failed to rebut or deny Edwards’ charges in its responsive pleadings. This Motion pinpoints the fraud and unlawful activities of all those opposed to Edwards in this court, including, by their own actions, the court, itself, and Harris.

The Motion is located on the next page.

Exhibit 25.0

MOTION TO DISMISS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and, without accepting

the jurisdiction of this Court, moves this Court to dismiss the charges and the action

against her for the following reasons:

1. Fraud, collusion and conspiracy perpetrated by Jay G. Harris, the man formerly

assigned this case, other members of this Court, and Plaintiff’s attorney, Catherine

Sanchez, all of whom participated in the fraud, collusion and conspiracy, as specified in

the Complaint for Fraud, filed with this Court on February 6, 2004. Watson v.

Memphis, 375 U.S. 52 ; 10 L. Ed. 529; 83 (1314), held that when a court violates the

unambiguous language of the Constitution, fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to

obey it. “Conduct of trial judges must be measured by standards of fairness and

impartiality.” Greener v. Green F. 2d 1279 (U.S. Ct. App. – Pa. – 1972). “A judge must

maintain a high standard of judicial performance with emphasis upon conducting

litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord, F. 2d 532, cert.

Denied 92 S. Ct. 2411, 406 U.S. 976 (U.S. Ct. App. – Minn. – 1972). Any officer of the

court who commits fraud, collusion and conspiracy, and further, fails to deny it, does not

act with high standards of fairness and impartiality.

2. Harris unlawfully exceeded his authority and usurped powers not possessed,

and in so doing, rendered this Court incompetent and defective, as specified in the

Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto, filed with this Court on January 30, 2004 and

received by the New Mexico Attorney General on February 2, 2004.

3. Neither Harris nor Sanchez filed pleadings of denial of the charges in the above-referenced Complaints, with this Court, thus, Edward invokes New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Court, Number 1-008 D, Effect of Failure to Deny, to




http://www.clr.org/Judicial-disqualification.html

http://www.justia.us/us/373/526/case.html


wit:

Effect of failure to deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading . . .

Thus, both Harris and Sanchez, admit to the charges made in Edwards’ Complaints, yet,

Sanchez, who admits to fraud, expects this Court to hear and rule upon her fraudulent

case, which is a judicial impossiblity.

4. As a result of items 1 and 2, above, and other points specified herein, this Court lacks competence, is defective, and has no lawful jurisdiction and authority to hear this case.

5. Fraud, as described in item 1, above, cancels any contract, legal action, court action and any attempt to use the Court to enforce a fraudulent contract.

6. Edwards orally requested trial by jury at the inception of this action, and when trial by jury did not take place, Edwards submitted a Motion for Trial by Jury, which was fraudulently denied by Harris in the fraudulent hearing conducted on January 22, 2004, thereby violating her due process Rights, pursuant to the National and State Constitutions, and thereby negating the jurisdiction of this Court. “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation that would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p 491. Further, both Harris and Sanchez argued a cost for a jury trial in total and blatant disregard of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. See Exhibit 1, Order of Dismissal of Charges for Failure to Provide Trial by Jury, issued by Judge Eugenio Mathis, Fourth Judicial District. “The mere chilling of a Constitutional Right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.

The Fifth Amendment to the National Constitution and Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution, mandate that all judicial proceedings must proceed and be conducted with due process. See Smith v. U.S., 360 U.S. 1; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346; Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286 291; National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Wells Fargo v. Wells Fargo, 556 F. 2d 406, 416; and countless other Supreme Court decisions.

7. Due to the aforementioned defects, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and further, owing to subject matter, proper jurisdiction would be federal district court. If due process is not followed, the court does not have jurisdiction. Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodsen, National Bank v. Wiley, Id. Whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obliged to dismiss the action. See Willy v. Coastal Corp.,



http://www.justia.us/index.html








http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=394&page=637


503 U.S. 131, 136-37 ; U.S. v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234, 254.

8. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, agrees, by acquiescence, with Defendant’s charges regarding fraud and other violations of law perpetrated against her, by Plaintiff, as specified in letters from Defendant to Plaintiff and attorney Sanchez, attached to Edwards’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Objection to Telephonic Hearing, filed with this Court, on January 16, 2004. Thus, there exists no controversy, and since there is no controversy, and the Court can only be called upon to decide matters of controversy, the charges must be dismissed. Edwards gave lawful notification to Plaintiff and to Sanchez, which they never rebutted or denied. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391.

9. Since Plaintiff, by and through counsel, failed to rebut or deny Defendant’s motions and pleadings submitted to this Court, Edwards invokes effect of failure to deny, pursuant to NMRA 1-008 D, Id. Thus, Plaintiff, by and through counsel, thereby admits to charges stated in Edwards’ motions and pleadings and provides Edwards with evidence by which to pursue legal action against Plaintiff and counsel.

Wherefore, Defendant in Error, Margaret Edwards, moves this Court to dismiss this action, with prejudice, for the foregoing reasons.


All Rights Reserved

______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176, on this ____day of March, 2004.

_____________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction




Section 20.0Section 20 – Exhibit 26 – filed March 25, 2004

Because of the nature of the pleadings Edwards filed with the court pointing out the unlawful actions, failures and fraud by Harris, the court and Metris’ attorneys, Harris apparently attempted to assign another judge from another judicial district, one Timothy Garcia, to preside over a hearing scheduled for April 8, 2004. Harris has no authority to assign a judge from another district. Only the New Mexico Supreme Court can do this.

Edwards filed a Notice of Disqualification against Garcia and cited numerous United States Supreme Court rulings to support her lawful position. Further, she cited possible masonic connections between Harris and Garcia that could affect their rulings and oaths and her Rights and due process. Masonic oaths by public officers are dangerous to Citizens. Interested parties should carefully review this Disqualification.

The Disqualification follows.

Exhibit 26


_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.


COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and hereby gives Notice to the Court

of Disqualification of Timothy Garcia, recently assigned as presiding judge in this case, for the

following reasons:

1. Edwards invokes NMRA 21-400, Disqualification, “Code of Judicial

Conduct”, to wit:

Statute text

A. Recusal. A judge is disqualified and shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .

Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Paragraph A of this rule apply. . . .

2. Edwards recently received a copy of a sworn statement accusing Garcia of

overt acts of treason, in that he engaged in criminal conspiracy, usurped Constitutional

and statutory powers not possessed, imposed conditions of involuntary servitude upon

American Citizens and denied the powers of the National and State Constitutions, while

assigned duties of the First Judicial District Court, in the matters of ANN L. MCDANIEL

et al., v. Uvaldo Velasquez, et al., No. D-0117-CV-2003-00228 and ANNE TAINTOR,

Plaintiff, JANICE LEE WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs-in-Intervention, vs. Uvaldo Velasquez

and John Does 1 through 4, Defendants, No. D-0117-CV-0099-02585. The cited cases

pertain to private land grant issues, and Garcia stands accused of rendering decisions by

court orders, arising from collusion and conspiracy with opponents of the Velasquez

Family, which prevented the Velasquez Family from executing Acts of Congress,

upholding their Rights as lawful heirs of the Piedra Lumbre Land Grant, to their legal

and financial detriment, and which violated their Constitutional Rights. See Exhibit A,


attached.

3. Federal and state laws, court rules of procedure and Supreme Court rulings

require judges to perform their duties impartially, objectively and fairly, and to rule on

matters based upon just consideration of evidence presented, in compliance with due

process of law. The National Constitution, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 mandates

that “judges shall hold their offices in good behavior”. See National Constitution,

Article III, Sec. 1 . When a judge acts in conspiracy and collusion with plaintiffs to the

detriment of defendants, renders decisions in opposition to Acts of Congress, violates

Citizens’ Rights, denies the powers of the Constitutions, and, hence, commits treason,

that judge is not serving in “good behavior”. In consideration of an appearance before

such a judge, any prudent Citizen would reasonably conclude that he, pursuant to his

oath, would most likely not demonstrate impartiality, objectivity and fairness in the

conduct of his office, nor uphold and provide due process of law.

4. Edwards has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court in prior pleadings, citing

lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud, collusion, conspiracy, deception and

incompetence, within the Court. Edwards hereby includes Garcia’s alleged misconduct

in the Court’s defects, in support of her jurisdictional challenge, in that any court which

fails to provide and uphold due process of law has no lawful jurisdiction, and any ruling

made by that court is void. “If this requirement of the (Bill of Rights) is not complied

with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.” Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458,

468 ; “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void.”, Pennover v. Neff, 95

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Court%20Cases/pennover_v_Neff.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&invol=458




U.S. 714.

4. Both the National Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution, specifically,

Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4, declare the primacy of position of the People and uphold

their Rights of Sovereignty. Further, both Constitutions limit the power of government,

in this case, the courts, to deny, restrict, remove or ignore those Sovereign Rights.

“Rights can only be taken away by due process in accordance with the Constitution.”,

Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 at 74; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and Woo Lee vs. Hopkins, 118

U.S. 356. Public Officers serve for the good of the Citizens, under oaths sworn to

faithfully perform their duties, under the Constitutions, in exchange for the Public Trust.

When a judge perjures his oath, he invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the National Constitution, immediately vacates his office,

forfeits all eligibility to receive public funds, as in salaries and pensions, loses any

immunity offered by his former position and is no longer a lawful judge.

5. By his own actions, Garcia has demonstrated that he is untrustworthy and

unlikely to faithfully and impartially perform his duties, pursuant to his oath. Further, it

is likely that Garcia does not have a valid surety bond, for assurance of the faithful

performance of his duties, as required, pursuant to New Mexico Statutes, and is, thus,

acting without lawful authority.

6. Proper jurisdiction for matters of interstate commerce, which status is stated by

Plaintiff, is federal district court, and not a state district court which has proven, by the

actions of those assigned duties of the court, to be defective and incompetent, and

http://www.justia.us/us/118/356/356

http://www.justia.us/us/118/356/356




further corroborates the court’s incompetence by bringing in a judge from outside the

district who stands accused of treason.

Wherefore, Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, respectfully gives Notice of

Disqualification to this court for the aforesaid reasons.


________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Disqualification was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176, on this ____day of March, 2004.

________________________

Margaret D. Edwards


Section 21 – Exhibit 27 – filed March 26, 2004

Metris’ attorneys and Harris, again, as usual, had ex-parte communications and arranged for another telephonic hearing, to which Edwards objected, in her second Objection To Telephonic Hearing, as seen on the following page. Ex-parte communications are prohibited, but Harris paid no attention to the law or duties required by it. Again, a hearing by a judge is not a trial by jury, and lacks jurisdiction and due process, all apparently new to Harris, who knows little about the law. Edwards had the Right to face her accuser, which a telephonic hearing prohibits, and is in total violation


of due process. Harris, by his own incompetent or corrupt actions, has no concept of due process, and cares less

Exhibit 27


_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.


COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and states her objection

to the telephonic hearing, scheduled to take place on April 8, 2004, at 3:00 P.M. in the

Fourth Judicial Court, for the following reasons:

1. Edwards was not informed that this hearing was to be telephonic, nor was she

consulted, at any time, for scheduling;

2. Plaintiff arranged this telephonic hearing, ex parte, illegally and in violation

of due process;

3. The Court cannot lawfully favor one party over another, yet, this Court has


again granted advantage to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, by allowing

counsel for Plaintiff to avoid making a personal appearance and denying Edwards’ due

process Right to face her accuser;

4. Pursuant to state and federal laws, rules of civil procedure and Supreme Court

rulings, judges must perform their duties impartially, objectively and fairly, in

compliance with due process of law. They are also required to rule on motions presented

within specific time frames. Jay Harris, the man who was initially assigned to hear this

action until, he was disqualified by Edwards, failed to perform in accordance with these

requirements, and Edwards cites the fact that she filed a timely Motion to Dismiss this

action on June 19, 2003, which this Court has yet to hear, in violation of civil rules of

procedure. Further, Harris deliberately and deceptively withheld information of the case

reassignment until after he conducted a fraudulent telephonic hearing, over Edwards’

written Objection, filed January 22, 2004, in which he deceived Edwards by denying her

disqualification without lawful authority. His conduct contradicts Article III, Section 1,

of the National Constitution which states that “judges shall hold their offices in good

behavior”. See National Constitution, Article III, Sec. 1 . Edwards has filed several

other pleadings, which also have not been timely heard.

5. This Court demonstrates incompetence, in that despite being given lawful

notification, it still allowed fraud, conspiracy and collusion, and ex parte

communications by and between counsel for Plaintiff and the Court, for the benefit of

the Plaintiff and to the detriment of the Defendant. Further, the Court reassigned this



case to Timothy Garcia, who stands accused of overt acts of treason lending more

credence to the incompetence. See Defendant’s Notice of Disqualification, filed March

25, 2004. Still further, despite Edwards’ referenced previous objection to telephonic

proceedings, this Court gave no consideration to Edwards’ Rights of due process in

granting still another, which for all intents and purposes is a hoax which favors counsel

for Plaintiff and facilitates litigation trickery.

6. Because this Court has denied Edwards’ due process Rights and has defied the

powers of both Constitutions, this Court has no lawful jurisdiction to hear this case, and

any ruling against her would be voided. If such a situation were to occur, it would

provide Edwards with evidence to take action against the presiding judge, pursuant to

U.S. v. Lanier , 520 U.S., 259, 266, 270 ; Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 102 S. Ct. 2727 at 2737,

457 U.S. 800 ; and Malley v. Briggs , 106 S. Ct. 1092, 1096 , which hold that when

Constitutional Rights are violated, and the public official defendant knew, or should

have known, of the constitutionality violative effect of his actions, or if that official

acted out of incompetence, that official loses all immunity.

Wherefore, Defendant Edwards respectfully objects to the scheduling of a

telephonic hearing for the foregoing reasons.


All Rights Reserved

____________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=475&invol=335&pageno=341









Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection to Telephonic Hearing was sent first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290 this _____day of March 2004.

_____________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 22.0Section 22 – Exhibit 28 – filed April 2, 2004

Edwards filed a Motion For Summary Judgment in her favor, for the scheduled April 8, 2004, hearing. In this Motion, Edwards re-stated her charges that Metris repeatedly failed to rebut her charges in its responsive pleadings, and she repeatedly invoked NMSA 1-008 (D), Effect of Failure to Deny, which, by law, means Metris admitted to her charges. She pointed out the fraud and failure by the court, the attempt to substitute Garcia for Harris, and the fact that Harris is a mason and Garcia is suspected of being a mason. She cited masonic code, which is contrary to judge’s oaths and their duties to the People. She also added, as exhibits, the six letters and affidavit, sent to DMB and Metris’ attorneys, thereby making the letters part of the evidence. Again, DMB and Metris, in its responsive pleading, by and through its attorneys, failed to rebut the letters, as exhibits.


Exhibit 28

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-IN-ERROR


_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-IN-ERROR

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and moves this Court to

grant Summary Judgment in her favor for the following reasons:

1. Edwards sent letters, on numerous occasions, to Direct Merchants Bank,

copies of which were sent to Plaintiff, by and through attorney Sanchez, and letters to

attorney Sanchez, directly, all of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A - F. Edwards

also included these letters, which charge Direct Merchants Bank with fraud and other

charges, as exhibits in her prior pleadings. Neither Direct Merchants Bank nor Plaintiff,

by and through counsel, ever rebutted the charges Edwards made by mail and in

pleadings. Pursuant to NMRA 1-008(D), Effect of Failure to Deny, the charges stand as

admitted. Therefore, since there is no dispute, there is no controversy for the Court to

hear, and Summary Judgment must issue to Edwards. Notification of legal

responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. See Connally v. General



Construction Co ., 269 U.S. 385, 391 . Edwards satisfied her responsibilities pursuant to

due process, but neither Plaintiff, by and through counsel, nor the Court have so

performed. Fraud cancels any contract in any action.

2. There is no nexus, no agreement or obligation between Edwards and Metris.

This fact was stated in letters and pleadings by Edwards and never rebutted by Plaintiff.

Since Metris acquired a fraudulent, unenforceable contract from Direct Merchants Bank,

as admitted by Direct Merchants Bank, Metris’ action must be directed to Direct

Merchants Bank, the admitted perpetrator of fraud, and not to Edwards.

3. Plaintiff stated that they are engaged in interstate commerce. Neither Metris or

Direct Merchants Bank are licensed to do business in New Mexico. Therefore, proper

jurisdiction for matters of interstate commerce and for a corporation not licensed to do

business in New Mexico is federal district court. Plaintiff must demonstrate that the

Court is authorized to preside over the case, either by statute or the Constitution.

Plaintiff has not done so. Whenever it appears that the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the Court is obliged to dismiss the action. See Willey v. Coastal Corp ., 503

U.S. 131, 136-37; U.S. v. Texas, 252 F Supp, 234, 254.

4. Fraud, deception, collusion and conspiracy took place, by, between and among

Jay Harris, attorney Sanchez and those assigned duties of this Court. A fraudulent

hearing, attended in person by Edwards, but telephonically by Sanchez, was fraudulently

held by Harris on January 22, 2004, in District Court, during which Harris issued illegal

orders, which were later written and mailed by Sanchez. Edwards filed, with this Court,






a Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto on January 30th against Harris and a

Complaint for Fraud against Harris and Sanchez on February 6, 2004. Neither

Complaint was rebutted by or even addressed by the parties named therein. Thus, by

their failure to deny, pursuant to NMRA 1-008(D), they admit to Edwards’ Complaints.

Edwards demands an order stating that fraud was put upon this honorable Court and she

requests damages from Harris, Sanchez and others assigned duties of this Court,

complicit in these actions, in amounts to be later specified.

5. Two days after Harris conducted the fraudulent January 22nd hearing, Edwards

received from this Court a Notice of Judge Reassignment, bearing a certificate of service

date of January 20th and a filing date of January 21st, which stated that Harris had

excused himself and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Eugenio Mathis.

6. Edwards received further notice from the Court on March 11th, of a second

telephonic hearing, again arranged by opposing counsel, ex parte, without Edwards’

knowledge, consent or approval, to be held on April 8th, at 3:00 P.M., which named

Timothy Garcia, of the First Judicial District, as the presiding judge.

7. Edwards received no notice from the Court that the Honorable Eugenio Mathis

had recused himself or that Plaintiff, by and through counsel, had excused or

disqualified him. Further, Edwards received no notice, clerk certificate or order

appointing a judge from outside the Fourth Judicial District to hear this case. According

to information Edwards received directly from an assistant to the Chief Justice of the




New Mexico Supreme Court, an order of judge designation from one judicial district to

another must be issued by the Supreme Court. There is no judge designation order on

file with the Supreme Court for Garcia to hear this case, nor, according to Tanya

Sandoval of the Fourth Judicial District Clerk’s office, in communication with the

Supreme Court, is there a clerk certificate to the Supreme Court requesting judge

designation for this case on file with the Fourth Judicial Court.

8. Edwards demands to know how a notice, fraudulently naming Garcia as

presiding judge for this case came to her. By whom, by what authority and for what

reason was this done?

9. It is well known that Jay Harris is a member of the Masonic Order and

prominently displays Masonic symbols and propaganda in his office area. Edwards

questions the appropriateness of such a display, promoting a private fraternal

organization, in a public courthouse. On information available to Edwards, it is

strongly suspected that Timothy Garcia is also a member of the Masonic Order and/or

closely associated with Masons; and Edwards hereby asks Garcia to state publicly, for

the record, whether or not he is now, or has ever been, a member of the Masonic Lodge

and/or closely associated with Masons.

10. If Garcia is also a Mason, and since there is no notice of recusal, excusal or

disqualification regarding Mathis, to Edwards, and no knowledge of who reassigned

Garcia to hear this case, then, Edwards asks, whether Harris reassigned this case to

Garcia, and if so, did he exceed his authority by this act, usurp powers not possessed

and perpetrate further fraud. Further, if Garcia is a Mason, there could be a conspiracy

to deceive and legally harm Edwards by fellow members of the Masonic Order.

11. Since it is known that Harris is a Mason and that Garcia may also be one,

Edwards asks if it is known to Harris and Garcia whether the owners, managers,

operators, directors, etc. of Metris Companies LLP and/or people associated with

attorney Sanchez are also Masons.

12. Edwards demands that Harris and Garcia publicly state whether they have

taken an oath similar to the Kol Nidre, or other Masonic oaths, which disavow and

cancel all previously taken oaths, such as their oaths of office. An example of Masonic

obligations, cited from page 183 of the Masonic Handbook, follows, to wit:

“Whenever you see any of our signs made by a brother Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of your life. If you are on a jury and the defendant is a Mason, and makes the grand hailing sign, you must obey it; you must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you must be sure not to bring the Mason guilty, for that would bring disgrace upon our order. You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons except murder and treason, and these at your own option, and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason, be always sure to shield him. Prevaricate, do not tell the truth in this case, keep his secrets, forget the important points. It may be perjury to do this true, but you are keeping your obligations.”

13. Article III of the National Constitution requires judges to serve in “good

behavior”. Fraud, collusion and conspiracy, denial of due process and other unlawful

actions, cited by Edwards in her previous pleadings, do not constitute “good behavior”,

and, in fact, demonstrate an unlawful bias, aided by litigation trickery, against Edwards

and in favor of Plaintiff, by and through, attorney Sanchez. “Conduct of trial judges

must be measured by standards of fairness and impartiality.” See Greener v. Green, 460

F. 2d. 1279 (U.S. Ct. App. - Pa. - 1972). “A judge must maintain a high standard of

judicial performance with emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness

and impartiality.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord , F 2d 532, cert. Denied 92 S. Ct. 2411, 406 U.S.

976 (U.S. Ct. App. - Minn. - 1972). Further, Watson v. Memphis, 375 U.S. 526; 10 L

Ed. 529; 83 (1314), held that when a court violates the unambiguous language of the

Constitution, fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.

14. Any court which does not provide due process of law forfeits its jurisdiction

and any judgments rendered are void, according to numerous Supreme Court rulings.

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void.” See Worldwide Volkswagen

v . Woodsen , 444 U.S. 286, 291 ; National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257 ; Pennoyer v.

Neff, 95 U.S. 714. “If this requirement of the (Bill of Rights) is not complied with, the

court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment . . . pronounced by a court

without jurisdiction is void . .”,Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458, 468 . The actions of

this Court not only demonstrate fraud, collusion and conspiracy, as admitted, but also

totally disregard due process of law and Edwards’ statutory and Constitutional Rights.

As previously stated, Edwards surrenders none of her Constitutional Rights, pursuant to

Brady v. U.S. Further, any court rule that would deny Edwards her Rights is

unconstitutional, and, thus, null and void. “Where Rights secured by the Constitution

are involved there can be no rulemaking or legislation that would abrogate them.” See

Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 p 491 . A law that “impinges upon a fundamental




http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&invol=458









right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively

unconstitutional.” Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 76; Harris v. McRae , 448 U.S. 297,

312 .

15. None of Edwards’ motions have been ruled upon by this Court since the

inception of this action in May of 2003, nearly one year, nor have they been rebutted by

Plaintiff, by and through counsel, in a manner specific to the subject matter of the

motions. Edwards again invokes NMRA 1-008(D).

16. Edwards has previously provided fair warning and hereby does so again to all

those assigned the duties of this Court that if they continue to violate her due process,

statutory and Constitutional Rights by permitting another fraudulent hearing to take

place to benefit an attorney who has already admitted to fraud, in her attempt to use this

honorable Court to enforce a fraudulent contract, which is a judicial impossibility, then,

Edwards will take legal action against each and every Court officer, in both personal and

official capacity.

17. The prior actions of those assigned the duties of this Court, demonstrate that

they act and operate outside the law, yet, attempt to hold Edwards to the law and are,

thus, not fit to adjudicate any matter, whatsoever, in this honorable Court. Further,

attorney Sanchez, who admits to fraud, collusion and conspiracy, continues to misuse

the Court to enforce a fraudulent contract through this Court, a judicial impossibility,

yet, those assigned the Court’s duties permit it, giving further evidence of their

incompetence and blatant dereliction of duty.




Wherefore, Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, moves this Court to issue

Summary Judgment in her favor for the foregoing reasons.


All Rights Reserved

________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this ___day of April, 2004.

________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 23.0THE EXHIBITS FOR THIS SECTION ARE FOUND IN SECTION 1.0

Section 23 – Exhibit 29 – filed April 7, 2004

Metris objected, without lawful grounds, to Edwards’ Motion To Dismiss, and Edwards replied with her Reply To Plaintiff’s Response, as follows on the next page.

Exhibit 29


DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add

Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.


DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and replies to Plaintiff’s

Response as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s contention that Edwards did not state proper grounds for dismissal is

without foundation, unsupported by fact and law and appears to be Plaintiff‘s attempt to

deny due process of law. Thus, Plaintiff’s Response is frivolous and without merit.

2. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, failed to rebut or deny the charges and

statements, based in fact and law, made in Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss; thus, Edwards

hereby restates that she invokes NMRA 1-008(D), Effect of Failure to Deny.

Wherefore, Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss stands as admitted by Plaintiff and

Edwards respectfully requests that the Motion to Dismiss be granted.


All Rights Reserved


__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Response was sent by

U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque,

New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this ____day of April, 2004.

_______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 24.0Section 24 – Exhibit 30 – filed April 7, 2004

Metris made an amended Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings, and Edwards filed Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Amended Motion, and, as many times before, specified that Metris failed to rebut Edwards’ charges in its responsive pleadings. Edwards restated that since Metris does business in interstate commerce, the proper jurisdiction for this case is federal district court, not state district court.

The Response follows on the next page.

Exhibit 30

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

COMES NOW Margaret D. Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and responds to

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s contention that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact is

incorrect and unsupported by the facts of this matter. Edwards has rebutted each and

every contention made by Plaintiff throughout this action. Plaintiff, however, has failed

to rebut or deny any of Edwards’ charges and statements, made in pleadings before this

honorable Court and in letters sent to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, prior to the

inception of this action.

2. Edwards, again, as she has done repeatedly throughout this action, invokes

NMRA 1-008(D), Effect of Failure to Deny, since Plaintiff has denied none of the

charges made by Edwards.

3. Thus, Plaintiff, by and through counsel, admits that the document they claim is


the original contract was fraudulent, that, in fact, Metris has no nexus or contract with

Edwards, that fraud cancels any contract, and yet, Plaintiff attempts to use this Court to

enforce this fraudulent contract.

4. Counsel for Plaintiff has stated that Plaintiff is engaged in interstate commerce

and admits that Metris is not licensed to do business in New Mexico. Therefore, as

Edwards has previously stated, proper jurisdiction is federal district court.

5. Attorney Sanchez was charged with fraud, collusion and conspiracy in a

Complaint filed with this Court on February 6, 2004. Sanchez failed to deny or rebut

any of the charges made therein, thus, she admits to all charges. An attorney who admits

to fraud, collusion and conspiracy has no standing in this or any other court, and lacks

authority to enforce any matter through the courts, especially a fraudulent contract.

6. Edwards denies, as fraudulent and cancelled, any and all of the dollar amounts

listed by Sanchez.

7. The rule of law, judicial responsibility and due process of law must prevail in

this Court, as required by numerous court rules, statutes and both Constitutions,

including, but not limited to: Article III of the National Constitution, regarding “good

behavior”, and NMSA 21-100, 200 and 300. Any officers charged with the duties of the

court who have admitted to fraud, collusion and conspiracy, by failure to deny, or who

allow an attorney, who has also admitted to these, to attempt to enforce a fraudulent

contract through the court, forfeit any jurisdiction that court may have had, and any


judgment against Defendant by that court is immediately void.

Wherefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is without

substance and merit and must be denied.


All Rights Reserved

____________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Response was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this ____day of April, 2004.

_______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Section 25.0Section 25 - The April 8, 2004 hearing

The Constitution guarantees Citizens the Right to trial by Jury, not “trials” by judges, to which hearings basically conform. With our present “justice” system mostly designed by courts, judges and state Supreme Courts, all of which have no Constitutional authority to create law or design anything related to it, and by legislatures which create “laws”, the vast majority of which are not Constitutionally compliant, American Citizens in court are subjected to unconstitutional procedures and process by courts that lack jurisdiction and due process. In most courts today, on any level, the only way in which Citizens can obtain their Rights is: (1) to know they have them guaranteed in the National and state Constitutions; (2) claim them before the courts, both verbally and by Motion; (3) hold the judges and court officers to their oaths and duties required

by the Constitutions. Otherwise, most judges will not uphold their duties and not uphold Citizens’ Rights.

“Hearings”, as stated, are basically “trials” by judges, and not by juries. American Citizens are guaranteed jury trial, but a favorite method of our unjust courts and judges is to hold a hearing in which the judge, with no jury present, dismisses the case on some minor, insignificant point, or finds for the opponent of the Citizen on the same basis. This is a total denial of due process, but it will continue until Citizens stop this open fraud.

Although Harris had apparently attempted to take the heat from himself by appointing another judge, Timothy Garcia, from another judicial district, to preside over

the April 8th hearing, Edwards had disqualified Garcia, and Harris presided. Edwards objected to the telephonic hearing, and the hearing was held in the courthouse, without telephones. Maybe her objections, evidence, her lawful positions, the law and the fact that Metris rebutted none of her charges were beginning to sink in on Harris.

Metris’ attorney was either not prepared or extremely incompetent, possibly on purpose. Many charges of fraud, conspiracy, collusion were leveled at Metris, their attorneys, Harris and the court. In such situations, sometimes, the best way out for the corporation is not to withdraw, but to appear inept and lose by default.

All Motions each side filed with the court were discussed during this hearing, and Harris denied ALL of them, including Metris’s Motions and Edwards’ Motions For Trial By Jury and her Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights. In all of our over 250 victories in New Mexico courts, no state judge was foolish enough to deny the Constitution, its powers and Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, either verbally or in writing, as Harris did. Edwards informed Harris of his insurrection, sedition and treason, and the fact, that, by his own actions, he invoked the

self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, vacated his office, his rulings were null and void, and he forfeited all benefits of his former office, including salary and pension. Harris appeared as a retarded man, unaware and uninvolved in the proceedings.

In our opinion, if Harris felt that he could have legally found for Metris, then he probably would have done so. He did not, most-likely because he had no lawful grounds to do so, and knew it. With all the weight of Edwards’ evidence, which is all supported by fact, law and the Constitutions, a ruling for Metris would be overturned on appeal, and Harris most-likely knew this. It is highly unlikely that the Appellate Court would uphold Harris’s insurrection and sedition in his denial of the Constitution, by his own court order. Harris did not want this case to go to appeal. He remanded it for “trial”.

Introduction

Section 26Section 26 – Exhibit 31 – filed April 12, 2004

Since Harris’ verbal order denied all of Edwards’ Motions, she filed a Demand For Facts and Conclusions of Law. All judges take oaths to support the Constitutions, as required by Article VI, clauses 2 and 3, of the federal Constitution, all state Constitutions, federal and state law, and Article III of the Constitution which states that judges may serve in times of “good behavior”. When the Constitutions, Rights, due process of law, and Motions supported by fact and law are denied by a judge, that judge, who is also required to be unbiased, fair, impartial and objective, has totally failed in his duty and obligations to the Constitutions and the People.

Edwards, again, restated that Metris failed to deny her charges and had even failed to respond to some of her pleadings, both of which constitute admission to her charges. A judge, lawfully, must base his rulings in fact and law, which Harris, as usual, failed to do.

The Demand is located on the following pages.

Exhibit 31

DEMAND FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

DEMAND FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and respectfully

demands, with specificity, the facts and conclusions of law in support of Harris’ denial

of Edwards’ Motions, which are based in fact, law, Supreme Court rulings and the

National and State Constitutions.

I. Specify facts and laws which support the rulings made by Jay G. Harris, during the

hearing held before him, on April 8, 2004, in which he denied the Defendant’s Motions,

and demonstrate that Harris’ rulings were lawful acts, based in and supported by fact and

law, and in compliance with the National Constitution. The Motions are as follows:

1. Motion to Dismiss, filed June 19, 2003;

2. Motion for Trial by Jury, filed December 30, 2003;

3. Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, filed January 5, 2004;

4. Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction of the Court, filed January 20, 2004;

5. Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2004;

6. Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 2, 2004.

Since Plaintiff failed to answer and oppose three of the six listed Motions,

specifically, numbers 3, 4 and 6, above, and failed to rebut, with particularity, the

remaining three, this failure stands as consent to grant these Motions, pursuant to New

Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, 1-007.1(D), Response and invokes Rule 1-008(D)




Effect of Failure to Deny. Accordingly, since these Motions are unopposed, and the

Plaintiff consents to the granting of all unopposed and un-denied motions, Harris had no

basis upon which to deny them; and by doing so, acted as a party to this action, in a

prejudicial and biased manner, and not as an impartial arbitrator of justice, in violation

of, including, but not limited to, the “good behavior” provision of Article III of the

National Constitution, NMSA 21-100 through 300, and pursuant to his oath to his

responsibility to the Public Trust, and to the New Mexico Constitution Articles II,

Section 2, 3 and 4 .

II. Since Edwards’ Motions are based in fact, law, Supreme Court rulings and the

National and State Constitutions, Harris’ rulings are in defiance of, in violation of and

contradictory to all of these, which is insurrection and sedition, at minimum, and

possibly treason. In America, the People are sovereign, not that government which

serves them, pursuant to limited, delegated authority. In order to secure the Rights of the

People, government was instituted among men and Public Officers must act in

accordance with their sworn oaths to uphold our Constitutions and the Rights of the

People. By his rulings, Harris has denied the powers of both Constitutions, and the

Constitutions, themselves.

III. State, with specificity, the reasons Timothy Garcia, of the First Judicial District,

was named in an official court document as presiding judge for this action without

lawful authority.

IV. State, with specificity, by what lawful authority Harris denied Edwards’ Notice of




Disqualification, based in fact and law, especially in view of the fact that the case was

reassigned, by the Court Administrator, prior to the January 22nd hearing, to the

Honorable Eugenio Mathis, and Harris has no lawful power to deny a Citizen’s

disqualification.

Wherefore, Edwards demands the Court’s facts and conclusions of laws used to

deny six outstanding motions, three of which were uncontested. The information is

essential for preparation of further pleadings within the State judiciary system.


All Rights Reserved

_________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Demand for Facts and Conclusions of Law, was sent by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this ____day of April, 2004.

________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 27Section 27 – Exhibit 32 – filed April 16, 2004

Because Harris denied Edwards’ Motions and gave no reasons, especially, valid reasons based in fact and law, Edwards filed the following Motion For

Reconsideration. As stated, rulings, decisions, cases or defenses not based in and supported by fact and law are frivolous, and without merit, as are Harris’ rulings. Since the Constitution is the Law of the Land, all due process rulings should be based in and supported by the Constitutions, or those rulings are null and void, without force or effect.


Exhibit 32

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS

COMES NOW Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, and moves this Court, without accepting its jurisdiction, to reconsider her motions, unlawfully denied by Jay Harris, in a hearing on April 8, 2004, for the following reasons:

1. Edwards’ motions are based in fact, law, New Mexico statutes, rules, Supreme Court rulings, the National Constitution and the Constitution of New Mexico;

2 Harris’ ruling denies the power of the Constitutions, and the Constitutions, themselves, fact, law, New Mexico statutes, rules, court rules

and rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America;

3. Harris’ rulings are in violation of NMSA 21-100 through 400, Code of Judicial Conduct, relating, in part to (a) assignment of Judge Timothy Garcia to the case, calculated to engage in criminal activity; (b) Harris’ unlawful denial, without authority, of Edward’s disqualification of Harris; (c) Harris’ presiding over a fraudulent hearing on January 22, 2004, when another judge had been assigned to this case; (d) demonstrating bias and lack of impartiality;

4. Harris also denied a Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, in denial of Constitutional powers guaranteed to American Citizens therein, in flagrant violation of his oath, his duty to the Public Trust and due process of law. Such denial of the Constitution and Rights guaranteed therein became the overt acts constituting the corpus delicti of treason;

5. Harris stated in the April 8th hearing that he would protect everyone’s Rights, yet his denial of Constitutional Rights contradicts his statement;

6. Harris denied Edwards’ Motion for Trial by Jury, which is guaranteed in both the National and New Mexico Constitutions, further contradicts his statement that Rights are protected, and still further, contradicts a ruling made by the Fourth Judicial Court;

7. Harris’ actions and rulings constitute judicial impropriety with intent to harm Edwards;

8. Edwards is entitled to a competent court, which, by its actions, this court is not. Any presiding officer who rules against Constitutional powers, Constitutional Rights, state statutes, rules and rules of the court, Supreme Court rulings, and fails to provide due process of law commits treason and such a court lacks jurisdiction, is not competent and any ruling rendered from such a court is void.

9. Harris’ duty is to respond to and rule on this motion. If he fails to do so, then, he is in dereliction of duty, and acquiesces and fully agrees, without his protest or objection, that everything contained in this motion is true, correct, and fully binding upon him in any court.

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/corpus_delicti.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/Legal%20definitions/corpus_delicti.htm


WHEREFORE, Edwards respectfully requests a reconsideration of her filed motions and a restoration of this court to Constitutional, judicial competence.


____________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint for Fraud was sent first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of April, 2004.

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 28.0Section 28 – Exhibit 33

Below is Harris’ order, issued several months after the hearing, denying all Motions, including Edwards’ Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights. It is rare to see a written order from a “judge” that denies the very Law of the Land, the Constitution, to which he took an oath. This is insurrection and sedition against the Constitution and treason against a Sovereign American Citizen.

We are very hopeful that the American Citizens who view this web site will take lawful actions against such domestic traitors. If we, as Americans, permit this unconstitutional action to take place in our courts, then there will be no freedom for our children and no future for our Nation.

Exhibit 33

Judge Harris' Order

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILED IN MY OFFICE THIS


STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2004 JUNE 30 PM2:28

METRIS COMPANIES LLP,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

NO. 2008-188-CV

DEFENDANT.

ORDER

THE FOLLOWING MATTERS having come before the Court, and the Court having reviewed the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, DENIES the following Motions:

1. Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant on 6/19/03;

2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff on 10/02/03;

3. Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, filed by Defendant on 1/5/04.

4. Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction of the Court filed by Defendant on

1/20/04;

5. Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant on 3/23/04;

6. Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant on 4/2/04.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above Motions be, and hereby are, denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Jury Trial is granted, but the jury fee pursuant to Rule 1-038 must be paid within 20 days of the entry of this order or the jury trial will be deemed waived. Further, the Defendant's Answer must be filed within ten (10) days of the

l be deemed waived. Further, the Defendant's Answer must be filed within ten (10) daYE

the entry of this order.

DATED this of June, 2004.

I hereby that on the 30th of June, 2004, a copy the foregoing was mailed to Catherine Sanchez, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, NM 87176 and Margaret Edwards, c/o 739 Dalbey Drive, Las Vegas, NM 87701.

Introduction

Section 29.0Section 29 – Exhibit 34 – filed July 9, 2004

Edwards, per written suggestion of Harris, filed a formal Answer to Metris’ Complaint. Her original “answer” to the Complaint was her first Motion to Dismiss, which Harris denied. Harris appeared to be looking for some leverage against Edwards, but nothing existed for him.

The formal Answer appears on the next page:

Exhibit 34

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant in Error, and in answer to the

Complaint filed against her by METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto Add presents the

following statements of fact:

1. Edwards unequivocally denies, refutes and rebuts, as untrue, any and all charges, statements, contentions and allegations, made by Plaintiff, in above-referenced Complaint, and as specified, with particularity, in her numerous letters to METRIS, their counsel and to the third party, sent prior to this action, which were never rebutted, as well as in numerous pleadings filed with this Court, commencing with the Motion to Dismiss, filed June 19, 2003, more than one year ago.

2. Plaintiff failed to oppose, answer or rebut many of Edwards pleadings, or Plaintiff, by and through counsel, responded untimely and failed to rebut Edwards’ charges with particularity. Edwards has repeatedly and consistently invoked NMSA 1-008D, Effect of failure to deny, thus, pleadings are admitted by Plaintiff, and 1-007.1.D, Failure to respond within prescribed time period, thus, Plaintiff consents to grant the pleadings.

3. Edwards herein challenges, and has challenged in referenced pleadings, the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this case, for the following reasons:

A. Plaintiff states in their Complaint that Plaintiff engages in interstate




commerce, thus proper jurisdiction is Federal District Court;

B. The alleged contract with a third party, and not a party to this action,

was solicited through the United States Postal Service, which further

renders jurisdiction to Federal District Court;

C. METRIS and the third party admit, by acquiescence, that they are not

licensed to do business in New Mexico;

D. The alleged contract, solicited through U.S. Mail, did not provide full

disclosure concerning, but not limited to, improper, fraudulent and

illegal business practices.

E. Plaintiff attempts to enforce a fraudulent contract, as admitted

by acquiescence, through this Honorable Court, which is a judicial

impossibility. Fraud cancels any and all contracts, agreements and/or

actions;

SUMMATION

Edwards hereby states that (1) the charges filed against her are false; (2) Plaintiff, by and through counsel, did not rebut Edwards’ letters and did not rebut her pleadings, with particularity; (3) no Court has authority to enforce a fraudulent contract, as admitted by Plaintiff; (4) a fraudulent contract lacking, full disclosure, solicited through the United States Postal Service, argued by a company not party to that unlawful contract, who admits to doing business in interstate commerce and not licensed to do business in New Mexico, has no standing to bring suit in State District Court. Proper jurisdiction for this subject matter is Federal District Court. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled: “Whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obliged to dismiss the action.” Willy v Coastal Corp ., 503 US 131, 136-37 ; US v Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234, 254.


Wherefore, Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, moves this Court to dismiss this case with prejudice for the foregoing facts and reasons.


All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards, Defendant-in-Error



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esquire, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290, on this ___day of July, 2004.

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards, Defendant-in-Erro

IntroductionSection 30.0

Section 30 – Exhibit 35 – filed July 9, 2004

Because Harris denied the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of trial by jury, then rescinded his denial, but required a jury fee to be paid, which is unconstitutional, Edwards filed this Motion For Trial By Jury, Without Charge – based in the Constitutional Rights and United States Supreme Court rulings stated in the attached exhibits. When motions and pleadings are filed, in order to obtain a favorable ruling, facts, law and evidence must be demonstrated to support your position and your request for relief pursuant to that position. Lawful positions are supported by fact, law , evidence and authorities. These should always be presented in the motion to support your position, further supported by authorities. The best “authorities” are the Constitutions and United States Supreme Court rulings, which Edwards used continuously.

When properly presented, it is very difficult for any honorable judge to deny

Constitutional Motions. Those judges inclined to deny the Motions, but whom have been presented with and who granted the Motions to honor and uphold Constitutional Rights and make ruling based in the Constitution can be reminded of those Motions they granted, and can be held to those former rulings.

The Motion and Exhibits follow on the next pages.

Introduction

Section 35.0Section 35 – Exhibit 40 – filed October 27, 2004

Edwards filed this Notice to the Court that Jay Harris Failed To Follow Court Rules, specifying Harris’ many violations of law. As such, Edwards never filed a Request For Setting to have her pleadings heard by and ruled upon by Harris since he is not a lawful judge. Since Harris, by his own actions and in accordance with the law, is not a lawful judge, Edwards would give Harris no credit or position as judge. What she filed she filed with the court, not with Harris.

The Notice follows on the next page.

Exhibit 40

NOTICE TO COURT THAT JAY HARRIS, ACTING AS JUDGE, FAILED TO FOLLOW COURT RULES PURSUANT TO LR 4-304G

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

NOTICE TO COURT THAT JAY HARRIS, ACTING AS JUDGE, FAILED TO FOLLOW COURT RULES PURSUANT TO LR 4-304G

COMES NOW Defendant in Error, Margaret Edwards, and gives notice to this

court, as follows:

1. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed, on September 19, 2003, a Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. The pleadings Plaintiff had previously filed are:

A. Complaint and Summons, filed May 23, 2003

B. A late Response to Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, filed July 8, 2003.

Pursuant to and as required by LR4-304 G, Plaintiff failed to file a request for

setting and, as can be seen by the above filing dates, failed to comply with the timely 15

days to file a request. LR4-304 G is hereby quoted:

“Within 15 days after the timely filing of a response or a reply to a motion, the moving party shall request a hearing by submitting a request for setting (LR4-Form A) to the District Judge assigned to the case.”

LR4-304 G continues:

“A motion shall be deemed withdrawn upon the failure of the moving party to submit a request for setting within the prescribed time limit, and the motion shall have to be refiled for the court to consider it.”

As can be plainly seen, Plaintiff failed to comply with this rule on all referenced

counts. No request for setting was made and the 15 days time frame was violated. By

rule, the motions were deemed withdrawn and could not be ruled upon. Further,

Plaintiff’s Response filed July 8, 2003, was untimely, therefore, Edwards invoked and

invokes NMSA 1-008(D), Effect of Failure To Deny, by which Plaintiff consents to

Edwards’ Motion To Dismiss.

Plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed an amended Motion For Judgment On the

Pleadings, filed April 2, 2004. The pleadings that Plaintiff had filed prior to April 2nd


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/nmra/LR4-304G.htm

are:

1. Response to Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, filed April 2, 2004;

2. Response To Defendant’s Motion For Trial By Jury, filed January 9, 2004;

3. Objection To Defendant’s Objection To Telephonic Hearing, filed January 9, 2004;

4. Request For Telephonic Hearing, filed December 19, 2003;

5. Reply To Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff's Motion For Judgment On the Pleadings, filed October 10, 2003

Pursuant to LR4-304G, Plaintiff failed to request a setting, did not comply with the 15 day rule, and the pleadings were deemed withdrawn. Yet, despite all these failures by Plaintiff to comply with the rules and the fact that the pleadings were deemed withdrawn, Harris violated his own court rules, for benefit of Plaintiff, and to the detriment of Defendant, and ruled on some of the pleadings, but not all of them. Most of the pleadings Harris ruled upon were not submitted by Plaintiff. They were submitted by Edwards, who had not made any Motion For Rulings or Hearing on the Pleadings, and had not submitted any request for setting. Therefore, Harris failed: (1) to abide by this rule LR4-304G, as he has failed to abide by other rules previously stated in other pleadings; (2) demonstrated bias in favor of Plaintiff and prejudice towards Edwards; (3) Ruled on Edwards’ pleadings when Edwards made no such request. Edwards made no such request since Harris is not a lawful judge and has no authority to hear this case, pursuant to Edwards’ Disqualification of Harris and pursuant to Harris’ denial of the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions. By his failure, Harris’s rulings on the pleadings are incompetent and must be struck. Edwards will resubmit all her pleadings for ruling by a different and competent judge. . .

WHEREFORE, Defendant in Error Edwards requests that Harris’ unlawful rulings on the pleadings be struck and her pleadings be resubmitted for ruling by a competent judge.


All Rights Reserved

________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Failure was sent first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of October, 2004.

All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 36.0Section 36 – Exhibit 41 – filed November 1, 2004

This pertains to the Requests For Admissions Edwards served upon Metris, DMB and the attorneys on October 1, 2004, to be answered and delivered to her within 30 days. No response was sent to Edwards by any of the recipients within 30 days, so Edwards filed a Notice To the Court that Plaintiff Failed To File Request For Admissions.

The Notice follows on the next page:

Exhibit 41

NOTICE TO COURT THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ANSWER

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

NOTICE TO COURT THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ANSWER

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

NOTICE is hereby given to this court that attorney Catherine Sanchez and her

clients, METRIS COMPANIES LLP and Direct Merchants Bank failed to answer proper

Requests For Admissions, served upon Sanchez on October 1, 2004.

By rule, since Sanchez and her clients failed to answer the Requests For

Admissions within the time stated, they admit to them, and all charges must be

dismissed.


All Rights Reserved

____________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was sent first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of November, 2004.

All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction


Because of the failure of Metris, its attorneys and DMB to respond to the Requests For Admissions, Edwards filed another Motion To Dismiss with the Court on November 1, 2004, seen below. The full language of the Requests For Admissions is attached to still another Motion To Dismiss, filed January 31, 2005, as exhibits and, since these were crucial to the Edwards’ victory, anyone interested should give these special attention. This Motion, Exhibit 47 attache d Exhibit E , is found in Section 42.

The “trial” had been scheduled for November 2, 2004, but Metris’ attorneys filed a motion for continuance, based on fraud because they failed to answer the Requests For Admissions. Harris did not rule on the continuance, but the “trial”, which was on a trailing docket, was ostensibly bumped by a criminal trial and rescheduled for February 8, 2005. In our opinion, the only reason Metris wanted the continuance was because Metris, its attorneys and DMB all failed to respond to the Requests For Admissions and could not avoid or evade that issue, fully based in fact and law, during the “trial”, no matter how Harris would try to protect them.

This Motion is located on the next page.

Exhibit 42

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON COUNSEL’S AND PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO ANSWER REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff in Error,

v. Case No. 2003-188-CV

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_E_234.htm

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_47.htm

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON COUNSEL’S AND PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO ANSWER REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

COMES NOW Defendant in Error, Margaret D. Edwards, and moves this court

to dismiss all charges based, for the purposes of this Motion, on failure of attorney

Catherine Sanchez and her clients to answer Edwards’ proper Requests For Admission.

By rule, their failure to respond is their admission that the Admissions stand as admitted.

Wherefore, Edwards demands that the rules be enforced and that all charges be

dismissed against her, immediately.


All Rights Reserved

____________________________________




Phone/Fax: (505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was sent first class, postage prepaid, by U.S. Mail, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of November, 2004.

All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction


Metris filed a Motion For Extension of Time to respond to the Requests For Admissions. The law is very clear, and Metris most-likely knew it, but stalled for time. Failure to respond in the allotted 30 days is Plaintiff’s admission to the charges. Their Motion was an attempt to have Harris continue his “good works” for them, but Harris may have been seeing the light by now. Metris had no case, Edwards did, for all intents and purposes, she had won long ago.

Edwards filed the following Response to Metris’ Motion:

Exhibit 43

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO



Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

______________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant in Error, and hereby replies to and

opposes Plaintiff’s Motion of Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant’s

Requests for Admissions as follows:

1. Edwards refutes and denies Plaintiff’s description of Defendant’s Requests for

Admissions, (paragraph 1 of referenced motion), as contradictory, nonsensical and

deliberately misleading;

2. Edwards refutes and denies Plaintiff’s statement in paragraph 2 of the Motion

as disingenuous and ridiculous in its claim that “Plaintiff is unable to respond to

Defendant’s Requests for Admissions because Plaintiff does not know which set

Defendant wants responses to”, since Edwards apprised Plaintiff, by means of the hand

delivered letter to counsel Sanchez which accompanied the three (3) distinct sets of

Requests for Admissions, that Plaintiff Metris Companies, LLP, (Metris), their

subsidiary, Direct Merchants Bank, and counsel Catherine Sanchez were each to

complete the individualized set of Requests for Admissions, specifically intended for

each party, which individualized set clearly stated on page one (1), in its opening

paragraph, the name of the party required to complete it;

3. Defendant in Error refutes paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Motion, in that Edwards

properly provided one (1) appropriate set of Requests for Admissions for each of the

three (3) specifically named parties by whom Requests were to be completed, and each

set contained appropriate statements specific to the individual party named in the

opening paragraph of the Request for Admissions;

4. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time should be denied because Plaintiff

Metris, Direct Merchants Bank and counsel Sanchez had ample time to complete

Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, in that the Requests were delivered to counsel

Sanchez by hand delivery on October 1, 2004, in full compliance with the thirty (30)

days allowed for the completion of Requests for Admissions, pursuant to Rule 1-036;

5. Plaintiff Metris, Direct Merchants Bank and counsel Sanchez have each failed

to complete their individual sets of Requests for Admissions within the required time

frame of thirty (30) days, thus, pursuant to Rule 1-036, all three (3) individual sets of

Requests for Admissions stand as admitted;

6. It appears that Plaintiff, by and through counsel, has once again attempted to

put fraud upon the Court and upon Edwards in a transparent effort to feign lack of

understanding of Edwards’ Requests for Admissions. Since any reasonable person could

infer that Plaintiff Metris, Direct Merchants Bank and counsel Sanchez possess the

ability to read and comprehend the English language, and since Edwards’ letter to

Sanchez and the accompanying Requests for Admissions were composed and printed in

plain, clear English language, that reasonable person can only conclude that the

statements made in Plaintiff’s referenced motion are disingenuous, untrue, ludicrous and

false and were made with the explicit intention of deceiving the Court into allowing

more time because Plaintiff, by and through counsel, failed or refused to make

constructive use of the thirty (30) days allotted by Rule 1-036 to complete Defendant’s



Request for Admissions.

7. Edwards directs the Court’s attention to the fact that, prior to the

commencement of this action, in a timeframe from September 30, 2002 to January 6,

2003, she sent six (6) letters to Plaintiff Metris, Direct Merchants Bank and counsel

Sanchez, in which Edwards made statements and charges informing them of her

concerns about their fraudulent business practices, which none of these parties rebutted

or denied. The referenced letters were attached as Exhibits A through F to two (2) of

Edwards pleadings: (a) Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s

Objection to Telephonic Hearing, filed January 16, 2004 and (b) Motion for Summary

Judgment, filed April 2, 2004, in which pleadings Edwards invoked NMRA 1-008 (D),

Effect of Failure to Deny, for Plaintiff’s abject failure, by and through counsel, to rebut

or deny, with particularity, the substance of Edwards’ charges.

8. Plaintiff Metris, by and through counsel, has demonstrated a consistent pattern

of failure to answer, address, rebut or deny Edwards’ letters and pleadings. Now, in a

disingenuous attempt to evade completion of Edwards’ proper Requests for Admissions,

which if truthfully completed would uphold Edwards’ charges, Plaintiff, by and through

counsel, again demonstrates this consistent pattern by which Plaintiff appears to hope to

thwart Edwards from exposing the fraudulent business practices of Metris and their

subsidiary, Direct Merchants Bank, and by which Plaintiff, by and through counsel,

attempts to have this Court unlawfully enforce a fraudulent contract upon Edwards.

WHEREFORE, Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, respectfully requests


this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion of Extension, in that Plaintiff, its subsidiary and

counsel Sanchez all failed to timely complete their respective set of Requests, pursuant

to Rule 1-036, thus, the Requests are admitted; and this being so, and there being no

matter of controversy for this Court to hear, Edwards further requests this Court dismiss,

with prejudice, any and all charges brought against her by Plaintiff, by and through

counsel.


All Rights Reserved

______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards



(505) 425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiff’s Motion of Extension was sent by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Catherine Sanchez, P.O. Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87176-7290 on this ____day of November, 2004.

All Rights Reserved

______________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 39.0



The Requests For Admissions was an extremely important method for Edwards to lawfully and legally position Metris, et al, and Harris, to deal in the truth, which, as discussed, is, theoretically, the very basis of the American judicial system. However, it widely appears that most judges, the judicial system, government, lawyers and corporations, as it is now and has been practiced for many years, deal mostly in fraud and deception. This fact is reprehensible to any American Citizen interested in his country, freedom for himself, his family and children, justice and due process, as designed by our forefathers.

In such a corrupt and/or inept system in favor of government and corporations and opposed to the ordinary Citizen and his/her Rights guaranteed in our Constitutions, The Requests For Admissions was a very unusual method for Edwards to demand truth from one’s opponent, and then win on that truth. This is highly unusual in today’s courts.

Throughout this case Edwards used letters and affidavit in which she made charges against her opponents that were never denied. Thus, by their silence, they acquiesced and admitted to her charges. Edwards made numerous charges against Metris, et al, in her many pleadings, which they never denied, thus, pursuant to state law, the Effect of Failure To Deny, they admitted to her charges. Any honest, capable judge in any honest, capable court of proper jurisdiction that honored the Constitutions, Citizens’ Rights guaranteed therein, justice and due process would have immediately dismissed the case based on all the foregoing, plus the fact that the proper jurisdiction is federal district court, not state. Based on his own actions, Harris is not an honest, capable judge and neither does this court nor the state of New Mexico fit that description.

It is highly likely that Metris, et al, fully understood this scenario and were fully aware that Harris overtly catered to them, carried them, allowed them to violate all the rules, while he disparaged Edwards, denied her Constitutionally guaranteed Rights and everything Edwards presented to this fraud called a “court”. The astute reader can use his own creative imagination as to why Harris did this.

Being aware of this, Metris, et al, most-likely realized its failure to respond to the Requests For Admissions was the end of their free ride on “not being held accountable for their actions and their violations of the law” position. Response to The Requests For Admissions is required by law, and they failed to respond, as they failed to respond to or rebut the letters, affidavit and pleadings. They rebutted nothing. The Admissions, as we view them, put a final stop to all the court fraud and what obviously appears to be collusion and conspiracy by and between Harris, Metris, its attorneys, DMB and the court. Harris defied and denied all existing law which upheld and supported Edwards’ lawful positions and upheld the fraud and deceit that backed Metris’ position. However, in our opinion, if Harris were to have found for Metris and against Edwards, and ignored the Requests For Admissions, as he either ignored or denied everything else, that would

have been his further overt denial of all law and total support for a corporation and total disparagement of a Citizen. His ruling would not have held on appeal.

Further, in our opinion, Harris’ actions in this case were so blatantly illegal and unlawful that he, most-likely, did not want this case to go to appeal. Although the appellate court is also a fraud, it is highly unlikely that this court would have upheld Harris’ written order denying the Constitutions, their powers and Rights guaranteed therein and Harris’ denial of all existing laws for the sole benefit of Metris, while denying all of Edwards’ lawful positions supported by fact and by law. Metris, et al, most likely also realized this, knew that they never had a valid, supportable case, knew that they had lost long ago, knew that Edwards had an excellent case, and they basically withdrew.

From April of 2004 to February of 2005, Metris, et al, had failed to prosecute the case for over ten months. Cases must be prosecuted within six months, and any case which goes without prosecution for longer than six months, can and should be dismissed. Harris did not dismiss for this. If Metris really had a case, they would have prosecuted. No matter what methods and fraud Harris used to keep Metris alive, they knew that they had lost. It was obvious to anyone who truly observed. Metris’ attorneys submitted the following Motion To Withdraw As Counsel. If they had anything viable, they would not have withdrawn. Their Motion follows.

Exhibit 44

METRIS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT


STATE OF NEW MEXICO


P]aintiff

v.

No. 2003- 188 -CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

NOW THE Plaintiff, Plaintiff Metris Companies LLP, by and through

their attorney, Francella Wright, and hereby notifies and requests this Court allow the

withdrawal of the Law Offices of Catherine Sanchez as counsel of record for Metris

Companies LLP effective this date of January 2005. Plaintiff's consent has been

sought and granted.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs counsel asks this Court to grant Plaintiffs counsel’s

motion to withdraw from the above captioned case. DATED this 5 th day of January,

2005.

LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE SANCHEZ

By:

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PO Box 37290 Albuquerque, NM 87176

(505) 875-1020

Introduction

Section 40.0Section 40 – Exhibit 45 – filed January 24, 2005

Harris granted Metris’ attorneys their Motion To Withdraw, and issued the order found on the next page. In our opinion, this Motion basically means that Metris had no case and pulled its attorneys. When there is no case and the attorneys withdraw because they have no case, the case must be dismissed. Harris did not dismiss the case,

but continued it, on his own, without prosecution and without lawful authority.

By law, in New Mexico, a corporation must be represented by counsel in court, but Harris, on his own, without authority, permitted Metris to proceed pro se. Harris, by his own actions, knows little and cares less, or nothing, for the law.

Exhibit 45

Court Order

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO


Plaintiff,

No. 2003- 188 -CV

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant.

ORDER

COMES NOW THE COURT, having read Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel and being duly advised in the premises, hereby grants said motion.

(Authors’ Note: Harris hand wrote in a specific directive, which did not scan properly, thus, we

include his words in italics type. They are as follows:

Plaintiff shall proceed pro se until another enters an appearance, and until that time all pleadings shall be mailed to:

Edward Connelly

Metris Company, LLP

Kierland 1, Suite 300

16430 N. Scottsdale Road

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Jay G. Harris 1/24/05 D.J.

Approved by Plaintiff:

Francella Wright

Introduction

Section 41.0Section 41 – Exhibit 46 – filed January 31, 2005

The following is another blatant example of court corruption and/or

incompetence. Metris’ attorneys Motion To Withdraw was dated January 5 th , yet

filed January 24 th , mailed to Edwards on January 21 st and received on January

25 th , the day after Harris signed his order .

As usual, the lawyers, Harris and the court, by their own actions, which are on the public record, continued the fraud. They lost, but they did not want to “lose face” and continued the pretense. After all, for an ordinary Citizen to win in “court” against a major bank and defeat the fraudulent system is not an easy pill for these frauds to swallow.

Edwards should have received her copy of this Motion on the 8th or 9th of January if it

had been mailed January 5th, as it was dated, so she could respond. They did not want her to respond. Again, she, like most Citizens, was left out of the fraudulent court loop.

Edwards’ Response on the following page addresses the open fraud by and between Harris, Metris’ attorneys, Metris and the court.

Exhibit 46

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY FOR

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL and DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO HARRIS’ ORDER ISSUED JANUARY 24, 2005 AND DEMAND

THAT THE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW BE REVERSED

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO



Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY FOR

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL and DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO HARRIS’ ORDER ISSUED JANUARY 24, 2005 AND DEMAND THAT THE ORDER

GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW BE REVERSED

______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, and, DESPITE HAVING

BEEN UNLAWFULLY DENIED TIMELY NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

AND JAY G. HARRIS of the referenced Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, responds,

objects to and opposes said motion for the following reasons:

1. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, submitted a Motion To Withdrawal As Counsel

on January 5, 2005, but failed to mail it to Edwards until January 21, 2005, in violation

of court rules;

2. Edwards received an unconformed copy of referenced motion late

afternoon of January 24, 2005, well past the 15 day response time required by court

rules, to which ALL PARTIES should be bound;

3. On January 25, 2005, Edwards received, by mail, (a) a second copy of the

Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, court date stamped January 24, 2005, accompanied by

(b) an attached letter from the Law Offices of Catherine Sanchez to a Mr. Edward

Connelly of Metris Companies, LLP, of Scottsdale, Arizona, containing (i) counsel’s

intention to withdraw; (ii) the Court’s requirement for written authorization from

Plaintiff Metris; (iii) a paragraph bearing Mr. Connelly’s signed approval; and (c) an

Order, court date stamped January 24, 2005, issued and signed by Jay G. Harris, acting

as judge in this action, approving counsel’s motion to withdraw and, without authority,

allowing a commercial organization to appear pro se in this action.

4. Harris issued his order knowing that Edwards did not receive Sanchez’s

motion, since that motion was not mailed until January 21,st and Edwards had no time to

respond prior to Harris’s issuance of his unlawful order in violation of state law and

court rules, as has been his custom and practice throughout this case.

5. Edwards strenuously objects to Harris’ preferential and unlawful treatment

of counsel for Plaintiff, by and through this Court, by which he, including, but not

limited to: (a) failed to hold counsel for Plaintiff to court rules governing timely service

upon opposition parties; (b) participated in ex parte communication with Plaintiff’s

attorney, as he has previously done, in violation of court rules, the fact of which is

clearly demonstrated, by the dates on the motion, (January 5th), and the letter sent to


Plaintiff addressing the Court’s request for Plaintiff’s written approval, (January 7th),

which prove counsel for Plaintiff had communicated with this Court about this matter, ex

parte, long before service was made upon Edwards, (January 24th); (c) upheld counsel

for Plaintiff’s unlawful tactics by issuing his Order approving counsel’s withdrawal,

before Edwards could possibly respond, in defiance of court rules and his duty to preside

over these proceedings in a fair and impartial manner, pursuant to the New Mexico Code

of Judicial Conduct; (d) colluded and conspired with Plaintiff, by and through counsel,

to defraud Edwards financially and to deprive Edwards of her Constitutional Rights of

due process.

6. Edwards reminds the Court that in early October, she gave Notice To The

Court, that on October 1, 2004, by hand delivery service, counsel for Plaintiff was

timely presented with and signed for three (3) sets of individualized Requests For

Admissions, one for Plaintiff Metris, one for its subsidiary, Direct Merchants Bank,

(DMB), and one for attorney Sanchez, each clearly indicating for whom it was intended,

and all to be delivered to Edwards within thirty (30) days of receipt by counsel, pursuant

to NMRA 1-036.

7. Edwards directs the Court’s attention to the fact that Plaintiff Metris, its

subsidiary, DMB, and attorney Sanchez, ALL FAILED or refused to complete the

referenced Requests For Admissions, because they realized that a truthful completion of

them would support Edwards charges of fraud and other wrongdoing and warrant




dismissal of this case. Thus, pursuant to Rule 1-036, each and every statement, charge

and/or averment made by Edwards in each and every Request For Admissions, all of

which uphold and support Edwards’ charges and her defensive positions, stand as

ADMITTED by each and every party lawfully and timely served therewith, namely,

Metris, DMB and attorney Catherine Sanchez.

8. Since Plaintiff, by and through counsel, admits to and agrees with

Edwards’ charges of fraud, which fraud cancels any “contract” alleged to exist between

Plaintiff and Edwards, Plaintiff has no valid, lawful, cognizable cause of action against

Edwards. Thus, pursuant to court rules, this case must be dismissed. However, Harris’

favoritism to counsel for Plaintiff and the fraud, collusion and conspiracy ongoing

between them, has caused Harris, in perjury of his oath and in defiance of the judicial

code of conduct, to not only allow this fraudulent action to continue, regardless of the

merits of the case, Edwards’ factual and lawful evidence, requirements of law, rules of

civil procedure and Plaintiff’s admission to Edwards’ Requests For Admissions - all

facts which warrant immediate dismissal, with prejudice - but also, by exempting

Plaintiff, by and through counsel, from court rules and in denying Edwards’ factual and

lawful pleadings, to aid and abet counsel for Plaintiff’s deceptive and unlawful

prosecution of this action.

9. Edwards herein states that counsel for Plaintiff has moved to withdraw

from this action because, since Metris, DMB and Sanchez, have all admitted to the

statements and charges in Edwards’ Requests For Admission, no controversy exists for

this Court to hear, and this action must be dismissed. Thus, to avoid the consequences

of losing this case, as well as losing face, counsel for Plaintiff moved to withdraw. In

addition, counsel Sanchez is aware that she stands accused of committing fraud upon

Edwards and this Court, in collusion and conspiracy with Harris, and will be reported to

the proper authorities, held accountable for her actions, which violate her oath and the

code of conduct to which she is responsible as a practicing lawyer in the State of New

Mexico, and could be disbarred.

10. Edwards objects to and opposes counsel’s withdrawal for all of the reasons

stated herein, but hereby informs this Court that, she will withdraw her objection to

counsel’s withdrawal if this case is immediately dismissed, as required by law, with

prejudice, .

11. Edwards further informs this Court that, by reason of their unlawful

actions against her, counsel for Plaintiff, Jay G. Harris, Metris Companies, LLP, and

Direct Merchants Bank will all be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly in federal

district court, for including, but not limited to, fraud, deception, conspiracy and

collusion, fraudulent use of the courts to enforce a fraudulent contract, deprivation of

Edwards’ Constitutional Rights, violation of federal and state law, violation of court

rules, sedition, insurrection and treason. It is highly unlikely that any federal judge, in

any federal district, will deny the Constitution by court order, as Harris has, which will

put the decision, properly, in the hands of the jury.

11. Further, Edwards hereby gives lawful notice to Mr. Edward Connelly, of

Metris Companies, LLP, Scottsdale, Arizona, that should he, being fully aware that

Metris, DMB and Sanchez have admitted to Edwards’ Requests For Admissions, enter

this fraudulent action, and persist in perpetrating this fraud, he will be joined in

Edwards’ action, in federal district court, along with the above named conspirators.

Wherefore, Defendant-in-Error, Margaret Edwards, OBJECTS to the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, unless this case is immediately dismissed, with prejudice, thus, demands this Court REVERSE Harris’ Order granting the referenced motion and immediately dismiss this action, with prejudice.


All Rights Reserved

__________________________________

Margaret D. Edwards


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw was sent by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Mr. Edward Connelly, Metris Companies, LLP, Kierland 1, Suite 300, 6430 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, on this ___ day of January, 2005.

All Rights Reserved

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 42.0Section 42 – Exhibit 47– filed January 31, 2005

This Motion, yet another Motion to Dismiss, was filed January 31, 2005, and

contains exhibits A-G, of which E, F and G are the full texts of the Requests For Admissions, a very important part of the methods that led to Edwards’ victory . Any Citizen who wants to enforce his/her Rights before the court and win his case should fully understand this method. It made Edwards’ opponents realize the fact that they could not either lawfully admit to or deny Edwards’ charges made in the Requests For Admissions. If they admitted to them, then they agreed with Edwards, and their case was over. If they denied them, then they would have to support that denial with fact, law and evidence, which they could not do. Faced with this dilemma, in which there was no win either way, they chose not to respond, and, by so-doing, they admitted to Edwards’ charges.

The Requests For Admissions were the “nail in the coffin” against Metris. Metris, its attorneys and DMB could not admit to or deny the charges, with fact, law or evidence to support their denial. They failed to answer, so, by law, they admitted to Edwards’ charges, Metris’ attorneys withdrew, and, for all intents and purposes, they forfeited the case because they knew that Edwards had used methods they could not defeat, no matter what Harris did.

Edwards is an ordinary Citizen who knew her Rights and enforced them in Court against, by their own actions, a corrupt opponent, their attorneys, judge, court, system and state. All state officers notified of Harris’ crimes and wrongdoing, by their actions or lack thereof, condoned, aided and abetted his crimes. The judge, court and entire government was opposed to Edwards, yet by her lawful positions, truth and use of the Constitutionally based methods, she won, despite their opposition. Most members of our group are ordinary Citizens, like you, but by knowing the law, enforcing our Rights and using these methods, we win. So can you.

Exhibit 47

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF MATERIAL CONTROVERSY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, THEREBY

ADMITTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, FRAUD, VIOLATION OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT-IN-ERROR’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS and FOR WITHDRAWAL

WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_A-B-C-D-E_228-234.htm



Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET EDWARDS,

Defendant in Error.

________________________________________________________________________MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF MATERIAL CONTROVERSY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, THEREBY ADMITTING TO LACK OF

JURISDICTION, FRAUD, VIOLATION OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT-IN-ERROR’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE

PROCESS and FOR WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, and moves this Court to

dismiss this action, with prejudice, for the following reasons:

1. Plaintiff, Metris Companies, LLP, its subsidiary Direct Merchants Bank,

(DMB), and counsel for Plaintiff, Catherine Sanchez, having failed to answer Edwards’

timely delivered, individualized Requests For Admissions, made part of this Motion and

attached hereto as Exhibits “E” through “G”, have each admitted to the statements and

charges contained therein, which statements and charges uphold Edwards’ defense that

Plaintiff has no lawful cause of action against her by reason of fraud and other

wrongdoing specified throughout Edwards’ other pleadings on the part Metris and its

subsidiary, DMB, which fraud cancels any alleged “contract” between Metris, its

subsidiary, DMB, and Edwards.

2. Metris and DMB’s failure to answer Edwards’ Requests For Admissions

http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_E_234.htm

constitutes admission to, including, but not limited to, the following statements of fact:

(a) Plaintiff and its subsidiary, DMB, conduct business in interstate commerce,

thus, proper jurisdiction for this action is federal district court, not state district court.

(b) Plaintiff and its subsidiary, DMB, engage in fraudulent business practices, in

violation of federal banking laws.

(c) DMB solicited Edwards’ business by U.S. mail, through a fraudulent contract,

lacking full disclosure.

(d) Plaintiff and its subsidiary, DMB, failed to answer or rebut Edwards’ charges

of fraud, thus, admits to them.

(e) Since Metris and DMB never responded to the issues and questions Edwards

raised, Edwards concludes that they operate fraudulently and did not loan Edwards

anything but a liability, which is admitted as true.

(f) fraud cancels any contract.

(g) Edwards lawfully informed Plaintiff, by and through DMB, and counsel

Sanchez, that she terminated her business relationship with DMB because of their

fraudulent business practices.

(h) Edwards refuses payment for failure of the presentment to comply with the

terms of the instrument and agreement of the parties or other applicable law or rule.

(i) Edwards testified during the January 22, 2004 telephonic hearing that the

alleged contract imposed upon her by DMB did not make full disclosure, thus, it is a

fraudulent contract and the affixing of Edwards’ name thereon does not constitute a valid

signature.

(j) When a party enters a contract that is fraudulent, not permitted by law and

lacks full disclosure, the contract is null and void, without force or effect and

unenforceable by any court.

(k) What Direct Merchants Bank loaned to Edwards was credit, created by

Edwards’ note to them.

(l) A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. If there

is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.

(m) United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, paragraph 7, confirms upon a bank

the power to lend its money, not its credit.

(n) There is no valid federal law that authorizes a bank to loan its credit and act

as surety for another person.

(o) When a bank breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it is not

allowed by law to execute, the bank commits fraud.

(p) Plaintiff, by and through counsel, attempts to use this Court to enforce a

fraudulent contract.

(q) Metris and DMB, by and through counsel, have neither responded to or

rebutted Edwards pleadings, with particularity, therefore, Edwards invoked NMRA 1-


http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.html

007.1(D) and 1-008(D), and, thus, pursuant to court rules, Metris and DMB have

admitted to Edwards’s charges and averments and consented to grant her pleadings.

(r) Since Plaintiff and DMB, by and through counsel, admit and agree with

Edwards’ charges, there is no dispute, and since the court can only hear matters of

controversy, there is no reason for this action to be brought before the court.

3. The failure of attorney for Plaintiff, Catherine Sanchez, to answer

Edwards’ Requests For Admissions constitutes admission to, including, but not limited

to, the following statements of fact:

(a) As a lawyer, Sanchez swore an oath or made an affirmation before a New

Mexico Supreme Court Justice to uphold and support the Constitutions of the United

States of America and of the State of New Mexico, and to uphold and obey the laws

thereof to the best of her ability.

(b) During the January 22, 2004 telephonic hearing, which Sanchez arranged ex

parte, the man acting as judge, Jay G. Harris, stated that Sanchez probably thought the

hearing had been cancelled, since she had received notice to that effect prior to the

hearing, to which she answered, “Yes” and to which Edwards answered, “No.” Thus,

Sanchez had prior knowledge that, pursuant to Edwards’ lawful disqualification of

Harris, the case had been reassigned to The Honorable Eugenio Mathis, and that by

Edwards’ answer, she had not received notice of this fact; yet, Sanchez said nothing of

this deception during the January 22, 2004 hearing.




(c) Pursuant to Sanchez’s oath, during referenced telephonic hearing on January

22, 2004, she permitted Jay G. Harris, acting as judge, to perpetrate fraud upon Edwards,

unlawfully deny Edwards’ lawful disqualification of Harris, conceal the fact that this

case had been reassigned to Judge Eugenio Mathis and violate Edwards’ Constitutional

Rights and Right of due process.

(d) Harris had no lawful authority and/or discretion to deny Edwards’ timely,

lawful disqualification, nor to set aside the Notice of Judge Reassignment issued by the

Court Administrator; yet Sanchez gave effect to Harris’ wrongdoing and fraud by

writing the order denying Edwards’ disqualification. By her silence and actions,

Sanchez colluded and conspired with and aided and abetted Harris to defraud Edwards

and the court, in perjury of her oath, in violation of due process, the law and the rules of

the court.

(e) Edwards filed a Complaint for Fraud and Putting Fraud Upon the Court

against Sanchez and Harris, to which neither Sanchez nor Harris responded, as required

by law. Thus, pursuant to 1-007.1(D) and 1-008(D) NMRA, Edwards’ Complaint stands

admitted and Sanchez consents and grants the Complaint.

(f) Margaret Edwards sent Sanchez, by certified mail, return receipt, a letter,

dated December 5, 2002, informing her of Edwards’ attempts to directly resolve her

business relationship with Direct Merchants Bank, (DMB), with enclosures of her prior

correspondence with DMB addressing questions, concerns and charges presented,

therein, pertaining to fraudulent and unlawful business practices on the part of DMB;



DMB’s failure to respond or to rebut the questions, statements and charges made in

Edwards’ correspondence, or to deny or rebut Edwards’s statements and charges was

their admission and agreement to the charges; the fact that she had informed DMB and

Sanchez that she would not be a party to fraud and that she assumed Sanchez would not

wish to be party to fraud, either.

(g) Subsequently, Edwards mailed Sanchez a copy of the January 6, 2004 letter

which she sent by certified mail to Kristin Mathis of DMB, which stated facts and

findings of law which support Edwards’ position, and by which Edwards terminated her

relationship with DMB in a Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor.

(h) Sanchez filed a Complaint against Edwards in Fourth Judicial District Court,

State of New Mexico, in which she stated that Metris Companies LLP does business in

interstate commerce. Further, per the office of the New Mexico secretary of state,

neither Direct Merchants Bank nor Metris Companies, LLP is licensed to do business in

the state of New Mexico.

(i) The proper jurisdiction for a corporation dealing in interstate commerce and

not licensed to do business in New Mexico is federal district court and not state district

court.

(j) Edwards testified during the January 22, 2004 telephonic hearing that the

alleged contract imposed upon her by DMB did not make full disclosure, thus, it is a

fraudulent contract and the affixing of Edwards’ name thereon does not constitute a valid

signature.

(k) Pursuant to Sanchez’s oath, a contract created by and through fraud and

lacking full disclosure is null and void, and no court of due process has the authority to

uphold and enforce a fraudulent contract nor to deny (a) the powers of and the Rights

guaranteed in the National and State Constitutions; (b) Constitutional Rights to

American Citizens; (c) pleadings based in Constitutional law and fact.

(l) Harris denied motions based in Constitutional law, yet, Sanchez, pursuant to

her oath, took no action, whatsoever, to stop or report this insurrection and sedition to

our Constitution and treason to the American People; thus, Sanchez aided and abetted

Harris’ insurrection, sedition and treason.

(m) Any lawyer who conspires and colludes with a judge and/or permits the

judge to deny Rights to an American Citizen, perjures his oath, commits fraud, brings

fraud upon the court and acts contrary to the code of conduct.

(n) Sanchez failed to rebut or deny charges contained in Edwards’ 6 letters to

Plaintiff and which were also attached as Exhibit’s A - F to Edwards’ Motion For

Summary Judgment, filed April 2, 2004; therefore, pursuant to NMRA 1-007.1(D) and

1-008(D), by her failure to respond to and deny the charges, Plaintiff, by and through

Sanchez admits to and agrees with Edwards’ charges.

(o) Since Sanchez, personally, and Plaintiff, by and through Sanchez, failed to

respond to or rebut any of Edwards’ pleadings, with particularity, Edwards invoked



http://enduringfreedoms.com/metris/exhibit_A-B-C-D-E_228-234.htm

NMRA 1-007.1(D) and 1-008(D); thus, Plaintiff, by and through Sanchez’ s failure,

admits to Edwards’ charges and averments, consents to grant her pleadings, and presents

no dispute or controversy as reason for this action to be brought before the court.

(p) Since United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, paragraph 7, confirms upon a

bank the power to lend its money, not its credit, and Direct Merchants Bank created the

credit Edwards borrowed by using a fraudulent “contract” as Edwards’ promise to pay to

generate computer entries on Edwards’ account, Direct Merchants Bank committed

Bank Fraud.

4. Edwards hereby incorporates all of her previous pleadings and exhibits as

part of this Motion. Further, Edwards herein attaches to this Motion the following

exhibits: Exhibit “A”, Delivery Receipt for Requests For Admissions, signed by

Catherine Sanchez; Exhibit “B”, Notice To Court Of Service Of Request For

Admissions; Exhibit “C”, Notice To Court That Plaintiff Failed To Answer Request For

Admissions; Exhibit “D”, Motion To Dismiss Based On Counsel’s And Plaintiff’s

Failure To Answer Request For Admissions; Exhibit “E”, Request For Admissions for

Metris Companies, LLP; Exhibit “F”, Request For Admissions for Catherine Sanchez;

Exhibit “G”, Request For Admissions for Direct Merchants Bank.

5. Counsel for Plaintiff, deceptively, in defiance of and by unlawful

exemption from court rules, filed a Motion To Withdraw As Counsel and failed to timely

serve it upon Edwards to prevent Edwards from opposing said motion. Edwards asserts

that counsel for Plaintiff, being cognizant that her failure to answer and have her client

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.html


answer the referenced Requests For Admissions constitutes admission to them; has no

matter of genuine controversy for this Court to hear; therefore, this action must be

dismissed. Edwards directs the Court’s attention to the likely possibility that Sanchez

failed to answer the Requests or to submit them to Plaintiff because she realized that

truthful answers given by the parties involved would uphold Edwards’ charges of fraud

and other wrongdoing by Metris and DMB and the case would have to be dismissed.

Also, since the Requests For Admissions all contained statements concerning counsel’s

unethical and unlawful conduct in this case, and since Plaintiff may have been unaware

of counsel’s errant actions, it follows that counsel Sanchez would protect herself from

exposure by failing to submit Edwards’ Requests For Admissions to Plaintiff Metris and

its subsidiary, DMB.

6. Further, counsel Sanchez understands the perilous position in which she

has placed herself by her admission to Edwards’ statements and charges of fraud and

other wrongdoing contained in Edwards’ Requests For Admissions. Thus, Edwards

states that aside from dodging an impending defeat in this case, and the resultant loss of

face, Sanchez’s most cogent reason for withdrawing from this case is to avoid the

consequences of her unlawful and unethical actions, demonstrated consistently

throughout this case, for which Edwards will hold her accountable and liable by every

lawful means available.

7. Edwards hereby gives lawful notice to Mr. Edward Connelly, of Metris

Companies, LLP, Scottsdale, Arizona, whom Harris, without authority, permits to appear

pro se for Metris, a commercial organization, in this action, that if Mr. Connelly enters

and continues this fraudulent action, he will be joined in suit for the commission of

fraud, collusion and conspiracy, violation of Edwards’ Constitutional Rights, violation of

court rules, sedition, insurrection and treason to be filed in federal district court against

Metris, DMB, counsel for Plaintiff, and Jay G. Harris.

Wherefore, Margaret Edwards, Defendant-in-Error, for the aforementioned

reasons, hereby moves this Court immediately DISMISS this action, with prejudice.


All Rights Reserved

_________________________

Margaret D. Edwards c/o 739 Dalbey Drive


(505)425-0659


I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion To Dismiss was sent by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Mr. Edward Connelly, Metris Companies, LLP, Kierland 1, Suite 300, 6430 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, on this ___ day of January, 2005.

All Rights Reserved

___________________________

Margaret D. Edwards

Introduction

Section 43.0Section 43 – Exhibit 48 – filed February 8, 2005

&

The “Trial”

The “trial” was scheduled for February 8, 2005, 9:00 A.M., State District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Las Vegas, New Mexico. Edwards and eleven witnesses were ready for trial at 9: 00 A.M. at the San Miguel County Courthouse. Metris failed to appear, as we firmly expected. At 9:30 A.M., Harris stated that he will dismiss the case because Metris failed to appear. To us, it is very obvious why they failed to appear.

This was not only a victory for Edwards against a major and fraudulent bank, court, judge and system, it was a major victory for all American Citizens in similar situations. Edwards’ methods can work for any American Citizen, anytime. If we work together, rather than against each other, as the government would have it, we can make significant and major changes in our own communities, towns, cities and states that will affect the entire Nation and its future, but, this time, for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.

Harris’ Dismissal Order is located on the next page.

Exhibit 48

Judges Order to Dismiss Case

_________ (Begin Exhibit) _________



STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

NO. 03-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

DEFENDANT.

ORDER

This case having been set for a trial on the merits on February 8, 2005 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. pursuant to the Amended Notice of Hearing filed on October 28,2004, and defendant having appeared at 9:00

a.m. ready to proceed to trial and the court having waited until 9:30 a.m. for plaintiff to appear, but plaintiff not appearing; and the court being fully advised and informed in the premises,

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED by the court that this case is dismissed.

DATED this 8 th day of February, 2005.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of February, 2005, a copy of the foregoing order was mailed to Edward Connelly, Metris Company, LLP, Kierland l, Suite 300, 16430 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, AZ 85254 and Margaret Edwards, 739 Dalbey Drive, Las Vegas, NM 8770l.

Roberta J. Sena. TCAA

Documents

Metris Case