SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Petitioner, Rel. DV-12-234
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER
Respondent,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
OF THE TRIAL OF AUGUST 23,2012
COMES NOW the Respondent with his findings of facts and conclusions of law.
INTRODUCTION
In this case DM-12-610 and related case DV-12-234 Judge Hadfield from the beginning has denied Respondent David Derringer due process, equal protection, and violations of all Constitutional rights. Judge Hadfield simply will not comply with any law of Constitution, NM statutory laws, US Code, or case laws blaspheming her Oath wherein she “swore to God” to uphold the law of the United States and instead performs acts of her own agenda and personal beliefs as simply acts by a “judge” without jurisdiction acting without law, but not acts that are “judicial in nature”. Phelps v. Hamilton USA
With this pleading of “findings and conclusions” various acts from this court are mandatory, including, but not limited to dismissal of the divorce proceedings, quashing and dissolving the Order of Protection in total Constitutional violation, and Order for testing illegal drugs of Barrie Derringer, emotional and mental evaluation of Barrie Derringer due to suicide tendencies testified under Oath as a witness in the trial, Order for arrest and prosecution of Barrie Derringer for the 4th degree felonies of perjury that is proven numerous times in this court witnessed repeatedly by Sheriff officers present, and the entire Petition for Order of Protection, prosecution for Barrie Derringer’s malicious prosecution, and disbarment of Attorney Alain Jackson for proven perjury in a court of law and other damages due David Derringer for deprivation of Constitutional rights and deprivation of “due process”.
This pleading is “public record of a court of law” and therefore available to all of the public; hence this pleading as others in this case will be posted on the World Wide Web Internet for all of the public of the world to see to allow the “public” to have an informed decision making process in the upcoming election in November, 2012, wherein if the United States voting process works as it should, Judge Hadfield will be removed from the bench by the population of New Mexico; as it should be for any Judge to defy all laws, not fit in sedition and treason to sit in the judiciary. “US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3-No person shall be an...elector..or hold any office, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath,... as a judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” ; In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 “In its strict sense, term “oath” refers to attestation coupled with invocation to Supreme Being to witness word of attesting party and to visit him with judgement if the words be false; in its more general sense, the term includes any attestation or affirmation where-by party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully or speak truly, regardless whether or not that attestation invokes Supreme Being or is accompanied by conditional self-cursing”. “An oath is an affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting an untruth punishable for perjury.”; In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194.
It is of no doubt, that Judge Hadfield will disregard all of the case laws and legal authorities contained in this “conclusions of law”, just as she attempted in the trial to deny Pro-Se party any ability to even have “legal argument” in order to deprive and corrupt the court record, thinking that the “Pro-Se Respondent is dumb enough” not to know any better, making David Derringer require Judge Hadfield to re-open the court record to be able to file this pleading of “finding and conclusions”, with Judge Hadfield attempting to vacate the courtroom just after David Derringer’s testimony that itself was totally controlled and muzzled by the Judge. A total violation of all laws has occurred here, so as it should come as no surprise, that when and “if” Barrie Lee Derringer becomes finally divorced from David Derringer to become a private citizen under the name Barrie Lee Crowe, she, and others will be immediately faced with multiple civil and criminal actions filed by David Derringer for torts, alienation of affection, loss of consortium, interference with a legal marriage, violation of rights of privacy, malicious prosecution, criminal battery for malicious infection of incurable Herpes III and domestic violence, deprivation of rights to bear arms, violations of due process and equal protection, and federal action for Civil Rights violations under a “class 1983 action” for violations of US Code title 1981(a); 1982; 1983; 1985; and 1986. Since actions were taken without jurisdiction in violation of all laws wherein certain future Defendants “knew better, or should have known better” there can be no “immunity”. Swann v. City of Dallas Columbia Pictures 508 U.S.
David Derringer is the only person in the world that truly loves, protects, and defends Barrie Derringer, whereas Judge Hadfield has no concern of Barrie
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1) There were numerous pending motions before the court from the Respondent David Derringer that addressed a total violation of the Civil Rules of Discovery by the Petitioner numerous times and several other motions pending regarding requests for orders of discovery compliance, sanctions against both Barrie Derringer and her attorney Alain Jackson, and several other motions for “order to show cause” for contempt of Barrie Derringer not complying to the Rules of discovery as well as violations of the July 3, 2012 Order from the court, and in a total bias and prejudice, lack of jurisdiction and judicial capacity and with total deprivations of due process and equal protection, the court Judge Hadfield only addressed one of these motions, with prejudice to force David Derringer into a trial without proper discovery. (It was found by finally attaining only one discovery document “after the trial” that 95% of the discovery requests and production of documents were not answered or provided by Barrie Derringer anyway, thus proving deprivation of due process and equal protection) It was perjured to the court by the Petitioner and her attorney that they had not ever received the two discovery request as were hand delivered, and after an Order from the court on July 3, 2012 to ensure that David Derringer gain all discovery without exceptions, Barrie Derringer only sent a copy of their discovery “certified” without any indication as to whom this was from. After the trial, when picking up the discovery envelope, it is found that the Petitioner deliberately did not answer all interrogatories, did not provide documents requested and did not in any way complete the discovery requests of April 16, 2012 or May 23, 2012 mandating the court to order sanctions. The court stood on a bias depriving David Derringer of due process and equal protection.
2) The court was made aware by verbal David Derringer motion that all matters of this court of both DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 and the various previous motions including the motion to recuse for cause Judge Hadfield were in the New Mexico Court of Appeals jurisdiction under No. 32,113 and 32,326 wherein a trial could not be held, and without legal ability Judge Hadfield denied a motion for continuance or in the alternative “stay” and moved forward illegally with the trial. At the time of trial, the NM Court of Appeals had the open appeal of DM-12-610 without either dismissal or remand, and the jurisdiction was in the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
3) Barrie Derringer’s testimony over any matter was proven not to be credible with proven perjury of the Petitioner’s Petition for Order of Protection, and testimony throughout the hearings of April 10, 2012, July 3, 2012 and in the trial of August 23, 2012 wherein Barrie Derringer constantly contradicted her previous testimony of record with statements often that are inconsistent with her present testimony. Even in the trial Barrie Derringer testified to the court that she made a yearly income of $45,000.00 wherein one of the very few answers to the discovery interrogatories only received after the trial by the Respondent, Barrie Derringer claims that she makes $47,000.00 per year, a full $2,000.00 difference, which amount is 1/4 of the total income per year of the Respondent in comparison. There is a strong possibility of emotional and mental disorders by Barrie Derringer in a bi-polar condition that necessitates attaining a “balance” from the taking of prescription drugs of tranquilizers, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, hormone medications and pain medications with addictive drugs included such a codeine (such drug can be a hallucinogen and can distort reality for users), such as, but not limited to ibuprofen, pseudovent, oxycodone, flonase, benzonatate, hydrocodone, allegra, promethazine, estradiol, guaifen, acetaminophen with codeine, and singulair. All of these drugs when combined with any alcohol or absolutely with any use of marijuana, cocaine, meth or heroin would cause an explosion of delusions or death or strong suicidal tendencies; and the strong possibility of Barrie Derringer again as in the past history doing alcohol abuse, marijuana and cocaine that disrupt her way of thinking and indeed create a penchant to “lie”. In the past marriage with living with David Derringer, Barrie Barrie touching her husband in such a manner, Barrie
4) The Order of Protection of DV-12-234 used in legal error and “judicial terrorism” against David Derringer all underlying this entire malicious filing of divorce DM-12-610 must be dismissed and released immediately against David Derringer. The testimony of Bruce Davis that was illegally prevented from testifying as a material witness by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and this bias and prejudice endorsed by the public corruption of Judge Hadfield proves without doubt that Barrie Derringer lied in criminal perjury and fraud in the “Petition for Order of Protection” by statements that on February 4, 2012 David Derringer had knocked her down and hurt her hip, caused bruised, kept her from leaving and wherein Barrie Derringer is very afraid of being hurt physically by David Derringer. Instead, testimony proves that at no time did David Derringer ever “touch” Barrie Derringer on February 4, 2012, even when Barrie Derringer came rushing to calm and console her husband after the assault and battery by Barrie Derringer’s own gang of 12 persons, and wherein Barrie Derringer placed her hands on David Derringer’s cheeks, and said “Calm down, you’re OK”, David Derringer still did not physically touch, hug or kiss, or make any other actions with contact of Barrie Derringer. Barrie Derringer has after December 2011 low or no moral fiber and has done extensive misconduct, and abuse of Derringer animals and other acts to have bad moral character so as to show the lies and deceit of Barrie Derringer over many of the issues in both DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 as proven in testimony.
5) Respondent David Derringer was totally controlled in testimony by Judge Hadfield with only select questions and denied legal due process ability to fully testify over all matters of the David Derringer/Barrie Derringer marriage as was necessary for due process (opportunity to be heard), keeping David Derringer from exposing the Barrie Derringer perjury, fraud and sexually transmitted (STD) venereal disease Herpes III to the proper extent, that Barrie Derringer has and previously infected David Derringer without warning doing criminal battery and will do so unto all of the public of contact without a court order warning the public before any sexual or intimate contact by Petitioner Barrie Derringer. The “Herpes III” (STD) venereal disease entirely affects both the need to deny this divorce and absolutely affects the “division of property and assets and community liabilities of the parties and ‘damages due’ David Derringer in any settlement agreement. The court Judge Hadfield specifically stopped David Derringer on many of these issues in attempts to “limit” the court record for appeal and deny due process and equal protection while also acting in bias and prejudice to “protect” Barrie Derringer over all issues. An incurable sexually transmitted disease, that will infect any member of the public is of great issue in this matter of both a showing of un-accountability, and disregard of human rights by Barrie Derringer. It is an abuse of discretion for Judge Hadfield to attempt to “cover-up” this matter of (STD) and deny Respondent proper opportunity to be heard regarding same, as the court is mandated to Order disease testing for Barrie Derringer. This court is trying not to make any ruling on this issue of damages appurtenant to a settlement agreement.
6) Barrie Derringer left husband David Derringer with no valid reason on December 27, 2011 with full knowledge before the marriage and at all times accepting the living conditions of the Derringers of living in a travel trailer at some times with no electricity or running water, and Barrie Derringer had no legal ability to take any community income and gain a separate residence from David Derringer without allowing David Derringer to reside or use any of the rented facilities. At all times after meeting David Derringer, Barrie both knew, accepted and was enthralled with the idea that David Derringer was a true Cowboy, living with his animals in a rough life style, and Barrie became a “cowgirl in training” learning how to live off of the land, in self sufficient means, without all of the comforts of city living, and eagerly moved in with David Derringer in these conditions before David Derringer and Barrie Derringer were “legally married”. At any and all times before making a legal binding marriage contract, Barrie Derringer could have stopped dating and being engaged to David Derringer, never married David Derringer and discontinued the relationship. Instead, Barrie Derringer and David Derringer proceeded in a plan to move from New Mexico to even a more remote location in the mountains wherein the Derringers would be even more self sufficient and without any of the luxuries of “running water” or “electricity” for planned quite some time. The testimony of Barrie Derringer, David Derringer and third party Bruce Davis sustains that Barrie Derringer knew exactly what she was getting into in living conditions with “Cowboy” David Derringer at all times since meeting and proceeded with a marriage contract on that basis. Hence, at no time, could Barrie Derringer claim that she seeks a “divorce” from David Derringer for “irreconcilable differences” or “incompatibility” based on any matters of “living conditions” and thus facts prove that the divorce proceedings were brought in malicious prosecution.
7) Barrie Derringer had previously done criminal battery against David Derringer before the marriage to infect without warning David Derringer with the incurable (STD) venereal disease Herpes III with marriage legal contract on January 15, 2010 of a life long commitment between the Derringers so as to mitigate the effects of “having a mate” wherein no other would marry each party due to the ongoing permanent disease, making the acts of “divorce” by the Petitioner Barrie Derringer mandated to grant David Derringer alimony and spouse support for compensation of this egregious matter constituting “permanent” criminal battery against the Respondent.
8) Under oath on the witness stand in testimony, Petitioner Barrie Derringer admitted to criminal domestic violence and criminal battery against Respondent David Derringer of striking David Derringer in the face numerous times, with Sheriff officers as witnesses, and the court record witnessing these confessions of Barrie Derringer, and in a bias and prejudice and to facilitate criminal acts without redress, Judge Hadfield ignored and did not have Barrie Derringer arrested or take any action over these criminal acts discovered and happening in the court room itself.
9) Under oath on the witness stand in testimony, Petitioner Barrie Derringer lied numerous times in criminal perjury and fraud against Respondent David Derringer as proven in the trial by “impeachment” testimony of third party witness Bruce Davis and the testimony under oath of Respondent David Derringer, with Sheriff officers as witnesses, and the court record witnessing this proven perjury of Barrie Derringer, and in a bias and prejudice and to facilitate criminal acts without redress, Judge Hadfield ignored and did not have Barrie Derringer arrested or take any action over these criminal acts discovered and happening in the court room itself of this 4th degree felony by Barrie Derringer in the courtroom itself.
10) Under oath on the witness stand in testimony of third party witness Bruce Davis, it was proven that Respondent David Derringer DID NOT AT ANY TIME ON FEBRUARY 4, 2012 “knock down Barrie Derringer or hurt her hip or cause bruises and “DID NOT” keep Barrie Derringer from leaving; proving without doubt that the Petitioner Barrie Derringer’s Petition for Order of Protection of February 6, 2012 was filed in notarized perjury and fraud in acts of a fourth degree felony under NMSA 30-25-1 and malicious prosecution and deprivation of Constitutional and statutory rights against Respondent David Derringer. Judge Hadfield ignored and did not have Barrie Derringer arrested or take any action over these criminal acts discovered and happening in the court room itself and illegally kept the non-jurisdictional Order of Protection against David Derringer.
11) It was proven in the testimony of David Derringer that the Respondent had never been legally served any summons in the Petition for Order of Protection of DV-12-234 and the facts that without legal service and with proof that Barrie Derringer had brought the Petition for Order of Protection in perjury and fraud, and where David Derringer testified that he had a right to his profession of NM Outfitter #32 and rights to his Constitutional rights to own, possess and use firearms, Judge Hadfield was mandated to Order the Order of Protection dissolved and did nothing to grant David Derringer either due process or equal protection.
12) Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that Barrie Derringer is suicidal and gave just cause for husband David Derringer to have locked the storage/shop unit in January, 2012 from access to Barrie Derringer to keep Barrie Derringer from David Derringer’s loaded firearms for her own protection, and that Barrie Derringer admitted under oath to having some of David Derringer’s loaded weapons.
13) Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that Barrie Derringer has failed and refused to return to David Derringer numerous items of David Derringer personal property. Barrie must return to David piano music, horse/llama/goat travel and registration papers, all court files and other David Derringer files on the laptop, wedding photos, one black and one black and grey dress, 4 pairs of Cowboy boots, wedding ring, clothing, firearms, and other items that Barrie Derringer and her 12 accomplices stole, removed and damaged in the break-ins of February 4, 2012, February 25, 2012 and March 8, 2012. Missing and stolen items: Value
Metzeler inflatable boat in black bag $6,500.00
1 test meter ohms $120.00
1 Groves bow 41# recurve $1,800.00
5 Snap on test meters $1,100.00
1 Milwaukee drill $150.00
1 car 12v to 110 inverter $240.00
1 personal afgan spread from deceased mother $150.00
1 box 24 fishing reels $2,600.00
1 bucket fishing equipment $250.00
1 fly rod $400.00
1 box fishing lures $400.00
1 Canadian Astro Daco recurve crossbow $650.00
1 Canadian Astro Daco compound crossbow $750.00
2 Kyrocera solar panels NIB $1,300.00
1 Trip inverter 110v $750.00
1 Outback inverter 110v/240v $1,400.00
1 Ridged tile saw $285.00
1 Ridged metal chop saw 14” $290.00
1 sears set nextex portable saw/drill/light $250.00
1 Milwaukee sawsall $150.00
1 Medieval sword custom Mark Reese for DD 1972 $3,800.00
1 original Japanese katana vintage 1762 damascas $4,000.00
1 Cabelas’ BP rifle .36 $1,200.00
1 box ammunition assorted $350.00
1 assorted horse equipment $600.00
2 horse saddles $1,050.00
1 SOG knife $175.00
1 Phillips DVD/VCR 110 player $185.00
1 Magnavox portable 12v DVD player $230.00
1 computer monitor flat screen $450.00
1 HP printer $150.00
1 12 ton hydraulic jack $65.00
1 Milwaukee grinder 5” $160.00
1 Mig welder Miller 110v/240v $900.00
1 set mechanic tools $300.00
Damaged and vandalized items Value
1 dremel tool $120.00
1 typewriter IBM $250.00
3 reel to reel tape decks $1,100.00
1 clock radio $85.00
2 camp lanterns $110.00
1 test meter $210.00
1 broken ceiling fan $350.00
5 broken chemical bottles $85.00
12 destroyed locks $345.00
1 damaged industrial Singer sewing machine $600.00
1 radio receiver $140.00
1 receiver sound set $100.00
1 SCUBA tank valve $150.00
1 HP printer $185.00
2 broken marble slabs $90.00
1 reloading press $250.00
5 broken lamps $700.00
4 broken lamp shades $120.00
1 broken archery bow $1,800.00
4 pairs cowboy boots $490.00
1 propane heater $85.00
1 table $45.00
1 computer $450.00
1 torn down comforter $120.00
1 missing lathe parts $400.00
2 bicycles damaged $500.00
1 climbing ice axe bamboo $250.00
1 box computer discs/software $450.00
1 video box tapes $230.00
Broken furniture $340.00
Broken dishes $175.00
It was established in testimony of the break-ins that Respondent David Derringer has suffered a loss of $43,000.00 at the hands of Barrie Derringer and 12 persons that Barrie Derringer illegally refuses to identify that Barrie Derringer is accountable for that amount to David Derringer. David Derringer has inheritance funds of sole and separate property admitted to the Barrie Derringer of an amount exceeding $28,000.00 of which $8,000.00 was spent on the 5 ton military truck making that truck the sole and separate property of David Derringer, and the rest was spent on Barrie Derringer of IRS previous billing of $7,000.00 and other emergencies in the good faith effort of David Derringer in the “permanent commitment of marriage contract” and the remainder was spent to “survive” after Barrie Derringer illegally stole and refused to give any ‘community income’ to David Derringer after December 2011. Hence, Barrie Derringer owes David Derringer restitution of inheritance in the value of $20,000.00. Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that Barrie Derringer had 12 persons involved in the break-ins of the storage/shop on February 4, 2012, February 25, 2012, March 8, 2012 that could be responsible with Barrie Derringer of stealing and damaging the value of $43,000.00 of David Derringer’s personal property that Barrie Derringer is herself responsive for, and Judge Hadfield “protected” Barrie Derringer and criminal accessories of the 12 persons by denying due process and equal protection against Respondent David Derringer, and refusing to allow David Derringer to know the names and addresses of these persons that took personal property from this marriage that is a fact involved specifically in this divorce trial proceeding that effects any marital settlement agreement being “void” without such knowledge. It was established in testimony that David Derringer is due $28,000.00 restitution and replacement of $28,000.00 in sole and separate property of inheritance from Mary Derringer during the year of 2010. Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that David Derringer had sole and separate legal property of money of $28,000.00 that was used to pay the entire price of the 5-ton military vehicle, the deposit of the 2005 Chevy Silverado one ton dually pick-up and to “rescue” wife Barrie Derringer from a $7,000.00 IRS debt assessed against Barrie Derringer before the Derringer marriage; and then later in further testimony by Barrie Derringer in both perjury and fraud, Barrie Derringer attempts to make fraudulent claim that the Derringer inheritance of $28,000.00 was also “her money”; and Judge Hadfield ignored all issues the perjury and fraud and “change of testimony under oath” by Barrie Derringer and took no action for arrest of Barrie Derringer even though Sheriff officers were present as witnesses to the criminal acts. In the first set of Petitioner Barrie Derringer’s testimony under oath on the witness stand, Barrie Derringer admits and agrees that David Derringer is the sole owner of the 5-ton military truck with purchase by David Derringer by his own sole and separate money property by inheritance funds from deceased mother Mary Derringer. In the second set of Petitioner Barrie Derringer’s testimony under oath on the witness stand she totally contradicts the previous testimony goaded on by the unscrupulous attorney Alain Jackson to attempt to steal in the courtroom the David Derringer inheritance. Judge Hadfield made no attempt to discipline or take any actions against either Barrie Derringer or the attorney working in fraud with the client in violation of NMRA 16-804.
3) Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that David Derringer had been denied community money of ½ of the income of Barrie Derringer, and that Barrie Derringer had done criminal acts of “abandonment” of animals and “abuse of animals” under NMSA 30-18-1 by refusing to allow any community income to be used or accessed by David Derringer for feeding the Derringer animals, and admitted that there were about “30” animals that needed food and water.
4) Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, lied in criminal perjury that the Derringer community bills of the PNM electric bill and the Sprint telephone bills were “not in her name” when David Derringer had already presented in the hearing of July 3, 2012, the copies of these bills that are in fact under “Barrie Derringer”. These bills as well as other third party obligations were defaulted on by Barrie Derringer and such money is due David Derringer. Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand admitted that she had kept David Derringer from all community income of at least $1,300.00 per month at all times of the marriage since December, 2011 and that it was admitted that at all times before and during the marriage her Maestas and Ward paycheck went by direct deposit into the New Mexico Educator Federal Credit Union account that was an original David Derringer account in which Barrie Derringer was added as co-signer/owner before Barrie Beverley and David Derringer were married, making Barrie Derringer’s paycheck entirely “community income”. David Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand confirmed that Barrie Derringer had “refused” to give David Derringer any community income or access in any way to community income as of December 2011 and thus had criminally deprived the Derringer animals of food and water; had defaulted on many bills and made late payments on others and had grossly detrimentally affected the credit of both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer and had not properly paid the Thomas Stein storage/shop rent of $700.00 while under obligations of marriage of community debt since February 2012 making the storage debt in arrears of $4,200.00, and mandating that Barrie Derringer reimburse David Derringer in an amount of at least $1,500.00 per month since December, 2011.
5) Barrie Derringer claims some personal items are missing but presented no evidence to allege fault by the Respondent. In the alternative David had several long talks with Barrie before her first break-in of February 4, 2012 not to allow any other persons into the storage to keep any theft or damages stopped. Barrie disregarded both the agreement and her husband and had 12 persons in attendance numerous times and place many items outside of storage in the parking lot with hundreds of strangers walking by on the way to the flea market and persons in the other three shops “eyeing” all and probably taking some of the Derringer’s possessions. The storage is in the “war zone” of the most criminal activity in Albuquerque, and it was Barrie’s own bad judgement to allow any of this to transpire. Barrie made irrational decisions that were not in the best interest of either party and property was stolen by the 12 persons and multiple outsiders of the public. David lost $43,000.00 of property and Barrie claims to have items missing. David Derringer is not responsible for Barrie’s irrational acts and is not liable for either the missing items or their value with Barrie doing acts to sabotage David and herself. Barrie cannot orchestrate the problem and then claim damages for her stupid acts and misjudgement. Barrie was the “willful” actor that set the stage for the thefts and vandalism.
6) Barrie Derringer had done criminal acts of “abandonment” of animals and “abuse of animals” under NMSA 30-18-1 by refusing to allow any community income to be used or accessed by David Derringer for feeding the Derringer animals, and knowingly caused the death of 5 Derringer animals; Boots, Howler, Aldo, and Wishbone.
7) It was show by the testimony of David Derringer, Barrie Derringer and third party Bruce Davis that Barrie Derringer both voluntarily and eagerly entered into a relationship and then a marriage with David Derringer with full knowledge of the severe living conditions of often times staying in a travel trailer with no running water and no electricity, and had no legal use of this perceived condition to use to either gain different shelter or take any money or conceal and remove access of any community income from husband/Respondent David Derringer, and is thus liable for a fraudulent Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and restitution to Respondent David Derringer.
8) Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the 1997 Ford pick-up was purchased with community income and that its current value is less than $1,500.00, and Barrie is due ½.
9) Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the 5-ton military truck is owned exclusively by the sole and separate inheritance monies in purchase by David Derringer, with no legal claim or equity available by Barrie Derringer.
10) Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the Chevy one ton Silverado dually has $7,000.00 sole and separate equity for Respondent David Derringer by way of his sole and separate inheritance monies from Mary Derringer, that David Derringer used several more thousands of dollars of this sole and separate inheritance money for making payments of $595.27 per month and that the truck is “upside down” in a value that does not exceed or equal the money still owed on the vehicle.
11) There can be no attorney fees from Alain Jackson assessed against David Derringer. The attorney must produce an affidavit before verbal or written motion and the Respondent has to have opportunity to review and object. Attorney fees are claimed to deny legal due process of David Derringer’s motions and other pleadings which is a violation of abuse of discretion to award and pure violations of due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments. This action is purely for persecution and punishment of a man in this divorce without substance. David Derringer has already paid Jackson’s attorney fees with the withheld ½ of the community income mis used by Barrie Derringer and cannot be force to pay “twice” any amount. This fraud constitutes corruption and “racketeering” under the mis use of the judicial system under the meaning of the RICO Act. Petitioner attempts to attain attorney fees for Alain Jackson for legal use of the courts in due process and equal protection by Respondent Pro-Se David Derringer’s legal pleadings, in which attorney fees are not warranted or allowed in this proceeding.
12) Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that Barrie Derringer makes $45,000.00 per year (despite testimony under Oath in the few answers in the discovery received after the trial that Barrie Derringer’s income is $47,000.00 per year) and that David Derringer only gets disability income of $698.00 per month or $8,376.00 making Barrie Derringer mandated to pay David Derringer alimony of $1,000.00 to keep David Derringer above the poverty level.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1) The numerous pending motions before the court from the Respondent David Derringer that addressed a total violation of the Civil Rules of Discovery by the Petitioner numerous times and several other motions pending regarding requests for orders of discovery compliance, sanctions against both Barrie Derringer and her attorney Alain Jackson, and several other motions for “order to show cause” for contempt of Barrie Derringer not complying to the Rules of discovery as well as violations of the July 3, 2012 Order from the court had to be addressed by the court well before the trial and either denied or sustained. To ignore these important pleadings and then force a trial denied due process and opportunity to be heard. 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.” This places DM-12-610 in a lack of jurisdiction and judicial capacity due to a bias and prejudice and with total deprivations of due process and equal protection. The court Judge Hadfield only addressed one of these motions, with prejudice to force David Derringer into a trial without proper discovery. (It was found by finally attaining only one discovery document “after the trial” that 95% of the discovery requests and production of documents were not answered or provided by Barrie Derringer anyway, thus proving deprivation of due process and equal protection) After the trial, when picking up the discovery envelope, it is found that the Petitioner deliberately did not answer all interrogatories, did not provide documents requested and did not in any way complete the discovery requests of April 16, 2012 or May 23, 2012 mandating the court to order sanctions. In the matter of what Barrie Derringer has spent of community income since January 2012 and what she has purchased, in which David Derringer owns half in community property, the Respondent was denied information before and during trial. Accordingly, the only solution is that Barrie Derringer must pay David Derringer ½ of her income from January 2012 to the present in the amount of $25,000.00. Abuse of discretion has occurred here that merits standing in the upcoming appeal of this matter. Wieneke v. Chalmers, 73 NM 8, 385 P.2d 65 (1963). “the need for continuation of a trial for additional discovery lies from the previous failure of the Petitioner for any discovery response”
2) The court was made aware by verbal David Derringer motion that all matters of this court of both DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 and the various previous motions including the motion to recuse for cause Judge Hadfield were in the New Mexico Court of Appeals jurisdiction under No. 32,113 and 32,326 wherein a trial could not be held, and without legal ability Judge Hadfield denied a motion for continuance or in the alternative “stay” and moved forward illegally with the trial. At the time of trial, the NM Court of Appeals had the open appeal of DM-12-610 No. 32,113 active without either dismissal or remand, and the jurisdiction was in the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.”; Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgement, the trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step in regard to the motion to alter or amend judgement.”
3) Barrie Derringer’s testimony over any matter was proven not to be credible with proven perjury of the Petitioner’s Petition for Order of Protection, and testimony throughout the hearings of April 10, 2012, July 3, 2012 and in the trial of August 23, 2012 wherein Barrie Derringer constantly contradicted her previous testimony of record with statements often that are inconsistent with her present testimony. State v. Carlton, 82 NM 537, 484 P.2d 757 (Ct. App.) cert denied 82 NM 534, 484 P.2d 754 (1971).; State v. Fletcher, 36 NM 47, 7 P.2d 936 (1932).There are four main lines of attack on credibility with Barrie Derringer failing each of those attacks, in proof of perjury and fraud in the entire matter of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610; 1. Barrie has made numerous statements under Oath each inconsistent with present or later testimony of the same exact issues; 2. Barrie has been shown to be biased on account of emotional influences by her bosses at Maestas and Ward and her parents Jerry and Warren Crowe that are financing this divorce, whether this court believes that such influences are real or corrupt, still cause a pecuniary interest; 3. The character of the witness is one of a past history of illegal drug use including cocaine (Kunkel v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121 L.Ed.2d 340) and marijuana that distort reality and cause an addition that can be easily actuated by even one small use after as much as a 20 year abstinence period and Barrie Derringer being proven to be the least assertive and most easily manipulated person by the “profiling” of her controlling bosses at work place Maestas and Ward and with a severe past history of being an abused and battered woman with growing up with an alcoholic mother that had her own nervous breakdown, and a twice past biker husband Charles Beverley of which Barrie detailed on the witness stand that they had “physical fights” and abuse throughout their two marriages of about 30 years; and 4. A defect of the capacity of the witness Barrie Derringer to correctly remember the past lies to be consistent with the present testimony, and the proof of the other witnesses such as Bruce Davis and David Derringer that material facts are other than Barrie Derringer testifies to. In cross-examination, Barrie Derringer admits to being suicidal and admits that was the known reasoning that husband David Derringer locks the storage/shop against entry by Barrie Derringer in January 2012 for her own protection from access to the David Derringer loaded firearms, because David Derringer dearly loves his wife Barrie. Barrie Derringer also admits under Oath that she hit David Derringer repeatedly in the face in an rage of domestic violence and makes no accusations that David Derringer hit her back, wherein David Derringer’s testimony he specifically states that not only did David Derringer not ever hit Barrie, but was even afraid to block her blows so that her arm with pins from a bicycle accident would not possibly be hurt. Barrie on the stand actually had a demeanor of “frivolity” and comical disregard of the seriousness of hitting a spouse of the domestic violence incident, as well as made light of her own suicidal tendencies that husband David Derringer takes very seriously to protect his wife from harm. State v. Hermosillo, 88 NM 424, 540 P.2d 1313 (Ct. App. 1975). Barrie on the stand actually had a demeanor of “frivolity” and comical disregard of the seriousness of hitting a spouse of the domestic violence incident, as well as made light of her own suicidal tendencies that husband David Derringer takes very seriously to protect his wife from harm. Hales v. Van Cleave, 78 NM, 181, 429 P.2d 379 (Ct. App.) cert denied 78 NM 198, 429 P.2d 657 (1967). ; State v. Duran, 83 NM 700, 496 P.2d 1096 (Ct. App.) cert denied 83 NM 699, 496 p.2d 1095 (1972). David Derringer has totally impeached Petitioner Barrie Derringer which is basic to a fair and impartial trial and proven without doubt that both the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and the Order of Protection must be denied and dismissed with prejudice, were brought without facts in malicious prosecution because Barrie Derringer simply got tired of her current living conditions and was under the PTSD (post traumatic stress syndrom) of the house fire and burning of the Derringer dogs only four days before Barrie Derringer left David Derringer; all happening only three days after three other pets had died of old age and only two days before Christmas of 2011, and wherein the control of Barrie’s bosses precipitated the leaving of Barrie Derringer from her devoted husband. Mac Tyres Inc. v. Vigil, 92 NM 446, 589 P.2d 1037 (1979). As Barrie Derringer has “knowledge” that David Derringer has sued her bosses and employer, CV-12-1307, Barrie Derringer is biased and lies to protect their interest still being employed by them after leaving husband David Derringer, and despite the 12 persons heavily involved in the community and personal property of both Petitioner and Respondent “refuses” to allow the Respondent to know the identity of these persons. This illegal state of affairs is perpetuated in “criminal acts” by Judge Hadfield in “facilitation” and protection of crimes, even though Judge Hadfield knows that David Derringer has sustained great losses of both personal and community property, and indeed Barrie Derringer has sustained “missing items” likely from stealing or pilfering from these same 12 individuals that broke into the storage/shop at the hands of the Petitioner, despite warning by David Derringer beforehand not to do this, and such persons have a great detrimental effect upon any settlement agreement. State v. Hermosillo, 88 NM 424, 540 P.2d 1313 (Ct. App. 1975); State v. Martin, 101 NM 595, 686, P.2d 937 (1984). David Derringer has shown the bias and prejudice of Barrie Derringer for her “employer” by proving her lies to protect her employer that assault and battery of David Derringer never occurred, when third party Bruce Davis testified that it did indeed occur and that Barrie Derringer momentarily, if not consistently was concerned in love and care about her own husband to rush to him and hold his cheeks and state “calm down, you’re OK” just after the incident as also David Derringer’s testimony. State v. White, 58 NM 324, 270 P.2d 727 (1954). The evidence of testimony of Bruce Davis is to be used both to impeach Barrie Derringer in the trial of DM-12-610 and also proves without shadow of doubt that Barrie Derringer lied in perjury and fraud and falsified the court record as a 4th degree felony with notarized statement of the “Petition for Order of Protection” in DV-12-234 making the Order of Protection entirely false as well as in jurisdictional defect and unconstitutional to enforce. State v. Wyman, 96 NM 558, 632 P.2d 1196 (Ct. App. 1981).
4) The Order of Protection of DV-12-234 used in legal error and “judicial terrorism” against David Derringer all underlying this entire malicious filing of divorce DM-12-610 must be dismissed and released immediately against David Derringer. The Order of Protection was without service of summons, and David Derringer notified the court before hearing so that the hearing had to be dismissed. The material witness Bruce Davis was denied by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and this bias and prejudice makes the hearing jurisdictionally defective. Barrie Derringer lied in criminal perjury and fraud in the “Petition for Order of Protection” by statements that on February 4, 2012 David Derringer had knocked her down and hurt her hip, caused bruised, kept her from leaving and wherein Barrie Derringer is very afraid of being hurt physically by David Derringer. Instead, testimony proves that at no time did David Derringer ever “touch” Barrie Derringer on February 4, 2012, even when Barrie Derringer came rushing to calm and console her husband after the assault and battery by Barrie Derringer’s own gang of 12 persons, and wherein Barrie Derringer placed her hands on David Derringer’s cheeks, and said “Calm down, you’re OK”, David Derringer still did not physically touch, hug or kiss, or make any other actions with contact of Barrie Derringer. The hearing then placed an Order of Protection against David Derringer that denied use or ownership of firearms in total violation of the 2nd Amendment “right to bear arms”. In US Supreme Court No. 08-1521 in 2010, the rights of firearms were decided to be a personal right to own, use and possess firearms. David Derringer also had a “property right” to use and own firearms defied by this Order of Protection. Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 “The right to practice a profession or vocation is a property right.”; Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972. This violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution Article VI. “Where the state is not in compliance with the federal regulations because of judicial constructions that circumvent or undermine the legislative intentions of the act, a new question arises as to the legitimacy of the state’s participation in the federal program. Because federal regulations and laws cannot infringe upon the Constitutional rights of United States Citizens, it can be presumed that those rights are protected under the federal mandates. If the state is going to make rules or practice procedures, which deny those rights, then the state actions become void, and this issue prevails over any other under consideration. And where the Constitution of the state or the state statutory laws are subverted through similar means, the people have no duty to perform unless under threat or coercion by further illegitimate means in order to protect their very lives.” This court is bound by the “supremacy clause” that mandates dismissal of the Order of Protection. On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that.. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail...” in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. DV-12-234 has violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to regulate an area of federal law controlled in the Second Amendment. Alexander v. Delgado, 84 NM 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973); State v. Sedillo, “it appears that the Supreme Court necessarily decided the issues underlying the claim” in US Supreme Court No. 08-1521 in 2010. Stoneking v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. “Under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. US Constitution Article VI Cl.2 “The Supremacy Clause prohibits the application of state laws which conflict with federal laws.” Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993).” This places not only this court in mandate to release the Order of Protection but also mandates that Order issue to arrest and prosecute Barrie Derringer for the 4th degree felony of “perjury” in a notarized statement meant for fraud and false criminal allegations against husband David Derringer for corrupt purposes of malicious prosecution and harassment, retaliation and retribution against David Derringer, wherein the “plan” of stealing all Derringer property of any kind on February 4, 2012 before any divorce filing was thwarted by David Derringer calling 911 and the APD putting a stop to the deceit of Barrie Derringer and 12 persons engaged in the attempt to take all community property, Barrie Derringer property and David Derringer property and to leave David Derringer with “nothing” before even the filing of divorce by Barrie Derringer. State v. Miller, 92 NM 520, 590 P>2d 1175 (1979). In the process, serious judicial jurisdiction defects abound, to include but not limited to lack of service of summons, forcing David Derringer to continue with a hearing in which he was not served and gave notice of such before hearing, (no service in personam) Constitutional violations, due process and equal protection violations, violations of US Supreme Court ruling No. 08-1521, and violations of the Supremacy Clause of Section VI of the Constitution, and proven contradiction to the testimony of Barrie Derringer, and whereas their was not only no “preponderance” of evidence to sustain Barrie Derringer’s Petition, but no evidence whatsoever for the Petitioner but her false statements. State v. Hargrove, 81 NM 145, 464, P.2d 564 (Ct. App. 1970). As Barrie Derringer fails and “refuses” to account for the community property purchased by Barrie Derringer after January 2012 and Barrie Derringer fails and “refuses” to account for the community income after January 2012, Barrie Derringer does both “fraud” to her husband and Mead v. O’Connor, 66 NM 170, 344 p.2d 478 (1959). Barrie Derringer has after December 2011 low or no moral fiber and has done extensive misconduct, and abuse of Derringer animals and other acts to have bad moral character so as to show the lies and deceit of Barrie Derringer over many of the issues in both DM-12-610 and DV-12-234. As DV-12-234 is the basis of the divorce proceedings, and such must be dismissed, also making the DM-12-610 both brought in malicious prosecution and for improper purposes, DM-12-610 must also be dismissed with prejudice with no possible “divorce” available for Barrie Derringer.
5) Respondent David Derringer was totally controlled in testimony by Judge Hadfield with only select questions and denied legal due process. Crownover v. National Farmers Union Property and Gas Co., 100 NM 568, 673 p.2d 1301 (1983). David had no ability to fully testify over all matters of the David Derringer/Barrie Derringer marriage as was necessary for due process (opportunity to be heard), keeping David Derringer from exposing the Barrie Derringer perjury, fraud and sexually transmitted (STD) venereal disease Herpes III to the proper extent, that Barrie Derringer has and previously infected David Derringer without warning doing criminal battery and will do so unto all of the public of contact without a court order warning the public before any sexual or intimate contact by Petitioner Barrie Derringer. State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, ¶ 28, 147 N .M. The “Herpes III” (STD) venereal disease entirely affects both the need to deny this divorce and absolutely affects the “division of property and assets and community liabilities of the parties and ‘damages due’ David Derringer in any settlement agreement. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. V. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. [Civil Action No.05-CV-1887] The court Judge Hadfield specifically stopped David Derringer on many of these issues in attempts to “limit” the court record for appeal and deny due process and equal protection while also acting in bias and prejudice to “protect” Barrie Derringer over all issues. An incurable sexually transmitted disease, that will infect any member of the public is of great issue in this matter of both a showing of un-accountability, and disregard of human rights by Barrie Derringer. Am.Jur.2d: Divorce and Separation indicates that giving a (STD) without warning is Cruelty in sexual matters with no communication that there is a presence of Venereal Disease. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis Pharma Ag, and Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. V. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. It is an abuse of discretion for Judge Hadfield to attempt to “cover-up” this matter of (STD) and deny Respondent proper opportunity to be heard regarding same, as the court is mandated to Order disease testing for Barrie Derringer. State v. Frayre, P.3d, 2012 WL 1252694, N.M.App., March 26, 2012 (NO. 31,662). “the fact that both Victim and Defendant have the genital herpes simplex type I virus was relevant and probative”. See State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, ¶ 28, 147 N .M.. This court is trying not to make any ruling on this issue of Herpes damages appurtenant to a settlement agreement. Wallis v. Smith, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682, 2001 -NMCA- 017, N.M.App., March 01, 2001 (NO. 20,272). “should not bar cause of action based upon sex partner's failure to advise other partner that he was infected with herpes)”. Respondent David Derringer totally objects to Judge Hadfield barring David Derringer from introduction of both testimony and evidence of the Barrie Derringer (STD) in both open court and in pleadings. U.S. v. Faucett 2012 WL 3594234 CA 7 (Ind) August 22, 2012 No. 12-1727 3553(a) “emphasized two offenses that made them particularly serious...diagnosed with herpes..risked transmitting that disease..by engaging in sexual contact..”State v. Lopez, 84 NM 402, 503 p.2d 1180 (Ct. App. 1972). Respondent David Derringer was rammed though a trial on August 23, 2012 that was in fundamental error and not at all fair or impartial. State v. Pacheco, 85 NM 778, 517, P.2d 1304 (Ct. App. 197 3). Order must issue to have Barrie Derringer tested for Herpes and Ordered not to infect others. Vasquez v. State S.W.3d, 2012 WL 3125171, Tex.App.-Dallas, August 02, 2012 (NO. 05-11-01096-CR). Knecht v. Knecht No. CA2011-06-010 Decided July 23, 2012 Case No. DRB 20100290. “Do not bump uglies This woman spreads her genital herpes and, you won't find out until you do, also. She'll lie to you, cheat on you, hit you, keep secrets”. “When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit himself to a physical or mental examination.?This also involves Barrie Derringer being suicidal. Kinsey v. Erie Ins. Group, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-51, 2004Ohio579, ¶ 17. Behr v. Redmond, 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 97, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3795, Cal.App. 4 Dist., March 02, 2011 (NO. E048333). “generally have a duty to avoid sexual contact with unaffected persons or to warn potential partners before sexual contact occurs”.
6) Facts prove that the divorce proceedings were brought in malicious prosecution. McGuire v. Armitage, 184 Mont. 407, 603 P.2d 253, Mont. 1979. Both the “motive” and “purposes” of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 were “improper ones”. Richter v. Neilson, 11 Cal. App.2d 503, 54 P.2d 54 Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1936. There is no sufficiency of the complain for Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, but only a whim fueling this bogus matter. Valdez v. City of Las Vegas, 68 NM 304, 361 P.2d 613 (1961). To have a trial upon any matter of this divorce when the trial court did not have jurisdiction upon valid complaint of subject matter and when the NM Court of Appeals had jurisdiction when trial court was held is abuse of discretion when the trial court could not act. Perea v. Baca, 94 NM 624, 614 P.2d 541 (1980). The errors here are 揻undamental?and 搉on-jurisdictional?and are preserved thus for appeal as also violations of the Supremacy Clause are involved in this matter. State v. James, 76 NM 376, 415 P.2d 350 (1966). The Respondent is making a 損roper record?with this pleading of all issues, despite the Constitutional violations and bias and prejudice of Judge Hadfield. State v. Baca, 80 NM 488, P.2d 92 (Ct. App.). All errors here are preserved in the record. State v. Elliot, 89 NM 756, 557 p.2d 1105 (1977). The Respondent hereby attacks all finding, Orders and acts of Judge Hadfield in both DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 State v. Hadnett, 79 NM 761, 449 P.2d 669 (Ct. App.1968).
7) Barrie Derringer had previously done criminal battery against David Derringer before the marriage to infect without warning David Derringer with the incurable (STD) venereal disease Herpes III with marriage legal contract on January 15, 2010 of a life long commitment between the Derringers so as to mitigate the effects of “having a mate” wherein no other would marry each party due to the ongoing permanent disease, making the acts of “divorce” by the Petitioner Barrie Derringer mandated to grant David Derringer alimony and spouse support for compensation of this egregious matter constituting “permanent” criminal battery against the Respondent. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232, 241 (1974) “the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws for the protection of the public.” There are numerous US case laws granting $900,000.00 for herpes infections. Alimony is also appurtenant to raise David Derringer from the poverty level when David is 63 out of the age work force, has cancer and Barrie Derringer has enough income to pay. Garcia v. Garcia, Not Reported in P.3d, 2012 WL 3199741, N.M.App., July 05, 2012 (NO. 31,954) “permanent spousal support for an indefinite duration”. The court must consider the needs, age, and health for alimony. David Derringer should receive $1,000.00 per month alimony.
8) Under oath on the witness stand in testimony, Petitioner Barrie Derringer admitted to criminal domestic violence and criminal battery against Respondent David Derringer of striking David Derringer in the face numerous times, with Sheriff officers as witnesses. The Court has to order Barrie Derringer accountable for criminal acts. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated.
9) Under oath on the witness stand in testimony, Petitioner Barrie Derringer lied numerous times in criminal perjury and fraud against Respondent David Derringer.“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.”
10) The court has to take action. Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230
11) The divorce has to be dismissed with prejudice due to lack of due process. Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789
12) All of this action mandated that Judge Hadfield have Barrie Derringer taken by APD officers under the CIT unit for emotional evaluation and dissolve any Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Judge Hadfield ignored all issues including the safety and security of Barrie Derringer and did not take any action for the benefit of Barrie Derringer or mandate that the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage be denied and dismissed and illegally kept the non-jurisdictional Order of Protection against David Derringer. Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969)
13) Items are David Derringer personal property of value well over $43,000.00. Douglas v. Douglas, 686 P.2d 260, 101 NM 570 Property acquired in New Mexico by married couple takes its status at time of acquisition and by the manner of its acquisition. Barrie Derringer has to reimburse David Derringer the amount of $20,000.00 for taken inheritance funds of sole and separate property. Barrie Derringer has to disclose names and addresses of all 12 persons involved at any time with moving, taking or disturbing any of David Derringer’s personal property in the storage/shop at 101 Florida SE Unit C. Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749 Where separate character of property is established, it maintains that character until contrary has been made to appear by direct and positive evidence.
14) Petitioner Barrie Derringer in testimony under oath on the witness stand, confirmed that David Derringer had been denied community money of ½ of the income of Barrie Derringer.Barrie Derringer has hidden and denied David Derringer both community income and accountability for same and denied knowledge as to what Barrie Derringer has purchased with community income since December 2011, making the only solution to pay David Derringer an amount of $20,000.00 for his ½ of the community income. Portillo v. Shappie, 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59 “Community property” consists of all property acquired by either or both spouses during marriage, which is not separate property, and its rents, issues and profits. NMSA 1978, 40-3-8.; Martinez v. Block, 858 P.2d 429, 115 NM 762 labor of parties belongs to community rather than individuals.
15) Barrie Derringer totally defaulted on the Order of April 10, 2012, making the Derringer debt in arrears for $360.00 in PNM and $260.00 to Sprint, $340.00 in three truck’s registration due for the Ford, Chevy and 5-ton military, and for $200.00 in insurance for the 5-ton Barrie never paid. Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81. The act of a joint tenant or tenant by entirety in withdrawing all money from account does not destroy joint estate, or the estate by entireties, as case may be. Unilateral action of husband in altering joint bank accounts, during incompetency of wife who was joint tenant with right of survivorship, by transferring funds to accounts in his sole name and in having wife’s name removed from remaining accounts, did not destroy the joint tenancy, and thus wife, as surviving joint tenant, became sole owner of funds. ; NMSA 45-2-804 the statute itself “demands” to pay the bills 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”
16) Barrie Derringer claims some personal items are missing but presented no evidence to allege fault by the Respondent. Barrie comes to this court with “unclean hands” to allege missing items against David Derringer when Barrie set the stage herself for the theft of both parties. Romero v. Sanchez, 83 NM 358, 492 P.2d 140 (1971). ; State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 Nm 213 220, 741, 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987).; Clark v. Apex Gold Mining Co., 13 Nm 416, 85 P. 968 6 zLRA 793 (1906); Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 8002; McKay v. Farmers and Stockmans Bank, 92 Nm 181, 585 P.2d 325 (Ct. App.) cert denied 92 Nm 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978). David Derringer cannot be held liable for any value concerning Barrie Derringer’s missing items.
17) Barrie Derringer had done criminal acts of “abandonment” of animals and “abuse of animals” under NMSA 30-18-1 by refusing to allow any community income to be used or accessed by David Derringer for feeding the Derringer animals, and admitted that there were about “30” animals that needed food and water. Barrie and Judge Hadfield knowingly caused the death of 5 Derringer animals and Judge Hadfield violated NMRA Rule 1-122(A) to allow this atrocity to happen. Cordova Gonzales v. US, 987 F. Supp, 878 D. Puerto Rico 1997.; US Supreme Court No. 08-1521. David Derringer is due damages of $20,000.00 for loss and emotional distress. Judge Hadfield violated NMSA 40-4-3.
18. Barrie Derringer could not move out and use any income for a separate residence. Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild, 208 equity will not grant separate maintenance to wife unless the husband has abandoned or deserted her. Where the separation of the wife from her husband is voluntary and is caused by no cruelty or ill treatment..it accomplishes a purpose which is deemed subversive of the true policy of the matrimonial law and destructive of the best interests of society.
19. Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the 1997 Ford pick-up was purchased with community income and that its current value is less than $1,500.00, and Barrie is due ½.. Portillo v. Shappie, 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59 “Community property” consists of all property acquired by either or both spouses during marriage, which is not separate property, and its rents, issues and profits. NMSA 1978, 40-3-8.
20. Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the 5-ton military truck is owned exclusively by the sole and separate inheritance monies in purchase by David Derringer, with no legal claim or equity available by Barrie Derringer Kenneth Johnson, Worker Appellant, vs. Axtec Well Servicing Co. Employer-Appellee, No. 15,026 Ct. App.875 P.2d 1128, 117 N.M. 697, P.3 “Party who successfully assumes a certain position in a judicial proceeding may not then assume an inconsistent position, especially if doing so prejudices a party who’d acquiesced in the former position.”
21. Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that the Chevy one ton Silverado dually has $7,000.00 down payment and 6 monthly payments by David Derringer’s sole and separate inheritance and David’s new camper shell that is value $2,800.00 as equity for Respondent David Derringer by way of his sole and separate inheritance monies from Mary Derringer. David Derringer is the principle on the loan and Barrie Derringer cannot take possession of the truck, sell the truck and keep ½ of the money without paying David Derringer all of his equity first and then splitting any equity afterward, but Barrie owes David Derringer hundreds of thousands of dollars so she cannot have possession of or sell the Chevy.
22. There can be no attorney fees from Alain Jackson assessed against David Derringer. This fraud constitutes corruption and “racketeering” under the mis use of the judicial system under the meaning of the RICO Act. Richens v. Mayfield, 85 Nm 578, 514 P.2d 854 (1973).
23. Testimony was presented by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer that Barrie Derringer makes $45,000.00 per year (despite testimony under Oath in the few answers in the discovery received after the trial that Barrie Derringer’s income is $47,000.00 per year) and that David Derringer only gets disability income of $698.00 per month or $8,376.00 making Barrie Derringer mandated to pay David Derringer alimony $1,000.00 per month to keep David Derringer above the poverty level.25.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
The case DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 must be denied and dismissed with prejudice without any legal divorce for Barrie Derringer, and Order must issue to make Barrie accountable for any member of the public in regards to her (STD) with Ordered testing for Herpes, suicide tendencies and illegal drug testing.
Respectfully submitted by:________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 1205 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8-31-12
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
I further certify that I sent by mail a copy of this pleading to:
Petitioner’s attorney of record
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-620-6688 New Mexico 87109.
No comments:
Post a Comment