STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
No. DM-12-610
appeal of final Judgement and all orders of April 10, June 12, July 3, and November 14, and 15, 2012
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent,
DOCKETING STATEMENT
COMES NOW the Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se and hereby submits his docketing statement in support of the appeal of all orders and judgements of DM-12-610 (April 10, June 12, July 3, November 14, November 15) and the denial of a trial or hearing of the related DV-12-234 and the denial of motions on May 4, 2012 of four separate motions. In all matters of this trial court, were in total bias, prejudice, sexual discrimination, non-conformity of all Constitution and laws, and against Oath and Canon by Judge Hadfield mandating her recusal for cause, but wherein she refused to step down, and mandates for the NM Court of Appeal to review many issues of “abuse of power” and “abuse of discretion”, and a total failure each time to rule with the laws, and refusal to use any authorities or substantive reasoning for any of her biased decisions, that were in fact based only on conjecture, arbitrary and capricious and based on her own agenda and viewpoints having nothing to do with “law”. “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. U.S. 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) In all matters herein Judge Hadfield herself “lied” to the court record, muzzled the testimony of Respondent David Derringer, disregarded the Respondent’s testimony, witnesses, documents and evidence, did 2nd Amendment Constitutional deprivations without any “standard of evidence or proof”, kept issues of a sexual disease from the court record as much as possible, distorted and corrupted the court record, and refused to allow the Respondent David Derringer due process, equal protection and did extreme violations of the Constitution 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments, violated US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as disregarding all former case laws, and extreme violations of NMSA 45-2-804 and all “criminal statutes” of New Mexico and Judge Hadfield could not have conducted any of DM-12-610 mandating the dismissal entirely of DM-12-610 as “unconstitutional”. Martinez US
All matters after November 15, 2012 are in the jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals with the wording in the Final Judgement that “this is a final appealable order” signed by Judge Hadfield.
In this matter the extreme issues that mandates a total dismissal of DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234 is a “biased and prejudiced Judge” that refuses to obey any law, and has a total bias and prejudice for woman and Barrie Derringer in particular and against all men and against David Derringer in particular, against Pro-Se parties and against any husband that “contests” a divorce action, and against a Respondent exercising his rights under due process and opportunity to be heard (US Code Title 42 Section 1981, 5th and 14th Amendments) to file legal and “non-frivolous” pleadings, making a fair an impartial trial impossible, mandating also an Order to recuse Judge Hadfield, and either a total dismissal of DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234 “with prejudice” or in the alternative mandating a remand to a trial court with a justice other than Judge Hadfield [Recusal for Cause] for all proceedings to start anew (hearings and trial de novo) and from the beginning with destruction and dismissal of all of the tainted and corrupted court records of both DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234 (DV-12-234 was performed without service of summons and other egregious acts in violation of due process and equal protection).
The Order of April 10, 2012 of “Bifuricated Decree of Divorce” was without any “extreme or exceptional circumstances” as necessary by Rule, but simply done in “retaliation” by Judge Hadfield in direct response to the Petitioner’s Motion to stop David Derringer from due process of filing legal pleadings; thus an Order meant to stop due process and equal protection of law, and later persecution of “exercising rights of due process” by sanctions against David Derringer on November 15, 2012. The “legal” pleadings of David Derringer exposed the public corruption of Judge Hadfield and the bias and prejudice and what really happened here is that David Derringer proved to the court Barrie Derringer’s perjury and fraud to the court of law DV-12-234 in the underlying “Petition for Order of Protection” wherein Barrie lied and claimed David Derringer had hurt her physically with no evidence or proof whatsoever, and then Barrie “impeached” herself by stating that “David would never hurt me physically” testimony under oath, and proved also to the court of additional perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer in a hearing of April 10, 2012 in DM-12-610 before Judge Hadfield. The underlying bias and prejudice of Judge Hadfield is extremely biased and prejudiced against David Derringer with also a “hate crime” of sexual discrimination against the “man” Derringer and in the hearing of April 10, 2012 of DM-12-610 Judge Hadfield also is “extreme” as she is both the “advocate” of Petitioner Barrie Derringer in the hearing and then the extreme “adversary” against the Respondent David Derringer. In the Final Judgement of November 15, 2 012 Judge Hadfield ignores all of the Respondent’s findings of facts and conclusions of law, and wherein the Petitioner does not even file any “findings and conclusions” and Judge Hadfield taints and corrupts the court record to lie herself and use conjecture and arbitrary decisions not supported by any law, while ignoring the extreme amount of law and authorities cited by David Derringer, and simply “ignores” that the Petitioner gave David Derringer a permanent venereal disease that has everything to do with alimony and damages in a marital settlement agreement. The court by way of Judge Hadfield acting in discharge of all laws and Canon, became the “litigant” against David Derringer instead of a “finder of facts”. Because then David Derringer motioned Hadfield to “recuse for cause” the hatred turned into revenge and retribution and also after the “election” of November 6, 2012 that “Republican” David Derringer sought on the Internet and in public to stop the re-election of Alisa Hadfield the “retaliation” is blatant against David Derringer in the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012. This “obstruction of justice” defeats the judicial system of the United States
Barrie Derringer had lied and done criminal fraud to the court on Petition for Order of Protection in a bogus filing on February 6, 2012 of related DV-12-234, known and proven in court record criminal perjury and fraud by Petitioner Barrie Derringer lying on the Petition for Order of Protection, and then lying in court that David Derringer had and will hurt her and that she was so afraid even in the courtroom that David would get up and possibly hurt her, and yet minutes later in court under Oath stating that “David Derringer would NEVER hurt me physically”; and yet with this knowledge, the DV-12-234 underlying related Commissioner granted the Petition for Order of Protection for a period of “two years”; twice the normal time frame, and without anything but Barrie Derringer’s own word (contradicted in testimony), without evidence, documents, photographs, witnesses, or any other “proof”; statements and allegations against David Derringer that not only are contradicted in Barrie’s own testimony under oath in the underlying hearing on February 21, 2012, but proven Barrie Derringer “fraud” by the exhibit of David Derringer of the APD police report of the same incident date and time, and then lied again in the court to sustain this Petition on February 21, 2012 so as to continue illegal break-ins to steal all of the Derringer community property and David Derringer’s personal property from the Derringer storage on 101 Florida SE Unit C from the underlying “domestic violence” petition that was then related to the later filing for divorce of DM-12-610 on February 8, 2012. “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). Simply put, Judge Hadfield, has conducted her own “dictatorship” taking Constitutional rights, disregarding NM Statues and US Code, ignoring all former case laws appurtenant to any of these matters and rules arbitrary and capriciously in whims or what she thinks personally and in a bias for the woman Barrie in every aspect. This “abuse of power” and “abuse of discretion” must be reviewed by the NM Court of Appeals and does the various motions for recusal of Judge Hadfield. Certainly, this matter must of DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234 must be dismissed entirely, or at the least each started over with a different unbiased justice for any due process or equal protection to be assured for the Respondent. The serious “abuse of discretion” and violations of Oath and Canon, denied all valid David Derringer motions meant to Barrie Derringer “un-accountable” for her actions against her husband of perjury and fraud and for the three consecutive storage break-ins with Barrie’s bosses and other “friends” so as to take all property long before any marital settlement agreement or divorce could be concluded. Judge Hadfield even denied David Derringer his rights to discovery and allowed Barrie to hide the identities of the persons that stole $55,000.00 of David Derringer’s personal property, knowing that David Derringer has a right for legal redress of these persons and that this has everything to do with a settlement agreement. Judge Hadfield also hides, and disregards Barrie
The illegal “bifurcated divorce” by Judge Hadfield stems from “PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM FRIVOLOUS FILINGS BY RESPONDENT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS”; when David Derringer had been filing proper motions before the court asking for compliance with law, with extreme support of authorities and Barrie
David Derringer had motioned the court for needed remedy in discovery as Barrie Derringer had broken and entered the Derringer storage time and time again (three times) on February 4, 2012, February 25, 2012 and March 8, 2012, without legal ability to steal all she could of all property with help of her bosses and friends, at which first time of February 4, 2012 break in (well before any “domestic violence” or divorce filings by Barrie Derringer) the Barrie Derringer “bosses and friends” did criminal assault and battery and illegal detention of holding David Derringer down against his will, upon which David Derringer sued these people in Second Judicial Court CV-12-1307 (ongoing). Barrie consulted with others to file a divorce inclusive of all any possible divorces of woman ever claim with her list of: mental abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, isolation, controlling every aspect of relationship, controlling money and assets, living conditions; none of these actually happening in the Derringer marriage, and wherein under oath, Barrie not being able to give any “examples” of these with any evidence, ie. When Barrie
David Derringer clearly needed “remedy” from the irrational and violent acts of Barrie Derringer, who had totally changed her personality and attitude from the wonderful wife David Derringer had before she left on December 27, 2011, and Barrie does not in fact need a divorce, but effective counseling, evaluation, drug testing, and treatment of depression and suicidal episodes that Barrie admits under Oath as being suicidal and doing domestic violence to David Derringer.
Due to the extreme prejudice, bias, and sexual discrimination, coupled with a “refusal” to obey prior case laws, NM statutory laws and Constitution against David Derringer “man”, David Derringer filed on April 16, 2012, his proper Motion for Recusal for Cause of Judge Alisa Hadfield That Rules Against All Laws in Bias, Prejudice, Sexual Discrimination, and Abuse of Discretion; a motion in Ernest with cause, but that thoroughly infuriated Judge Hadfield so as to precipitate “retribution”, “retaliation” and “revenge” to attempt to stop and deny all further David Derringer motions regardless of the proven merit for relief that they sought, and to deny these motions after jurisdiction was removed from Hadfield by appeal of May 2, 2012.
Barrie Derringer left husband/spouse David Derringer in an irrational act while in deep despair and traumatic stress syndrome (Barrie takes numerous medications for hormone balance, anti-depression, anti-anxiety, and even has “prescribed tranquilizers” and is likely “bi-polar” as a mental disorder, and in the past contemplated suicide) and possibly in a nervous breakdown on December 27, 2011 after the Derringer’s had lost three pets to old age one week before Christmas 2011, and then a Derringer house fire on December 23, 2011 killed another 5 of the Derringer dogs and left the Derringers without a home. This extreme situation was aggravated by the fact that Barrie Derringer is the least assertive person and controlled in a cult type mind manipulation by both her parents and her bosses at Maestas and Ward where she works as their accountant. David Derringer has been trying to get his wife out of this abusive work environment and to move from New Mexico
Barrie Derringer was suicidal in the past in 2010, and was acting totally out-of-control in the month of January, with David Derringer loving his wife with all of his heart and trying to put their love and marriage back together, but with the opposing mind control of others when Barrie was no longer living with David, the other parties were prevailing to control Barrie, and David feared for Barrie’s life, and locked the Derringer storage in late January to prevent a “suicide” by Barrie by use of David Derringer’s loaded firearms in storage, as had been contemplated by Barrie one year before in 2010. Barrie Derringer had herself planned and orchestrated “meetings” with David Derringer throughout the month of January to “talk” although she did little to try to repair the marriage, but did always meet David Derringer “alone” and in deserted parking lots, in her own car and went into locked storage with David, showing that she knew that David loved Barrie with all of his heart and wherein Barrie had no fear whatsoever of David Derringer in any situation. The controlling “bosses” of Barrie from Maestas and Ward used their own time and equipment on a Saturday February 4, 2012, (before any filings of domestic violence or divorce) and “broke and entered” the locked Derringer storage with Barrie Barrie
In retaliation, retribution and with obvious “advice” of Barrie Derringer’s bosses Debbie Harms and others, Barrie “lies” on Monday February 6, 2012 that on February 4, 2012 at the location and time of the break-in, that David Derringer had knocked Barrie down, hurt her hip, that she had bruises, and that David Derringer had “prevented” Barrie Derringer from leaving the premises, and that Barrie Derringer is very “afraid” of David Derringer that she will be hurt. The APD police report shows that this Barrie Derringer “petition” is both criminal perjury and fraud, currently being investigated by the Bernalillo County Sheriff Department. In the related DV-12-234 hearing before Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar on February 21, 2012, (that was well outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity as David Derringer was never legally “served” with any summons or subpoena) Barrie lies again to the court that David Derringer did, and would hurt her, and that she is very afraid of David Derringer “in this courtroom”, and yet minutes later, while still under the same Oath, when asked if David Derringer would hurt her, Barrie states emphatically “David Derringer would NEVER hurt me physically”. No legal standard of proof enabled the Order of Protection. Barrie Derringer produced no “photographs” of the claimed “bruises”; no witnesses even though there were more than twenty persons there and tens of “bystanders” on February 4, 2012, the date of the claimed “petition” and no documents, evidence or other “proof” of the allegations against David Derringer, and yet claimed that David Derringer “prevented her from leaving” when it was the APD officers that Ordered Barrie and her accomplices to leave the premises. The perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer was “undeniable” even before Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, and David Derringer produced evidence of the APD report, phone records of Barrie setting the “meetings” with David in January “alone” showing no fear, and the Phone text recordings of Barrie totally ‘in love’ with her husband before the fire and a totally different person after the fire. The Commissioner instead was the advocate for Barrie and persecuted and demeaned David in open court and granted Barrie a Order of Protection for twice the normal span, since she was aware that David loves Barrie and chose to punish that love with “no contact” for two years, and this bias and prejudice, as well as “covering the back” of the illegal decisions by the Commissioner, are very apparent in all rulings of Judge Hadfield, including the “denial” of the appeal of DV-12-234 without legal reasoning except to stop and block a legal appeal by David Derringer in “obstruction of justice”. Judge Hadfield ruled on all pending 4 motions by David Derringer in a “vengeance” on May 4, 2012 creating a miscarriage of justice in abuse of discretion to retaliate against David Derringer’s Motion to Recuse for Cause Judge Hadfield.
II Date of Judgments and Orders and Notice of Appeal
The April 10, 2012 Order from Judge Hadfield granted without legal ability under rule Barrie Derringer a “bifurcated divorce” in order to stop due process and equal protection against David Derringer and this issues is totally before the court in this appeal. The Final Judgment and Order was filed on November 15, 2012 and this appeal is inclusive of all Orders of DM-12-610 with also jurisdiction with the related and intertwining DV-12-234 illegal Order of Protection that denies without legal ability David Derringer’s due process, equal protection, 2nd Amendment rights and “property rights” to a profession; all without any standard of proof.
III Statement of the Case
This is an appeal from every Order and Judgment of both DM-12-610 and intertwined DV-12-234 as they cannot effectively be separated, with both in total violation of Constitution and law being rules upon without jurisdiction or judicial capacity by a Judge that will not follow laws, and will not recuse.
The Judge not only won’t follow law, but is guided by emotional personal problems or failures of her own private life and is determined to sabotage and defeat the Derringer marriage and persecute and punish David Derringer for loving his own wife by continuing an illegal “order of protection” for two years, keeping Barrie Derringer from being accountable for her perjury and fraud that attained that Order of Protection, and allowing Barrie Derringer to keep all money and property that is “community income and property” defeating mandated NMSA 45-2-804 and other statutes that grants no “immunity” to Judge Hadfield acting without law in her decisions. These egregious acts by Hadfield render David Derringer unable to pay bills, keep the animals going properly and keep the “Derringer family afloat”. Hadfield has ignored and denied David’s separate property, separate inheritance money and arbitrarily decided that former Barrie IRS bills before the marriage should be paid by David Derringer as a “gift”. Despite the mandates of both statutory laws and all former case laws to both ensure the possibility of reconciliation with mandated counseling to repair and save the underlying marriage, and the mandates of Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct to “act under law” in “equity”, Judge Hadfield denied the legal Derringer appeal of the fraudulent allegations of “domestic violence”claimed by Barrie Derringer, DV-12-234, and without legal appeal continued the unlawful “order of protection” for two years so as to both persecute and inflict “cruel and unusual punishment” in the violation of the 13th Amendment against David Derringer while also violating David Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights to have “firearms” and keep professional New Mexico #32 outfitter, David Derringer from using “firearms” needed to make his living as such hunting outfitter, thus precluding David Derringer’s rights to his profession as a property right, and rights under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 to own and use his own “personal property”, also violating the US Supreme Court ruling No. 10-1521. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. U.S.
The parties in this matter were totally in love since three days after they met in July 7, 2009 and have been enjoying a perfect marriage with total compatibility, all matters in common, happiness, love, respect for one another, and total harmony until the house fire of December 23, 2011 that either created a mental breakdown in wife Barrie Derringer or some other form of total change of personality, that has been totally manipulated and forced submission and some cult mind control of both Barrie Derringer’s parents, her employment bosses, and other “friends” that used to be in former Barrie Derringer’s life; those that used and abused cocaine, marijuana, and were alcoholics; a past life that Barrie Derringer was also involved. Due to this, Barrie Derringer left husband David Derringer on December 27, 2011, just four days after the fire, and became a person that has lied and done criminal fraud to the courts, filed bogus and fraudulent domestic violence accusations against David Derringer that only loved and protected Barrie Derringer at all times, with never any verbal, physical or mental abuse. Likely, some or many of the actions of Barrie Derringer since December 27, 2011, were both advised and orchestrated by others. This includes, but is not limited to the mind control over Barrie by her parents and bosses, such as the forced illegal break-ins of the Derringer storage on February 4, 2012, February 25, 2012, and March 8, 2012 wherein Barrie’s “bosses” of Maestas and Ward assisted and facilitated the illegal taking of much of the Derringer property, including David Derringer loaded firearms with a past “suicidal” Barrie Derringer, did criminal assault and battery against David Derringer, holding David Derringer against his will, and attempted to steal all of the Derringer community and personal property of both Barrie and David long before any “domestic violence” or “divorce” were filed by Barrie Derringer. Judge Hadfield ignores the thousands of dollars of David Derringer property stolen by Barrie and her friends and will not Order Barrie to divulge the identities of the 12 other persons that David Derringer has every right to sue these persons both civilly and criminally.
David Derringer represents himself Pro-Se and has filed numerous pleadings attempting to have the court properly and legally save this marriage as well as in “exposure” of the egregious acts of Barrie Derringer mis-using the courts in both perjury and fraud to force a divorce, when Barrie has proven in court, she does not even know herself “why” she wants a divorce, except for attaining the better living arrangements after the house fire all by herself, taking all money and resources from the Derringer family to leave all bills unpaid and animals starving; animals and a husband Barrie Derringer used to unconditionally love, and yet now Barrie is with a new personality of seeking destruction of all of the Derringer family for no underlying cause or reasoning; with Judge Hadfield illegally supporting actions against all laws and former case laws.
The court is mandated to stop the criminal acts of Barrie Derringer and instead persecuted David Derringer for filing pleadings showing this “fraud” and wherein Judge Hadfield herself lied and corrupted the court record. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated; Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 “A judge is not only entitled, but also has a duty to take all lawful measures reasonably necessary to prevent the occurrence of a crime in his courtroom.”; US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 “CA6 (Mich.) Obstruction of Justice statute proscribes subornation of perjury.”
All attempts at making sense of the acts of Barrie Derringer and her seeking a divorce after the perjury and fraud of the bogus domestic violence accusations have been thwarted and defeated by a court working “in concert” with simply a woman stating that she wants a divorce, without any talking or even attempts to work out any perceived problems. Maynard v. Hill, 125 US 190, 8 United State Supreme Court 723, 31 L.Ed.654 ; The Respondent David Derringer repeatedly proved to the trial court time after time that there are hundreds of case laws, New Mexico statutes and federal Constitution and rulings from the United States Supreme Court that a marriage is the backbone of the American society, as well as the simply fact that Barrie Derringer can not simply leave and take all money and community income and property and get away with this by perjury and fraud of domestic violence allegations in DV-12-234. Matter of Lord’s Estate, 602 P.2d 1030, 93 NM 543. The trial court deprives the Respondent due process, equal protection and thought that David Derringer would simply be defeated and “muzzled” by defeating David Derringer’s appeal of DV-12-234 and prevents David Derringer from proper testimony and “without legal opportunity to be heard” either in the courtroom in testimony or by pleading, and then “sanctions” David Derringer for exercising his rights of due process. All matters of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 have been a “sham” and miscarriage of justice done the a biased judge that won’t step down. Barrie Derringer is a bi-polar, depressed, and suicidal woman in extreme traumatic stress syndrome and “lost” at this time after the Derringer house fire, and acting without law or rational. Clearly, Barrie Derringer needs counseling and assistance, and the help and support of her husband David Derringer, who loves Barrie Derringer with all of his heart; wherein a “divorce” is not the rational answer to the Derringer marriage, nor to the future life of Barrie Derringer, or in the alternative some sort of action to wake Barrie up that she cannot do criminal acts to others without redress; in which there is a possibility of criminal complaints being filed against her by the District Attorney. In short, the courts cannot simply run people through the divorce courts as cattle, and mis-use domestic violence charges, but are mandated to “care” for the United States citizens and protect the sanctity of the marriage institution, upon which are entire country is based in this society, and Barrie is responsible for criminal acts and outrageous acts done even against her own husband. This NM Court of Appeals is mandated under law to remand these matters to the trial court, after the mandated recusal of Judge Elisa Hadfield, for either dismissal with prejudice or a completely new trial de novo for any justice to be served, that will still not repair the ongoing Constitutional and statutory deprivation damages to David Derringer.
The Derringer’s had a perfect marriage and relationship since the first meeting of David and Barrie on July 7, 2009. Both David Derringer and Barrie Beverley (later married as Barrie Derringer) were perfectly in love, with everything in common, a total harmony in all aspects of life emotionally, in work and recreation, common beliefs and interests, a total harmony of each’s belief in God and religious matters, the unity of love of animals, and specifically the Derringer animals, and a wanting to be with each other constantly every second of every day and night possible, as well as an extremely good “love” and intimate relationship. The Derringers were totally “compatible” in every aspect of life. The Derringers had living circumstances that were less than ideal, but compensated and constantly strived to better their life in all respects including the living conditions of the Derringer family. Barrie Derringer was always in assistance with all animals, and all aspects of every endeavor, and always the two partners in marriage talked out all ideas and plans of their future, with no one being “surprised” by any acts of the other. All money was “community income” going in direct deposit to a joint bank accounts that were established well before even the Derringers were actually married legally. The Derringer couple were truly “meant to be” and should continue their lives together long into old age or death. Barrie Derringer is very susceptible to “manipulation” and control by her parents and Maestas and Ward “bosses” however, and both needs and benefits greatly from the love and protection by husband David Derringer. Barrie Derringer has finally found a man in her life with David Derringer that really loves her and is devoted to Barrie Derringer’s well being in all aspects of life, as a husband should be, so that no harm would come to Barrie Derringer; contrary to a former life style of Barrie wherein she used alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in a abusive relationship that started with the dysfunctional family upbringing and was involved in Barrie Derringer’s past two marriages before David Derringer that were with the same man Charles Beverley; a biker, womanizer and substance abuser, who actually was physically violent with Barrie, as was Barrie to Charles Beverley, and wherein Charles Beverley gave Barrie Beverley Herpes (HSV-2) incurable venereal disease from one of his cheating episodes about 20 years before Barrie met David Derringer. Before the Derringers were actually married Barrie without notice of the history of Charles Beverley concerning this disease, infected David Derringer in “battery” of negligence and tortuous fraud, but the love was so great between Barrie and David that after long discussions, stayed with each other and married.
Barrie Derringer has a marriage with David Derringer that is what Barrie has needed all of her life, and the courts should defend that marriage, so that Barrie does not go back to the abuse and regression into a former life style that is not good for any person, and David Derringer is extremely a “good husband” to Barrie with no violence or abuse whatsoever mentally, verbally, physically and does not use “control” over Barrie Derringer as do others. David Derringer only loves and protects his wife as he should.
On December 23, 2011 the hopes and dreams of the Derringers were seriously set back with a house fire that killed five of the Derringer pets, just after three days prior three other pets had died of old age. The vultures of Barrie’s past life of “friends”, controlling parents, and extremely controlling “bosses” of Maestas and Ward, attacked Barrie Derringer when she was emotionally vulnerable and indefensible, and used mind control and cult tactics to advise, force, and persuade Barrie Derringer to drive away from husband David Derringer four days after the disaster of the fire on December 27, 2012. Any rational mind would see that the “timing” of this divorce is open to extreme doubt and coincidence or going back to drugs by Barrie
IV Statement of the Issues with list of authorities later attached after statements
All issues presented herein are preserved under Preservation of Issues by: New Mexico statutory laws, case laws of New Mexico
Issue 1: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie to violate case laws and misuse community income to gain separate residence of extreme costs, and without accessibility by the husband and not reimburse ½ of that community income back to David Derringer?
Issue 2: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to take all bank account money, change her community income to only herself, and stop paying bills in direct violation of NMSA 45-2-804 with “equal protection violations” against David Derringer and not require Petitioner to reimburse David Derringer ½ of the community income spent?
Issue 3: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to do criminal acts of abandonment and abuse of animals by refusing to use community income to feed and water the pets and livestock of the Derringer under criminal meaning of NMSA 30-18-1, and refuse to allow David Derringer any of the legal ½ of community income for sustaining the animals?
Issue 4: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to stop paying utility bills and yet gain new and unnecessary debt with new utility bills for a new residence with mis-use of community income?
Issue 5: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to not provide food, gasoline, clothing, and other “necessities of life” for David Derringer with the legal ½ of the community income, and not reimburse David Derringer for the community income withheld illegally?
Issue 6: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to make purchases of tangible items after leaving David Derringer with community income and not then allow David Derringer his legal possession or reimbursement of ½ of these “new purchases” or value thereof?
Issue 7: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to avoid legal discovery to disclose the items purchased by community income which David Derringer was legally ½ owner thereof?
Issue 8: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to take David Derringer and community property in three separate break-ins to the Derringer storage at 101 Florida SE Unit C, on February 4, 25, and March 8, 2012, and refuse to disclose all items taken, without returning any of the ½ of community items or reimbursement of value thereof, and all of David Derringer’s separate property to David Derringer?
Issue 9: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to violate discovery and hide and refuse to allow identity to be known of the 12 persons that Barrie Derringer had assist her in three separate break-ins of the Derringer storage at 101 Florida SE Unit C, on February 4, 25, and March 8, 2012, wherein $55,000.00 of David Derringer personal property was vandalized, destroyed and stolen in larceny, without Ordering Barrie Derringer also to pay David Derringer for value of items stolen, vandalized, and destroyed, including destruction of over $300.00 of locks for the unit, and deliberate avoidance and protection of the 12 persons involved in the larceny to block David Derringer from any civil or criminal prosecution of these 12 persons?
Issue 10: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to hide the names and identities, in violations of discovery, of the 12 persons with Barrie Derringer on the storage/shop break-ins of February 4, 2012 that did criminal assault and battery against husband David Derringer on that date so as to block David Derringer from any criminal or civil prosecution of these 12 persons?
Issue 11: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to use community income for an attorney without reimbursing David Derringer for ½ of this community income misused without authorization by husband David Derringer for such attorney fees?
Issue 12: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by forcing David Derringer to pay attorney fees by “illegal sanctions” against David Derringer for David’s legal “due process” of filing legal “pleadings, and other court papers, of an amount of $500.00 which had already been paid by David Derringer by Barrie Derringer illegally withholding David Derringer’s ½ share of community income used for such attorney fees, and does sanctions for exercising rights of due process under constitution constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 13th Amendment and criminal deprivation of rights under the meaning of US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242 by abuse of discretion of Judge Hadfield?
Issue 13: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to violate the court’s orders of April 10, and July 3, 2012 by Barrie Derringer “refusing” to pay the registration and insurance on the three Derringer trucks of “1979 Military 5-ton, 2005 Chevy Silverado 3500, and 1997 Ford 250 as Ordered by the Court and to deny and quash and then “persecute” David Derringer for filing pleadings in $500.00 sanctions for Petitioner’s attorney fees, by David’s “motion for orders to show cause” to gain compliance with the orders of the court itself?
Issue 14: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by refusal to recuse when David Derringer had motioned to recuse for cause of bias and prejudice when Judge Hadfield is biased against “men” in gender prejudice and sexual discrimination?
Issue 15: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by refusal to recuse when David Derringer had motioned to recuse for cause of bias and prejudice against Pro-Se party litigants when contesting a divorce action, when Judge Hadfield is shown to have mi-used her power to persecute and discriminate court procedures against David Derringer, including, but not limited to not allowing David Derringer “legal argument” in the trial of August 23, 2012?
Issue 16: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by refusal to recuse when David Derringer had proven that Judge Hadfield violates all case laws, NM statutes and Constitution in decisions against David Derringer, when motioned to recuse for cause of violations of law, not allowing a fair and equal protection hearing or trial for David Derringer?
Issue 17: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by refusal to recuse when David Derringer had noticed the court refused to stop the trial court actions when the jurisdiction of matters was on NM Court of Appeals No. 32, 113 before remand back to the trial court?
Issue 18: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by refusal to recuse for ethical reasons when Judge Hadfield violates her Oath, US Code Title 28, sections 453, and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and in violation of NMRA 1-088.1(D) when a prejudice can be traced in all proceedings in the cases of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 that include violations of “due process and equal protection” and violation of all court rules to include failure to serve summons “in personam?
Issue 19: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by herself “lying” to the court record to distort and corrupt the court record and to attempt to “creat facts” that never occurred, in order to force the personal viewpoints and agendas of Judge Hadfield that are not in compliance with either facts or law of DV-12-234 or DM-12-610?
Issue 20: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by depriving David Derringer’s Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights to use, possess, and own firearms with no standard of proof for denying Constitutional rights by the proven perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer in the Order or Protection?
Issue 21: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to conduct perjury and fraud in the Petition for Order of Protection, and to hold a hearing without legal service of summons against David Derringer and wherein David Derringer was prevented “due process and equal protection” by not allowing David Derringer to present his witness, and to then deny without reasoning David Derringer legal appeal of DV-12-234?
Issue 22: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering Barrie Derringer as only a “co-signer” to take and sell the 2005 Chevy 3500, without authorization or communication with the loan holder David Derringer, with disregarding David Derringer’s $12,000.00 equity in that vehicle by use of $7,000.00 initial down payment and 8 other loan payments by David Derringer’s use of his sole and separate inheritance funds, and then deprivation of David Derringer’s equity by Ordering any amount of equity to be divided equally between the parties, making David Derringer lose entirely his inheritance and with mis-use of power enabling Barrie Derringer to “make a profit” from the courts in “unjust enrichment” of illegally claiming David Derringer’s sole and separate property of inheritance money?
Issue 23: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to “make a profit” from the courts in “unjust enrichment” of illegally claiming David Derringer’s sole and separate property of inheritance money, by not Ordering Barrie Derringer to reimburse David Derringer for $7,000.00 that David Derringer paid to IRS for a Barrie Beverley (Barrie Derringer) debt incurred well before the marriage of the Derringers, and for Judge Hadfield to “lie” to the court record that David Derringer did this payment with his own separate inheritance as a “gift”?
Issue 24: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to mis-use community income funds without total reimbursement to David Derringer for another IRS debt of Barrie Beverley in arrears from a debt incurred well before the Derringer marriage, and wherein Barrie Derringer had been making $100.00 per month payments to this debt during 2010, 2012 and 2011 while married to David Derringer by mis-using Derringer community income without reimbursement to David Derringer for an amount of about $2,500.00?
Issue 25: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to illegally hold an “order of protection” against David Derringer in violation of all of David Derringer’s statutory, case law and Constitutional rights to own, use and possess firearms, that keep David Derringer from making a living as New Mexico Game and Fish as Professional Outfitter #32 in New Mexico big game hunting and guiding to persecute and deprive David Derringer both his “property rights” of a profession and to deprive income, and to also violate David Derringer’s rights to own personal property in violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1982?
Issue 26: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to have given David Derringer the incurable disease genital Herpes (HSV-2) venereal disease without notice, in battery, tortuous fraud and negligence and ignore testimony of David Derringer, and ignore all New Mexico and other case laws that mandate that this matter produce alimony compensation and damages payments that are entirely a part of any marital settlement financial agreement?
Issue 27: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to not pay any alimony when there is a shown need by husband David Derringer with cancer at age 64, and the total ability to pay by Barrie Derringer, and encompassing the infliction of a venereal disease by Barrie Derringer against David Derringer?
Issue 28: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by issuance of a “bifurcated divorce” without trial without compliance to Rule, without any extreme or exceptional circumstance, and in direct response to Barrie Derringer seeking to stop David Derringer from “contesting” the divorce with legal pleadings and other court papers; the Order in direct response to request to stop “due process and equal protection” against David Derringer?
Issue 29: Can Judge Hadfield mis-use her power to issue a “bifurcated divorce” without any exceptional circumstances in violation of rule, by explicitly to stop legal exercise of due process, in persecution of a husband without additionally any attempt for reconciliation or counseling for saving the marriage?
Issue 30: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering Barrie Derringer to reimburse David Derringer for about $20,000.00 of ½ community income that was illegally withheld against David Derringer; and then thus forcing David Derringer to expend his own sole and separate inheritance monies to pay community debts including maintenance of the Derringer animals that Barrie Derringer criminally abandoned and abused, and to Order the reimbursement to David Derringer an additional $20,000.00 for sole inheritance spent for community debt due to the withheld community income in total violation of NMSA 45-2-804 by both Barrie Derringer and Judge Hadfield?
Issue 31: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing without disciplinary action or disbarment, Petitioner’s attorney Alain Jackson to yell at the Respondent David Derringer on the witness stand and to lie in criminal perjury that the two discovery requests of David Derringer that were “hand delivered” to Alain Jackson were never received in order to cover and protect the discovery violations of Barrie Derringer?
Issue 32: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by disregarding David Derringer’s testimony and legal authorities and the lack of any standard of proof to deny the overturning the TRO?
Issue 33: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by denying interim support for David Derringer by Barrie Derringer when Barrie Derringer stole all bank monies and deprived all community income, wherein Barrie Derringer’s income comprised 85% of the community income and David Derringer’s income comprises only 15% of the community income?
Issue 34: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by not Ordering an investigation of Barrie Derringer’s criminal perjury and fraud in the Petition for Order of Protection and other perjury impeached in testimony by Barrie Derringer that was witnessed by several Bernalillo County Sheriff officers, in order to illegally protect Barrie Derringer from criminal prosecution of a 4th degree felony?
Issue 35: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to avoid payments of community debt by simply taking her name from the lease of storage/shop 101 Florida SE Unit C, and extremely burden David Derringer for such community debt without the community income in direct violations of all case laws and NMSA 45-2-804?
Issue 36: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by not making Barrie Derringer pay David Derringer the amount of difference owed on the interim monthly income and expenses worksheet, even though an amount of money was owed to David Derringer each month even by that non-factual calculations by Judge Hadfield?
1ssue 37: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by allowing Barrie Derringer to do extreme discovery violations including not providing medical records, identification of parties, inventory of community property purchased by Barrie Derringer after leaving David Derringer and other severe discovery violations?
Issue 38: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by ordering David Derringer to produce and give to Barrie Derringer items claimed without substantiation by Barrie Derringer that many never have existed, were not sustained by documents or receipts to exist, nor sustained that these items were not in fact already in the possession of Barrie Derringer and/or her 12 persons in attendance in three consecutive break-ins of storage by Barrie Derringer on February 4, 25, and March 8, 2012, and yet disregarded also the larceny, vandalism, destruction of property and “conversion” of over $55,000.00 of David Derringer personal property taken by Barrie Derringer and her 12 accomplices, and which was testified that David Derringer can not “return” what he does not have?
Issue 39: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering David Derringer to pay ½ of community debt with his only 15% of the community income, and allow Barrie Derringer to only be required to pay 50% of the community debt with her 85% of the community income, thus persecuting David Derringer with cruel and unusual punishment of “unequal protection” while allowing Barrie Derringer to make a profit from the courts in “unjust enrichment” by gaining moneys of community income for only herself that by law are mandated to be paid in community debt?
Issue 40: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by the Judge herself lying to corrupt and taint the court record with misstatements of the size of the travel trailer, time spent during the marriage in a travel trailer, living conditions, second guessing the motives and preferences of each party during the marriage, distorting the income/bill paying remedies and operations of the parties during the marriage, lying that Barrie Derringer could not leave David Derringer before December 27, 2011, allowing Barrie Derringer to claim to have illegally taken and hid community income before leaving that was not reimbursed to David Derringer, refusal to pay storage fees as community debt, Barrie Derringer acquiring late fees and penalties that are assessed against David Derringer but due to Barrie Derringer’s negligence, and facts that Barrie Derringer was in total discharge of duties in the marriage after December 27, 2011 to pay community debt, but kept all money community income from employer Maestas and Ward for only herself?
Issue 41: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering David Derringer to pay attorney fees already paid by community income, Ordering David Derringer to “give up” his sole and separate inheritance, by not Ordering Barrie Derringer to reimburse David Derringer for equity in the 2005 Chevy truck and forced use of inheritance due to illegal withholding of community income by Barrie Derringer, and allowing Barrie Derringer to have “unjust enrichment” of additionally purchased community property after December 27, 2011 not disclosed to David Derringer or amount paid by community income, and forcing David Derringer to use inheritance money and David Derringer’s share of marriage community income to pay IRS debt and other debt incurred by Barrie Derringer (Barrie Beverley) before the Derringer marriage?
Issue 42: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by citing past expenses prior to the Derringer marriage and instances in a totally different economy of past history to force Judge Hadfield’s bias and agenda to allow Barrie Derringer to escape present debt and costs of living, in order to bias and prejudice the court record against Respondent David Derringer?
Issue 43: Whether a married party can cancel a community property debt lease only for herself, in attempts to limit her own percentage owed of community debt and place the burden of community debt upon the other marriage partner in total violation of NMSA 45-2-804 and in violation of the case law of 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 and whether Judge Hadfield can condone this illegal activity and not Order reimbursement to the other marriage partner in a divorce settlement agreement?
Issue 44: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by forcing David Derringer to abandon his sole and separate inheritance funds and his portion of the community income without agreement in order for Barrie Derringer to gain payments of all pre-marriage IRS and other debts at the expense of the Respondent in a biased and prejudiced marital settlement agreement distorted as to “fairness” and yet at the same Order cite that Barrie Derringer has to pay all pre-marriage debt only herself in a total contradiction of Order mandating the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012 be void and unenforceable under NMRA Rule 60 of “fraud”?
Issue 45: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion to lie to the record that the animals of the Derringers were “strays” and thus manipulated and corrupted the court record so as to eliminate Barrie Derringer’s legal duty to use community income for the animal expenses of the Derringers wherein all animals of the Derringers are either pets or livestock and in which none are simply being fed as “strays”, in a total violation of NMSA 45-2-804 and allowing maliciously Barrie Derringer to escape necessary counseling and criminal prosecution under NMSA 30-18-1 for Barrie Derringer’s extreme abandonment and animal abuse of the Derringer animals?
Issue 46: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by claiming Respondent’s motions were without merit because David Derringer motioned Judge Hadfield to “comply with all law”?
Issue 47: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering parties to pay any debt incurred after December 27, 2011 but before April 10, 2012 in order to allow Barrie Derringer to mis-use extreme amounts of community income for only herself and to gain unjust enrichment of these tangible items only for herself in a total disregard of the community income/community debt laws within the marriage itself?
Issue 48: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by ordering David Derringer to pay ½ of a settlement fees wherein Barrie Derringer had no intention to settle at the conference and wherein Barrie Derringer already used David Derringer’s ½ of the community income at that time to pay the fees in total?
Issue 49: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by awarding Barrie Derringer “interest” on an amount of money claimed owed by David Derringer that already encompasses community income and deprivation of David Derringer’s inheritance funds already illegal deprived David Derringer by both Barrie Derringer and the court by Judge Hadfield herself in corruption and distortion of amounts and liabilities?
Issue 50: Did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by Ordering a Final Judgment that is “contradictory” in Orders and terms?
Issue 51: With knowledge that Barrie Derringer already infected David Derringer with incurable Herpes without warning, and will do so to others, did the Trial Judge Hadfield abuse her discretion by not Ordering Barrie Derringer to disclose to any future sexual partner after a divorce that she has the incurable venereal disease Herpes (HSV-2) so as to protect the public of the world as is the duty of Judge Hadfield?
Issue 52: With extensive malicious and direct violations against David Derringer of NMSA 45-2-804, Constitution, US code and deprivation of the 2nd Amendment without any standard of proof for execution of same, does Judge Hadfield have any judicial immunity for such acts in direct violation of Canon, Oath, Code of Judicial Conduct and violations of New Mexico statutory laws, and Constitution she swore to God to uphold?
Issue 53: With the extreme and blatant violations and manifest errors of law of Constitutional, NM statutory, US Code, Rule of Civil Procedure violations, violations of Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct, bias, prejudice, unfair proceedings in violations of due process and equal protection, abuse of discretion, abuse of judicial power, working outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity, and deprivation of rights, immunities and privileges and proven persecution and cruel and unusual punishment, in also violations of the “Supremacy Clause” of Constitution Article VI, all against Respondent David Derringer; if there is any legal reason that both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 should not be mandated to be rescinded, and dismissed with prejudice?
List of authorities for all issues:
US Constitution 4th, 5th, 13th, and 14th Amendments
NM State Constitution
NM State criminal code Section 30
NMSA 21-6-6
NMSA 30-16-6
NMSA 30-16-18
NMSA 30-18-1
NMSA 30-25-1
NMSA 30-28-1
NMSA 30-28-2
NMSA 40-3-8
NMSA 45-2-804
NMSA 57-2-6
NMSA 57-3-4
NMSA 57-3-6
NMSA 57-3-9
US Code Title 28 Section 455
US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242
US Code Title 18 Section 1503
14th Amendment Section 3
4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th Amendments
US Code Title 28 Section 455
Declaration of Independence
Advance Opinions, New Mexico
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
Alexander v. Delgado, 84 NM 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973);
Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749
Bustos v. Bustos, 673 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556
Behr v. Redmond
Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990)
Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296
Farmers Gin Company et al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.
Federalist No. 47 by James Madison
Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado
Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993)
In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US
Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996
Lauderdale v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 555 Pl2d 700, 89 NM 579.
Lucas v. Lucas, 621 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556
Kinsey v. Erie Ins. Group, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-51, 2004Ohio579, ¶ 17.
Knecht v. Knecht No. CA2011-06-010 Decided July 23, 2012 Case No. DRB 20100290.
McGuire v. Armitage, 184 Mont. 407, 603 P.2d 253, Mont.
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)
Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated
Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81
Matter of Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied
Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. V. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. [Civil Action No.05-CV-1887]
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis Pharma Ag, and Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. V. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.
McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA
Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972
Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S.
Owen v. City of Independence
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 New Mexico
Perea v. Baca, 94 NM 624, 614 P.2d 541 (1980).
Portillo v. Shappie 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59
Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S.
Richter v. Neilson, 11 Cal. App.2d 503, 54 P.2d 54 Cal.
Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967
Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172.
State v. Baca, 80 NM 488, P.2d 92 (Ct. App.).
State v. Sedillo, Stoneking v. Bank of America
State v. Elliot, 89 NM 756, 557 p.2d 1105 (1977).
State v. Frayre, P.3d, 2012 WL 1252694, N.M.App., March 26, 2012 (NO. 31,662).
State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964)
State v. Hadnett, 79 NM 761, 449 P.2d 669 (Ct. App.1968).
State v. James, 76 NM 376, 415 P.2d 350 (1966).
State v. Lopez, 84 NM 402, 503 p.2d 1180 (Ct. App. 1972).
State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940)
State v. Pacheco, 85 NM 778, 517, P.2d 1304 (Ct. App. 197 3).
State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, ¶ 28, 147 N .M
State v. Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 “N.M. 1929
Tyus v. Martinez , 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US
US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill.
US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.
US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1
US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 “CA6 (Mich.)
Vasquez v. State S.W.3d, 2012 WL 3125171, Tex.App.-Dallas, August 02, 2012 (NO. 05-11-01096-CR).
Wallis v. Smith, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682, 2001 -NMCA- 017, N.M.App., March 01, 2001 (NO. 20,272).
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
|
Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681, Wash. 1942.; State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987
|
McGuire v. Armitage, 184
|
Richter v. Neilson, 11
|
ABUSE OF PROCESS
|
Geier v.
|
DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corporation, 124 NM 512, 953 P.2d 277.
|
Palmer v. Tandem Management Services Inc., 505 NW.2d 813
|
Continental Cablevision Inc. v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 653 F. Supp 451 D.Mass 1986.
|
Junsen v. Barlas, 438 F. Supp.2d 988 ND Iowa 2006.
|
Altenhaus v. Louison, 342
|
Brown v. Robertson, 120
Earl v. Winne, 34 NJ Superior court 605, 112 A.2d 791.
Ash v. Cohn, 119 NML 54, 194A 174.
|
Wright v. Harris, 160 NC 542, 76 SE 489.
|
Farmers Gin Company et al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.
|
MARRIAGE
|
Schley v. Andrews, 225 NY 110, 121 NE 812.
|
Niman v. Niman, 15 Misc. 2d 1095, 181 NYS.2d 260 NY Sup. 1958.
|
Drewes v. Ilnicki, 863F.2d 469, CA6 (
|
Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 522, 1853 WL 4638 Mo. 1853.
Astor v. Astor, 120 So. 2d 176
|
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.
|
Hernandez v. Robles, 7 Misc.3d 459, 794 NYS.2d 579 NY Sup. 2005.
|
Koch v. Koch, 95 NJ Super, 546, 232 A.2d 157 NJ Super AD 1967.
Maynard v. Hill, 125
|
Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296
|
Romero v. Felter, 497 P.2d 738, 83 NM 736
|
Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81.
|
Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749
|
Portillo v. Shappie, 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59
|
Lucas v. Lucas, 621 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556
|
Bustos v. Bustos, 673 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556
|
Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996
|
Matter of Lord’s Estate, 602 P.2d 1030, 93 NM 543
|
Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 522, 1853 WL 4638 Mo. 1853.
|
Maynard v. Hill, 125
United State Supreme Court 723, 31 L.Ed.654 (1888)
|
Hernandez v. Robles, 7 Misc.3d 459, 794 NYS.2d 579 NY Sup. 2005.
|
Astor v. Astor, 120 So. 2d 176
|
Lozoya v. Sanchez, 66 P.3d 948, 133 NM 579 2003
|
US v. Guest , US Ga.
PUBLIC OFFICIAL IMMUNITY
|
Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9 rehearing denied “In order to sustain finding that clearly established right was violated, it is not necessary for plaintiff to cite cases in which specific sort of conduct complained of was found to be unlawful.”
|
Green v. Clarendon County School Dist. Three, 923 F. Supp. 829 “Test of qualified immunity is whether defendant has engaged in conduct that violates clearly established Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
|
Student Services for Lesbians/Gays and Friends v. Texas Tech University, 635 F. Supp. 776 “Defense of qualified immunity is not absolute bar to damages against persons who are sued in their individual capacity; to be entitled to defense, defendants must not have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
|
Wicker v. City of Galveston, 944 F. Supp. 553 “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with rights they are alleged to have violated.”
|
Swann v. City of Dallas, 922 F. Supp. 1184 “Qualified immunity” shields individuals from personal liability only if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
|
Silva v. Town of Springer, 912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M. 375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996 “Public official have qualified immunity from suit under 1983 as long as (1) at time of alleged conduct there was not clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was claimed to have been violated, and (2) a reasonable person would not have known that his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.”
|
Oldfield v. Benevidez, 867 p.2d 1167, 116 N.M. 785 “N.M. 1994 Qualified-immunity doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”
|
Saavedra v. City of Albuq, 859 F.Supp 526 affirmed 73 F.3d 1525 “D.N.M. 1994 Absolute immunity applies where: (1) defendants’ duties and procedures employed are functionally comparable to those of judge in court of law; (2) maintenance of impartiality and effectiveness of adjudicatory process in question requires eliminating any threat of personal liability; (3) defendant’s actions are more likely than other governmental action to result in disappointed parties institution of lawsuits; and procedural safeguards exist and are adequate to correct or prevent erroneous or intentional constitutional violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983.”
|
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1020 (Fla. 1979) “The absence of any allusion to a municipal immunity assumes added significance.....to abolish the traditional good-faith immunities enjoyed by legislators, judges, governors, sheriffs, and other public officers.”
|
Monroe v. Pape, 365
|
Weightman v. The Corporation of
|
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172 “Congress sought to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it.”
|
Owen v.
|
Owen v.
|
Owen v.
|
Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.” Pp. 635-658
|
Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”.
|
Cf.P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wshsler, Hart and Weshsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 336 (2d.ed 1973 (“[W]here constitutional rights are at stake, the courts are properly astute, in construing statutes, to avoid the conclusion that Congress intended to use the privilege of immunity...in order to defeat them.”)
|
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
|
Weightman v. The Corporation of
|
Hampton v. Chicago, 484 F.2d 602, 610 (CA7 1973) cert denied 415 U.S. 917 (1974) “Under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the current version of the language approved in place of the
|
Homan v. City of Reading, ED Pa. 1997 963 F. Supp. 485 “Person need not belong to protected class to sue under 14th Amendment of Federal Civil Rights statute if her claim is that she suffered differential treatment.”
|
JUDGE LIABILITY
|
Mireless v.
|
Mann v. Conlin, 22 F.3d 100, 1994 Fed App. 122P cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 193, 513 US 870, 130 L.Ed2d 126 “Judge acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction and may be liable for money damages, when court of limited jurisdiction attempts to adjudicate case outside of its jurisdiction.”
|
Oldfield v. Benevidez, 867 p.2d 1167, 116 N.M. 785 “N.M. 1994 Qualified-immunity doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”
|
Wallace v. David Hayse, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette District Court, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit August 6, 1993 No. 93-5382. “Judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity.”
|
Pulliam v. Allen, 466
|
Vickrey v. Dunivan, “Judicial officers are not immune when they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”
|
Galindo v. Western States Collection
|
Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 “Judges are liable when they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction.”
|
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) “A judge will be subject to liability when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”
|
Shucher v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202 rehearing denied, cert denied 109 S. Ct. 561, 488
|
Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572 “C.A. 9 (Idaho) 1989 Judges lose their immunity from suit when they act in non-judicial manner, or when they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction.”
|
Edwards v. Wiley, 374 P.2d 284, 70 N.M. 400 “N.M. 1962 Judicial officers are not liable for erroneous exercise of judicial powers vested in them, but they are not immune where they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”
|
McMillan v. Svetanoff, 793 F.2d 149 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 574, 479 US 985, 93 L.Ed.2d 577 appeal after remand 878 F.2d 186 “Judicial immunity is only granted when essential to protect the integrity of the juridical process.”
|
Dennis v. Sparks, 101 S. Ct. 183, 449 US 24, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 “US Tex. 1980 State Judge may be found criminally liable for violation of civil rights even though judge may be immune from damages under Civil Rights statute Title 18 U.S.C. 242, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983"
|
Homan v. City of Reading, ED Pa. 1997 963 F. Supp. 485 “Person need not belong to protected class to sue under 14th Amendment of Federal Civil Rights statute if her claim is that she suffered differential treatment.”
|
In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520 Mich. 1991 “To use power of public office as judge to ruin another for personal gain plainly violates several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, 3, 5; Such conduct may also constitute crime Canons 1-3, 5.”
|
Cameron v. Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 1994 Fed. App. 356P “Judicial immunity may be overcome in only two sets of circumstances: First, a Judge is not immune from liability for non-judicial actions; ie. Actions not taken in judicial capacity. And, two, Judge is not immune from actions through judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”
|
Tucker v. Outwater, 118 F.3d 930 cert denied 118 S. Ct. 562, 522 US 997, 139 L.Ed.2d 402 “Judge will be denied immunity for damages where he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction, and knew or must have known that he was acting in such manner.”
|
Mann v. Conlin, 22 F.3d 100, 1994 Fed App. 122P cert denied 115 S. Ct. 193, 513 US 870, 130 L.Ed.2d 126 “When Plaintiff alleges that judge acted in non-judicial capacity court relies on functional analysis to determine whether acts are protected, meaning that one must determine whether actions are truly judicial acts, or acts that simply happen to have been done by Judges.”
|
Molina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121 rehearing denied 1F.3d 304 on remand 1993 WL 534, 163 “Judge has no immunity for acts taken outside of his judicial capacity, or for actions that are judicial in nature, but occur in complete absence of all jurisdiction.”
|
Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park Inc., Va. 1969 90 S. Ct. 400, 396 US 229, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 “Federal Court has power to fashion effective and equitable remedy for enforcement of this section (Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982), and such remedy is available in state court if latter is empowered to grant relief generally.”
|
Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion mod. On denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553 cert granted “For purposes of judicial immunity, each act must be examined to determine if it was a normal function performed by a judge.”
|
Saavedra v. City of Albuq, 859 F.Supp 526 affirmed 73 F.3d 1525 “D.N.M. 1994 Absolute immunity applies where: (1) defendants’ duties and procedures employed are functionally comparable to those of judge in court of law; (2) maintenance of impartiality and effectiveness of adjudicatory process in question requires eliminating any threat of personal liability; (3) defendant’s actions are more likely than other governmental action to result in disappointed parties institution of lawsuits; and procedural safeguards exist and are adequate to correct or prevent erroneous or intentional constitutional violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983.”
|
Forrester v. White, 792 F.2d 647 cert granted 107
|
Galindo v. Western States Collection Co., 477 P.2d 325, 82 N.M. 149 “N.M. App. 1970 Judicial officers are not liable for erroneously exercising their judicial powers, but they are liable for acting wholly in excess of their jurisdiction; the distinction is between an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and a usurpation of authority; and this rule applies to justices of the peace as well.”
|
Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court,
|
Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.” Pp. 635-658
|
Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”.
|
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
|
Cf.P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wshsler, Hart and Weshsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 336 (2d.ed 1973 (“[W]here constitutional rights are at stake, the courts are properly astute, in construing statutes, to avoid the conclusion that Congress intended to use the privilege of immunity...in order to defeat them.”)
|
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 “This section may be enforced by injunction.” Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Mo, 1968 88. S. Ct. 2186, 392
|
In re Hey, 193 W.
|
ATTORNEY IMMUNITY
|
New York State National Org. for Women v. Terry, 732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990 Attorneys do not possess immunity from sanctions for their conduct in judicial proceedings so as to preclude imposition of Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to rules enabling act. Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USCA, 28 USCA 2072."
|
“Fraud by Client” “ Paragraph B of 16-401 (Truthfulness in statements to others) recognizes that substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have assisted the clients’ crime or fraud.”
|
Van Orman v. Nelson, 78 N.M. 11, 427 P.2d 896 (1967) rev’d on other grounds, 80 N.M. 119, 452 P.2d 188 (1969) “Attorney has burden of proving value of services rendered by him and for which he claims payment or credit.”
|
State v. Aguilar, 87 N.M. 503, 536 P.2d 263 (Ct. App. 1975) “Attorney cannot represent two clients with possible conflicting interests.”
|
In re Arrieta, 105 N.M. 418, 733 P.2d 866 (1987) “Representation of conflicting parties violated Subdivision A of DR 5-105 (now see Paragraph A of Rule 16-107)
|
Gibson v. City of Alexandria, 855 F. Supp. 133 “Counsel’s inexperience in handling civil rights case is no excuse for failure to respond to repeated notices that action is frivolous as to particular defendant, and thus, counsel may be subject to sanctions under state law or Rule 11. US Code 1950 8.01-271.1 F.R. Civ. P. Rule 11, 28 USCA”
|
Gibson v. City of Alexandria, 855 F. Supp. 133 “Timely responses to opposing counsel’s communications is professional commitment, and failure to act in accordance with that commitment may subject counsel to sanctions.”
|
In re Rexplore Inc. Securities Litigation, 685 F. Supp. 1132 “ND Cal. 1988 Attorney may be liable to third parties for negligence or otherwise when harm to third parties is foreseeable.”
|
Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane Aetna Federal Insurance Co., 632 F. Supp. 418 “D. Del. 1986 District Court has power to supervise ethical activities of attorneys who practice before it and, if necessary, disqualify those whose conduct breaches norms established by bar.”
|
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Frank Coluccio Construction Co., 785 F.2d 656 “CA (
|
Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries LTD, F. Supp 330 “D. Colo. 1994 District Court has obligation to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in any proceeding.”
|
Hamer v.
|
Grace v. Center for Auto Safety, 155 FRD 591 rev. 72 F.3d 1236 “ED Mich. Federal courts may use their inherent powers to supervise and discipline attorneys.”
|
Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193 “Courts possess inherent power to protect orderly administration of justice and to preserve the dignity of the tribunal and the inherent power of a court to manage its affairs necessarily includes authority to impose reasonable and appropriate sanctions upon errant lawyers practicing before it.”
|
Kleiner v. First National Bank of
|
In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567 “ CA 11 (Fla.) 1995 Incidental powers of federal courts include power to control admission to its bar, punish parties for contempt, vacate its own judgement upon proof of fraud has been perpetrated upon court, bar disruptive criminal defendant from courtroom, dismiss actions on grounds of forum non conveniens, act sua sponte to dismiss suit for failure to prosecute, and assess attorney fees against counsel.”
|
Klauss v. Bowen, 738 F. Supp. 648 “EDNY 1990 Attorney is held to standard of objectively reasonable conduct, consistent with minimal standards of professional competence.”
|
Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 940 F.2d 1369 cert. denied 112 Supreme Court 1160, 502, US 1091, 117 L.Ed.2d 408 “CA 10 (Oklahoma) 1991 Private law firm was not absolutely immune from liability for allegedly fraudulent discovery and litigation statements.”
|
Deadwyler v. Volkswagenof America Inc., 134 FRD 128 affirmed 966 F.2d 1443 cert. denied 113 Supreme Court 415, 506 US 956, 121 Led.2d 339 “WDNC 1991 Absolute obligation to communicate, effectively and accurately, is a duty which lawyer owes to his adversaries and court, as well as to his client.”
|
O’Connor v. Jones, 946 F.2d 1395 “CA 8 (
|
Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844 “The district court has duty and responsibility of supervising conduct of attorneys who appear before it.”
|
Schutts v. Bentley Nevada Corp., 966 F. Supp 1549 “D. Nev. 1997 Lawyer’s duty is to act in accordance with rules of substantive law and rules of Civil Procedure.”
|
Mass. School of Law at Andover Inc. v. American Bar Association, 914 F. Supp. 1172 “Lawyer cannot rely on his own disregard for Rules of Civil Procedure to justify further misconduct.”
|
In re Villareal, 46 BR 284 “As officers of the Court, counsel owes duty to judicial system not to abuse it.”
|
Roberts v.
|
Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298 “District Court has duty and responsibility of supervising conduct of attorneys who appear before it.”
|
Moore v. Volkswagenof America Inc., 966 F.2d 1443 cert. denied 113 Supreme Court 415, 506 US 956, 121 Led.2d 339 “WDNC 1991 Absolute obligation to communicate, effectively and accurately, is a duty which lawyer owes to his adversaries and court, as well as to his client.”
|
Matter of
|
In re Bauman, 201 B.R. 202 “Attorneys owe duty to courts not to recklessly create needless costs during litigation.”
|
U.S. v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 158 FRD 80 “SD W. Va. 1994 Monetary sanctions against government attorneys in form of attorney fees for litigation abuse would not be barred by sovereign immunity, as sufficiently explicit rule authorizing such award existed, specifically rule addressing supplementation of disclosures and responses. F.R. Civ. P. 26(e), 28 USCA”
|
Application of Mosher, 830 F. Supp. 403 reversed 25 F.3d 397 “WD Mich. 1993 Attorney cannot violate Rules of Professional Conduct and then attempt to avoid consequences of his violation by claiming ignorance.” (Reference R.of Prof. Conduct 16-304(C))
|
CIVIL RIGHTS
|
“All the people” have no right to demand that landowners sacrifice their property for interests, real or alleged, of non-owners. If one owns property, one has the moral and legal right under Title 42 Section 1982 to control it-even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes or priorities of non-owners. One has the right to acquire property and, once acquired, to use it without interference from others, subject to only one condition; an owner must not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise. Your life and property belong to you, not to others.
|
Civil Rights Act of 1866. “That amendment declared that all persons in the
|
Swann v. City of Dallas, 922 F. Supp. 1184 “To be entitled to qualified immunity from liability for violation of constitutional right, officials must observe general, well developed legal principles.”
|
Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981 524 F. Supp. 927 “Provisions do not limit amount of punitive damages recoverable.”
|
Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d at 596 (10th Circuit 1976) at 599 “A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction in relations to review of alleged federal constitutional due process or equal protection deprivations.”
|
Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305 “Plaintiffs in Civil Rights actions are entitled to compensatory damages for humiliation, emotional distress, and deprivation of their Civil Rights.”
|
Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2 651 (1985) “deprivation did not occur pursuant to an official custom or procedure, state tort remedies afford all the process they are due.”
|
Homan v. City of Reading, ED Pa. 1997 963 F. Supp. 485 “Person need not belong to protected class to sue under 14th Amendment of Federal Civil Rights statute if her claim is that she suffered differential treatment.”
|
United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.”
|
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) “intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities....The conspiracy, in other words must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.”
|
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Congress provided that the right to real and personal property was to be enjoyed equally throughout the
|
Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 F.Supp.2d 1245 “ Defendant acts under color of state law, and his conduct may give rise to 1983 claim, when he abuses position given to him by state.” 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.”
|
Silva v. Town of Springer, 912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M. 375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996 “Public official have qualified immunity from suit under 1983 as long as (1) at time of alleged conduct there was not clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was claimed to have been violated, and (2) a reasonable person would not have known that his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.”
|
Cockrell v. Board of Regents of New Mexixo State University, 983 P.2d 427, 127 N.M. 487 1999-NMCA-073 cert granted 4 P.3d 1241, 129 N.M. 250 N.M. App. 1999 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 1983 as long as their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
|
Flores v, Danfelser, 985 P.2d 173, 127 N.M. 571, 1999-NMCA-091 “Two-part test is applied in ascertaining whether or not a 1983 claim overcomes a defense of qualified immunity: first, the court makes purely legal inquiry as to whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and second, the court inquires whether the existence of the legal right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.”
|
May v. Marijo Corp., 207
|
Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d at 596 (10th Circuit 1976) at 599 “A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction in relations to review of alleged federal constitutional due process or equal protection deprivations.”
|
Ward v. Broadwell, 1 N.M. 75 Gild 75 N.M. Terr 1854 “Civil Rights” are those which have no relation to the establishment, management or support of the government and consists in the power of enjoying and acquiring property.”
|
Pino v. Higgs 75 F.3d 1461 “C.A.10 (N.M.) 1996 In order to hold private individual liable under 1983, it must be shown that private person was jointly engaged with state officials in challenged action, or has obtained significant aid from state officials, or that private individual’s conduct is in some other way chargeable to state.”
|
Cobos v. Dona Ana County Housing Authority, 908 P.2d 250, 121 N.M. 20 cert denied 907 p.2d 1009, 120, N.M. 828, cert granted 910 P.2d 933, 121 N.M. 299 “Section 1983 by itself does not create rights; it is the remedy for violation of rights arising from Constitution or laws of United States. 42 USCA 1983.”
|
Cobos v. Dona Ana county Housing Authority, 908 P.2d 250, 121 N.M. 20 cert denied 907 P.2d 1009, 120 N.M. 828, cert granted 910 P.2d 933, 121 N.M. 299 affirmed in part reversed in part 970 P.2d 1143, 126 N.M. 418, 1998-NMSC-049 rehearing denied “N.M. App. 1995 As long as Congress does not clearly foreclose private action, litigants may sue to enforce specific statutory rights using vehicle of 1983. 42 U.S.C. 1983"
|
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 952 P.2d 474, 124 N.M. 479, 1998NMCA-004 “Federal Civil Rights claims under 1983 are supplemental to state law claims and remedies based on same conduct.”
|
Ramah Navajo School Bd. Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 720 P.2d 1243, 104 N.M. 302 cert quashed 718 P.2d 1349, 104 N.M. 201, cert denied “ NM App 1986 State and its agencies may be proper party defendants in state court under 1983 and plaintiff in section 1983 action is not required to name individual state officer as defendant.”
|
Vigil v. Martinez, 832 P.2d 405, 113 N.M. 714 “N.M. App. 1992 To recover under federal civil rights statute, plaintiff must allege acts and omissions of defendants that deprived him of federal right. 42 U.S.C. 1983"
|
Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1424 (10th Cir. 1997) “When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come forward to show both that defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right and that the right violated was clearly established at the time of defendant’s actions.”
|
Pepper v. Alezander, 599 Supp. 523 “To maintain a cause of action under 1983, plaintiff must prove that he has been deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that defendants subjected plaintiff to this deprivation, or caused him to be so subjected, and that the defendants acted under color of state law.”
|
Vegas Medical Center, 816 P.2d 510, 112 N.M. 441 cert denied 815 p.2d 161, 112 N.M. 308 “Only federal rights are protected by 1983; violation of state law does not in itself create liability, though it may be relevant in that court looks to underlying substantive right in determining what procedural rights are required by federal due process.”
|
Ward v. Broadwell, 1 N.M. 75 Gild 75 N.M. Terr 1854 “Civil Rights” are those which have no relation to the establishment, management or support of the government and consists in the power of enjoying and acquiring property.”
|
State v. Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied 112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991) “To satisfy a case for violations of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “Defendant was singled out for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.”
|
Williams v. Board of County Commissioners of San Juan County, 963 P.2d 522, 125 N.M. 445, 1998-NMCA-090, cert denied 964 P.2d 818, 125 N.M. 654 “N.M. App. 1998 Private persons become state actors for 1983 purposes if jointly engaged with state officials in depriving an individual’s rights.”
|
Stephenson v. Esquivel, 614 F. Supp. 986 “D.N.M. 1985 One of tests or factors to determine when state action by a private individual is “significant”, for purposes of determining liability under 1983 [42 U.S.C. 1983], is joint action test which is satisfied if a conspiracy is shown.”
|
Doe v. Leach, 988 P.2d 1252, 128 N.M. 28, 1999-NMCA-117 cert denied 990 P.2d 822, 128 N.M. 148 “For a right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the right; the unlawfulness must be apparent in light of preexisting law, although it is not necessary that the very action in question have previously been held to be unlawful.”
|
Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216 “Private party is “willful participant” in joint action with state or its agents, permitting finding of liability under 1983 for actions jointly taken, where state officials and private party act in concert in effecting particular deprivation of constitutional rights. 42 USCA 1983"
|
Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527, 101 Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) “where state employee negligently deprives an individual of property, individual has no cognizable section 1983 claim if state makes available an adequate post-deprivation remedy.”
|
Archuleta v. Lacuesta, 988 P.2d 883, 128 N.M. 13, 1999-NMCA-113 cert denied 990 P.2d 822, 128 N.M. 148 cert denied 120 S. Ct. 937, 528 US 1117, 145 L.Ed.2d 815 “Person acting under color of state law who violates the rights of a plaintiff established by the United States Constitution or federal statutes may be held personally liable under federal civil rights statute.”
|
Anthony v. Baker, 767 F.2d 657 (1985) “the record contained the sufficient evidence from which jury could find that methods in carrying out the investigation constituted egregious conduct so as to deprive him of qualified immunity.”
|
Civil Rights 13.4(2) “is accountable via 1983 action..in a position of responsibility, knew or should have known of misconduct and yet failed to prevent future harm.”
|
Dunn v. McFeeley, 984 P.2d 760, 127 NM 513, 1999-NMCA-084 cert. denied “A legal point is clearly established, for the purpose of defeating qualified immunity in 1983 action, when it has been decided by either the highest court where the cause of action arose, by a United States Court of Appeals, or by the United States Supreme Court 42 USCA 1983"
|
Civil Rights 13.4(4) Conspiracy 7.5 “state and federal officers are liable under 1983 and 1985(2) when they conspire based on fabricated evidence or false, distorted, perjurious testimony presented to official bodies.”
|
V All proceedings in this case were recorded
VI There is the appeal of No. 32,113 that regards the illegal bifurcated divorce used to stop due process and equal protection that was without jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals, and must be reconsidered now that a “final appealable judgment has been entered on November 15, 2012.
Respectfully submitted by:________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 1205 Albuquerque , New Mexico 87103
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12-19-12
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
I further certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Petitioner’s attorney of record
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
I further certify that I sent a copy of this pleading to:
NM Court of Appeals
No comments:
Post a Comment