Appeal-Reasons-Not-To-Affirm

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KAREN MARIE KLINE, Pro Se,
Defendant – Appellant,

CROCKER, LTD., AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
AND MANHATTAN CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION,
Defendants – Appellees,

KAREN MARIE KLINE, Pro Se,
Petitoner-in-Redemption – Appellant,

RICHARD B. GREEN,
Purchaser; Cross- and Counter-Petitioner-in-Redemption – Appellee.

                         COURT OF APPEALS NO: 26930
                         DISTRICT COURT NO:   D-0101-CV-2005-00515

APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM CONTAINING REASONS WHY THE
PROPOSED DISPOSITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE

Reason 1 – Events Related to my Disability and my Disability Itself are Unusual
Circumstances that Prevented Me from Timely Filing Notice of Appeal

I filed my Motion to Reconsider Order Approving Foreclosure and Foreclosure Sale and to Set
Aside Foreclosure Judgment on March 16, 2006 [RP 440], two days before the end of the ten
days provided by Rule 1-059. On March 22, 2006, I hired Tami Schneider to represent me
because I was having such a hard time doing things because of the extreme stress; because of my
disability, stress makes it harder to do things. Under stress I make significantly more errors, bump
into things more and have a harder time getting things organized. I hired her to help me so that
things would be done right.

I gave Tami Schneider a copy of my motion. I said I had filed it two days early because I was
worried about my condo and I wanted to be sure to do things in time. I asked her to get a hearing
as soon as possible because I’d borrowed money to redeem and the interest was $250 a week on
top of $1,000 for every ten thousand borrowed.

By phone on March 25, 2006, Ms. Schneider asked me to email her everything I’d filed. I sent her
10 emails with the things I had filed, beginning with the Objection.

On March 26, 2006, Ms. Schneider said by phone that she could not open the things I had sent
and please would I send them as pdf files. So I sent her 23 emails of pdf files, and asked if I had
missed anything she wanted. She requested the broker’s name. (I have to do two screen shots
because my computer screen is smaller than the list.)

_______________________________

Note: Right after I took the screen shots all of the messages disappeared from my email folder. I
called Qwest who connected me to MSN. Because of my brain damage I could not understand the
tech(s). They have accents and with my brain damage I can’t work out what they mean. For
instance, one man with a heavy Slavic accent kept saying something forty-eight. I couldn’t work
out if he meant I’d called too late, or too soon, or if he meant forty-eight messages. Or maybe he
wasn’t even saying forty-eight. Today, for instance, the woman who actually helped kept saying
Beetle while giving me a case number, so I thought she meant “B”; only really she was saying,
“Zero.” So they get frustrated when I don’t understand and they often disconnect. I was on the
phone for four hours trying to get my messages back because I need to show how Ms. Schneider
would not respond after I objected to her writing that I am “incompetent.” Stress from being on
the phone that long with things getting no better made my tinnitus worse. The louder the ringing,
the harder it is to understand and I got a bad headache, which also didn’t help.

I am writing this to illustrate the effects of brain damage: if I didn’t have brain damage the email
problem could have been solved the last time it happened a few months ago. Only techs often don’
t have patience with me and say something that isn’t an answer because they don’t think I’ll
understand, I suppose, and then they transfer me or disconnect. So things that used to take less
than an hour to be resolved with a sense of satisfaction, now take three or four hours and often
many times more than that, and sometimes I have to give up because it just is so hard to
understand and to be understood.

Let me give you another example: a few weeks ago I ordered seeds with credit I had from plants
that had died. The call was going well when the girl said something that made no sense to me. It
was a long set of words. I said I have a bit of brain damage and would she repeat it. She did, and I
could only catch one word. There were too many words for me to remember all of them. I told
her that I heard the word qualify. Even while she was explaining that I’d ordered so many items
that I qualified for some free plants I was having a hard time keeping what she was saying in mind.
If she hadn’t changed the subject, so to speak, I wouldn’t have gotten confused. I can do one
thing at a time quite well, especially if I’ve prepared, as I had in order to order. But when
something new is introduced it’s hard for me to grasp, even when it’s something simple. After that
I have a hard time talking. It’s like there’s a jaw breaker in my mind and it keeps blocking whole
thoughts from forming into sentences. It is so frustrating. I want to hang up. I have to fight with
myself to complete the task. So I seldom talk on the phone.

[Sentences relating to first extension request deleted.]

Maybe I should explain how hard it was to understand the Court’s Disposition. It was similar to
the difficulty I have understanding techs. For instance, two different techs wanted me to go to “the
folders on your computer,” so although I heard that, I went to My Computer where there are
folders. I could not see the set of words in MSN that they were talking about even though they
were in plain sight. I kept having “My Computer” come to mind, and that made me look in My
Computer, instead of in MSN.

Before I had brain damage I didn’t get confused like this; but now my mind does not filter out
nonsensical things, or maybe it used to quickly go on to other things. It takes a lot of time now to
get on track so I asked for accommodation in my Answer [RP 149] and by Motion for
Accommodation [RP 152]. It is frustrating to feel confused so often.

When I read the Court’s Disposition I saw the part about 20 days to give reasons why not to
affirm, but it didn’t sink in. So I was trying to give them in ten days. That was stressful and made
it even harder for me to understand what the Disposition said. It takes me a long time to get things
lined up so I can follow them. With something like this which is so serious, it makes me too
anxious to sleep well. Because of the balance problems that go with brain damage I don’t take
sleeping pills anymore for fear of having an accident and breaking a bone. For instance, with the
stress of this and trying to do two other cases where people want more money from me, I
slammed into a wall the other day. I don’t usually slam into walls the way I used to when I first
moved out of my condo. That’s because I walk more slowly to give my mind time to navigate
and, I hope, because I’m better: I’ve tried hard to detox from the hydrogen sulfide.

Because the effects of hydrogen sulfide were so serious, I didn’t rent my condo, see my Answer,
[RP 149]. I had money and had the tests done before I listed my condo. I paid about $20,000 to
correct the privy pit and related problems; and I lost about $15,000 by not renting my condo when
it might still have had hydrogen sulfide from a second pit.

You may think that it was foolish to not rent my condo and lose money, which loss contributed to
foreclosures, but if you had this kind of brain damage for even a week, you would see why I did
not want to hurt anyone else the way that I am hurt. I have always felt lucky that the tenants
moved out who had lived there when the sewer pipe broke from them gardening over the subsided
area above the privy pit, and standing on the pipe which had nothing under it once the pit subsided
(though I didn’t know that was what happened at the time); so no one but me lived in the
hydrogen sulfide for any length of time.

Please accept my explanation in terms of computer techs rather than your Disposition. I was
concerned that if I described my confusion about the Disposition, you’d think my confusion was
from not being a lawyer and that was why I didn’t “get” the words, when in fact the problem is
from my brain damage and disability.
______________________________

On March 26, 2006, Ms. Schneider wrote me an email saying that she was going to file on
Monday, March 27. That was the next day.

On March 27, 2006, Ms. Schneider was to pick me up and take me to sign an affidavit that I
agreed to what she had written. I waited for her outside, sitting on a neighbor’s wall because she
had said she was short for time. She was more than half an hour late. Because I have a poor sense
of time now, I waited outside longer than was wise. It made my muscles tighten again and affected
my balance, making it more difficult to walk and do things. By the time she arrived the effect of
the stress made it hard to read, so she told me what the papers said and I signed the affidavit at
Adult Protective Services, in front of their notary, with approval of Bobbette Salazar. Ms.
Schneider talked as if she were going to file that day. I know the fax deadline is 5 p.m.

When I got home and read my copy slowly, I saw that Ms. Schneider had written that Motion for
Summary Judgment was filed July 5, 2005. It was filed August 5, 2005 [RP 126]. She also wrote
that Certificate of the Record had been filed on July 5, 2005. It was filed August 5, 2005 [RP
134]. As I read on it alarmed me that she wrote that I’m incompetent. I am disabled, not
incompetent, and as such the ADA, Title II, provides me a right to reasonable accommodation. I
had in fact asked for accommodation in my Answer [RP 149], and in a motion under the ADA,
Title II, on November 4, 2005 [RP 152] which wasn’t heard or ruled on. (The Record Proper has
the name of the law wrong and needs to be corrected. I’ll file a motion.) Ms. Schneider had not
mentioned this part of her pleading in the car.

I emailed Ms. Schneider about the dates and showed my alarm at being termed “incompetent.” I
thought she would respond right away, but she didn’t. She used to talk with me on the phone
whenever I called, and she had responded to emails, see screen shots above. I continued reading
and found other errors. I will show you my emails.

In my next email I explained why I was so upset.

I was positive, saying I liked page 6, but noted an error. I didn’t write a message.

The next email noted only that page 7 says “Karen Green’s condominium”:

Next I noted a deviation between the real numbers and what was in the pleading.

At 4:35 I wrote only the subject line; at 4:39 I addressed the doc the clerks refused.

Wanting to take a positive attitude toward Ms. Schneider not replying, I imagined she had driven
to court to file and hadn’t returned. I wrote that I liked it and it was great.

From being alarmed that Ms. Schneider was not replying because I had noted errors, I wrongly
thought all my emails had gone out together, so, I wrote about that at 4:57. I also called and left at
least one message. But two hours later I had still heard nothing, which was entirely different from
how Ms. Schneider had previously treated me.

When I called Ms. Schneider again, there was a message on her phone that hadn’t been there
before and it sounded as if she wanted me to stop calling her.

(This is hard for me to do. It may look easy, but I keep getting confused because I can’t
remember what I’ve copied.) In any case, I next wrote to Ms. Schneider the context so that she
would understand what I was saying. I hoped.

Next day I tried again, thinking maybe she objected to how I had written and that if I organized it
together in one place it wouldn’t seem disjointed and offensive. I am aware that because of how I
can’t remember very well, I write many emails. If I try to put things all into one email, I forget
where I am, so I’ve taught myself to address things as I go along, that way I don’t have to worry
so much about forgetting important things.

But she did not respond, resulting in more than one sleepless night for me.

On March 27, 2006, Response to Katherine Cook’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum in Opposition to Katherine Cook’s Petition for Certificate and Order for
Redemption, [RP 484], was filed. This is the pleading I read.

In “Karen Kline’s Amended Response to Katherine Cook’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum in Opposition to Katherine Cook’s Petition for Certificate and Order for
Redemption” [RP 607], filed April 4, 2006, the errors are one page further back; that is, the
incorrect date for the Certificate of the Record, July 5, 2005, is at the top of page 5; previously it
was at the top of page 4, etc. It is particularly important that while Ms. Schneider cut her
statement that I am incompetent she didn’t write or prosecute that I should have had a hearing on
my request for accommodation under the ADA, Title II, in my Answer [RP 66], and in my ADA
motion [RP 152]. Because accommodation is mandated it would affect when I could be in default;
so, by refusing to respond to me for days, make corrections, or address this crucial issue, Ms.
Schneider had a dooming effect.

On March 28, 2006, Ms. Schneider filed four things: Certificate of Service [RP 498], Exhibit D
(Karen Kline’s Affidavit) [RP 500], Answer to Richard B. Green’s Amended and Restated
Petition [RP 534], and Answer to Katherine Cook’s Amended Petition [RP 540].

While it felt like longer than two days because I was so worried by her writing that I am
incompetent, Ms. Schneider’s bill says that she called me on March 29. She still wanted me to
deposit the money for redemption, despite her email of March 26, and called to arrange to take me
to the bank the next day to get the Cashier’s check and then accompany her to file it. She said she
didn’t want to carry a check for that much herself.

Also on March 29, 2006, Ms. Schneider filed three things: her “Motion for Extension of Time in
Which to File an Appeal” [RP 543], “Karen Kline’s Amended Answer to Richard B. Green’s
Amended and Restated Petition” [RP 554], and “Karen Kline’s Amended Answer to Katherine
Cook’s Amended Petition” [RP 565]. She apparently wrote the Green pleading first then pasted it
into the Cook pleading to include the “Counter-Claim for Money Damages and Petition for
Constructive Trust and for Breach of Feduciary (sic) Duty” naming Richard Green. On March 31,
2006, Ms. Schneider filed Notice of Dismissal of Counter-Claim Against Katherine Cook [RP 586].

Ms. Schneider’s Motion for Extension was granted on March 30, 2006 [RP 573], extending the
time to appeal until May 7, 2006. But I wasn’t told, at least not in any meaningful way. I know
this to be true because had it been told to me so that I could understand I would have formed the
conviction that that date was important and it would have stayed in my mind because beliefs are
held more strongly than mere memories.

Also on March 30, 2006, the affidavit was done at the bank and Ms. Schneider filed it [RP 585]. I
have a copy, but not of the affidavit of March 27, filed 3/28/2006 [RP 500]. Ms. Schneider was
able to file without difficulty, whereas the clerks had not accepted my Cashier’s check when I’d
tried to deposit it pro se on February 27, 2006.

I’m having a hard time understanding what Ms. Schneider filed on which days. She had written,
before she stopped writing to me, that she was doing several things and wanted to file them on
Monday. See page 7. That would have been March 27, 2006.

I want to go look at the courthouse file but I was left in the cold outside the Court of Appeals for
nearly an hour on December 7, 2006 after filing. My ADA ride might not have come even then
except the security guard called for me. I couldn’t go in and call for fear they would come exactly
then. The same thing had happened on November 7 when I went to the County Clerk with my
ballot. But that time it was also dark. I got light headed with intense pain in my thoracic
diaphragm. Both times that led to trouble walking. I get a severe pain in my hip that makes my leg
buckle and I lose balance. Also, my feet suddenly go numb/spongy and I can’t feel them touch the
floor and I lose my balance. Just when I’m better and begin to think I can drive again, I get so
extremely stressed. Last summer after the July 4, 2006 report in the New Mexican, “Judge ends
woman's fight to reclaim condo,” a man I hired said, “I know you, you’re the woman who got
f___ed.” I didn’t think that was a good sign, but I’d already given him money to get materials. It
was so stressful as weeks went by and he didn’t come back. Clearly if I couldn’t get my condo
back I couldn’t get $200 back; I’m sure that’s how the man saw it. So when courts deny
accommodation and decide against the disabled it gives carte blanche to those who want to take
advantage. Waiting so long in the cold for an ADA ride that is so late is extremely hard on my
body. These court things are extremely stressful because of how property is not supposed to be
taken without due process. I did not have due process: 1. Deutsche served me the Amended
Complaint during my bankruptcy in violation of 11 U.S.C. §362, [RP 66], (which by law makes
the Amended Complaint void); 2. there wasn’t a hearing on my request for accommodation in my
Answer [RP 149]; 3. there wasn’t a hearing on my motion for accommodation under the ADA,
Title II [RP 152]; 4. there wasn’t a hearing on the Condominium Association’s breach of contract
claimed in my Answer [RP 149]; 5. there wasn’t a hearing on the Condominium Association liens
despite my repeated requests [RP 325], [RP 326] and the first request was disregarded by the
clerks and is not shown in the Record Proper; 6. there wasn’t a hearing on my claim in my
Answer for the amount Deutsche overcharged [RP 149]; 7. Deutsche never told me my condo
had been foreclosed – for the Certificate of Mailing, dated December 23, 2005, filed January 3,
2006 [RP 172] to show my name is a fraud on the court; 8. Deutsche never gave me personal
notice that a sale was scheduled. How can this not shock the conscience of the court? (If this is an
example of American Rule of Law, then I can see why Iraq looks the way it does since the United
States installed its Rule of Law in that country.)

I’ve repeatedly checked Deutsche’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Application for Stipulated
Judgment [RP 138] and the Summary Judgment, Stipulated Judgment, Default Judgment, Decree
of Foreclosure, Order of Sale and Appointment of Special Master [RP 160] to be sure my name
isn’t in the Certificate. I can’t today because Ms. Schneider has my copies.

I have been working on this next part ever since I sent the email yesterday, 1/6/07. That’s seven
hours yesterday and another hour so far today: it is so time consuming to get straight because of
my brain damage. What is extremely frustrating is the error in my Brief Requested by the Court
Regarding Rule 1-055 and Notice, filed May 9, 2006 [RP 804].

May 9 was the second part of the May 5 hearing. Ms. Schneider had quit on May 5, knowing the
second part of the hearing was yet to be held. I had to do the second part of the hearing on my
own without any copies of any of the papers that had been served by opposing parties since Ms.
Schneider began.

The Court requested the Brief so I took that to mean that questions were still being decided and
were not ripe for appeal. If the Court had signed an order ending my time to appeal on the day
before the Brief it requested was due, what was I to think? I mean, seriously. Demanding a Brief
from me to be completed between the 5p.m. end of the hearing on the 5th, and the beginning of
the hearing on 9th clearly denied me any accommodation for my disability. So it’s not surprising
that without accommodation I made the error in the Brief that I did, and it’s not surprising that I
didn’t think I had to appeal yesterday when I went into Court with the Brief on May 9th. What
reasonable man would think that? Plus, I was not the only one to see questions as open: opposing
counsel filed, May 9, 2006, Additional Briefing on Pending Issues Concerning Defendant Kline’s
Motion to Set Aside Judgment [RP 811].

In any case, my error that I am now aware of is in section 9 of my Brief [RP 804] where I was
trying to address how less than 24 hours advance written notice to prepare for the March 8 hearing
denied me due process even if I didn’t have a mental disability and wasn’t entitled to reasonable
accommodation under the ADA, Title II, which made the Order Approving Special Master’s
Report and Confirming Foreclosure Sale [RP 385] void. I wanted to make clear that the order was
void on solid grounds additional to the Court denying me reasonable accommodation to which I
was entitled under the ADA, Title II.

When I tried to quote from Wright & A. Miller, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, Memphis
Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, In re Center Wholesale, Inc. and Winhoven v. United
States., I got the quotes confused; for instance, despite having the Winhoven v. United States case
in hard copy in front of me, I confused it to be Winhoven, a United States Supreme Court case.
There was not enough time for me to work out and correct my errors. Please refer to how long it
took me to correct a simple email problem with the help of many techs, pgs 3-5 above, when you
consider whether or not I could have found and corrected this in the amount of time I was given to
do the Brief, which included no accommodation for my disability.

At the May 9th hearing I read five points, Exhibit 1. For points 1-4 I had the appropriate copies
to show the truth of what I was saying and I gave these copies to the Court and opposing counsel.
For point 5, I was unable to get a copy of the Certificate as to the State of the Record [RP 136]
because the file was in Chambers. I had written point 5 knowing that the Certificate [RP 136],
Exhibit 2, could not have accurately accounted for the Automatic Stay and the Amended
Complaint [RP 66] and found me in default because the Amended Complaint was served on me in
violation of 11 USC § 362 on March 29, 2006 [RP 66]. When I pointed out the substantial error
of service of the Amended Complaint in violation of the automatic stay the Court sua sponte
ordered [RP 878] the Certificate as to the State of the Record revised so as not to obviously rely
on a void document served during the automatic stay, Exhibit 3. Changing the records to enhance
the appearance that the automatic stay did not exist exceeded the Court’s discretion and may show
a predetermination that there was “no way” I would get my condo back. The automatic stay
needed to be accounted for in the Certificate, just as I needed to be served a valid Amended
Complaint. It is not signed by me.

It is extremely distressing not just to lose my condo that I paid on for over 17 years, that I fixed so
that the privy pit wasn’t there any more, that I was working on after it had been foreclosed and
sold because I didn’t know it had been foreclosed and sold, but that I could repeatedly be denied
rights and protections. And then I can’t appeal because I’m not fast enough. I can’t see how a
void document and effectively void judgments can be upheld against me and my appeal denied
because I wasn’t fast enough. Yes, the rule about when to appeal is important, but aren’t rights
and protections important? The Court and lawyers are professionals, and I’m mentally disabled,
yet I’m held to a higher standard than they are. Is that equitable?

Isn’t it shocking to the conscience of the court that no hearing was scheduled when I repeatedly
requested one [RP 325], [RP 326], on my Objection to Order Approving Sale [RP 208] [RP 209]
[RP 223]. I went to the March 8, 2006 hearing believing that the Sale had already been confirmed
because I had read an order to that effect in the file. It was the Order prepared by Leverick and
attached to his motion seeking approval. Because of my disability and how I had not been
informed of the foreclosure or sale, I saw it as me also not having been informed of a hearing prior
to approval of sale. This is significant because in 1997 I had gotten my condo back after
foreclosure and sale but before sale was confirmed. So I knew how important approval of sale
was. By denying me accommodation, by ignoring my pleadings which made it clear that I saw the
sale as already approved, by allowing notice of hearing to be delivered to me less than 24 hours
before the March 8th hearing, a hearing that was scheduled at the request of Deutsche, after I’d
spent thousands on my condo to prepare it for sale, only it had already been sold without me
knowing, the Court was acting repeatedly with extreme prejudice against me.

How could I possibly know that Ms. Schneider would ignore the deadline for my reconsideration
motion when she filed her amended Rule 59 motion in which she wrongly wrote that the Amended
Complaint was served on me on March 18, 2005, which was before my bankruptcy; in fact it was
served on me on March 29, 2005 [RP 66] which is while I was in bankruptcy. I had given Ms.
Schneider documentation of the real dates. During the May 5th hearing Ms. Schneider made this
same mistake, and when I wrote her a note indicating the error, she said no, that I was wrong, it
had been served on me before my bankruptcy. She was patently wrong, but was convinced she
was right and would not say the correct thing that was the fact. (This is so distressing, and it is
extremely distressing that with all the obvious due process violations and deprivations the Appeals
Court would decide to affirm the state court’s judgments which should more correctly be ruled,
sua sponte, as void given the full circumstances here, to include my disability.

Further to the above, on April 4, 2006, Ms. Schneider had filed Karen Kline’s Rule 60 Motion
[RP 619] and Karen Kline’s Amended Rule 59 Motion [RP 635]. The two documents are
identical except for their “Comes now” paragraphs, the fact that the Rule 60 Motion begins with
the 2nd paragraph of the Rule 59 Motion, and their “Wherefore” paragraphs. Both documents
contain the error regarding the date of service of the Amended Complaint. Because the Amended
Complaint was served during my bankruptcy, in violation of federal law, and not before, and was
void, this is not harmless error, it is a substantial error.

I tried diligently to get Ms. Schneider to make her pleadings conform to the facts to my favor, but
she refused to get back to me then filed almost exactly the same errors a few days later. By the
time she brought over her bill on April 6th, for another $2,417.14 on top of the $5,000 I’d paid
her in advance on March 22nd, I was quite sick again and having a hard time talking and writing.
That was from having gotten so cold and exhausted from sitting outside waiting for her on March
27th (at that time I couldn’t sit even indoors for long without getting severe pain in my thoracic
diaphragm) and then not being able to sleep because of worry about what she’d written and how
she suddenly wouldn’t talk to me, and how she’s written that my chances of redemption were
very low, but still had me deposit the money despite the huge interest. You can see the number of
mistakes in the email I sent her about how hard it was to get the papers she’d left.

Because I was worried by how she had not been on time to pick me up, and how she didn’t seem
to care, I became concerned that she had written that I was incompetent because she wanted the
Court to put her in control of my affairs. That worried me because she was charging out her work
at the rate of $2,500 a week, or thereabouts, which was a lot of money to me given that I’d been
living on $11 a week during the time between my single family rental tenants burning out the boiler
and leaving me without an income, and selling that home, having given a $3,400 credit to replace
the boiler.

On April 6, 2006, Ms Schneider reversed her behavior and got right back to me by email. I think
she was thinking I was going to immediately pay her additional bill of $2,417.14.

My reply noted my mobility problem, the effect of the stress, and my surprise that she hadn’t
handed me the papers.

On April 13, 2006, Ms. Schneider informed me by email that a hearing had been set for May 5,
2006. Notice of Hearing appears in the Record Proper on April 7, 2006. [RP 673]

On April 27, 2006 I emailed some of my concerns including how she’d written on her bill, “close
to ZERO chance of winning redemption” but still had me deposit the money.

Later on the 27th I contacted lawyers I thought might possibly help: Michael Pottow and Bill
Sawtell. I didn’t know Mr. Sawtell was so ill. I had known him years earlier when I worked as a
Realtor, successfully, for him. Plus, my friend McKenzie said that Tony Sawtell had helped her,
so I also asked him. I sent emails to Michael Pottow and Christine Lund for the Sawtells. (When I
had called, Christine Lund had told me that Bill Sawtell hadn’t been in the office because he was
ill. She didn’t indicate how ill he was.) My email began as follows:

Neither Michael Pottow nor Tony Sawtell could help so I prayed that Tami would do a good job.
But I was worried. I worried that if very little time had been set for the hearing it meant it wouldn’
t take long to say no to my side. I wondered what the hearing had to do with the Trial thing I’d
seen on Ms. Schneider’s bill. So on May 2, 2006, I emailed Ms. Schneider asking her how the
hearing was related to the trial thing she’d paid for. I had thought, when I’d seen a $100 Jury
Demand Fee on her bill, that a trial was to replace the other things to do with setting aside the
foreclosure judgment.

Then I realized that I’d asked how much time was set for the hearing in the subject line but not in
the email itself. I wanted to know how much time had been set and I wanted to know what
relationship there was between the hearing and the jury trial, so I wrote another email:

[Paragraph relating to computer turning off and confusion it creates deleted.]

When I didn’t hear back, I wrote another email and sent it:

I should have set the fields to show the email times. I’m at the point where I can’t remember what
I’ve done. I have to keep going back to look at each page. It takes so long.

I hoped when I wrote to people to come to the hearing that Ms. Schneider would want to perform
well in front of them, if not for me. Now I think that she did, but her performance was the crying.
I cannot understand why she did the jury thing and didn’t concentrate on the legal reasons to get
my condo back. It was Doug Booth, who had suggested her, who told me to use a deadline, to say
that if she didn’t call then I’d have to call the disciplinary committee.

Ms. Schneider did not respond by 10 a.m. so I called the disciplinary committee; they must have
called her because at 3:33 she emailed. But it was so distressing. I don’t know why I thought she
was going to do a good job of representing me in the hearing when this is how she was treating
me. But I did. I was shocked when she quit during the hearing. She had told me that she was
going to withdraw after the hearing. So I thought we would discuss it after the hearing. I thought if
she did get it together that I’d just give her the other money. She’d been upset that I was paying so
much in interest, so then she billed me the same amount as the interest. But the hearing had not
been going well. Everything she said, Leverick challenged and he had the rules to hand, where she
did not. Hiring her and paying interest to redeem took a third of all the money I had. But without
any accommodation I was particularly scared and that made it even harder to concentrate; plus I
thought that if I had a lawyer the Court couldn’t so easily discriminate against me, so I thought it
would be wise to hire a lawyer. Instead, it was a huge waste.

If Ms. Schneider sent me a copy of the notice saying the hearing was for one hour I didn’t
remember seeing it and couldn’t find it. However, I know that Ms. Schneider was writing falsely
when she wrote that she had repeatedly informed me that I needed to call her if I was sending an
email. She had not ever said that to me; and in any case, she stopped consistently answering my
calls after I objected to her writing that I am incompetent when in fact I am not, I have a disability.
If she was representing me she needed to get the distinction clear. There is a big legal difference.
I wrote back,

The day of the hearing I called her to say that my friend McKenzie had asked the newspaper to
come to the hearing, and that Tom Sharpe, the reporter, had called me.

I told Ms. Schneider by phone that Tom Sharpe had wanted her number and I’d given it to him.
That’s when she said that she was going to withdraw as my council after the hearing. I guess she
was going to spring it on me at court, but then I’d called her.

Reason 2 – Because of my disability, when Ms. Schneider quit during the hearing sometime
after Leverick said she had missed the Rule 59 Motion deadline, I needed to hear the date
of the extension so I could understand I had to appeal two days later, before the second
half of the hearing; but she failed to note it, instead she said there was still the Rule 60
Motion.

The stress caused by Ms. Schneider missing the Rule 59 Motion deadline and quitting increased
my need for accommodation. But Ms. Schneider had not, despite my repeated emails, sought to
establish the accommodation I needed and which would have necessarily precluded me being in
default on August 5, 2005; plus, she now neglected to note the extension; instead she said there
was still the Rule 60 motion. So I heard that to mean that once the orders were filed then the
appeal time would run. In the absence of the accommodation to which I am entitled under the
ADA, Title II, there was insufficient time to get a clear understanding. I was too shocked and
scared, especially following being ignored for so long by her and the Court, to do anything but try
to do the Brief requested by the Court and prepare for the second part of the hearing.

[Sentences deleted about it taking so long to keep checking and undoing mistakes.]

Reason 3 – Because I Demonstrated Personal Diligence Which Was Thwarted by Ms.
Schneider, as shown throughout the many pages above.

Ms. Schneider thwarted me by failing to make corrections I diligently requested, by grossly
misrepresenting me as incompetent when in fact I am disabled, and by abandoning me mid hearing
in disregard for my disability and need for accommodation of more time. Case law Rule 1-060
annotations says, “Under New Mexico law, a party will generally be bound by his or her attorney’
s actions, and to escape a default judgment resulting from his or her attorney’s gross acts and
failures, the client must demonstrate personal diligence which was thwarted by the attorney;”
Adams v. Para-Chem Southern, 1998-NMCA-161, 126 N.M. 189, 967 P.2d 864.

If personal diligence is needed to avoid a default caused by a lawyer, then similarly it must be the
lynchpin to avoid a failure to timely file notice of appeal. I have shown mine.

Reason 4 – Because of Three Substantial Errors.

Substantial Error One - In two of Ms. Schneider’s motions, “Karen Kline’s Rule 60 Motion”
[RP 619] and “Karen Kline’s Amended Rule 59 Motion” [RP 635] each filed on April 4, 2006,
she made the substantial error of writing that the Amended Complaint, filed March 16, 2005 [RP
27], was served on me on March 18, 2005. In fact it was served on me on March 29, 2005 [RP
66] in violation of the automatic stay; I had filed bankruptcy on March 21, 2005. It was not served
on me at any other time. Service in violation of the automatic stay is substantial error because any
act done in violation of the automatic stay is prohibited and a judgment based upon such an act is
void. During the May 5, 2006 hearing Ms. Schneider made this same substantial error and I wrote
her a note about it, but she said I was wrong, that it had been served before my bankruptcy. In
view of the Record Proper she was patently wrong yet she refused to correct this substantial error
even after I diligently asked her to do so.

Because the Amended Complaint was served during my bankruptcy, in violation of federal law,
the Amended Complaint was void. It was noted in the original Certificate of the Record used to
default me. That the Honorable Judge Vigil had the Certificate changed when I brought this
substantial error to his attention on May 9, 2006 does not make the Amended Complaint served
on me in violation of the Automatic Stay any less void.

Substantial Error Two – Because of my disability I have a right to accommodation under the
ADA, Title II; therefore setting the default date to be August 5, 2004, without regard to my
disability and without granting me any accommodation despite the fact that I am entitled to
reasonable accommodation, was a substantial error that prejudicially affected my rights. It greatly
damaged me without any justification. Not only did Ms. Schneider thwart my diligent efforts to get
her to write the real date of the Certificate of the Record and Motion for Summary Judgment, see
pgs 7-8, 14, she refused to prosecute my right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Title
II, even after I diligently asked her to do so, see pgs 7-8, 14. The date of my default could not be
calculated without a hearing on the amount of additional time I needed to answer as reasonable
accommodation of my disability.

Substantial Error Three – The liens were not adjudicated with the result that there was no right
to be passed on from the Condominium Association to Richard Green so that he could redeem
what I could not because I had not been told of the foreclosure judgment and sale until after the
sale.

Mr. Leverick may say that he sent me a copy of the signed Foreclosure Judgment, but he also had
the Amended Complaint served on me in violation of the automatic stay [RP 66] and he knew that
I wanted to contest the foreclosure because I had filed documents showing this in my bankruptcy,
which he answered, yet with duplicity he acted as if I did not and was in default. In my answer to
the Complaint [RP 149] I claimed breach of contract by the Condominium Association which
went against the liens. I pleaded with the Court repeatedly to determine the amount due on the
liens [RP 269] [RP 328] [RP 332], but just as my Answer [RP 149] was ignored, and my Motion
for Accommodation [RP 152] [RP 171] was ignored, so were my pleas and my requests for
hearing [RP 325] [RP 326].

Reason 5 – Because as a matter of law the Amended Complaint that was served on me and
others during my bankruptcy was void. 11 U.S.C. §362

The Amended Complaint was served me on March 29, 2005 [RP 66] after I had filed bankruptcy
on March 21, 2005.

When Mr. Leverick prepared the Certificate as to the Record, which the clerk later signed and
entered, he knew that I had answered in bankruptcy court, that I knew of the foreclosure and
intended to fight, and he knew the Amended Complaint had been served during my bankruptcy.

I know Mr. Leverick prepared the Certificate as to the Record because I prepared one against E.
W. Sargent in each of the other two foreclosures because Mr. Sargent did not answer my Third
Party Complaint which had been duly served on him. The clerk does not prepare them. My
Certificates were signed and entered, but the Default Judgments in my favor were not, the
Honorable Judge Garcia chose not to act on them though he foreclosed against me at a hearing for
which I had no notice, and for the other property he held the hearing with just a day or two notice,
despite my ADA, Title II, request for accommodation. So the clear message is that Mr. Sargent
who sold me my condo, which he developed and had built over part of an old privy pit, is not to
be bothered with procedural rules, but I am even though I lose my entire investment without being
able to make my Third Party claim of damages against Mr. Sargent, or in this case, appeal.

Similarly, the Honorable Judge Michael Vigil dismisses all charges against Fran Gallegos because
she’s not a lawyer and didn’t know any better, said the newspaper, but for me, not the same
treatment at all. The irony is that as a Judge Fran Gallegos had me taken out of the hospital and
put into jail for overgrown chamisa in my front lawn. My belief is that had I not been taken out of
the hospital the hospital would have diagnosed my B12 malabsorption illness and I would not have
gone without treatment so long that my nerves and cognition were damaged. Without the damage I
could have better analyzed the problems I was having at the condo and possibly not have lived in
the hydrogen sulfide for so long, with a worsening effect on my nerves and cognition, and had that
not happened I believe I would have better analyzed the events that led to me getting tetanus and I
would not still be bed bound and struggling to get on my feet.

So do I think that anything I write, that any laws or case laws that I quote, are going to make a
difference? Most of the time, no. That is a huge part of the stress. So why do I continue with this
exhausting effort if I do not believe it will make a difference? Because it is the right thing to do.
Because I know that for me, I must resolutely make these matters known at the Court, announce
them truthfully, despite the danger, in order not to lose something more valuable than my condo.

Reason 6 – Because a void judgment is no judgment at all there is no time limit.

Because of obvious due process violations and deprivations the Appeals Court should not affirm
the state court’s judgments which should more correctly be ruled as void for underlying violation
of 11 USC §362 and denial of due process to include accommodation of my disability.

No passage of time can “transmute a nullity” into a binding judgment, and hence there is no time
limit for such a motion. It is true that the text of the rule dictates that the motion will be made
within "a reasonable time." See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). However, nearly overwhelming authority
exists for the proposition that there are no time limits with regards to a challenge to a void
judgment because of its status as a nullity; thus laches is no bar to recourse to Rule 60(b)(4). See
Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (11th Cir. 1994) (collecting
cases); Briley v. Hidalgo, 981 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1993); Katter v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas
Co., 765 F.2d 730, 734 (8th Cir.1985); In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th
Cir. 1985); Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Vaughn , 450 F.2d 257, 260 (10th Cir. 1971); Austin v. Smith,
312 F.2d 337, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1962); Moore v. Positive Safety Manufacturing Co., 107 F.R.D. 49,
50 (E.D. Pa. 1985); see also Rodd v. Region Constr. Co., 783 F.2d 89, 91 (7th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he
reasonable time criterion of Rule 60(b) as it relates to void judgments, means no time limit because
a void judgment is no judgment at all." From United States of America v. One Toshiba Color
Television, 3 Cir, 2000.
______________________________

I can’t remember how to find cases. I can not get Findlaw to work for me today. I was happy
earlier because my feet weren’t spongy so it wasn’t scary feeding the goldfish; when my feet are
spongy I risk putting my hand down to catch myself which could knock the bowl over. But now I’
ve been trying for hours to figure this out, and then my computer shut down and when I turned it
back on there was one of those screens you only get when there’s a bad problem, so I
defragmented. But I’m worried, and that may be why I can’t do things.

I’m worried because I don’t have a copy of the signed Foreclosure Judgment, so I don’t know if I
am right to remember it not having me in its Certificate of Mailing. I know the motion didn’t have
me in its Certificate of Mailing. That I know. But the Foreclosure Judgment of December 15, I
don’t know. I don’t think it did because there wasn’t a signature line for me,    that’s what Ms.
Schneider wrote. But she didn’t bring me the copies I requested, and I doubt she mailed them,
though the fact is I’m having the same distressing problems with my mail.

I know I did not receive notice until after I had gone to the court file with Juliana Hope after she
told me that Rick Green said he had bought title to my condo. I could have gotten an affidavit
from Michelle Duran, who brought in my mail every week through Adult Protective Services,
confirming that it was not in the mail, but there wasn’t time when the hearing was held with less
than 24 hours notice, and I can’t just get the affidavit, I have to do a deposition because she works
for the state. But then when the trial court allowed no accommodation and I was told that the
judge had said there was no way I would get my condo back I thought I’d better hire an attorney
because that might reduce how much prejudice could be shown. But the attorney made things
worse by falsely writing that I’d been served the Amended Complaint before I filed bankruptcy
and failing to prosecute my right to accommodation.

At the March 8th hearing when I said I had no notice of the Motion for Summary Judgment or of
the Foreclosure Judgment and Schedule of Sale, that my name wasn’t in the Certificates of
Mailing, I thought I’d checked the Motion of August 5 and the Foreclosure Judgment of December
15. I was sure I’d checked them both. But the judge found my name on a Certificate of Mailing,
and I was unable to figure out where that Certificate was located. I was extremely distressed by
being made to appear at a hearing without time to prepare. For me to be so unprepared and under
duress had got to be a tremendous help to the opposition.

I wish I had never given my papers to Ms. Schneider, so at least now I could be sure whether or
not my name is on the Certificate of Mailing for the Foreclosure Judgment. I don’t think it is. I
think that the judge found my name on the Certificate of Mailing for the notice that was sent out
after the sale. I tried to get the hearing made into a transcript [RP 401] [RP 439] but the CD
couldn’t be made into a tape because the place that does that said it was showing as blank and the
court people wanted it back to see if that was true, and I only had an hour and a half help each
week from Adult Protective Services to do everything, so it wasn’t possible to ever get it done
because of my disability. If I were able minded I would have been able to think of a way to do it,
or if I’d been able to count on accommodation. But I had no accommodation, in fact my motion
to this day has no ruling in the Record Proper either denying or granting. My condo was
foreclosed on the basis of a Certificate as to the State of the Record which on its face shows no
accommodation for my disability, as well as originally relying on a void Amended Complaint which
served on me in violation of the automatic stay. 11 USC § 362.

Without the papers I gave to Ms. Schneider, to check right now, it is hard to do this because that
is taking much of my mind’s capacity. I’m not sure how it works, but without being able to finish
the Certificate of Mailing thing in my mind, by looking at it and finishing it, my mind has this
confusion in it. This is a part of what I mean about doing one thing at a time, and it having to be
like a train on tracks, all in a line. This is what is so worrying to me. I can’t go to the court and get
a copy, I wish I could. But if I schedule an ADA ride and am left there like I was left at the Court
of Appeals I might no longer be well enough to take care of myself. And that would make things
worse. It’s sad making to be denied accommodation and to lose my condo that I paid on and took
care of for over 17 years; and sad making to have the Appeals Court read all that I provided in my
Docketing Statement and then propose to affirm. Plus, this is extremely frustrating. Before I had
this brain damage I could do so many different things at once and switch between things with no
trouble at all. Not so any more. So I may file tomorrow because there’s a lot here. It’s just not
quite finished. January 10, 2007. (January 11, the driver and his wife were having a baby.)
__________________________

Reason 7 – Because the judgments are not final.

I have a disability and right to accommodation under the ADA, Title II; judgment cannot be final
without taking into account the reasonable accommodation to which I am entitled: the Certificate
as to the Record and Judgment fail to address this substantial issue; and, liens basic to the
redemption that was allowed instead of mine were not adjudicated.

Reason 8 – Because a State may not, consistent with the due process clause, enforce a
judgment against a party named in the proceeding without having given him an
opportunity to be heard sometime before final judgment is entered.

In my Answer [RP 149] I wrote that I was overcharged at closing and the amount should be
deducted from Deutsche’s claim; that the Association was in breach of contract, owed for privy pit
remediation, had interfered with contracts, and had contributed to my loss of credit; and I asked
for accommodation under the ADA, Title II. “Since the case proceeded to judgment upon the
pleadings, it is elementary that every uncontradicted allegation of fact by the unsuccessful party
must be taken as true.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport, Ky., 247 U.S. 464 (1918).

Reason 9 – Because a void judgment is always void, and the denial of due process has been
so egregious, the Appeals Court should not affirm.

If the Appeals Court affirms, I will have to do a Motion under Rule 60 for voidness and then
timely file Notice of Appeal. It would be more efficient to judicially recognize the voidness now,
rather than delaying, especially since the delays are costing me in extreme distress which is
adversely affecting my health in similarly extreme ways.

Reason 10 – Because the Record Proper shows that I was not in default.

On October 5, 2005, the Record Proper shows my challenge [RP 147] followed by reassignment
[RP 148]; so I validly answered [RP 149] and filed Motion for Accommodation [RP 152]. I wasn’
t told I could not answer because I was in default. I trusted I wasn’t in default.

Back to the liens and Ms. Schneider: On May 8, 2006, Ms. Schneider sent me an email falsely
saying she answered her phone and returned my calls promptly. Earlier emails disprove this.

Would the Court take me seriously if I used her first suggestion?

Re 2: Because the Court acted as if I was not in default by excusing Judge Garcia [RP 148] when
I asked [RP 147], then it made sense that I would be able to answer thereafter [RP 149] and
validly file my Motion for Accommodation [RP 152], in which case it followed that Plaintiff would
act as if I were not in default. But it’s like when I did my third party complaint in my first two
foreclosures. It took me so long to understand the one sentence that I thought was central to being
able to proceed with a third party complaint; I copied it and highlighted it; I tried formatting it so
that the meaning would be clearer. But it had two ideas in it, and that’s the kind of thing I have so
much trouble with. If I’m doing just one thing, I can carry on like a train on tracks. When there
are two different things together, rather than in a linear alignment, that’s when my mind won’t
work right anymore. I had worked so hard on that complaint, and then I got tetanus before I could
finish serving it. Tetanus is a horrible disease. I no longer think that it would be possible for
anyone to be tortured and not say whatever they were asked to say. The pain was shocking,
extreme and fearful. And it made it so much harder to do things after I was bed bound. Then my
computer broke right around Thanksgiving, 2005, and it took months to replace it because the first
one that arrived was damaged. Without a computer to support my memory, things are bleak. In
any case, the money from the pit that was owed to me corresponded to the foreclosures. So if
there weren’t any foreclosures then the people who owed me money would have owed me very
little, just their 4/5ths of the privy pit remediation. Maybe she was wrong, but the lawyer at
PrePaid Legal Services had said that my case was appropriate to use a third party complaint. But
the hearings in those cases were all done with less than the regular amount of notice, much less
enough for me to be able to prepare. And, at that time I still had a hard time talking, physically
talking, because of the way that the tetanus had tightened my thoracic diaphragm muscles.

All of which I mention because I felt that the state court was angry that I was foreclosed and then
I saved my property by using bankruptcy. I felt that was why the state court countenanced the
condo foreclosure being entered with no notice to me, so that I could not use bankruptcy again.
The state Court said I misused bankruptcy because I had written that I used it to get more time,
but I had to because I was denied the reasonable accommodation to which I have a right.

[Sentences deleted about computer shutting down; not being able to file myself: if I were left in the
cold again I might not be able to take care of myself anymore; and how I’m describing my
disability so that the Court can see why my disability makes me need more time.]

I will attach an early letter I wrote to Ms. Schneider. Exhibit 4. It shows how we communicated
before she wrote that I am incompetent, and by contrast it shows the difference after I objected to
being falsely described as incompetent by Ms. Schneider in a pleading.

When I paid Ms. Schneider $5,000 up front, I had a reasonable expectation that she would
represent me honestly, me as I am, that is, disabled. I am mentally disabled. As a mentally
disabled American, I need accommodation in order to function. But I can function, I am not
incompetent. During the days Ms. Schneider refused to respond to me after I objected to what she
had falsely written I couldn’t sleep for worry. It is my belief that she had a duty to respond to me
when I was bringing up something so basic. Plus, as far as I can tell she has never answered me
about the jury thing, what part it was playing.

I do not understand why, if the default judgment was void as to the junior lienholders, as per Ms.
Schneider’s email, that did not play a part in the redemption. It seems to me that is where it
functions. And, if it functions in that area then it ceased to be true that there was “ZERO” chance
for my redemption, to quote Ms. Schneider in word and emphasis.

Chavez v. U-Haul says:

I’m trusting that in my case the “procedural formalities should not outweigh basic rights” given my
disability and my need for accommodation, and also the way that the lawyer I hired didn’t respond
to me so that I didn’t know what to do when the other lawyers I contacted said it was too late to
hire them, too close to the court date.

Chavez v. U-Haul goes on to say:

The issue of how much time I should have been given before a default judgment was issued was
never addressed by the court. The Certificate as to the Record was entered without any days for
accommodation, and in disregard of my bankruptcy and the fact the Amended Complaint was
served in violation of the automatic stay. During the hearing I asked the court for the way it
counted the days, and the court said it did not have to say. That’s another reason I wanted the
transcript. But in any case, the issue was not addressed, number of days were not determined.
The issue was more than ignored, it was buried.

The matter of time is important because once the Certificate as to the Record was entered,
Deutsche Bank stopped mailing to me, I had no more notice. That was devastating. There should
have been some accommodation. Instead there was never any hearing prior to sale of my condo
and the only notice I got came after the sale.

If there had been a hearing then I could have reiterated my right to accommodation, and in any
case I would have known what was going on with the case. Plus, at the time of the Foreclosure
Judgment and Scheduling of Sale, my computer was being replaced.

It is important to note that I tried to get a ride to the court through Heritage to check the actual file,
because I can’t count on my mail, but no one came when I scheduled them. I think they are out of
business now. I’ll see if I can find the emails verifying that. That’s right, I was never able to get
the messages from my old computer to my new one. I got cables, I did everything the techs told
me, I thought, but I could never get it to work. I am pretty sure I complained in writing because it
was scaring me that I wasn’t hearing anything, and I can’t count on my mail. I know I wanted to
go and see.

Chavez v. U-Haul says:

Piecemeal… I’m having trouble putting together what I want to say, the liens were never disposed
of in the foreclosure. I filed several things asking to have the liens addressed. That’s because I
thought I had to put all of that money into my redemption in order for it to meet the rules. I kept
asking for a hearing, but I was ignored. Also, the judges kept changing and I couldn’t keep up.

Then it turned out that the condo association gave its liens to the director’s alleged real estate
agent, Rick Green, to enable his redemption. Only the liens were never adjudicated. There wasn’t
a hearing on the liens. If they were disposed of because the trial court ignored them in favor of the
condo association and Rick Green it doesn’t seem fair to me.

Chavez v. U-Haul says:

In my case I especially wanted to appeal the refusal to have a hearing on my need for
accommodation. I submitted an order when the court denied my oral motion, but the Court
refused to sign it. And then I was trying to meet the appeal deadline and I filed, based on the filed
orders I received relating to disposition of the motions to reconsider, and so when I tried to
address the denied oral motion it couldn’t be addressed because the Appeals Court had jurisdiction.

Chavez v. U-Haul says:

I’m hoping that unusual circumstances applies, because otherwise if I understand this, the Appeals
Court is going to dismiss without prejudice and I’ll to have to go back and get the ruling on my
disability and then I can appeal. That would be much longer. I hope the Appeals Court agrees with
the Supreme Court of New Mexico, that "It is the policy of this court to construe its rules liberally
to the end that causes on appeal may be determined on the merits, where it can be done without
impeding or confusing administration or perpetrating injustice." Jaritas Live Stock Co. v. Spriggs,
42 N.M. 14, 16, 74 P.2d 722, 722-23 (1937), quoted in Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. at 276, 871
P.2d at 372; accord Jueng v. New Mexico Dep't of Labor, 121 N.M. 237, 241, 910 P.2d 313, 317
(1996) (limiting "the number of formal hurdles an appellant must overcome to obtain review").” I’
m hoping that the voidness issue makes it unnecessary to go back.

[Paragraphs about motion for accommodation, Ms. Schneider’s Rule 60 motion, how Certificate
of the Record (served in violation of automatic stay) should have been stricken, delaying impact of
chill from ADA taxi pickup being so late, snow and Day of Mourning court closings, computer
problems, and extension requests deleted.]

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Marie Kline

(505)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to SCRA Rule 12-202(D)(3), I, Karen Marie Kline, hereby certify that I caused on
January 12, 2007, a true copy of the above to be sent by U.S. mail to the following:
(My home mail has not been working well. See attachment of tally for Senator Bingaman.)

FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
Richard Leverick, Esq.
5120 San Francisco Road NE   Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
(505) 858-3303

FOR DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNER’S ASSOCIATION-APPELLEE
Rodney Schlagel, Esq. & Sherrill Filter, Esq.
Post Office Box 3170   Albuquerque, New Mexico 87190
(505) 884-0777

FOR DEFENDANT EDWARD CROCKER, CROCKER LTD.-APPELLEE
Edward Crocker, pro se
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87506
(505)

FOR THE PURCHASER;
CROSS- and COUNTER-PETITIONER-IN-REDEMPTION-APPELLEE
John Hayes, Esq.
530 B. Harkle Road   Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
(505) 989-1434

FOR THE PETITIONER IN REDEMPTION CATHERINE COOK-APPELLEE
Charles Purdy, Esq.
233 Johnson Street   Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-1854
(505) 984-2999