IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

New Mexico Court of Appeals 32,326

Second Judicial District Court No. DV-12-234

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,                                                              

            Appellee/Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

            Appellant/Respondent,

DAVID DERRINGER, APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF OCTOBER 4, 2012

COMES NOW the Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his Memorandum as stated above. At all times David Derringer preserved his 2nd Amendment rights.

            In this case DV-12-234 Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield from the beginning have denied Respondent David Derringer due process, equal protection, and violations of all Constitutional rights. There was never any “evidence” whatsoever to “convict” David Derringer to have any Order of Protection infringe and deny Constitutional 2^nd amendment rights to have, possess and use firearms, but only criminal perjury of Barrie Derringer “accusing” David Derringer of on February 4, 2012 knocking Barrie down, hurting her hip, causing bruises and keeping her from leaving. Cosgrove defied rights of due process to keep David Derringer from having his  witness Bruce Davis testify that as a witness all of Barrie Derringer’s false statements in the Petition for Order of Protection were “fraud and perjury” as a fourth degree felony. Bruce Davis has now testified in DM-12-610 on August 23, 2012 that all statements of Barrie Derringer to gain the Order of Protection are false, fraud and perjury. There are also other witnesses  of the incident that prove that the Order of Protection is false as well as a deprivation of Constitutional rights to “bear arms” as  provided for in the US Supreme Court ruling No. 10-1521 and the Second Amendment, all of which this court defies. In all cases involving David Derringer in this NM Court of appeals over the last 20 years, the record will show that these justices defy law, violate the Constitution, disregard all former case laws, disregard the US Supreme Court rulings and violate “due process and equal protection”. NM Judges of Cosgrove, Hadfield, and this court  simply will not comply with any law of Constitution, NM statutory laws, US Code, or case laws blaspheming their Oath wherein they all “swore to God” to uphold the law of the United States and instead performs acts of their own agenda and personal beliefs as simply acts by “judges” without jurisdiction acting without law, but not acts that are “judicial in nature”. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10^th Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is clearly present.” These acts by the lower court and attempted “affirmance” of this court are in bias and prejudice against Appellant David Derringer (and against a man in sexual discrimination) in every way possible to rule for the preferred “woman” party Petitioner Barrie Derringer; allowing Barrie Derringer to perform perjury, fraud, falsification of the court record and defiance of all of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to violate David Derringer’s “property rights” of profession of “hunter/outfitter” requiring firearms and the Constitutional rights without ever any sanctions or mandated Order for arrest and criminal prosecution. 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.”

            The perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer was proven by the APD police report of February 4, 2012, proven again by the conflict of Barrie Derringer’s own testimony, proven again by the testimony of David Derringer and Sprint phone texts printouts of the Derringer’s phones and proven by witness of Bruce Davis in the trial  of August 23, 2012 in open court of DM-12-610. At no time could any justice deny David Derringer’s rights to bear arms under no evidence, no prior record of criminal activity and no present criminal accusations of Barrie Derringer. The judge Hadfield  “did not” deny David Derringer’s  “appeal” of DV—12-234  with facts that they are supported by substantial evidence, as there was “no evidence” and this matter of page 3  paragraph 2  is a “lie by this court”. Judge Hadfield  denied the appeal of DV-12-234  without any explanation whatsoever and did so without any jurisdiction on May 6, 2012 after losing all jurisdiction of the case when an appeal (No. 32, 113) was taken legally on May 4, 2012. This is simply a “sham” of a court of Appeals “construction” of what happened on April 10, 2012 without the proper court record to substantiate. The district Court knew that the Order of Protection violated all Constitutional rights to bear arms under the 2^nd Amendment as well as knew  as does this court that it  violates the ruling of the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521.

            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 was happy and secure in the love between the couple, despite the living conditions that are a “Cowboy” life style and not city living. In that marriage, however Barrie Derringer used very little of any prescribed drugs and to the knowledge of husband David Derringer did not drink alcohol and did not use any illegal drugs at any time. Barrie Derringer was a “healthy woman” when with husband David Derringer protecting her. In contrast the hair, demeanor, and sunken face of Barrie Derringer in the trial of August 23, 2012 indicate use of illegal drugs or a serious health condition and all of her testimony is both inconsistent and unpredictable. Barrie’s past gang of persons before David Derringer were alcoholics, used controlled substances of all kinds and both  introduced and promoted Barrie Derringer’s (AKA Barrie Beverley; Barrie Crowe) use of same. Barrie Derringer was “impeached” multiple times in each of several hearings including the trial and Judge Hadfield allows the perjury to continue unabated tainting the record in public corruption against Barrie Derringer’s loving husband, and a total bias to the Respondent. In all hearings of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610, there is undeniable proof by other witnesses that Barrie Derringer has lied on the witness stand and in pleadings. The most obvious proof is that Barrie Derringer fraudulently filed a Petition for Order of Protection that states that on February 4, 2012 David Derringer knocked her down, hurt her hip, produced bruises, prevented Barrie Derringer from leaving, and that Barrie Derringer is very afraid of Husband David Derringer. In the same hearing under Oath of February 21, 2012 Barrie Derringer first states that she is so afraid of David Derringer that she believed that he would hurt her even in this courtroom, and minutes later, when asked how David Derringer would hurt her, Barrie states still under oath that “David Derringer would never hurt me physically, he loves me.” David Derringer was illegally denied his witness Bruce Davis in the illegal hearing of DV-12-234 of February 21, 2012 causing that entire matter to be jurisdictionally defective, but wherein Barrie Derringer had no proof of exhibits, witnesses, doctor’s statements, photographs or any tangible evidence whatsoever to sustain her “Petition”, and wherein David Derringer produced Sprint text print-outs proving that Barrie Derringer is not afraid of David Derringer, and David Derringer produced the APD police report that proved undeniably that Barrie Derringer was not hurt in any manner on February 4, 2012, nor did David Derringer keep her from leaving. In the trial of DM-12-610 August 23, 2012, third party witness Bruce Davis, witness denied in due process on February 21, 2012 by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, as well as Respondent David Derringer testified that Barrie Derringer was not ever touched by David Derringer on February 4, 2012 in any manner and that the Police Ordered Barrie Derringer and her 12 persons in attendance to leave the premises. In point of fact, just after David Derringer was criminally attacked by the 12 persons in attendance with Barrie Derringer in assault and battery, and finally released from being held down against the Respondent’s will, when David Derringer was reeling in rage and adrenalin, moving backwards away from his assailants, “wife” Barrie Derringer rushed right up to husband David Derringer and put both hands on the cheeks of David Derringer and stated “calm down, you’re OK” showing without any doubt a loving and caring gesture that had no indication in any way of “being afraid of husband David Derringer”. In Barrie Derringer’s testimony however, despite numerous witnesses to the assault and battery and Barrie touching her husband in such a manner, Barrie lies to the court that at no time did Barrie Derringer ever touch David Derringer on February 4, 2012.

            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. 

            Appellant/Respondent David Derringer was totally controlled in testimony by both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and 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 past criminal battery and the lies under Oath  as a notary herself  in the “Petition for Order of Protection” show the corruption of the court to keep an unconstitutional Order of Protection against David Derringer while having denied “due process and equal protection” refusing to allow David Derringer to present his witness present in the hearing of February 21, 2012. The combination of David Derringer never being legally served any summons for the Order of Protection with the refusal to allow a witness makes the entire matter of the Order of Protection illegal under lack of service of summons, lack of due process and equal protection, lack of Constitutional rights and proven criminal perjury and fraud, and lack of any evidence whatsoever to provide any means of sustaining the Order of Protection. There is simply no jurisdiction and fundamental error in the entire matter of DV-12-234.

            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.

            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. The Derringers reconciled the matter with their love, and with a 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.

            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.

            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 4^th degree felony by Barrie Derringer in the courtroom itself.

            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.

            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.

            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.

            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.

      David Derringer was denied due process and equal protection and Constitutional rights in DV-12-234. To ignore fundamental error, ignore non-service of summons and deny Constitutional rights and deny a witness destroy any legal ability of DV-12-234. 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 DV-12-234 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 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.” Juidge Hadfield waited until after appeal was taken on May 4, 2012  to file a “denial” of DV-12-234 appeal without any authorities and without any reasoning, outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity.  “This Court previously has recognized–even with respect to another statute the legislative history of which indicated that courts were to have “wide discretion exercising their equitable powers,” 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)–that “discretionary choices are not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ ” Id., at 416, quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, a decision calling for the exercise of judicial discretion “hardly means that it is unfettered by meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review.” Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S., at 416.”” United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added) “At a minimum, the district court must listen to a party’s arguments and give reasons for its decision.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985). Judge Hadfield’s denial of the appeal of DV-12-1234 and the continuation of the Order of Protection is illegal and unconstitutional and done without any legal jurisdiction or authority.

      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. 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 larceny of 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 4^th 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).

      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 2^nd 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, 10^th 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 (10^th 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 4^th 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.

      Appellant/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”.

      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 fundamental?and non-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 proper 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). 

      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.

      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.

      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.”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

      The Order of Protection and the Divorce have 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

      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).

      The NM Court of Appeals claims that David Derringer is “challenging” the sufficiency of the evidence to enter and support  and continue the Order of Protection, and claims that David Derringer has “failed” to inform  the NM Court of Appeals of the evidence introduced in support of that Order or Protection. The record will show that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IN THE RECORD AS BARRIE DERRINGER PRODUCED NO WITNESSES, NO DOCTOR’S REPORT OF INJURY OR BRUISES, NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF BRUISES AND NO EVIDENCE OF KEEPING HER FROM LEAVING; IN SHORT HERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUSTAIN THE ODER OF PROTECTION. ON THE CONTRARY, DAVID DERRINGER HAS THE POLICE REPORT OF 2-4-2012 OF APD SHOWING NO DOMESTICE VIOLENCE, A WITNESS BRUCE DAVIS AND PAGES OF SPRINT TEXT PHONE PRINT OUTS SHOWING BARRIE DERRINGER IS NOT AFRAID OF DAVID DERINGER AND BARRIE DERRINGER’S OWN TESTIMONY THAT SHE STATES THAT “DAVID DERRINGER WOULD NEVER HURT ME PHYSICALLY.” THIS COURT SUSTAINS AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDNCE IN THE COURT RECORD AND DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION 2^ND AMENDMENT AND US SUPREME COURT NO. 10-1521 IN BLATANT TERRORISM AGAINST DAVID DERRINGER.

      David Derringer has been denied due process and equal protection and Constitutional rights in a sham of the judicial system granting a hearing on February 21, 2012 without service of summons, without allowing a witness, without any evidence whatsoever to gain an illegal order of protection brought with provable fraud and perjury by Barrie Derringer to attain a deprivation of Constitutional rights and property and profession rights for income by a  corrupt court that this NM Court of Appeals intends to “sustain” knowing that the Constitution, Oath and violations of all laws including the case law of the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 has been violated without any evidence whatsoever to sustain the Order of Protection and denies David Derringer any “restitution” or compensation for 10 months of Constitutional violations already occurring.

      The Order of Protection must be denied and dismissed of DV-12-234 and extreme monetary compensation ordered for David Derringer from the State of New Mexico, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilarr, Judge Hadfield and this NM Court of Appeals for Constitutional deprivations including the criminal acts of US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242 “Conspiracy against rights” and “Deprivation of rights under color of law”. The proposed summary disposition must be reversed.

     

            Respectfully submitted by:________________________________________

David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 7911 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE    10-22-12

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:

NM Court of Appeals Albuquerque branch

New Mexico Court of Appeals clerk

P.O. Box 2008

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

                                                 

I further certify that I sent by mail a copy of this pleading to:

Petitioner’s attorney of record

Alain Jackson, 423 6^th St. NWAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-620-6688 New Mexico 87109.

_______________________________________________

David Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

No. DM-12-0610

Rel. DV-12-234

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,                                                              

            Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

            Respondent,

RESPONDENT HUSBAND DAVID DERRINGER’S EXTREME EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER FOR MANDATED LIVE ANIMAL COMMUNITY INCOME SUPPORT

COMES NOW the Respondent with his Motion as stated above. This motion as others recently before must be held  before a different and disinterested judge other than Judge Hadfield,  due to the bias and prejudice of this particular court, as stated in different Motion to Recuse and Motion for Appeal hearing on DV-12-234. It is impossible for Judge Hadfield to rule on this motion, as she already knows of the egregious circumstances of Barrie Derringer using all of the income from her work at Maestas and Ward for “herself” and even claimed in the hearing of April 10, 2012 that it was “her money”. Florez v. Florez, 506 P.2d 345, 84 NM 601, cert denied 506 p.2d 336, 84 NM 592. The law does not at all agree with Barrie Derringer, and this judge circumvents the law and agrees and lets Barrie Derringer simply do as she pleases with “community income” to the detriment of all bills, maintenance of both David Derringer, the property, and the animals; Judge Hadfield thus also ignoring and disregarding the law. Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81.  This court is shown to allow a “woman” a divorce for frivolous and whim reasoning, to the extent that even if a woman woke up one morning and decided that she had the “prerogative to simply ‘change her mind’ and not be married today”, the Judge would allow such a woman to disregard vows, legal marriage contracts and take all money to “move on” and gain a bigger and better deal.

Judge Hadfiled has shown a total “disregard” for living creatures as it was well pleaded and testified under Oath in the hearing of April 10, 2012 of the need of community funds for animal feeding and Judge Hadfield could care less about the Derringer animals involved in this mess, as “collateral damage”, without any care whether they live or die. Many of these “animals”, particularly cats and dogs were acquired as taken in strays after the marriage of David Derringer to Barrie Derringer, but at the same time, even animals that were David Derringer’s at the onset are different than “tangible” items as they are living creatures that require food,  water, care, and  medication unlike a desk or computer, and this court has to “take judicial notice” of that fact under NMRA 1-044(8) “LAWS OF NATURE”.

At this time, Barrie Derringer also now disregards the very lives of the Derringer animals she used to love unconditionally as will be explained later in this pleading. Hence, this matter must be heard by a justice other than Hadfield that will actually uphold the laws and make rulings outside of simply arbitrary and capricious ideas with no foundation or authority of law. David Derringer is due $1,300.00 from Barrie Derringer’s income from Maestas and Ward as ½ of the community income from the time Barrie Derringer left David Derringer on December 27, 2011 ongoing each month. Additionally, Barrie Derringer has admitted in testimony under Oath in the open court of April 10, 2012 that she intentionally hid and took community income prior to her leaving in an undisclosed amount and transferred thus “community income” to a private savings account under only her own name to take full control and possession illegally of such funds for her own end purposes, neither disclosing to husband David Derringer of this “conversion” nor with any agreement from her spouse for such fund to be taken illegally from “community income” to supposedly become the exclusive funds of Barrie Derringer which does not hold legally. Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81. Hence, “immediately” David Derringer is due by Order of this court, for Barrie Derringer to pay David Derringer ½ of the amount of this “savings account” from any and all times of various balances, and to pay David Derringer $5,200.00 for the collective months of January, February, March and April wherein David Derringer received no community funds from Barrie Derringer, and ongoing accordingly from May 2012 until any divorce or settlement agreement is reached. The “law”NMSA 45-2-804 mandates that Barrie Derringer make ½ half of the community  funds  available to spouse David Derringer to pay third parties, in this particular matter of “animals” to render enough money for support and maintenance of such animals which includes but is not limited to buying hay, dog and cat food, medications, gasoline for getting to and from food sources and taking water to the animals without availability of a well. It is entirely immaterial whether or not Barrie Derringer can make her own rent payment with the remaining half of the income, as the livelihood and wellfare of the living animals have  priority and wherein Barrie Derringer could not ever have rented or separated from her husband for distinct residence of her own anyway. Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild 208. In fact under NMSA 45-2-804 the statute itself “demands” 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” is accountable for all bills and maintenance of the animals. Martinez v. Block, 858 p.2d 429, 115 NM 762.

SHORT HISTORY APPURTENANT TO THIS MATTER

David Derringer and Barrie Derringer actually met on July 7, 2009. At that time one of hundreds of things in common that  furiously speeded  up the relationship and love between the couple is the love of animals. At that time, Barrie Beverley (later Derringer) had her best “buddy”, a cat named “Fujimoto” (Fuj, or Fuji) and David Derringer had cats, dogs, horses and donkeys. With David Derringer’s own love of cats, the bond was instant with David Derringer and “the Fuj”, and it was only three days later that David Derringer and Barrie Derringer were already “in love” with each other as a total  reciprocal  relationship. That happened on July 10^th, 2009  when David Derringer had two of his dogs of “Dingo” and “Patches” with him while visiting Barrie Beverley and the “animal family” became born of the two. David Derringer, a “Cowboy” and outfitter, brought with him to the relationship a love and total understanding of animals, and working with them as part of his living as well as professional in the training and working with “livestock”. Barrie Beverley brought to the relationship a love of animals and yet a fear of horses and larger animals and some scepticism of some dogs and breeds. This “fear” came from childhood injuries and terrorism of being “bucked off” of horses, and fear of such large animals. The love between the two parties instantly was strong and unconditional and Cowboy David Derringer took his expertise of training horses and riding lessons to combine with the love of Barrie to gently and carefully gain the trust, balance and cooperation of Barrie to not only get Barrie over her fear of horses, but to ride and accept horses as her “friends” and companions, feeling totally at ease with them in all circumstances. David balanced the love of animals with teaching Barrie that all animals have feelings, emotions, and a “soul” just as humans think themselves unique, and Barrie became very familiar with the animals under Cowboy’s teaching and supervision. Barrie became one and totally in love with the Derringer “family” that Fujimoto became part of, and Barrie slept with cat “Mask” on her head, enjoyed being nudged by donkey El Cid, and enjoyed all of the feeding and comradery of actually “living” with animals. Barrie was taught medication, treatments and other vet procedures and became totally intertwined with the Derringer “family” as it should be. That should be ongoing now with a proper dissolution of any actions keeping Barrie and David apart. Throughout the 2 ½ years of the direct relationship and marriage of Barrie Derringer and David Derringer, before Barrie left on December 27, 2011, Barrie loved her Cowboy husband, loved the Derringer animals family unconditionally, and “received” the same unconditional love from husband David Derringer as well as 27 other little guy’s animal hearts giving their love to Barrie Derringer at all times. For the very first time in Barrie’s life, she had true love of a good husband and 27 other loving hearts giving Barrie  the love she has needed all of her life. There is now a hole in Barrie’s heart that can only be filled by the love of Cowboy David Derringer and the animals of the Derringer family. During the years, some precious individuals were lost due to age, or illness. In 2010, the Derringer family lost two horses of “Zoom” and “Tiffany” due to loco weed, and the grief of Barrie Derringer was extreme, as it was for all of us. In December 2011, we lost “the Fuj” at over 18 years of age, as well as “Panther” of about the same age, and also lost the donkey “El Cid” of about 32 of old age, all within a week. Then, the disaster of the Derringer house burning on December 23, 2011 took the lives of 5 dogs of “Dingo”, “Cisco”, “Toby”, “Captain” and “Mikey”. The pain was excruciating and relentless for both the parties, but one must go on in life after such disasters. Barrie Derringer possibly “broke” in this matter, for she on December 27, 2011 left her loving Cowboy, David Derringer, as well as totally abandoned all of the Derringer family of animals, both betraying her husband and the animals that never did anything collectively but love and protect Barrie Derringer, but mainly, Barrie Derringer betrayed herself and disregarded the love she had “unconditionally” for her husband and the Derringer animals, and also left the truest love Barrie had ever had in her own life “from” her husband and all of the animals. Ever since that time, Barrie has only been concerned with her own comfort and selfish ideas of “moving on”, and has become a woman that lies, cheats and steals, without integrity, without honor, without conscience, and without any concern whether or not her husband Cowboy or the animals are alive or dead. In short, Barrie Derringer has changed her whole personality and attitude to a foreign aspect aided and abetted by others with their own agendas for Barrie and has disregarded the true meaning of “life”; that of “love” being the most important thing in the world, far superior to comfort, running water, “organization” of tangible items or Barrie’s “clean car”. The morals and duties of a wife, spouse, friend, caretaker, and “animal husband” demanded Barrie’s integrity and assistance, which Barrie refused to further give.

Hence, David Derringer has tried to keep everyone going with all chores, medications, food and water runs, but has been unable to meet all demands with the very limited income of only David Derringer’s SSI of $698.00 per month when gas is $4.00 per gallon for a ten MPG truck for at least 30 miles per day, horse food at $250.00 per large bale that only lasts 7-8 days, additional supplements for the two older horses of “Nicky” and “Chip” and the dog and cat food needed, as well as needed medications of bantamine, penicillin, tetrocycline, and other medications. It is mandated that David Derringer have the legally available ½ of the “community income” for keeping the Derringer animals alive and well. David Derringer has been deprived by Barrie Derringer for a period of four months ongoing, with Barrie in total disregard for animals that loved  her unconditionally  and always did their best for her, and her “new personality” to disregard life itself as well as her husband. Clearly, Barrie’s past life and husband Charles Beverlely did  not give Barrie the love given by David Derringer and the Derringer animals, and now Barrie Derringer is missing that love that she has needed so desperately in her entire life, yet disregards the ones that love her the most with a callousness and emotional shut down that is killing the Derringer animals. Clearly, Barrie Derringer has to “wake up” as to the need she has for both her loving husband and the Derringer animals, and yet that could be tomorrow, or only when she is old and grey at 85 years, but the Derringer animals have to eat and survive “now” and time is of the essence. The courts therefore have to intervene on behalf of the living creatures and mandate with Order that Barrie Derringer give the full ½ of the community income to David Derringer immediately retroactive so that the animals can eat and maintain. Already, the horses have each lost 100 or more pounds, the dogs and cats are not getting all they should and there has been no money for the mandated supplements for “Nicky” and “Chip” as old 32 year old  horses that need extra nutrition to survive. The David Derringer $698.00 per month goes nowhere compared to the bills of over $1,300.00 for the animals upkeep. The very thing that Barrie desperately needs in her life as the love from her husband and contact and love from the animals, she refuses and disregards. Barrie needs to “come home” for her own emotional stability. However, as Barrie Derringer has also done “criminal acts” of proven perjury and fraud in the filing and continuance of the “order of protection” restraining orders against David Derringer when David has never done anything bad, and only loved Barrie Derringer; but now Barrie Derringer could be also held criminally liable for abuse of animals and livestock under NMSA 30-18-1-15. Barrie Derringer knows full well that David Derringer does not have enough money for proper care of the animals without the legally available ½ of the community income, and Barrie “refuses” to allow David Derringer either access or use of this community money, because Barrie is too busy with her own comforts and selfish attitude that she uses this money for her own purposes, and disregards the animals that love her. Thus, Barrie “intentionally” and “maliciously” abuses the Derringer animals withholding money “negligently” “mistreats” or “abandons or fails to provide necessary sustenance to an animal under their custody or control”. In this matter, Barrie Derringer has “custody and control” of the Derringer animals just as her husband David Derringer, who is doing his best under the conditions of not enough money, with Barrie withholding money for such past and  needed present use. It is pathetic that Barrie chooses to have a fancy three bedroom home and lots of expensive food for herself each month to the killing of the Derringer animals. The “love” shown to and for the emotional benefit of Barrie by both  her husband and  the animals is being betrayed by Barrie. The “law” demands of Barrie to give David his fair ½ share of the community income to properly take care of the Derringer animals. Irwin v. Irwin, 910 p.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996. What type of vile, disgusting human being can sit comfortably in their leather recliner chair watching TV in a $900.00 per month three bedroom house for only one  person eating their $300.00 worth of  food that was already paid for when David and Barrie were together, living well beyond their means of the Derringer family, with their knowledge that their acts are causing the misery and death of the Derringer family of animals, and keep a “no-contact” Order in place so they don’t have to hear about it? This “Barrie” person now is nothing like the loving, beautiful and responsible wife that was with David Derringer and the Derringer family as a loving woman of the Derringer “family” that Cowboy was married to. Just as the Petitioner and Judge Hadfield have to and like to “eat”, so also do the Derringer family of animals. There is no availability of “time” here. Order is mandated to be immediate so that no Derringer animals die while waiting for the lackadaisical attitude of the court or wait for Barrie Derringer to wake up and come back to the love and marriage as she should, not only for the animals and her husband, but for her own future and ongoing emotional well being. In short, Barrie belongs in this  marriage and this family, and has needed what she has here all of her life. Now, however, Barrie recklessly steals food and sustenance from the loving animals to give “tips” and the extravaganza of eating at restaurants while the animals starve.   The “new Barrie” since December 27, 2011, which by Barrie is claimed to be the same Barrie as when married to Charles Beverley past, is a very cold and  uncaring  individual in comparison to the wonderful woman that was David Derringer’s wife. Clearly, Charles Beverley, (as claimed by Barrie) used to say “I’m very disappointed in you Barrie”. This was previously taken by David Derringer to be verbal abuse and belittlement by past husband Charlie, but if indeed, Barrie was then acting as now after leaving David Derringer, there is truth to that statement of Charles that should not be happening. In short, Barrie needs to come back home to the love of David Derringer and the animals and ensure that all animals eat and are secure. Statute NMSA 30-18-1-15 indicates that such a mind set of a person in these circumstances of not properly taking care of or not allowing the care, as this matter, is “to obtain psychological counseling for treatment of a mental health disorder”. NMSA 30-18-1.

Accordingly, Barrie Derringer is “unbalanced” as to her priorities. She views “acceptance” and “socialization” as more important than true love that she has with David Derringer. She has a husband that loves and protects her, and a family of loving animals that love her unconditionally, and she instead “abandons” her husband, disregards the very love that she needs desperately in her own life, and then disregards the very lives of the animals before cherished and considered precious with interference of the community money desperately needed for the animals’ continued “life”.

There is no doubt under all law that this court must Order Barrie Derringer to divide the income coming from her side of this marriage to husband spouse David Derringer. Lucas v. Lucas, 621 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556. In short, Barrie Derringer, as testified in court on April 10, 2012 makes $2,600.00 per month and ½ of that amount must be given to David Derringer to pay bills, support the Derringer animals and other uses.

Barrie Derringer has in January 2012 and now ongoing has become so calloused or uncaring, with her going back to her old Charlie Beverley (past abusive husband) collection of undesirable friends on cocaine and associates, not to care whether the Derringer animals lived or died, and seeking only in selfishness to attain her own place with comfort and conveniences and disregarding every other living thing in the world that she used to love; namely her husband and the animals that used to be endeared to her heart. This “sabotage” and disregard for “life” from Barrie Derringer is totally unlike the Barrie Derringer known to David Derringer as his “wife”, and that “wife” needs to come home. Throughout the time David Derringer has known Barrie Derringer, having met on July 7, 2009 until Barrie Derringer left David Derringer on December 27, 2011, David Derringer has been totally in love with his wife, and has done nothing ever to hurt her either emotionally, verbally or physically. David Derringer has considered Barrie Derringer the love of his life, and devoted himself to her, honored her, and believed that Barrie Derringer was the best wife that anyone could possibly have. With her husband David and with the Derringer animals, Barrie Derringer has been nothing short of a wonderful wife; loved David Derringer as obvious, was kind, helpful in any weather, loved the Derringer animals, and was considerate, happy, and agreeable. At no time would Barrie Derringer “lie”, or do any actions that would have any affect of hurting others. Clearly, Barrie Derringer needs to properly assess her life and regain the love and family that she has still available to her and come back and effect a total reconciliation with David Derringer, but in the interim, until Barrie gains emotional balance, the court must intervene immediately with Order to gain David Derringer the needed money to take care of the Derringer family with or without wife Barrie Derringer.

Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________

David Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                        April 24, 2012

Petitioner’s attorney of record

Alain Jackson, 423 6^th St. NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-620-6688 New Mexico 87109.

On April 24, 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