Amanda López Askin, Ph.D.
Doña Ana County Clerk
Doña Ana County Clerk’s Office
845 N. Motel Blvd.
Las Cruces, NM 88007
Marcie Martinez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
Mon, Jan 23 at 7:41 PM
Dear Sheriff Stewart et al.,
This message is in reference to the “Notice of Eviction” signed by Deputy Chris Lopez, which purports to be a notice to property owners of an eviction to occur tomorrow morning (1/24/2023) at 9:00 AM at the address 105 Thoroughbred Court, Santa Teresa NM 88008. See attached. This Notice was brought to our attention and we feel compelled to give you this notice along with information we have discovered regarding such “evictions” under “writs of assistance” based on foreclosure.
We have received the following information about the owners of aforesaid property:
“Deed to Joseph Monge Jr, which name is not included in this lawsuit. Joe is a VA with 100% disability. Recent hospitalizations of Joe, Dx with Parkinson’s, Osteomyelitis, Cancer, Home bound unable to walk came home by ambulance, elderly 78 years old. Property was Homestead previously by Joe with Dona Ana because of his 100% disabled status.”
We do not expect you to take this gentleman’s condition into consideration, as we have witnessed the heartlessness of the so-called justice system. This email is solely intended to inform you of your own duties as elected officials, obligations under the constitutions, and your own procedures.
As elected, appointed, or employed officials you should know that the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Article II Sec. 10 of the New Mexico constitution require a warrant or criminal complaint, supported by oath or affirmation to remove anyone from private property. There is no law, code, procedure, or rule that supersedes this requirement. The judiciary does not have authority to direct a sheriff to abrogate his duty to protect his citizens and their property, as he was elected to do. Such abrogation is a violation of the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 241 and 242 and subject to civil suit by an injured party under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
We have obtained, from your offices, records related to this so-called eviction and have determined that the threat of arrest on the “Notice” appears to be an improper threat of severe injury and a serious due process violation. Note the statement “If you are not out completely by Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2023. TIME: 9:00 A.M. THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST BY THIS OFFICER.” There is no indication of who “YOU” deputy Lopez is referring to and therefore this Notice appears to completely lack due process. Further, we are awaiting response from your offices regarding a valid criminal complaint that would give your deputy authority to make an arrest for failure to not be “completely out by….” based on a civil “writ of assistance”, but have received nothing yet.
Your procedures do not appear to reference any such authority allowing arrest by deputies when serving civil process, including a “writ of assistance”. Moreover, there is no law that would grant such authority and therefore your Notice not only appears to lack due process, it also appears to be a threat of kidnapping and false imprisonment without legal authority. See attached “legal process” document obtained from your office.
According to documents received by your offices, the party purportedly entitled to possession of this property is allegedly “The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) f/k/a/ the Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc. Asset-backed Certificates Series 2006-3”. Numerous issues exist as to whether this entity can even own private property, let alone property in New Mexico; however, for purposes of this message we will presume this entity is entitled to possession of the property (although there is no indication that title to property was ever litigated in case D-307-CV-2016-01838 and our research is showing that likely all “special master’s deeds” are void). But presuming that BNYM is entitled to possession of the property, as this entity is not a living, breathing man or woman, it would require a valid agency relationship with some man or woman to gain “possession”. This is common sense.
There is nothing within your procedures indicating that your deputies have any process for verification or validation of the identity of the individual with authority to gain possession of the property you are elected and bound to protect. According to the documents received by your offices, a paralegal for an attorney firm called Aldridge Pite, LLP (Sarah Harris), from Las Vegas, Nevada is directing the sheriff to “evict” the homeowners from their private property, most likely held by a grantor/grantee type deed. The letter is addressed to “ATTN: SHERIFF CLERK, WRIT OF ASSISTANCE FOR EVICTION LOCKOUT”. See attached. It claims, “The below Agent will be on site during the eviction and will be receiving possession of the premise: Agent D. Elaine Johnson.”
There is no evidence of agency relationship attached to this communication nor is there anything within your procedures indicating that your officers even bother to determine if the party they are handing over possession of private property is even authorized to receive such property. To add insult to injury, the party giving orders to your sheriff to remove one of his constituents from their private property is apparently a resident of LAS VEGAS, NEVADA!
As it is, how do your officers and employees even know that the letter is legitimate, that the paralegal has any authority to make the “authorization”, or that Aldridge Pite, LLP is even an agent of the so-called “plaintiff” named in the writ or the party who claims to be entitled to possession? Even the title, notice of “Eviction” is improper since eviction denotes the removal of a renter from leasehold property. Do your deputies even recognize the distinction?
Given that your deputies believe they have authority to arrest someone under a civil authority, but actually under a contractual agreement between your office and a paralegal with a law firm that pays you $40 to “evict” someone, it is not surprising that they would not know that eviction is improper against homeowners.
Be advised that this constitutes NOTICE that you are being monitored and any illegal removal of property owners will be the subject of criminal complaints to any cognizable authority, including the people of Dona Ana County. We intend on seeking all records you rely upon to “evict” homeowners from their private property and will disclose the information to the public for review and accountability. At this point there is no excuse for our elected officials to be unaware of the serious fraud involved in the Wall Street “securitization” scheme. Many websites by well-known attorneys and law firms exist to educate those acting in collusion with this scheme. See, for example, livinglies.me, movies such as The Big Short, and the docuseries, “The Con”, https://www.facebook.com/patrick.s.lovell.
The people are awakening quickly and we are becoming more and more aware of the complicity of our own elected officials.
Concerned New Mexicans
DISCLAIMER: We are NOT attorneys and we do not give legal advice. We are concerned New Mexicans who have done extensive research into the foreclosure fraud and unlawful theft of private property. We recognize the growing problem of homelessness and how it is occurring at the hands of rogue judges acting at the behest of foreclosure mill attorneys who are enlisting our county sheriffs to apparently aid and abet in criminal actions including, but not limited to, theft of property, kidnapping, false imprisonment, receiving stolen property, fraud, embezzlement, armed robbery, impersonation of peace officers, etc.
LAWSUITS ARE CURRENTLY PENDING IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST DAVID WASHBURN, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS PURPORTEDLY CONVEYED THE PROPERTIES OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HOMEOWNERS ON BEHALF OF WALL STREET WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY, WITHOUT ANY REGULATION, AND WITHOUT BEING AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW OR LICENSING OF ANY SORT. THE ‘SPECIAL MASTER’S DEEDS’ HE EXECUTES, IF VALID, MERELY SHOW AN INFERIOR, EQUITABLE INTEREST IN PROPERTY AND DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY OF NEW MEXICO’S PROPERTY CONVEYANCE STATUTES, NMSA 1978 SECS. 47-1-1 ET SEQ.
NONE OF THE ’SPECIAL MASTER’S DEEDS’ APPEAR TO BE “OF RECORD” ACCORDING TO NEW MEXICO RECORDING AND NOTARY STATUTES AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE DEEDS INTO THE COUNTY RECORDS BY COUNTY CLERKS IS ALSO CREATING LIABILITY TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS. NEW MEXICANS ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO FUNDING CLAIMS AGAINST OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS VIA ’SELF-INSURANCE’ UNDER “NEW MEXICO COUNTIES”, OF WHICH DONA ANA COUNTY IS ALSO A MEMBER.
U.S. Const. Am. IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
N.M. Const. Art II Sec. 10. [Searches and seizures.]
The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized, nor without a written showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.