Michael Gallegos, Macario Gonzales, Morris Madrid,

Diane Moore, Tony Marquez, Eugene Romero,

Cruz Roybal, and Louie Trujillo, ALL in their individual, personal,

Private, and official capacities, for actions committed while

Acting as public officers and/or employees of the Machinery

Of Government of the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, and

Eric Letey and Ed Zendel, each in their individual, personal,

Private and official capacities, for actions committed

While acting as employees of the New Mexico Municipal

League, by and through the New Mexico

Self-Insurers’ Fund, and

NEW MEXICO SELF-INSURERS’ FUND, and

NEW MEXICO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, and

Fifteen Jane Does, and

Fifteen John Does,

            Defendants.                                           

COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS BY MEANS OF MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, DERELICTION OF DUTY, MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE AND

PERJURY OF OATHS BY PUBLIC OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES

            COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Margaret D. Edwards-Flynn, hereinafter: plaintiff, sui juris, party injured, a living, breathing, natural born, Sovereign American and New Mexico Citizen, with and claiming all of her inherent, unlimited, unalienable Rights, guaranteed to her in the Bills of Rights of the federal and New Mexico Constitutions, with her name properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters.  Plaintiff hereby files this Complaint against defendants for their egregious violations of the Constitutions and her Rights guaranteed therein, by all named public officer/employee defendants, hereinafter:  city defendants, whose acts were committed in perjury of their oaths, without any Constitutional authorization to do so.  Any American and New Mexico Citizen, in the instant case, plaintiff, should be able to expect that her government, its officers and employees, all of whom are in place to serve the Public, of which she is a member, will conform to and abide by Constitutional mandates.  However none of the city defendants did so, and the other defendants, named herein, upheld their unconstitutional and unlawful actions.  Thus, plaintiff hereby respectfully files this Complaint, in this Court of Record, for including, but not limited to, the charges and claims made in this Complaint and for Deprivation of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights by Means of Misrepresentation, Fraud, Negligence, Dereliction of Duty, Malfeasance of Office and Perjury of Oaths by Public Officers/Employees, for the following valid reasons, based in fact and law.

Plaintiff, who was a candidate for the city council for the March 2006 election held in Las Vegas, New Mexico, is the injured party and suffered extensive damages to her federal and state Constitutionally guaranteed Rights and statutory Rights from unlawful and unconstitutional actions of defendants. The Las Vegas city clerk, Cheryl Yara, hereinafter: Yara and the city attorney, Matthew Sandoval, hereinafter: Sandoval, by their own actions, without Constitutional authority or valid statutory authority interfered with:  (1) plaintiff’s Constitutionally guaranteed Right to run for public office; (2) the Peoples’ Constitutionally guaranteed Right to vote for their candidate, in the proper ward; (3) plaintiff’s ability to maintain office, if elected. Yara, either intentionally or by negligent mistake, provided incorrect information to plaintiff, regarding ward boundaries, which caused plaintiff to register in the wrong ward.  The City admitted to the clerk’s alleged mistake, who certified Edwards in the incorrect ward, yet, rather than timely correct its alleged mistake, the City, by and through Sandoval, without Constitutional authority, filed an action in district court to remove plaintiff from the ballot and attempted to hold plaintiff responsible and liable for the City’s alleged mistake.  The Honorable Eugenio Mathis, presiding judge for that action, found in favor of plaintiff, who was Respondent to the City’s Petition, and dismissed the City’s action.  Pursuant to Mathis’ ruling, plaintiff remained in the race, but in the same incorrect ward for which the clerk certified her.  Had plaintiff won, according to Judge Mathis, she likely would have been removed from office because of Yara’s incorrect certification.  Yara’s and the City’s actions prevented plaintiff from effectively seeking and maintaining office, which actions deprived plaintiff of her Constitutionally guaranteed Right to be a candidate for office, and, if elected, maintain that office. 

The City’s actions deprived the Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of the People of Las Vegas to vote for and elect their candidate, who, if elected, would have likely been removed from office because of the City’s alleged “mistake.”  There is no Constitutional authority for Yara’s and Sandoval’s unlawful, unconstitutional actions, conducted on behalf of the City, which actions bind the City.  Further, plaintiff was a strong Constitutional candidate with firm Constitutional views to uphold the Rights of the People, and an apparent anathema to political powers within Las Vegas, who may have had vested interests in her removal, which could account for the city’s alleged “mistake”.   

                                                                        I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

II.

PARTIES TO THE ACTION

1.                  Plaintiff, Margaret D. Edwards Flynn, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and brings this action on her own behalf.

2.                  Defendant, Cheryl Ann Yara, upon information and belief, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico, and was duly appointed as city clerk of the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, by Henry O. Sanchez, approximately 7 years ago.  Yara acted in the capacity of city clerk during all times material to this action and had the responsibility to oversee municipal election proceedings for the City of Las Vegas, which commenced in January of 2006 and ended in March of 2006.  She is sued in her personal, private, individual and official capacities.

3.                  Defendant, Mathew Sandoval, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico, was duly appointed city attorney for the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, by Henry Sanchez, approximately two (2) years ago and acted in the capacity of city attorney during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

4.                  Defendant, Henry O. Sanchez, upon information and belief, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico, and has held the office of mayor of the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

5.                  Defendant, John Avila, upon belief and information, dwells in San Miguel County, New Mexico and acted as city manager for the City of Las Vegas during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

6.                  Defendant, Chuck Griego, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as secretary to the city clerk during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

7.                  Defendant, Michael Gallegos, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 2 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

8.                  Defendant, Macario Gonzales, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 1 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

9.                  Defendant, Morris Madrid, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico, was elected city councilor for Ward 1 in March of 2006, and acted in that capacity during the time material to the allegations against him, as stated herein.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

10.              Defendant, Tony Marquez, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 3 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

11.              Defendant, Diane Moore, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and was elected city councilor for Ward 2 in March of 2006, and acted in that capacity during the time material to the allegations against her, as stated herein.  She is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

12.              Defendant, Eugene Romero, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 3 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

13.              Defendant, Cruz Roybal, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 4 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

14.              Defendant, Louie Trujillo, upon belief and information, dwells in Las Vegas, New Mexico and acted as city councilor for Ward 4 during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

15.              Defendant, Eric Letey, upon best belief and information, acted as a claims examiner for the New Mexico Municipal League, by and through the New Mexico Self-Insurers’ Fund, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, during all times material to this action.   He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

16.              Defendant, Ed Zendel, upon best belief and information, acted as risk manager for the New Mexico Municipal League, by and through the New Mexico Self-Insurers’ Fund, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, during all times material to this action.  He is sued in his personal, private, individual and official capacities.

17.              NEW MEXICO SELF-INSURERS’ FUND, on best belief and information provides insurance for the City of Las Vegas and its officers and employees.

18.              THE NEW MEXICO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, on best belief and information acts through the above described FUND.

III.

FACTS, POINTS OF LAW AND AUTHORITIES

19.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

20.              Plaintiff cites the following authorities to support her charges and claims made in this Complaint:  (1) The Constitution of the United States of America, inclusive of the Bill of Rights; (2) New Mexico Constitution, inclusive of the Bill of Rights; (3) valid case law that supports and upholds Constitutional mandates and positions; (4) statutory laws, codes, rules and regulations, in pursuance of and in compliance with the Constitutions, as herein specified. 

21.              It is an irrefutable fact that the Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of this Land, as stated in Article I, Section One of the New Mexico Constitution, to which all defendants, named herein, are required, in exchange for the Public Trust, to take oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of New Mexico, and must abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties.  These oaths are mandated by the federal Constitution in Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and by the state Constitution, in Article XX, Section One, which also requires public officers to “faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability” and by state law, specifically, NMSA 3-10-2.  In addition, public officers’ oaths also require them to uphold federal and state laws.  Pursuant to these oaths, and pursuant to Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions to the People, in the instant case, to plaintiff, government and named defendants are required: (1) to deal lawfully with plaintiff and to conduct any and all actions and procedures they perform for her or take against her in a lawful manner, in accordance with all lawful requirements; (2) abide by their oaths in their performances of their official duties and faithfully discharge their duties; (3) never defraud the Citizens, in the instant case, plaintiff, as a custom, practice and policy of that government and/or its officers and employees.  However, as plaintiff cites in this section and demonstrates throughout this Complaint, it is evident that, by the actions of named defendants, they failed to abide by these requirements and to uphold their sworn oaths.  Such actions by named defendants and those defendants who support their actions are lawless and without Constitutional authority, whatsoever, and do not conform to the standards which American and New Mexico Citizens, in the instant case, plaintiff, have a Right to expect from their government and/or its public officers and employees.

22.              It is an irrefutable fact that, pursuant to a United States Supreme Court ruling: "Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.  Further, The New Mexico Constitution, in Article II, Sec. 2, states, in part, that:  “All political power is vested in and derived from the people....” Sec. 3 states, in part, that: ... “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free sovereign and independent state....” Sec. 4 states, in part, that: “All persons … have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights....” Sec. 8 states:  “All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”  Plaintiff hereby claims and exercises all of her inherent, Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, as her personal, private Rights and her property, and further, seeks relief for deprivation of said Rights and property by city defendants and other herein named defendants.

23.              Plaintiff bases all her written and spoken charges in fact and law, in particular, in the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, in the authority of the New Mexico Constitution, and in the authority of the applicable, Constitutionally compliant New Mexico statutes governing municipal employees, state employees and elections.  Further, plaintiff invokes NMSA 3-18-1. General powers; body politic and corporate powers, under the following paragraphs:(1972)

“A municipality is a body politic and corporate under the name and form of government selected by its qualified electors. A municipality may:

A.          sue or be sued; and …

F.           protect generally the property of its municipality and its   inhabitants;”

IV.

FACTS MATERIAL TO THIS CASE AND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

24.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

25.              The actions of Cheryl Ann Yara, who, pursuant to her unconstitutional actions against plaintiff, unlawfully holds office as city clerk for Las Vegas, New Mexico, hereinafter:  Yara, bind the City of Las Vegas.

26.              Yara, pursuant to her oath, is required to abide by that oath and faithfully discharge the duties of her office, uphold the Constitutions and Rights guaranteed therein, and to never act in contradiction to these requirements.  Yara has no Constitutional authority or valid statutory authority to perjure and violate her oath, to oppose the Constitutions or any Rights guaranteed therein to the People, in the instant case, to plaintiff.  Yet, despite these requirements, plaintiff demonstrates throughout this Complaint, that Yara, by her own actions, with regard to plaintiff, defrauded plaintiff of her Rights, perpetrated fraud, put fraud upon the court, has consistently denied the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed her office and the Public Trust, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, obstructed justice, acted in violation of due process of law, and perjured her oath, in what appears to be her normal custom, practice and policy, with regard to plaintiff.

27.              Plaintiff chose to be a candidate for city council in the municipal election of March 2006.  Plaintiff went to the Las Vegas City Hall, on two separate occasions, one with a witness, to speak with city clerk, Yara, for the specific purpose of obtaining valid and correct information from Yara, regarding the proper ward for plaintiff’s address of 739 Dalbey Drive, Las Vegas, New Mexico.  On both occasions, Yara gave plaintiff false, incorrect information, when she stated that plaintiff’s address is located in Ward Two, and Yara subsequently incorrectly certified plaintiff as a candidate for city council in Ward Two, to which alleged mistake the City of Las Vegas admitted, in writing.  Yara’s actions caused irreparable harm to plaintiff and created irreversible and irrevocable impediments by which plaintiff would never be able to hold office, even if she were to be elected by the People.  Yara’s actions usurped and presupposed the vote of the People and denied that vote for their chosen candidate.  Yara has no Constitutional or valid statutory authority for her actions and for the damages her actions caused to plaintiff and the People of Las Vegas.

28.              Plaintiff had deliberately consulted with Yara, since, as city clerk, Yara is required to have knowledge of the various districts and wards within the City of Las Vegas, including specifics about the demarcations of ward boundaries.   Plaintiff sought clarification from Yara under the reasonable expectation that information conveyed to her by Yara would be true, accurate and correct. 

29.              Catherine Montano, hereinafter:  Montano, was present during plaintiff’s second visit to Yara, and witnessed Yara state to both plaintiff and to Montano that plaintiff’s address is located in Ward Two.  Montano objected and disagreed with Yara’s statement, and reminded her that Arthur “Castro” Vigil, a councilor for Ward One, was plaintiff’s councilor, so plaintiff’s address should be in Ward One.  Montano then asked Yara to verify in which ward plaintiff’s address is located, by consulting the large city map, which defines ward boundaries.  Yara refused to consult the large map, stated that it was her job to know which addresses were in which wards, insisted that she had given plaintiff the correct information, and then reaffirmed her statement that plaintiff’s address is located in Ward Two. 

30.              On January 10^th, 2006, at approximately 3:00 pm, plaintiff went to the city clerk’s office to submit her declaration of candidacy in Ward Two.  Yara told plaintiff she lacked a certified copy of her voter registration form.  Plaintiff obtained the form from the San Miguel County Clerk and returned to file her declaration of candidacy in Ward Two with Yara at approximately 3:30 pm.  The following day, January 11^th, 2006, Yara, acting as city clerk, along with the clerk of San Miguel County, certified all candidates running for elective office, including incorrectly certifying plaintiff as a candidate in Ward Two.  Subsequently, plaintiff appeared at numerous candidate forums throughout the city, as a candidate for city council in Ward Two, with no protests lodged from any of the other candidates or city defendants.

31.              At approximately 4:45 pm on the afternoon of Wednesday, February 8^th, 2006, plaintiff was served a Petition for Declaratory Judgment against her, filed by Sandoval, acting as city attorney, on behalf of the City of Las Vegas, alleging plaintiff had declared her candidacy in the wrong ward.  The City admitted in its Petition that the City had “mistakenly” certified plaintiff as a valid candidate, but attempted to penalize plaintiff for the City’s alleged “error”, by having the Court remove her from the ballot, thus, compounding the injury done to plaintiff by means of Yara’s false information.  Plaintiff had less than 48 hours to appear at a hearing scheduled on February 10^th, 2006, which is a blatant violation of due process of law.

32.              On February 9^th, 2006, plaintiff filed a Response Brief to the City’s petition in which she stated that she had declared her candidacy in Ward Two only because of the information conveyed to her by defendant Yara, acting as city clerk.  Plaintiff further defended her Right to remain as a candidate for city council, since it was Yara, who had given her false information about her proper ward, and then, subsequently, had incorrectly certified plaintiff to run as a candidate for Ward Two. 

33.              During the petition hearing, defendant Yara, under cross examination by plaintiff, falsely denied, under oath, that she had told plaintiff she lived in Ward Two, on two separate occasions, and also denied that Montano was present in Yara’s office on the second occasion and that Yara had also told Montano that plaintiff lives in Ward Two.  Montano appeared as a witness for plaintiff, and under oath, truthfully and accurately testified to witnessing Yara tell plaintiff that she lives in Ward Two.  Attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit A, is an affidavit by Montano, so attesting.  Montano further testified that, despite statements to Yara by both plaintiff and Montano, that plaintiff should be classified in Ward One, because her current city councilor represents Ward One, Yara insisted that plaintiff lived in Ward Two and refused to consult the large map showing ward boundaries to clarify, with certainty, plaintiff’s proper ward. 

34.              On redirect, Sandoval recalled Yara to the witness stand whereupon she again denied that she told plaintiff she lived in Ward Two and also denied she had ever spoken to plaintiff regarding this election, which, is absolutely false and clearly upset plaintiff.  Judge Mathis then stated that although he knew plaintiff was upset by the situation, he would be the one to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Plaintiff had included a map in her Response Brief, showing the various wards, which the city included in the candidates’ packets, as one of the Exhibits attached to her Response.  Judge Mathis questioned Yara regarding this map, stating that it was impossible to tell from looking at this map, and asked where the map showed the ward boundary on Dalbey Drive between Ward One and Ward Two.  Yara explained to the judge that Dalbey Drive was a split ward, with houses on the north side of the street being in Ward Two and those on the south side, being in Ward One.  Plaintiff’s lives on the south side, thus, her address is located in Ward One.  Mathis asked Yara how a candidate would know, from looking at this map, whether he was in Ward One or Ward Two.  Yara replied that a candidate would not know, to which Mathis stated:  “Who would know?”  Yara answered that she would know.  This is a critical statement made by Yara under oath and proves the complete veracity of plaintiff’s statements and charges against Yara.  Since Yara knew and admitted, in the petition hearing, that she knew the proper boundaries on Dalbey Drive between Ward One and Ward Two, it is obvious that Yara supplied incorrect information to plaintiff, and, although Yara knew the correct ward delineation, Yara knowingly and with intent, by her own actions, incorrectly certified plaintiff in the wrong ward.

35.              Yara’s answer that she would know the difference between Ward One and Ward Two boundaries confirmed plaintiff’s contentions, made in her Response and in open court, and as reaffirmed, herein, that she had a reasonable expectation of receiving valid, correct and true information from Yara regarding which ward she lives in.  Judge Mathis refused to remove plaintiff from the ballot and thereby penalize plaintiff for an alleged mistake made by the City, and further, stated that it was against the law for Yara to have certified a candidate in a ward in which she does not live.  In addition, the judge chided the City about the way they handled the matter, stating that the City had waited until the last minute, when the ballots were already printed, eliminating any possibility of changing them to reflect plaintiff’s correct ward, before bringing up the matter.  Judge Mathis stated plaintiff would remain a candidate in Ward Two, adding that if plaintiff should win the election, then, she would most likely be removed because of Yara’s incorrect certification.  Thus, Yara’s and the City’s actions, whereby she, on behalf of the City, gave false information to plaintiff about her proper ward and then certified plaintiff in that wrong ward, effectively ruined any chance for plaintiff to win the election and to maintain office, had she won.  Judge Mathis ruled in favor of plaintiff, stating that he was denying the City’s petition for declaratory judgment to remove plaintiff from the ballot and adjourned the court.  A copy of Judge Mathis’ Order denying the City’s petition is attached hereto, made part hereof, and marked Exhibit B.

36.              Defendant Yara, who stated in open court that she knows the whereabouts of the boundary between Wards One and Two on Dalbey Drive, gave false information to plaintiff concerning plaintiff’s correct ward and, in so doing, violated including, but not limited to, sections of NMSA 3-8-1, which may also be cited as the “Municipal Election Code”, in particular, the following paragraphs, which read, to wit;

B.   It is the purpose of the Municipal Election Code to… :

(2) secure the purity and integrity of elections;

(3) guard against the abuse of the elective franchise; and

(4) provide for the efficient administration and conduct of elections.

37.              Further, Yara’s actions in certifying plaintiff in the wrong ward also violated NMSA 3-8-27. Regular municipal election; declaration of candidacy, specifically, paragraph G, which states, in part: 

“Not later than the fifty-fifth day preceding the day of the election, the municipal clerk shall determine whether the declaration of candidacy shall be certified. In order to be certified as a candidate, the documents submitted to the municipal clerk shall prove that the individual is a qualified elector as defined in Subsection K of Section 3-1-2 NMSA 1978 and, if appropriate, that the individual resides in and is registered to vote in the municipal election district from which the individual seeks election.”…

38.              Still further, Yara’s actions violated sections of NMSA 3-8-79 Conspiracy; violation by municipal clerk; penalty, specifically, the following paragraphs which state, to wit:

A.      Conspiracy to violate the Municipal Election Code [Chapter 3,       Articles 8 and 9 NMSA 1978] consists of two or more persons knowingly combining, uniting or agreeing to cause or attempt to cause the omission or commission of any duty or act that violates the provisions of the Municipal Election Code. 

D.   Violation of the Municipal Election Code consists of the willful violation of the Municipal Election Code or the willful failure or refusal to perform any act or duty required by the Municipal Election Code.

E.      A member of the municipal governing body, a municipal official or employee, or municipal clerk, deputy or assistant who willfully violates the Municipal Election Code is guilty of a fourth degree felony and, in addition, such violation is sufficient cause for removal from office in a proceeding instituted for that purpose as provided by law.

Yara also violated NMSA 1-20-15, Conspiracy to violate Election Code.

39.              Yara’s actions, in violation of New Mexico law, and conducted in fraud, deprived and defrauded plaintiff of Rights guaranteed to her in the federal and state Constitutions, under which she is entitled to participate in a fair election and not to be defrauded of those Rights by being given false, incorrect information from the city clerk, who as a public officer, duty bound under her oath of office to uphold both Constitutions, plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, and the laws of the state, had the responsibility, pursuant to her oath, to abide by that oath and faithfully perform the duties of her office to the best of her ability, which she failed to do.  The fact that Yara admitted, under oath, to Judge Mathis in open court that she knows where the boundary between Wards One and Two on Dalbey Drive lies, indicates that Yara likely did not convey false information to plaintiff “mistakenly”, but rather, may have done so deliberately to prevent plaintiff from attaining the office of city councilor, possibly because plaintiff is an avid Constitutionalist, whose views and positions in support of the People have been well established, publicly, and who may possibly have been seen as a potential threat to the city’s customary practices of “politics as usual”. 

40.              However, regardless of why or how Yara conveyed the false information to plaintiff, whether through negligence, dereliction of duty, malfeasance of office or deliberate fraud, it is clear that Yara’s actions irreparably damaged plaintiff’s campaign for city council, leaving plaintiff, literally, in a no-win situation since: 

a.      As a candidate forced to run in Ward Two, rather than in her proper Ward One, plaintiff had little or no chance to be elected to office, or to maintain office, if elected, which was confirmed by statements of Judge Mathis in which he stated that plaintiff would most likely be removed, if she won office, because of the incorrect certification by the city clerk

b.      Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to run for office in her proper ward, and have a fair chance to be elected and remain in office.  Also, the fact that there were five other candidates running in Ward One, combined with plaintiff’s support in Ward One, would have increased plaintiff’s chances of achieving the plurality of votes needed to win the election. 

41.              Yara’s actions deprived the Citizens of Las Vegas of their guaranteed Right to vote for plaintiff as a viable Constitutional candidate, running in the proper ward, who, if elected, would have upheld the Rights of the People, pursuant to the Constitutions of this nation and state and the laws in pursuance thereof.

42.              Despite the fact that Yara knew the ward boundaries and still knowingly certified plaintiff in the wrong ward, pursuant to her oath, Yara actively participated with Sandoval, who was well aware of and admitted the alleged “mistake”, as his key witness against plaintiff, in the City’s petition to remove plaintiff from the race, which is deliberate fraud against an innocent party, and deliberate fraud upon the court. 

43.              By her own actions, in addition to her other unlawful actions described above, Yara perjured and violated her oath, and violated Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8 and 18, and Article VII, Section 2, of the New Mexico Constitution, as well as NMSA 3-10-2.  By Yara’s actions, with regard to plaintiff, she defrauded plaintiff of her Rights, perpetrated fraud, put fraud upon the court, acted in violation of due process of law, has consistently denied the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed her office and the Public Trust, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, and obstructed justice, in what appears to be her normal custom, practice and policy, with regard to plaintiff. 

44.              By her own actions, Yara invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution, vacated her office and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salary and pension. 

45.              After the Honorable Eugenio Mathis dismissed the City’s case, plaintiff sent Yara a letter, dated May 5^th, 2006 and an affidavit, dated July 19^th, 2006 informing Yara of her and the City’s wrongful actions committed against plaintiff.  These communications contained lawful notification that required Yara to rebut plaintiff’s charges, if she disagreed.  Yara failed to rebut anything, including plaintiff’s affidavit.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon Yara. 

V.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

46.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

47.              The following factual events describe the actions of Sandoval, who, acting as city attorney, in this matter, binds the City by his actions.  Sandoval, pursuant to his oath, and without any Constitutional or valid statutory authority for his actions, knowingly, with intent and purpose, committed actions, as described herein, in violation of his oath, the Constitutions, and Constitutional and statutory Rights guaranteed to plaintiff.  Sandoval, by his own actions, with regard to plaintiff, defrauded plaintiff of her Rights, perpetrated fraud, put fraud upon the court, acted in violation of due process of law, has consistently denied the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed his office and the Public Trust, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, obstructed justice, and perjured his oath, in what appears to be his normal custom, practice and policy, with regard to plaintiff. 

48.              Pursuant to his oath, Sandoval, knowingly and with intent, on behalf of the City of Las Vegas, took court action against plaintiff to remove her from the ballot, when he knew that it was Yara who had incorrectly certified plaintiff in the wrong ward and that Yara knew the difference between ward boundaries on Dalbey Drive.  Sandoval’s actions were not conducted pursuant to his oath and to his requirement to uphold the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, and he completely failed to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, when he held plaintiff responsible and liable for the unlawful and unconstitutional actions of Yara and the City, by filing a court action to remove plaintiff from the ballot.  Sandoval conducted these actions in fraud, when he could have easily contacted plaintiff, directly, apprised her of the situation and attempted to fairly resolve it without resorting to legal action.  This legal action, intended to hold plaintiff liable for alleged “mistakes” committed by Yara, acting for the City, was knowingly and fraudulently undertaken by Sandoval and the City, put fraud upon the court and inflicted damages upon plaintiff and her good name.

49.              Sandoval admitted and stipulated in his Petition for Declaratory Judgment against plaintiff that the City made a “mistake” by certifying plaintiff in the wrong ward.

50.              Since both Sandoval and Yara knew that Yara and the City had committed the alleged “mistake”, it is likely that they conspired to shield Yara and the City from any responsibility and liability for her wrongful actions, and further, conspired to assess the blame for Yara’s and the City’s wrongful actions upon plaintiff, who was the victim of those actions and the innocent party. 

51.              Sandoval, pursuant to his oath, by his own unlawful actions:  (1) perjured and violated his oath, pursuant to Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the federal Constitution and to Article XX, Section One, of the New Mexico Constitution, and NMSA 3-10-2; (2) violated NMSA 36-2-10 and 36-2-17, and Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 16-804; violated New Mexico Constitution Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, and 18 and Article VII, Section 2.  Further, he violated due process of law, as guaranteed in both Constitutions, acted in obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty and malfeasance of office.  By his own actions, he invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution, vacated his office and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salary and pension.  Sandoval’s unlawful actions, pursuant to his oath, irreparably damaged plaintiff, as described herein. 

52.              After the Honorable Eugenio Mathis dismissed the City’s case, plaintiff sent Sandoval a letter, dated May 8^th, 2006 and an affidavit, dated July 19^th, 2006, informing him of Yara’s, his and the City’s wrongful actions committed against plaintiff.  These communications contained lawful notification that required Sandoval to rebut plaintiff’s charges, if he disagreed.  Sandoval failed to rebut anything, including plaintiff’s affidavit.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon Sandoval. 

VI.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

53.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

54.              Henry O. Sanchez, acting as mayor of Las Vegas, hereinafter:  Sanchez, on best belief and knowledge, appointed both defendant Yara and defendant Sandoval to their respective positions.  As stated above in the first and second causes of action, Yara’s and Sandoval’s unconstitutional and unlawful actions, are specified herein.  After the Honorable Eugenio Mathis dismissed the City’s case, plaintiff notified Sanchez, via a letter, dated May 8^th, 2006, and by affidavit, dated July19th, 2006, of this fact and of the wrongful actions committed against her by Yara and Sandoval.  Those written communications contained lawful notification that if Sanchez failed to rebut in writing, to plaintiff, any of the charges made in plaintiff’s written communications to him, then, Sanchez admits to all of plaintiff’s charges, contained therein, fully binding upon him in any court, without his protest, objection or that of those who represent him.  Sanchez has taken an oath and is required to abide by that oath in the performance of his official duties and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office.  Plaintiff reported in detail the unlawful actions of both Yara and Sandoval, with the reasonable expectation that Sanchez would abide by his oath, exercise his authority, as mayor, investigate plaintiff’s charges, and take disciplinary actions against Yara and Sandoval for their criminal acts against plaintiff.  However, Sanchez not only took no action to investigate and correct the situation, but also never responded to plaintiff’s letter and affidavit.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon Sanchez. 

55.              Since Sanchez appointed both Yara and Sandoval to their positions, is closely involved with them on a daily basis, and since Sanchez acts as the mayor and chief executive officer of the City, with oversight of all actions taken and contemplated by the City, it is highly likely that, given the close relationship among these defendants, Sanchez was fully apprised of the details regarding this matter, Yara’s so-called “mistake”, and the unlawful, unconstitutional actions undertaken by Sandoval to persecute plaintiff in court.   Thus, by the close nature of their relationship and the reputed loyalty, which exists among them, it is logical that Sanchez was fully aware, discussed and participated in this apparent unlawful conspiracy to shield Yara and the City from Yara’s alleged “errors” and to lay blame upon plaintiff.  Given the fact that the City admitted to the alleged “mistake”, yet made no effort to contact plaintiff to effectuate a quick, fair resolution of this situation, by which plaintiff was victimized and which was not of plaintiff’s making, and instead, took court action against plaintiff for the City’s alleged “mistake”, it is likely that these defendants, pursuant to their oaths, initiated the wrongful court action against plaintiff to deliberately harm her and her campaign, which would constitute collusion and conspiracy among Sanchez, Sandoval and Yara to defraud plaintiff of her Rights and the People of the City of Las Vegas, had plaintiff won, of a Constitutional city councilor.  There is no Constitutional or valid statutory authority for such deceptive actions committed by public officers who theoretically represent the People. 

56.              Pursuant to his oath, Sanchez is required to faithfully discharge his duties, and as mayor, he is required to be intricately involved in all actions undertaken by the City.  Thus, by his own unlawful actions and his silence after receiving plaintiff’s lawful notifications, it seems likely that Sanchez was involved in any conspiracy, by and between Yara and Sandoval, to protect Yara and the City and to harm plaintiff.   Sanchez, pursuant to his oath:  (1) perjured and violated his oath, pursuant to Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the federal Constitution and to Article XX, Section One, of the New Mexico Constitution, and NMSA 3-10-2; (2) violated New Mexico Constitution Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, and 18 and Article VII, Section 2.  Further, he violated due process of law, as guaranteed in both Constitutions, acted in obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty and malfeasance of office.  Still further, Sanchez’s actions violated the following New Mexico statutes:  NMSA 3-11-4 (A) & (C), and NMSA 3-11-6 (A) (1) (2) & (3) and (D)(1)(2) & (3); NMSA 10-4-1 and 10-4-2 (B)(D) & (F) and most likely violated NMSA 1-20-15 and 3-8-79.  Sanchez, by his own actions, with regard to plaintiff, has consistently denied the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed his office and the Public Trust, defrauded plaintiff of her Rights and perpetrated fraud against her, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, obstructed justice, and perjured his oath, in what appears to be his normal custom, practice and policy, with regard to plaintiff.

57.              By his own actions, Sanchez invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution, vacated his office and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salary and pension.  Sanchez’s unlawful actions, pursuant to his oath, irreparably damaged plaintiff, as described herein.

VII.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

58.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

59.              The following parties are employees of the City of Las Vegas, namely, John Avila, acting as city manager, hereinafter:  Avila, and Chuck Griego, acting as secretary to Yara, and communications officer for the City, hereinafter:  Griego.  After the Citiy’s case against plaintiff was dismissed, plaintiff notified Avila and Griego, in writing, of the above-stated facts and of the wrongful actions committed against her by Yara and Sandoval, by individual letters, dated May 8^th, 2006, and by individual affidavits, dated July 19^th, 2006.  Those written communications contained lawful notification that if Avila and Griego failed to rebut any of the charges made in plaintiff’s written communication, in writing, to plaintiff, then, they admit to all of plaintiff’s charges, contained therein, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them.  Avila and Griego are required to take an oath and to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties and to faithfully discharge the duties of their office.  Plaintiff reported in detail the unlawful actions of both Yara and Sandoval, with the reasonable expectation that they would abide by their oaths, investigate plaintiff’s charges, report them, act to correct them, and urge the proper supervisory authorities to take disciplinary actions against Yara and Sandoval for their criminal acts against plaintiff.  However, Avila and Griego not only took no action to investigate the situation, but also never responded to plaintiff’s letters and affidavits.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon each of these defendants. 

60.              Avila and Griego, pursuant to their oaths:  (1) perjured and violated their oaths, pursuant to Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the federal Constitution and to Article XX, Section One, of the New Mexico Constitution, and NMSA 3-10-2; (2) violated New Mexico Constitution Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, and 18 and upheld violations of Article VII, Section 2.  Further, by their own actions, with regard to plaintiff, Avila and Griego upheld violations of due process of law, as guaranteed in both Constitutions, upheld the defrauding of plaintiff’s Rights, upheld perpetration of fraud, upheld putting fraud upon the court, and upheld the consistent denial of the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed their offices and the Public Trust, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, upheld the obstruction of justice, and perjured their oaths, in what appears to be their normal customs, practices and policies, with regard to plaintiff. 

61.              By their own actions, they invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution, vacated their offices and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salaries and pensions.  Their unlawful actions, pursuant to their oaths, irreparably damaged plaintiff, as described herein.

VIII.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

62.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

63.              The following defendants, act as Las Vegas city councilors, namely, Michael Gallegos, Macario Gonzales, Morris Madrid, Diane Moore, Tony Marquez, Eugene Romero, Cruz Roybal, and Louie Trujillo, hereinafter:  councilors.  After the City’s case against plaintiff was dismissed, plaintiff notified councilors, in writing, of the above-stated facts and of the wrongful actions committed against her by Yara and Sandoval.  Councilors are required to take an oath and to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties and to faithfully discharge the duties of their office.  Plaintiff sent three separate written communications to each councilor, in the form of a letter and an email, both dated July 11^th, 2006 and sent individual affidavits to each councilor dated September 20^th, 2006. Those written communications contained lawful notification that, if the councilors failed to rebut, in writing, to plaintiff, any of the charges made in plaintiff’s written communications, then, they admit to all of plaintiff’s charges, contained therein, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them.  Plaintiff reported in detail the unlawful actions of both Yara and Sandoval, with the reasonable expectation that the councilors would abide by their oaths, specifically, in reference to Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, and thereby investigate plaintiff’s charges, and urge the mayor to take any and all proper, applicable disciplinary actions against Yara and Sandoval for their criminal acts against plaintiff.  However, councilors not only took no action to investigate and/or remedy the situation, but also never responded to plaintiff’s letters, email and affidavit.  An un-re-butted affidavit stands as truth before the court.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon each of the city councilor defendants. 

64.              Each and every councilor, pursuant to their oaths:  (1) perjured and violated their oaths, pursuant to Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the federal Constitution and to Article XX, Section One, of the New Mexico Constitution, and NMSA 3-10-2; (2) violated New Mexico Constitution Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, and 18 and upheld violations of Article VII, Section 2.  Further, by their own actions, the councilors, with regard to plaintiff, upheld violations of due process of law, as guaranteed in both Constitutions, upheld the defrauding of plaintiff’s Rights, upheld perpetration of fraud, upheld putting fraud upon the court, and upheld the consistent denial of the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed their offices and the Public Trust, acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, upheld the obstruction of justice, and perjured their oaths, in what appears to be their normal customs, practices and policies, with regard to plaintiff. 

65.              By their own actions, all councilors invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution, vacated their offices and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salaries and pensions.  Their unlawful actions, pursuant to their oaths, irreparably damaged plaintiff, as described herein.

IX.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

66.              Plaintiff fully incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint, by reference, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

67.              The Constitutions guarantee to the People their inherent Rights, in the instant case, plaintiff’s Rights, and also impose Constitutional mandates upon government officers and employees, in the instant case, city defendants.  Whenever Constitutional violations exist, Constitutional remedies also exist.  Plaintiff attempted to exercise a Constitutional remedy by notifying all city defendants, via written communications to each of them, including affidavits, as stated herein, informing them of wrongful actions committed against her, which caused her irreparable harm and deprived the good People of Las Vegas of the possibility of Constitutional representation.  All city defendants failed to respond to or rebut any of plaintiff’s charges, averments, allegations and statements made in those communications; therefore, pursuant to the lawful notification contained in those communications, all city defendants, on behalf of the City of Las Vegas, admitted to all of plaintiff’s charges. 

68.              Plaintiff is an avowed Constitutionalist and is shocked beyond measure that not one of these so-called public servants, responded to her communications in her rightful effort to redress her legitimate grievances to her city government.  Obviously, by the actions and/or inactions of all city defendants, there was and is the appearance of a conspiracy of silence, in regard to plaintiff’s notifications of wrongdoing to them.  This appearance is supported by the fact that defendant Sanchez told Catherine Montano that Sandoval, acting as city attorney, told him and other city defendants to ignore plaintiff’s letters and affidavits.  Their failure to respond to plaintiff, combined with the fact that Sandoval made this statement, indicates that he, Sanchez and likely other city defendants participated in this conspiracy of silence, by which they failed to respond to, investigate and correct or rebut plaintiff’s grievances, but, instead, ignored them.  Pursuant to oaths taken, mandates thereunder and the principles stated in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, city defendants were required to act in, including, but not limited to, Truth, Honor, Justice, good faith and for the Good the People, in the instant case, plaintiff, and not fail to respond to a Citizen, in the instant case, plaintiff, who, in good faith, sought their aid to resolve a legitimate grievance.  Further, the referenced Constitutional principles do not uphold or permit city defendants to maintain a conspiracy of silence, deception, stealth, fraud and opposition to the Constitutions and Rights guaranteed therein, all of which contradict the Constitutions and their sworn oaths thereto.  City and other defendants, by their actions, violated the principles of Article IV, Section 25 of the New Mexico Constitution, which holds that “no law shall be enacted legalizing the authorized or invalid act of any officer”.  Thus, the unlawful acts of city defendants cannot lawfully be upheld by city defendants and any public officer, pursuant to their oaths, and to do so would be to aid, abet, support and condone those acts, which is perjury of oath and invokes the previously referenced Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution. 

69.              The numerous communications sent to all defendants by plaintiff, which, included affidavits, contained plaintiff’s numerous statements, charges, claims and allegations against defendants, all of which are supported in fact and law.  As above stated, none of the city defendants responded to or rebutted any of these communications, including the affidavits.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court; therefore, city defendants do not and have not disputed plaintiff’s facts presented to them.  Thus, these undisputed facts are herein entered into the public record, and cannot lawfully be challenged by city defendants.  The referenced affidavits are recorded on the public record with the San Miguel County Clerk and plaintiff hereby invokes New Mexico Rules of Evidence 11-201 and 11-902.   Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, within this Complaint, all of her referenced letters, emails and affidavits, to city defendants, as if fully set forth herein this Complaint.   

70.              It seems logical to state that, by the mark of the reasonable man, the City defendants, by their own actions and inactions, as described within this Complaint, deal in insurrection and sedition, to the People and to the Constitutions, and routinely ignore and disparage the Constitutions and Rights guaranteed therein to the People, in the instant case, to plaintiff.  Article IV, Section 4, of the federal Constitution guarantees to the People in each state a republican form of government.  It is obvious, by their failure to act upon plaintiff’s lawful notifications, that city defendants have no concept of Constitutional mandates, performing duties pursuant to their oaths, and any semblance of an idea of a republican form of government.  This type of tyranny is anathema to the principles of the federal Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the founding documents of this Nation.  By the collective failure of each and every Las Vegas city defendant to respond to and take action upon notification by a Citizen of this city, in the instant case, plaintiff, regarding crimes committed against her, by other city defendants, which crimes irreparably damaged her Rights, her political campaign and her reputation, the City of Las Vegas, by and through these defendants, demonstrates an utter failure to abide by the principles and mandates of the federal and state Constitutions, as the City’s unwritten, but usual, custom, practice and policy, which custom, practice and policy irreparably damaged plaintiff and effectively sabotaged her Constitutional candidacy and eliminated the possibility of a Constitutional city councilor representing the Citizens of Las Vegas.

71.              The Constitutions and laws in pursuance thereof allow no exemptions for errant, unconstitutional, unlawful actions by city officers, who are required to abide by all Constitutional requirements and all laws imposed upon each of each and every one of them and, who, therefore, are not exempt from abiding by all such requirements, nor exempt from their actions, nor can they be lawfully exonerated or held harmless for their wrongful actions against plaintiff and the consequences thereof.

X.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

72.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

73.              Plaintiff received a letter, dated June 9^th, 2006, from Eric Letey, hereinafter:  Letey, a claims examiner for the New Mexico Municipal League, by and through the New Mexico Self Insurers’ Fund, hereinafter: THE FUND.  Plaintiff had not contacted the FUND, in any manner, whatsoever, regarding this matter, therefore, there was no reason for THE FUND to have contacted plaintiff.  However, because of THE FUND’s contact with plaintiff and because the FUND apparently insures the City and/or its officers and employees, it is entirely possible that one or more of the city defendants contacted the FUND with the intention to conspire with the FUND to defraud plaintiff, which, by their own actions, as herein stated, seems to be the customs, practices and policies of city defendants  

74.              Letey’s actions, and written statements, sent to plaintiff on behalf of THE FUND, bind THE FUND.  Plaintiff responded to Letey’s letter on June 19^th, 2006 and sent a copy of her letter to Letey’s superior, Risk Manager, Ed Zendel, hereinafter:  Zendel, to apprise him of Letey’s false statements and claims contained in Letey’s referenced letter of June 9^th, and to join Zendel in the communications.

75.              Letey’s letter claimed that THE FUND had reviewed plaintiff’s charges, apparently conveyed to Letey by one or more of the city defendants, since plaintiff had not sent any letter to THE FUND regarding the wrongful actions of the city defendants.  Letey claimed he found no conspiracy or intentional acts that violated plaintiff’s “civil rights”, and stated he “denied her claim”.  Since, as stated above, plaintiff never wrote to THE FUND to make any claim, whatsoever, Letey and THE FUND blatantly lied to plaintiff.  His letter, sent on behalf of THE FUND, was entirely fraudulent, and apparently was sent to deceive, defraud and intimidate plaintiff. 

76.              THE FUND claims it reviewed the situation, but never contacted plaintiff, by telephone or letter to discuss any aspect of the events she reported to and about city defendants, nor did THE FUND interview plaintiff when it allegedly conducted its claimed review, as any LEGITIMATE REVIEW of such a serious situation would require, which casts serious doubt upon the veracity of THE FUND’s claim of an alleged review. 

77.              Further, THE FUND’s claim regarding conspiracy and intentional acts which damaged plaintiff’s “civil rights” is another fraud, since plaintiff made no mention of “civil rights” in her communications to city defendants, and never claimed any damages to “civil rights”, but definitely stated in those communications to city defendants that her Constitutionally guaranteed Rights had been damaged by city defendants, and she supplied ample facts to support her charges and claims.  Letey again misrepresented, and apparently does not know the difference between civil rights and Constitutional Rights.

78.              Since Letey and THE FUND were not direct witnesses to any of the actions reported to the city defendants by plaintiff, Letey and THE FUND have no first hand knowledge of what took place between plaintiff and city defendants and their statements were apparently based only on the hearsay of city defendants, who have a clear and vested interest in obstructing justice by covering up the truth about their wrongful actions committed against plaintiff and by interfering with her rightful attempts to obtain relief for the damages their actions caused her to sustain.

79.              THE FUND apparently has a client relationship with the City of Las Vegas, its city officers and employees, therefore, it seems reasonable that THE FUND has a direct financial interest in shielding the City, the city defendants, and itself, from any responsibility and liability for the city defendants’ wrongful actions against plaintiff.  Thus, it is logical that THE FUND may have colluded and conspired with city defendants to attempt to deceive plaintiff into believing she has no claim, with the intention of defrauding plaintiff of her Rights, including, but not limited to, her Right to due process of law, and her Right to be compensated for damages she incurred, by and through the unconstitutional and unlawful actions of city defendants.  The false, unfounded, unjustified and unsupported statements made in Letey’s letter to plaintiff, on behalf of THE FUND, likely were intended to intimidate plaintiff into silence and to discourage her from pursuing legal actions against the City and city defendants who harmed her by their unlawful actions.

80.              Still further, it would appear that the statements of Letey, on behalf of      THE FUND, demonstrate his ignorance of the Constitutions and Rights guaranteed therein, or he would likely have recognized the blatant Constitutional violations and injuries committed by defendants upon plaintiff.  With no first hand knowledge of this matter, nor any attempt made to ascertain the truthfulness of plaintiff’s charges, Letey resorted to and apparently relied upon his opinion, which is unsupported, by fact and law, thus, frivolous, and not even worthy of any serious consideration.  Letey’s blatant misrepresentations and fraudulent statements impeach his credibility and that of THE FUND.       

81.              Plaintiff sent three separate communications to Letey, one on June 19^th, 2006 and two on July 4^th, 2006, with copies of each sent to Zendel, all of which contained lawful notification, that if the recipients failed to rebut, in writing, to plaintiff, any of the charges made in plaintiff’s written communications to them, then, they admit to all of plaintiff’s charges, contained therein, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them.  These were followed up by an affidavit, sent to Letey, Zendel and THE FUND, dated September 20^th, 2006.  Letey sent plaintiff one response, to her first communication to him, which failed to rebut, with particularity, any of her statements, charges and averments, thus, he admits to them, pursuant to the lawful notification.  Zendel and THE FUND failed to respond to or rebut any of plaintiff’s communications, thus, admit to all charges and statements made therein.  Plaintiff invokes estoppel by acquiescence upon Letey, Zendel and THE FUND.  None of these defendants rebutted plaintiff’s affidavit.  An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth before the court; therefore, Letey, Zendel and THE FUND do not and have not disputed plaintiff’s facts presented to them.  Thus, these undisputed facts are herein entered into the public record, and cannot lawfully be challenged by these defendants.  The referenced affidavits are recorded on the public record with the San Miguel County Clerk and plaintiff hereby invokes New Mexico Rules of Evidence 11-201 and 11-902 with regard to the referenced affidavits.  Plaintiff further fully incorporates, by reference, within this Complaint, all of her referenced letters, emails and affidavits, to these defendants, as if fully set forth herein this Complaint. 

82.              As state employees, Letey and Zendel, are required to take oaths to uphold and support the Constitutions and must abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties.  By their actions, pursuant to their oaths, Letey and Zendel:  (1) perjured and violated their oaths, pursuant to Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the federal Constitution and to Article XX, Section One, of the New Mexico Constitution; (2) violated New Mexico Constitution Article II, Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, and 18 and upheld violations of Article VII, Section 2.  Further, by their own actions, with regard to plaintiff, Letey and Zendel upheld violations of due process of law, as guaranteed in both Constitutions, upheld the defrauding of plaintiff’s Rights, upheld perpetration of fraud, upheld putting fraud upon the court, and upheld the consistent denial of the Constitutions and plaintiff’s Rights guaranteed therein, betrayed their offices and the Public Trust, including, but not limited to, their violation of NMSA 10-16-3 (A) & (B), acted in negligence of office, in dereliction of duty, in malfeasance of office, upheld obstruction of justice, and perjured their oaths, and apparently conspired with others to deceive and defraud plaintiff.  There is no Constitutional or valid statutory authority for their actions.

83.              Letey and Zendel and THE FUND, by their actions and inactions, violated the principles of Article IV, Section 25 of the New Mexico Constitution, which holds that “no law shall be enacted legalizing the authorized or invalid act of any officer”.  Thus, the unlawful acts of city defendants cannot lawfully be upheld by any state employee, pursuant to his oath, and to do so would be to aid, abet, support and condone those acts, which is perjury of oath and invokes the previously referenced Sections 3 and 4 of the 14^th Amendment to the federal Constitution. 

84.              The Constitutions and laws in pursuance thereof allow no exemptions for errant, unconstitutional, unlawful actions by Letey, Zendel and THE FUND, who are required to abide by all Constitutional requirements and all laws imposed upon each of them and THE FUND, and who are not exempt from abiding by all such requirements, nor exempt from their actions, nor can they be lawfully exonerated for their unlawful, negligent, wrongful and possible conspiratorial actions against plaintiff and the consequences thereof.

XI.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

85.              The New Mexico Municipal The League organized and administers the New Mexico Self Insurers' Fund, which offers Workers' Compensation, general liability, law enforcement, civil rights, errors and omissions, auto liability, auto physical damage, and property and volunteer coverage to its members.  THE FUND also offers group health, medical and life insurance.  Defendant Letey signed his letters to plaintiff as “claims examiner” for the New Mexico Municipal League; yet, the letters were on stationery bearing the letterhead of the “New Mexico Self-Insurers’ Fund”.  The New Mexico Municipal League, hereinafter: THE LEAGUE and THE FUND share the same post office box, namely, P.O. Box 846, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and are located next door to each other on Paseo de Peralta, at 1229 and 1231, respectively.  THE FUND and THE LEAGUE have a business relationship, thus, apparent responsibility to and for each other.  THE FUND failed to properly respond to plaintiff’s communications, as herein stated.  Letey signed for THE LEAGUE, therefore, his actions bind both, THE LEAGUE AND THE FUND.  THE LEAGUE, by and through Letey, had knowledge of the city defendants’ wrongful actions against plaintiff.  

86.              Stated herein is language excerpted from THE LEAGUE’S Insurance Coverage, listed under “H” Errors and Omissions Liability.

“1.  WE WILL COVER

We will pay on your behalf all sums which you or your “employees” shall become legally obliged to pay as damages on account of any “claim” or “suit” first made against you during the coverage period by reason of any act, error, omission, or the violations of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States of America.”  

By this language, it is clearly evident that coverage extends to violations of the Constitution, the descriptions of which violations by city defendants are replete throughout this Complaint.  It is also evident why Letey attempted to defraud plaintiff, deny her due process and deny her a claim she never made, for the benefit of THE FUND’S CLIENT and THE FUND, itself.  Such fraud and unconstitutional actions are not authorized in the Constitutions and are in direct violation of including, but not limited to, NMSA 10-16-3 (A) & (B), as previously cited above.       

87.              Attached hereto, made part hereof and marked Exhibit C is plaintiff’s affidavit sent to THE FUND, which affidavit was never rebutted, as stated above.  Also attached and made part hereof are plaintiff’s sent to the following defendants: Yara, marked Exhibit D; Sandoval, marked Exhibit E; Sanchez, marked Exhibit F; Avila, marked Exhibit G; Griego, marked Exhibit H; and Moore, which affidavit is attached as a representative sample of each affidavit sent to all councilors, and is marked Exhibit I.     

XII.

DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

88.              Plaintiff fully incorporates, by reference, Paragraphs 1 through 87 of this Complaint, verbatim, as if fully set forth herein, without reservation.

89.              As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful, unconstitutional and unlawful actions of all defendants, conducted without Constitutional or valid statutory authority, plaintiff was irreparably harmed, as stated within the body of this Complaint, and suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, emotional and physical distress, mental and physical anguish, suffering, embarrassment, deprivation of Constitutional Rights, direct injury, legal injury and malicious injury and other consequential and special damages.

90.              Defendants’ acts and omissions, as set forth herein, were negligent, fraudulent, conducted in misrepresentation, dereliction of duty, malfeasance of office, obstruction of justice, and breach of fiduciary responsibilities, justifying an award of punitive damages against the individually named defendants, in their personal capacities, for the purpose of punishment and to deter others from the commission of like offenses.

91.              The injuries and damages plaintiff sustained are substantial, and nearly incalculable, therefore, merit an award of substantial damages.  These injuries and damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of guaranteed Constitutional and statutory Rights.  The amount of damages for any loss of any Rights can be and has been termed priceless.  By the wrongful actions of Yara and city defendants, plaintiff lost:  (a) the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to participate in a fair election process; (b) the reasonable expectation of a fair chance to win; (c) the Right to run in the correct ward; (d) the Right to maintain office, if elected; (e) the Right to have her Constitutional Rights upheld by duly elected and appointed city defendants; (f) the Right to administrative due process from the City, by being forced to defend herself in court, for actions knowingly committed by defendant Yara and the City, and by which plaintiff was injured; (g) the Right to equal and fair treatment during the election process; (h) the Right to advocate Constitutional Rights for benefit of the electorate, if elected; (i) the Right and possibility of implementing Constitutional governance in the City of Las Vegas, if elected; (j) the Right to an unblemished political future; (k) the Right to plaintiff’s good name and reputation.  Further, the People’s Right to have a Constitutional representative was denied to the Citizens of Las Vegas by Yara’s egregious actions against not only plaintiff, but also against the Constitutions and the good People of Las Vegas, which actions were condoned, aided and upheld by city defendants, most of whom are elected by the People, and by other defendants, named herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests and demands judgment against all defendants, as follows:

(a) For judgment against defendants for any and all damages incurred by plaintiff under any and/or all causes of action, by the following actions and in the following amounts:

i.    Defendants to be penalized for their unconstitutional actions, as herein stated.

ii.   Restoration of Constitutional governance to the City of Las Vegas.

iii.  Award plaintiff total and combined damages of $1,500,000.00.

            iv.  Any such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I CERTIFY and AFFIRM, on my honor and under my personal oath, that the statements, charges, averments, allegations and facts presented herein this Complaint are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me, God.

Respectfully submitted,

All Rights Reserved,

By: ______________________________________ 

       Margaret D. Edwards-Flynn, American Citizen

       C/o 739 Dalbey Drive

       Las Vegas, New Mexico [87701]

       505-425-0659