STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BARRIE LEE DERRINGER, No. DM-12-0610
Petitioner, Rel. DV-12-234
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent,
MOTION FOR RETRIAL/RECONSIDERATION UNDER NMRA RULE 59 AND 60 OF THE MINUTE ORDER AND BIFURCATED DECREE OF DIVORCE OF APRIL 10, 2012 THAT NOT ONLY DOES NOT ADDRESS FACTS, BUT IS IMPOSSIBLE UNDER FACTS OF INCOMES, AND IS ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND MUST BE RESCINDED AS A MATTER OF LAW
COMES NOW David Derringer representing himself Pro-Se with Motion for Reconsideration/retrial. The Abuse of Discretion involved here is an appealable issue to the NM Court of Appeals and beyond. “Mistake” in this matter is not obeying the laws in any decision.
David Derringer refused to sign the Order of April 10, 2012 for good cause shown under “mistake” and “fraud” and abuse of discretion. It is disgusting to believe that the United States Court system has become so corrupt to ignore statutory, case law and Constitution, to use extortion and total disregard of humanity to allow the death and destruction of animals, default and confiscation of personal property in violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1982 by allowance of the preferred gender (woman Barrie Derringer) to have a three bedroom house apart from her spouse, to the detriment of the family of animals and personal property in previous storage. Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 “This section may be enforced by injunction.” Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Mo, 1968 88. S. Ct. 2186, 392 US 409, 20 L.Ed2d 1189. The storage bills and the bills for food for the Derringer animals had extreme precedence and priority during the entire marriage over the whim of Barrie Derringer to have a large house in which to live by herself after she left in January, 2012, while abandoning and deserting her own husband, and that this is illegally condoned by this court. The courts were never designed to rule strictly on a “whim” of the woman gender, over-riding all other laws as has been done in this particular court. Mattox v. Mattox, 734 P.2d 259, 105 NM 479. Barrie has no right to have an illegal place of her own and deny her spouse support or housing, or of a three bedroom for one person when a one bedroom or even efficiency apartment would be more than sufficient. Strong v. Eakin, 66 P. 539, 11 NM 107. ; Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.”
In No. 1, and No. 10, a Motion came before the court by the Petitioner to stop Respondent David Derringer from “frivolous” filings of yet legal and proper pleadings for defense and “due process” and “equal protection”. It became clear to the judge that the motions could not be stopped under laws of due process and Constitution due to her own Oath to uphold the Constitution, so to punish the Respondent and attempt to force the divorce ahead and to deny all “opportunity to be heard” forthwith by the Respondent, the Judge Ordered a bifurcated decree of divorce for the Petitioner prior to any “trial”, discovery, and other matters necessary to affect proper due process in “abuse of discretion”. Matter of Lord’s Estate, 602 P.2d 1030, 93 NM 543 “It is policy of state to foster and protect marriage institution.” This illegal act of “bifurcated divorce” for purposes of deceit so as to stop due process cannot stop David Derringer from this Motion for “Reconsideration” or from taking this matter on through all higher courts upon legal appeal. This act was simply for a woman court defying all case laws presented to appease the woman Barrie Derringer as Petitioner. Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del.) Supra. 1994 “Every litigant is entitled to be heard by a disinterested judge.” Had it been a “man” that had abandoned the woman and got a large house of his own to the detriment of the living conditions of the animals, deny payments to storage and not allow money for food and gasoline for transportation of the “woman” this woman justice of this court would have been “enraged” and ruled differently. Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81.; Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986 “Strict construction of statute disqualifying trial judge for bias or prejudice is grounded upon sound principle that there is possibility of substantial abuse since harsh remedy of cessation of trial proceedings is mandated if allegations purport to state cause for bias. 28 USC 455" However, as the court record does clearly show, the Judge asked Barrie Derringer in open court if she wanted a divorce and then immediately also asked “why” Barrie Derringer wanted a divorce, and Barrie Derringer was “stunned” and “speechless” and could not find any answer for a period of almost a minute as she tried to collect her thoughts and conjure up some “reason” as to why she was throwing away a man that she knew loved her, abandoning all of her duties and taking all moneys needed to feed live animals and pay debts formerly created by the family. Finally, after deliberation and with much stuttering, Barrie Derringer then went into a diatribe of different beliefs in God and other not true statements that did not happen in the Derringer marriage. What this did clearly show the court is that Barrie Derringer does not know herself why she is doing the divorce and is very confused in her life and in this entire matter, which in fact mandates the “mediation” under No. 2. The egregious acts of Barrie Derringer to drive away from husband David Derringer on December 27, 2011 “accomplished a purpose which is deemed subversive of the true policy of the matrimonial law and destructive of the best interests of society.” and was cruel treatment of David Derringer, and a death warrant to the Derringer family of animals taking all moneys needed for food for life itself. Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild 208; Martinez v. Block, 858 p.2d 429, 115 NM 762. Thus, under case laws that the court should enforce, the State of New Mexico has an obligation to wait until a proper trial to award a divorce when all witnesses, testimony and time follows this hearing as to prevent a wrongful decision and No. 2 “Motion for Mediator” should be granted at least “one simple try” to save this marriage as mandated in the New Mexico case laws. Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 522, 1853 WL 4638 Mo. 1853. “The social relations of every member of the community should be clearly defined and conclusively set at rest”. Astor v. Astor, 120 So. 2d 176 Fla. 1960. The Derringer family unit has to be supported by this Court for practical purposes and as a matter of basic dignity. Without the right to marriage itself, we are denied full respect and dignity. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 Misc.3d 459, 794 NYS.2d 579 NY Sup. 2005. “Marriage is often termed a civil contract” that must be upheld to the best ability of both husband and wife, not one deserting the other in adverse circumstances, but both simply working to make their life better. “Marriage” is viewed as the ‘preeminent basis for civil institutions’ which gives character to our whole civil polity. Maynard v. Hill, 125 US 190, 8 S. Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed.654 (1888).
In this entire hearing of April 10, 2012, the Petitioner, by way of her attorney did at no time quote any case laws, statutes or any other authority to gain their request. United Salt Corp. v. McKee 96 N.M. 65, 628 p.2d 310 (1981)“Abuse of discretion is present which is defined as when the judge has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably under the particular circumstances.” However, in total contrast, the Respondent constantly quoted the New Mexico Statutory laws, case laws and other authorities that this court has to abide by under Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct and Oath. Canon 3 (B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. The court, however, both ignored and disregarded the “law” to simply want each and every motion of the Respondent “denied” entirely or in part, and yet grant in bias and prejudice each and every request of the Petitioner. In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194 “Presumption exists that a judge will put personal beliefs aside and rule according to the laws as enacted, as required by his or her Oath. 28 USCA 455(a)”. ; Canon: “Law” “denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional law.” Conejos County Lumber Co. v. Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 80 N.M. 612, 459 P.2d 138 (1969) “Discretion, in this sense was abused when the trial judge acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.” In short, the Court had no intention of attempting to save this marriage, but simply wanted the procedure to be over with expeditiously for the “woman” in a total bias and prejudice of the “man” in a sexual discrimination that was very apparent in the proceedings. NMRA 21-400 disqualification : Recusal: A judge is disqualified and shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This abuse of discretion, and not only failure, but refusal to obey prior case laws and “stare decisis” is against duties as a justice. Holt v. KMI Const. Inc., 821 F. Supp. 846 D. Conn. 1993 “Recusal is called for when district judge has personal bias or prejudice in favor or against party.” Clearly, the No. 1 Order the “Petitioner is granted a bifurcated decree of divorce on the grounds of incompatibility should be reversed and such Divorce should only be awarded after a proper trial scheduled in August, 2012. Barker v. Barker, 94 NM 162, 608 p.2d 138 (1980) “In simple English, the language of the “other reasons” clause, ...vests power in court adequate to enable them to vacate judgement whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” The case laws cited in entirety by David Derringer, Respondent, must be followed in this matter by the Judge, rather than to simply arbitrarily want Barrie Derringer to have her divorce early before a proper trial. State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964).“Stare Decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent, and it lies at the very core of the judicial process of interpreting and announcing law.” Accordingly, as will be addressed in detail following, the “income” of both parties has always been insufficient to pay $900.00 rent plus utilities for the former “couple”, let alone Barrie Derringer illegally striking out on her own to have only her own three bedroom house only for herself, without the ability of David Derringer since January to occupy or use that facility, and then mis-use of “community income” to pay an attorney at the expense of starving the Derringer animals. People v. Walsh, 210 Ill. Dec. 126, 652 N.E.2d 1102, 273 Ill. App. 3d 453, Ill App. 1 Dist. 1995 “To prevail on motion for substitution of judge for cause, accused has to show actual prejudice, animosity, hostility, ill-will, or distrust directed towards accused.” (Being a Man). The case laws cited by David Derringer at all times in the hearing “prevented” Barrie Derringer from renting such an expensive place for only herself, and any rational human being knows that Barrie Derringer by only herself does not need a “three bedroom house”. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis “promotes very important principles in the maintenance of a sound judicial system and stability of the law.” State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940). “The object of stare decisis is to promote uniformity, certainty, and stability in the law.” State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940). Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990) “fairness in assuring that like cases are treated similarly.”
Clearly, as well, one will easily see in looking at the testimony of both parties and the court record that the amounts listed in the attached expense sheet compiled by the court, simply and deliberately “ignore” the $700 storage that Barrie “refuses” to pay each month even when married, that was discussed by the court itself as to maybe moving the storage to a smaller and cheaper place, (clearly David Derringer does not have the money or help without his wife to either move the storage to another location, or to pay “overlapping” rent in such a move) not included at all in the expense sheet, and despite testimony by Respondent David Derringer and testimony under cross examination by Barrie Derringer it was established that ‘animal’ food amounted to well over $600 for the horses and another $100 for the dogs and cats, with the court then simply coming up with an arbitrary and capricious amount of $300 for feeding 8 horses, and deliberately ignoring the dog and cat food. Apparently the court wants the animals to die so that the woman Barrie Derringer can have a nice large house for only herself. How could anyone believe that 8-1200 pound horses would only eat less than 1,800 pounds of hay a month at 20 pounds of hay per single day feeding per horse, (or 20# per horse per day), amounting to proper feed of 160 #’s of hay for each day of feeding of a 30 day month, when they should have 4,800#s per month? After they eat the allocated hay the first 14 days of the month, what do they eat until the end of the month of the missing 3,000#s of hay? The court then deliberately ignores “gasoline” for the vehicles with the testimony of Barrie Derringer that she can only afford $120.00 of gasoline as she lives close to her work, with her Lexis car that gets 23MPG, and yet the court was told numerous times that Respondent David Derringer has to drive at least 30 miles each day with a truck that gets only 10MPG at gasoline that costs $4.00 per gallon. It takes no genius to realize that $12.00 per day times 30 days per month is $360.00 minimum for gasoline for only David Derringer who has an income 1/3 of what Barrie Derringer has, amounting to paying about ½ of the David Derringer income each month for gasoline alone. What is happening here is clear, that a woman Judge wants Barrie Derringer to have a nice place to live by herself, and to then “kill” the animals in starvation as malicious acts against David Derringer, persecuting a “man” that did nothing but love this woman wife. Desjardin v. Albuquerque National Bank, 93 N.M. 89, 596 P.2d 858 (1979) “Rule 60 authorizes court to grant relief. Court are authorized by this rule to relieve party from any final judgement for good cause shown.”; Title 28 Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (1 Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The No. 1 should be reversed and denied until trial. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, 14 F.3d 818 “Determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis in reason.”
In No. 6, the bias and prejudice is overwhelming. Not only does the financial worksheet maliciously ignore the “facts” of both income and expenses, but even when Barrie Derringer is ordered to “pay” David Derringer an amount of $40.50, the court views that as such an “insignificant” amount as to waive Barrie Derringer ever having to pay this amount anyway. Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in trial court’s opinion.”; Smith v. Bradfield, 97 N.M. 611, 642 P.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1982) “The trial court is invested with a reservoir of equitable power to vacate a final order where justice clearly dictates in exceptional circumstances.” The rational here is absurd that a tendered amount due is ignored by the court in bias for a “woman”. In essence, not to pay David Derringer $40.50 per month when David Derringer’s guaranteed monthly income is only $698.00 per month, the amount of “$40.50" is VERY SIGNIFICANT. The proper amounts are stated in the re-worked financial worksheet designated as “Exhibit A” of the Respondent that is attached to this pleading, and one easily sees why the Derringer family could not “rent” a large place for wife Barrie Derringer in the past, and certainly cannot rent one for her now as well as pay an attorney for an un-needed divorce. The Derringer family was on the edge of finances at all times with just enough money to see some movies and do some entertainment each month. The “manipulation” of the schedule by the court in the Order of April 10, 2012 is biased, prejudiced and entirely non-factual showing the a man that makes only SSI disability income of only $698.00 per month can actually pay for feeding 8 horses at $600 or more per month, feed himself and dogs and cats to “eat like Barrie Derringer” at $300.00 per month and another $100.00 for the dogs and cats, drive a truck that gets only 10MPG for at least 900 miles each month at $4.00 per gallon in gasoline for another $360.00 per month, pay $700 in storage fees that Barrie Derringer simply decided not to pay anymore, or a total of $2,260.00; and actually have $388.00 left over for entertainment, and does not need the extra $40.50 mandated in Order that “should be paid” to David Derringer by Barrie Derringer. Clearly, that is why David Derringer did not sign this insane Order and is proceeding towards an appeal for bias, prejudice and abuse of discretion. With Barrie Derringer’s “new residence” by herself and paying an attorney for a divorce, the Derringer bills are $4304.00 per month with only an income of $3,550.00 without Barrie Derringer eating the extra $300.00 of food that she never did before, and without Barrie Derringer carefully simply putting some of the “community money” each month into her private IRA where David Derringer is not a party; in short “fraudulent” transfer of “community funds” to “personal funds” without husband authorization. Newsome v. Farer, 103 N.M. 415, 420, 708 P.2d 327, 332 (1985) “Abuse of discretion will only be found when the district court’s decision is clearly untenable or contrary to logic and reason.” This does not compute in any rational mind. DB v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Education, 985 F. Supp. 457, affirmed 159 F.3d 1350 “DNJ 1997 “If through obduracy, honest mistake, or simply inability to attain self knowledge judge fails to acknowledge disqualifying predisposition or circumstance, appellate court must order recusal no matter what the source; litigants ought not have to face judge with respect to whom there is reasonable question as to impartiality.”
Clearly, the No. 7 is “mute” with respects to Barrie Derringer ever getting an “inventory” as to the storage, for within less than 20 days of this pleading, without payment of storage by Barrie Derringer of $700.00, there will be no personal property in storage as it will be confiscated and forfeited by failure to pay storage rent, a complete default of legal duties of the Derringer marriage. NMSA 45-2-804 “demand” that Barrie Derringer vacate her expensive house, stop paying an attorney and get only use of “legal aid” and pay the bills including storage with the community funds as mandated under law. Matter of Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172. “Intent of statute, subjecting entire community proper to payment of community debts, was to protect third parties who had dealt in good faith with community during its existence against dissipation of estate by survivor before outstanding debts were taken care of”. Barrie Derringer because of her frivolous single decision without authorization by her legal husband, while still married and legally responsible as David Derringer’s “wife” in February, 2012 not to pay storage anymore, by illegally withholding “community funds” defaulted on any ability to recover any item and will be totally liable to David Derringer for loss of personal property from storage, as an entire debt liability upon any divorce. Clearly, at that time in any settlement agreement David Derringer will lawfully claim any of Barrie Derringer’s personal property of value to offset the loss of David Derringer personal property and community property.
In Order No. 8, the court “refuses” to listen to and review the captured actual court record of the preceeding hearing of February 21, 2012 and again on the hearing of April 10, 2012, while being also a witness in April 10, 2012 to the perjury and proven fraud of Barrie Derringer. U.S. v. Bowman, 173 F.3d 595 “CA6 (Ohio) 1999 Court will narrowly construe obstruction of justice statute to ensure that proper notice of unlawfulness of activity and reach of statute is given to public.” The court claims that David Derringer did not produce the “burden of proof” of the perjury that happened right before the Justice Alisa Hadfield, was noted and alleged right before Judge Hadfield and is blatant of a proper court record. US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997 Acts that distort evidence to be presented or otherwise impeded administration of justice are violations of statute prohibiting obstruction of justice, and act of altering or fabricating documents used or to be used in judicial proceeding would fall within statute if intent is to deceive court.” 18 USCA 1503.” The previous pleading of Respondent’s Motion for Order for Arrest and Prosecution Against Barrie Derringer... is very specific as the proven perjury on February 21, 2012 and in open Court on April 10, 2012, the Respondent requested multiple times for the Court to listen to and review this court record in which the Barrie Derringer perjury is blatant and the Court “refuses” to do this so as to protect the woman in bias and prejudice. Barrie “lied” about the Petition for Order of Protection, “lied” about the incident happening on February 4, 2012, and again “lied” about being afraid of David Derringer while previously seeing David Derringer in January numerous times as well as stating in open Court on February 21, 2012 that “David Derringer would NEVER hurt me physically”. US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998 “Obstruction of justice statute is construed broadly to include the various corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted; variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined.” 18 USCA 1503 Again then on April 10, 2012, Barrie Derringer first on court record under oath, lies that she did not state in February 21, 2012 that her parents Jerry and Warren Crowe were “paying for the divorce”, and when cross examined by David Derringer, was repeatedly asked in different ways the same question, in which the Barrie Derringer response is in total opposition to her testimony on February 21, 2012 over this matter. Then when asked directly if her parents are paying for the divorce, Barrie Derringer stated “NO”, and then only several minutes later with the same question phrased in a different way if the parents Jerry and Warren Crowe were financing the divorce against husband David Derringer, Barrie then changes her testimony to the direct opposite with answer, “yes, they loaned me some money”. Perjury and fraud are “criminal acts” that this court is condoning and allowing David Derringer to be under “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments depriving totally the due process and equal protection mandated under Constitution, as well as “facilitating” the criminal acts of Barrie with knowledge but without redress “just because Barrie Derringer is a woman in a woman’s court”. This defies every law in the United States. A quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis added). David Derringer has no legal recourse but to continue to expose these and other unlawful activities until some element of the Government takes corrective action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).; US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 “CA6 (Mich.) Obstruction of Justice statute proscribes subornation of perjury.” The court cannot continue to simply ignore and allow this perjury in a court of law just because Barrie Derringer is a “woman”. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated; Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 “A judge is not only entitled, but also has a duty to take all lawful measures reasonably necessary to prevent the occurrence of a crime in his courtroom.”; McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 921 F. Supp. 1473 “DSC 1996 When any court discerns what it considers to be improper activity during litigation, it is court’s sworn duty to eliminate that conduct for the prompt and fair administration of justice.”
No. 10 “Petitioner’s Motion for Equitable Relief from Frivolous Filings by Respondent is granted in the Petitioner is hereby granted an immediate Bifurcated Decree of Divorce on the grounds of incompatibility” must be rescinded as a matter of law. A divorce cannot legally be granted by a Motion for relief of due process filings under US Code Title 42 Section 1981 and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments as a way to “stop” the Respondent of a divorce proceedings so as to grant a woman a divorce in a woman’s court. US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 “This section (Title 18 Section 241) pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of USCA Constitution Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vague.”; In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520 Mich. 1991 “To use power of public office as judge to ruin another for personal gain plainly violates several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, 3, 5; Such conduct may also constitute crime Canons 1-3, 5.” ; Mann v. Conlin, 22 F.3d 100, 1994 Fed App. 122P cert denied 115 S. Ct. 193, 513 US 870, 130 L.Ed.2d 126 “When Plaintiff alleges that judge acted in non-judicial capacity court relies on functional analysis to determine whether acts are protected, meaning that one must determine whether actions are truly judicial acts, or acts that simply happen to have been done by Judges.” In this matter, the deprivation of due process and rights to file pleadings by David Derringer in a court of law, was cleverly hidden by Judge Hadfield by abuse of power and abuse of discretion to use expediting the divorce without trial so as to attempt to stop David Derringer from filing any further motions; in other words meant for deceitful use of the judicial capacity without jurisdiction or authority for such mis-use. Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”. The Order for bifurcated divorce for Barrie Derringer must be denied and rescinded as a matter of law. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion mod. On denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553 cert granted “For purposes of judicial immunity, each act must be examined to determine if it was a normal function performed by a judge.”
The next problem here is blatantly obvious. Judge Hadfield deliberately ignores that Barrie Derringer has deprived David Derringer of any community income for a period of four months; January, February, March and April, and Judge Hadfield has no intention to make Barrie Accountable for $10,400.00 of community income property that David Derringer owns ½. In short, “IMMEDIATELY” Barrie Derringer has to reimburse David Derringer for an amount of $5,200.00 to make up for stealing that community property from David Derringer until this order!!! Or in alternative give David Derringer several items of Barrie Derringer personal property that are worth that amount in value.
WHEREFORE the Respondent requests an immediate Order to quash and rescind the entire Order of April 10, 2012, for Judge Hadfield to recuse for cause, and hold the proper hearing of all of these matter before a non-biased and non-prejudiced justice in the future, and for Barrie Derringer to be Ordered to pay all bills, vacate her expensive premises and to stop paying for an attorney with community funds of the Derringers and any other relief that is appropriate. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Martin, 79 NM 737, 449 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1968); Perez v. Perez, 75 NM 656, 409 p.2d 804 (1966); Barker v. Barker, 94 NM 162, 608 p.2d 138 (1980) “In simple English, the language of the “other reasons” clause, ...vests power in court adequate to enable them to vacate judgement whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Simply put, the Derringer animals living and breathing are far more important than Barrie Derringer’s divorce.
Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________
David Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April 12, 2012
Petitioner’s attorney of record
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-620-6688 New Mexico 87109.
On April 12, 2012 I hereby certify that I sent a copy of this pleading to:
The Second Judicial District Court
400, Lomas NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
No comments:
Post a Comment