I replied with an objection to Quash the subpoenas on the Chief Justice and the Clerk of the State Supreme Court. I wasn't writing a novel, but preparing for what would be showing that "invidious discrimination" had occurred. What I was writing was that they needed constitutional integrity. And then I noticed that maybe I made an error---
After being sure of the Objection to the Expedited Motion to Quash, that the argument and brief was solid in fact, firm in directive and clear to the objectives of the complaint, I noticed that the Governor's lawyer was now arguing the case of the Chief Justice and Clerk.
It set me into a quandry. The standing and presumption of a lawyer appearing with an appearance on behalf of a client, even an office of the State, limits the appearance(s and arguments without conflict of interests or eeven the appearance of a conflict of interest. There are all sorts of rules and canons regarding such in the compilations of the State and Federal judiciaries against such conflicts.
But in this case, it was even more complicated. Prohibited, as I could recall the State constitution. Interesting point about the service upon the Justice and the Clerk is when they were served they requested we deliver them to the State's "Risk Management" office rather than the attorney General. It took us an hour longer to be responsive and cooperative to their request.
So when a response upon the objection came in the mail, attacking the reply as "proof" that the Justice and clerk weren't needed, there began a windstorm within me. I felt attacked for challenging that was the way things are and the lawyers are only to prevent the changes.
I wondered the lawyer's standing...as I had wondered who and what they were charging to stall me off, criticize my person, and avoid the fact that the interferences in the ballot process could be seen in several levels--in part because of absent safeguards which are the duty of the Governor and in part because the mechanism of New Mexico has a major schism. It does not root upon established limitations of government, but upon the expanse that it has powers.
The filing was a classic metaphor. First they breach the Article of the State Constitution ( the incorporation of the US Constitution as the highest law in the land) with transgression of Article II ( the "bill of Rights of the People " of the State) with a disregard to Article III ( the separation of powers).
I thought about it and wrote:
This day comes the Petitioners with Emergency Motion for continuance to the Expedited hearing to Quash Subpoenas served on the New Mexico Chief Justice and Clerk of the Supreme Court, and in support of which states the following:
1.An Appearance by Counsel Luis Rael has been entered for Governor Bill Richardson, and with special appearances for The Hon. Edward Chavez , Chief Justice and the Clerk of the State Supreme ( Kathleen Gibson.)
2. Article III. Distribution of Powers
[Separation of departments; establishment of workers compensation body}
The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislature, the executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitutution otherwise expressly directed or permitted. ... New Mexico State Constitution Article III.
3. Governor Bill Richardson is the chief executive officer of the State of New Mexico; Witnesses Hon. Edward L. Chavez and Kathleen Gibson, Clerk of the State Supreme Court are members of the State judiciary.
4. The Citizens Committee would require time in order to determine whether to object to the representation, and as to whether or not it "is the exercise of powers belonging to one of the departments of the State exercised in power to another of the State department" and compromised, conflicted or prohibited. The Petitioners currently have no information upon any expressly direct authorization.
5. A Continuance of the Expedited Hearing would allow time to review the questions of representation and/or conflicts and prohibitions. It could be scheduled to be heard in advance of the date of March 20, 2009, avoid a participatory effect upon prohibitions.