Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DV-12-234

BARRIE DERRINGER

            Petitioner,

v.

DAVID DERRINGER

            Respondent,

MOTION TO RECUSE FOR CAUSE COMMISSIONER COSGROVE/AGUILAR FOR BIAS, PREJUDICE, SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION, UNETHICAL CAUSE, AND FOR VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS, AND VIOLATIONS OF STATUTES

AND US CODE; AND MOTION TO RESCIND AND QUASH THE ORDER

OF PROTECTION OF FEBRUARY 21 2012 FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND US CODE DEPRIVATIONS

COMES NOW, the Respondent David Derringer with motion as stated above.

BRIEF HISTORY

After leaving David Derringer for no just cause on December 27, 2011, Barrie Derringer, on February 4, 2012, before any filing of the “petition for order of protection” or filing for divorce, Barrie Derringer took 12 other persons to break and enter the Derringer storage and to take all moveable property of the Derringers, regardless of whether that was community property or personal property of either party. The intent here was to take all property to have in “possession” before filing for divorce. David Derringer caught the parties in the incident and called 911, and Barrie’s helpers, including two of her bosses Debbie and Irwin Harms of Maestas and Ward Commercial Real estate, did criminal assault and battery against David Derringer to attempt to stop David from “interfering” with the larceny in progress. The Barrie plan failed as the APD ordered Barrie and her friends to leave without taking “all” of the property. Two days later, on February 6, 2012, in an irrational “rage”, Barrie uses motives of revenge, retaliation, and retribution, as well as the idea that a “domestic violence” filing would anger David Derringer to want a divorce, and in criminal perjury and fraud in a falsified yet notarized “Petition for Order of Protection”, Barrie alleged that on February 4, 2012 of the incident of storage that David had hurt her physically knocking her down producing bruises, that Barrie is afraid of David and that David kept her from leaving. Actually, Barrie came running to her husband David after the assault and battery and put both hands on David’s cheeks and said “Calm down, you’re OK” showing Barrie is in no way “afraid” of David Derringer, nothing happened between David and Barrie as sustained in the APD police report, and APD “ordered” Barrie and her 12 persons to leave the premises of 101 Florida SE Unit C. As would any normal citizen, David filed civil suit against Debbie and Irwin Harms and “John Does” CV-12-1307 on February 6, 2012, for the criminal assault and battery against David, and to date Barrie and all persons involved attempt to protect and hide the identities of the other 10 persons involved with 12 persons doing criminal assault and battery against David Derringer; 12 against 1, so they will not be criminally or civilly prosecuted; a “gang” mentality. There were many witnesses to this incident. The motives of the “original Petition” were both violent and criminal intent by Barrie in “malicious prosecution” to falsely accuse David when no domestic violence occurred.

Barrie, now 11 months later on December 11, 2012, comes back to this court DV-12-234 in the same kind of irrational motives with new perjury and fraud, notarized, to claim unfounded allegations that David Derringer cannot place legal court pleadings of “public record” on the Internet; that David is “mentally unstable”; and that David has firearms still; all allegations are not only false, but brought yet again in “retaliation, revenge, and retribution”. Barrie is trying to not allow David to “expose” the truth  on the Internet of public record to show the “lies” that Barrie has told all her friends, parents, family and bosses to gain their sympathy and support against divorcing a “terrible husband”; trying to stop David to show the criminal acts of Barrie’s employers and “friends” of assault and battery, and to stop David exposing the unlawful corruption and bias of the family courts against men hiding these matters; when in fact, all of this mess was by unfounded causes created by Barrie herself. Barrie attempts each time to portray herself as a “victim” of David Derringer to both the courts and to all around her, when in reality Barrie Derringer is only a victim to her own arrogance, stubbornness, ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness both destroying a wonderful marriage and ruining a true love from a devoted husband, that likely Barrie will never find in another. David Derringer is simply legally defending himself against an out-of control wife that has taken David’s Constitutional and statutory rights and is attempting to forever ruin David’s life without any just cause. This latest “alleged” violations of the Order of Protection is complete retaliation against David right after David Derringer has filed a civil tort suit against Barrie and others involved on November 26, 2012 of CV-12-10816. Clearly, to any rational person, “if’ Barrie believed that David still had firearms after the February 21, 2012 Order of Protection, she would have filed alleged violations long before 11 months later. Additionally, the suit CV-12-1307 filed against her bosses was filed on February 6, 2012, and she would have alleged that David was “mentally unstable” at that time (filing a rightful tort suit for assault and battery does not constitute mental instability). Additionally, the first court pleading of public record that David Derringer placed on the Internet Google blog exposing Barrie’s lies about David to others was on March 23, 2012, and Barrie would have filed a “violation” at that time if so deemed. The fact is that David Derringer has an undeniable 1^st Amendment right of “freedom of speech” to place “public records” of court pleadings on the Internet, and both Barrie and the Courts have no legal jurisdiction to force David Derringer to remove these blogs, or to attempt to “muzzle” David Derringer’s exposure of the facts and truth about David Derringer being a “very good husband” to Barrie out of true love, that is totally undeserving of both the outrageous, unjustified wrath of Barrie or the corruption of the family court system that persecutes David against all laws.

UNDENIABLE NEED FOR RECUSAL FOR “CAUSE” OF COMMISSIONER COSGROVE/AGUILAR AND CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES TO ENTIRELY QUASH AND DISMISS THE ORDER OF PROTECTION

On February 21, 2012, DV-12-234, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar has past conducted a hearing without jurisdiction or judicial capacity, ignoring that Respondent David Derringer had not been legally served any summons in personam, disregarded and denied David Derringer’s witness, Bruce Davis, and denied and disregarded all Constitution, NM Statutes, US Code and case laws involving the matters of Barrie Derringer seeking an “order of protection” brought by provable perjury and fraud, as notarized in a “Petition” that constituted a fourth degree felony under NMSA 30-25-1. In re Doe, 519 P.2d 133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear one party’s evidence, when offered, establishes a presumption of prejudice.”;  Frates v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494 US 1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474 “Recusal motion should be permitted at any time it becomes apparent that judge is biased or suffers from appearance of bias.”; Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986 “Strict construction of statute disqualifying trial judge for bias or prejudice is  grounded upon sound principle that there is possibility of substantial abuse since harsh remedy of cessation of trial proceedings is mandated if allegations purport to state cause for bias. 28 USC 455"     Barrie Derringer in “Petition” of February 6, 2012 DV-12-234, had stated that David Derringer had hurt her physically, and then “impeached” herself under oath in testimony to state: “David would never hurt me physically” of court record of the hearing of February 21, 2012, making the Petition perjury and fraud brought to the court. Barrie Derringer seemed to know that she had Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar “in her pocket” due to either some pay-off or understanding of shown occurrences that the Commissioner disregards all law to rule always for a woman with her own agenda and personal hatred for men and failures of her own past relationships, with decisions that violate Constitution, disregard court rules and necessities for legal service and a total discharge and disregard for “due process and equal protection” by not allowing David Derringer to submit all documents and exhibits and denying several times David Derringer’s own witness, so as to taint the court record and deny the foundation of the “family court system” to support the institution of marriage, and not destroy it as is the agenda of the Commissioner; thus defeating case laws and the foundation of the American society that is based in legal marriage. Matter of Lord’s Estate, 602 P.2d 1030, 93 NM 543 “It is policy of state to foster and protect marriage institution.”; Niman v. Niman, 15 Misc. 2d 1095, 181 NYS.2d 260 NY Sup. 1958. What happened in this regard is a persecution and “cruel and unusual punishment” by the Commissioner against a “man” Respondent David Derringer seeking to gain counseling or any other way to preserve his marriage, and the penchant of the Commissioner to destroy this marriage on the whim of a woman not standing by her vows or any commitment to any relationship is discharge of simply being an “adult”. Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 522, 1853 WL 4638 Mo. 1853.;  Astor v. Astor, 120 So. 2d 176 Fla. 1960. Instead of attempting to mend the marriage, or seek availability of any reconciliation, and disregarding that Barrie was proven to have “lied” in the Petition by first stating that David Derringer had hurt her physically under notary oath, and then admitting under testimony oath that David would never do that, the Commissioner set about to rule for Barrie Derringer without any credible presentation or evidence whatsoever to either sustain an Order of Protection or any real or logical reasoning to abandon the marriage. Barrie presented no witnesses, evidence, documents, doctor’s statements, expert witnesses, photographs of “bruises” or any tangible evidence whatsoever that any “domestic violence” had occurred. Without any “standard of proof” in abuse of discretion, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar violated and denied without legal cause, and without citing  any case laws, statutes or Constitutional availability to deny Constitutional rights David’s right to “firearms”. The Commissioner violated Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct to also keep David Derringer from “owning” personal property in violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1982, and to keep David Derringer from a lawful profession of NM outfitter/hunter #32, without “reasonable suspicion” of firearms violations; without reason to believe firearms violations; without probable cause for arrest and without any arrest, indictment, conviction or trial regarding any firearms violations or domestic violence, without any credible evidence whatsoever, and impeachment of Barrie Derringer’s own testimony wherein she states that she is afraid of physical harm from David Derringer and still under oath turns right around and states that “David would never hurt me physically, he loves me”; and then without any substantial evidence, without any preponderance of the evidence, without any clear and convincing evidence, and certainly without any evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commissioner denies David Derringer’s Constitutional and rights under US Code; making the “Order of Protection” of February 21, 2012 against the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution Article VI. Recusal is mandated to prevent Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar “forcing” David Derringer to again stand before this bias in denial of “due process”. State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me. 1996 “No judge should preside in case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.”; Purpura v. Purpura, 847 P.2d 314, 115 N.M.80 cert denied 847 P.2d 313, 115 N.M. 79 “N.M. Ct. of Appeals 1993 “If judge becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she is unable to make fair and objective decision, judge must recuse himself or herself. SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300 Subd. A(3) 21-400". Clearly, the “Order of Protection” of February 21, 2012 was placed illegally under Constitutional law against David Derringer and is mandated to be quashed and dissolved in its entirety, brought without jurisdiction and in bias for illegal purposes. US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455(a) “Despite external source requirement, recusal of judge may still be required if judge’s actions during trial considered objectively, display deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”

What occurred here is Barrie came in fraud to the court DV-12-234 with attacking her husband in perjury with allegations of every conceivable reason that any woman would leave a husband; physical abuse, mental abuse, verbal abuse, isolation from friends and family, financial control, and living conditions. What occurred, however in testimony of Barrie under Oath, is that nothing stated or unstated supported any Barrie allegations. Barrie admitted under oath that “David would never hurt me physically” to obliterate any allegation of “physical abuse”; Barrie could not make any statements to support any mental abuse by example and when asked for example of any “verbal abuse” by David, Barrie was left “speechless” and could give no example to the court record. In the whole of the marriage, Barrie indeed had no “friends” of past, and devoted her time and energy to the Derringer marriage, but proof exists of Barrie’s past “friends” being cocaine users of the “biker” society of past twice husband of 30 years of Charles Beverley, that introduced Barrie into cocaine, with extended abusive use of marijuana, alcohol and wherein Charles Beverley cheated with other woman on Barrie many times in the past thirty year marriage, also giving Barrie the incurable venereal disease Herpes (HSV-2) that was then given to David Derringer without warning in criminal battery, tortuous fraud and negligence;  a genital disease that Barrie knew she had contracted from past husband Charles Beverley at least 20 years before meeting David Derringer. At all times Barrie was totally free to have lunches with anyone, go shopping and do things with others, and to see her parents and family at any time and David respected and dealt without contest out of “respect for his wife”, to the abuse and admonishment of Barrie’s parents attempting to dissolve the marriage of the Derringers. Although Barrie is employed as an “accountant”, testimony from Barrie herself sustained why David Derringer was the one later in the marriage to pay bills and regulate the Derringer finances due to Barrie previously being late on payments, incurring late and penalty charges and overdrafts of the Derringer banking accounts, stated by Barrie under Oath as “reasons” that David Derringer later in the marriage took over the financial matters of the marriage; thus defeating any allegations of “control” and manipulation of the Derringer monies.

Barrie Beverley came to David Derringer on the Internet dating site, not the other way around, and Barrie started dating the David Derringer “Cowboy” with total knowledge that David Derringer had limited income, lived in a travel trailer without running water and electricity, on the West Mesa with his animals, and continued dating and falling in love with David Derringer by her own free will. Then by Barrie Derringer’s own free will, she legally changed her name to Barrie “Derringer” by court order of Judge Clay Campbell in the fall of 2009, and continued to date and become engaged to David Derringer until Barrie Derringer herself instigated that the couple go to Durango, Colorado and legally marry on January 15, 2010. The Derringer marriage continued in “good faith and love” and was a wonderful loving relationship, having come about by agreement by both parties to marry and make a “life long commitment” to each other to also mitigate the ramifications of Barrie giving David Derringer “Herpes” (HSV-2) that is incurable for both parties and in the marriage would not allow the spread of this disease to other sexual partners or the public. Then in criminal perjury and fraud, under Oath in court testimony of February 21, 2012 in DV-12-234, when asked of Barrie if she would ever “voluntarily” live in a travel trailer without running water and electricity of the life style of the Derringer marriage of 2 ½ years, she stated “NO”. Clearly, she did so of her own free will for a period of 2 ½ years by voluntary actions, to date, become engaged, and marry David Derringer and “chose” not some other ability to date and marry a doctor with a mansion, and thus the “criminal perjury” of Barrie is both sustained as is the defeat of the allegations of dissolving of the Derringer marriage necessity by “living conditions”. In re A.tl Robins Co. Inc., 97 BR 525 ED.Va 1995 “Bias” is condition of mind, which sways judgment and renders judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case.”. The Commissioner simply disregarded testimony and evidence that defeated the “woman” in this matter, and ruled in Barrie’s favor in every regard. In re Wyoming Tight Sands Antitrust Cases, 726 F. Supp. 288 “Party moving to disqualify judge must show that reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about judge’s impartiality; standard is objective one.”; Garcia v. Herrera, 959 P.2d 533, 125 N.M. 199 cert denied 958 P.2d 103, 125 N.M. 145 “N.M. App. 1998 Trial court is required to recuse itself from hearing a case when it cannot preside in a fair and impartial manner.” ; State ex rel Hannah v. Armijo, 38 N.M. 73, 28 p.2d 511 (1933) “Presumption of bias-A judge is presumptively partial or biased, if he has pecuniary interest.”; State ex rel. Anaya v. Scarborough, 410 P.2d 732, 75 N.M. 702 “N.M. 1966 Interest necessary to disqualify judge must be a present pecuniary interest in result.”

            Without conscience or law, the Commissioner orders the “order of protection” against David Derringer after the pathetic and unethical “band aid speech” of the Commissioner meant to demean, insult, admonish and persecute a husband that loves his wife, and for a wife to simply disregard vows and commitments on any whim, entirely orchestrated by the Commissioner based on her own beliefs, agendas, hatred of men, failed past relationships and having nothing to do with “law”. US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455 “Partiality” that requires judicial disqualification is apparent disposition against party that is wrongful or inappropriate.”;  US v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523 S.D.N.Y. 1993 “Recusal is appropriate when judge has personal interest at stake, or some personal bias in favor for or against party to the action.”; SCRA 1986, 1-088.1(D) “No district judge shall sit in any action in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and shall recuse himself in any such action.” This “persecution” and criminal harassment by a Commissioner to a litigant is not what “Congress” intended in the judicial system or under the meaning of the 13^th Amendment, and David Derringer cannot be again forced to endure such bias and persecution in the upcoming hearing of January 8, 2013. DB v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Education, 985 F. Supp. 457, affirmed 159 F.3d 1350 “DNJ 1997 “If through obduracy, honest mistake, or simply inability to attain self knowledge judge fails to acknowledge disqualifying predisposition or circumstance, appellate court must order recusal no matter what the source; litigants ought not have to face judge with respect to whom there is reasonable question as to impartiality.”; Sexson v. Servaas, 830F. Supp. 175 “Motion for recusal must identify cold, hard facts which create appearance of partiality.”

            On February 21, 2012, the Commissioner then proceeded to deny David Derringer his 2^nd Amendment rights to bear arms, a total Constitutional deprivation and violation without any standard of proof, with also knowledge that David Derringer has a “profession” of being an outfitter/big game hunter, New Mexico Game and Fish Professional Outfitter/Hunter #32 in New Mexico for a livelihood, that encompasses a “property right” of profession under New Mexico case laws that cannot be infringed. Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 “The right to practice a profession or vocation is a property right.”; Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 “Right to engage in a licensed profession is a protected property right.” This also encompassed the Commissioner disregarding the United States Code Title 42 Section 1982 and the US Supreme Court ruling No. 10-1521, that guarantees David Derringer legal use, possession and ownership of “firearms” just as his tooth brush and vehicle, and yet denied David Derringer his federal rights to “own personal property”. City of Memphis v. Greene, Tenn. 1981 101 S. Court 1584, 451 US 100, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 rehearing denied 101 S. Ct. 3100, 452 US 955, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 “Private Individuals-This section [Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982] guaranteeing all citizens of the US the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property is directly applicable to private parties.”; 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 United States, and that right was to be secured against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private.” This illegal and unconstitutional act by the Commissioner mandates “recusal” under the US Code Title 28 SectionS 453 and 455 as it mandates “recusal for cause” under New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D). Title 28 Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ; .”Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del.) Supra. 1994 “Every litigant is entitled to be heard by a disinterested judge.” ; Holt v. KMI Const. Inc., 821 F. Supp. 846 D. Conn. 1993 “Recusal is called for when district judge has personal bias or prejudice in favor or against party.”

            In this matter all Constitutional rights, statutory rights and US Code have been violated constituting the Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar disregarding the ignoring that the “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution Article VI upholds David Derringer’s Constitutional rights, the “private property rights” under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 to by the “supreme law of the land” not the frivolous and unsubstantiated “order of protection” by the Commissioner in sedition and treason to the Constitution under the meaning of the 14^th Amendment Section 3. US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996 “Judge should be disqualified from proceeding where circumstances raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality, regardless of his or her state of mind or ability to conduct fair and impartial trial.”; Martinez v. Carmona, 624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article 6, Section 18.”; Beal v Reidy, 80 N.M. 444. 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Authority of court to affect substantive rights limited. This section confers no authority upon the district court to limit the extent of the substantive right to disqualify judges by Rule.” On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that.. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail...” in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10^th USCA. ; Stoneking v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. “Under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. US Constitution Article VI Cl.2 “The Supremacy Clause prohibits the application of state laws which conflict with federal laws.” Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10^th Cir. 1993).” Clearly here, the Commissioner denied David’s 2^nd Amendment Constitutional rights and and rights under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 “private property rights” “arbitrarily and capriciously” without any standard of proof, and well intends to do the same against David Derringer’s 1^st Amendment rights on the upcoming hearing of January 8, 2013. 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.”);

            Now, Barrie Derringer intends to use the known bias and prejudice of the Commissioner again to deny 1^st Amendment rights of David Derringer and to “accuse” without any proof, foundations of accusations that are untrue to gain further time restraints upon David in retaliation of a valid tort suit David Derringer v. Barrie et al. CV-12-10816, and David cannot be subjected to intense bias as before. Lund v. Helms, 29 F.3d 367 cert denied 115 S. Ct. 111 513 U.S. 1155, 130 L.Ed.2d 1076 CA8 (Iowa) 1994 “Test of whether to recuse judge is one of objective reasonableness, that is, whether judicial officer’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the circumstances.” People v. Walsh, 210 Ill. Dec. 126, 652 N.E.2d 1102, 273 Ill. App. 3d 453, Ill App. 1 Dist. 1995 “To prevail on motion for substitution of judge for cause, accused has to show actual prejudice, animosity, hostility, ill-will, or distrust directed towards accused.” The record is clear of unconstitutional acts and prejudice that prevents the Commissioner from presiding over David Derringer and notably should be “removed from the bench” subjecting the public to such outrage. State ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966) “Requiring petitioner to stand trial before biased or prejudiced judge does not conform to adequate remedy.”; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”.

            The original Order of Protection must be dissolved with remedy of 11 months of deprivation of David Derringer’s Constitutional rights and sever penalty and sanctions against Barrie Derringer for a “wrongful injunction”. Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998). “...the loss of Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury”. ; Lueker v. First National Bank of Boston 82 F.3d 334 “Injunction is “wrongful”, for purposes of awarding attorney fees to party which obtained dissolution of wrongful injunction, where Plaintiffs had no just right either in law or facts to request or obtain such remedy.”;  “When an alleged constitutional rights is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary” (citing 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) see also Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive party of due process of law.

            In any and all matters/counts of the latest allegations of December 11, 2012, Barrie Derringer and her unethical attorney (Defendant to David Derringer in CV-12-10816) Alain Jackson are acting in fraud, deprivation of rights, retaliation, retribution, and revenge of David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe et al. CV-12-10816, to misuse the Domestic Violence courts as a weapon against David, and to attempt to use the DV courts as a blanket in an attempt to stop legal actions against Barrie for her torts against David. They simply want their own Commissioner to stop David’s legal use of the Internet and to persecute David for “violations” that did not occur in the illegal order of protection.

            The plan of action of Barrie is to again lie in perjury and fraud to portray Barrie as the poor-hurt puppy victim and to use malicious prosecution to gain deprivation of 1^st Amendment rights wherein David has exposed the fraud, corruption and egregious acts by Barrie and the courts on the Internet by placing “public court records” for the world to see; none of which is a violation of the Order of Protection of DV-12-234. Barrie and Alain Jackson went in fraud to the existing Order of Protection DV-12-234 that illegally denied David’s “right to bear arms” and in direct violation of US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 ruling that as a citizen David has both a “property right” to own, possess and legally “firearms” and is acting both in retribution of the David filing against Barrie of CV-12-10816 tort suit, and to use the public frenzy outcry at this time to “ride the wave” against firearms to attempt to keep David from making his living at any time in the future by his legal profession as New Mexico Game and Fish Professional Outfitter/Hunter #32, in order to forever stop David’s income and leave David forever homeless and destitute. All through the divorce action of DM-12-610, David (registered “Republican”) has placed on the world wide web Internet legal and filed “public record” pleadings to oppose the re-election of Judge Alisa Hadfield and continued “public official” Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, and to expose to the world the egregious violations of Constitution and retaliation that women do to men in the corrupt scheme of the family courts, not only in New Mexico, but nationwide, and some of David’s pleadings had been used by opponent attorney David Standridge on the web site in political opposition to Judge Hadfield.

            David has a fundamental Constitutional right under the 1^st Amendment to voice his opinion in freedom of speech on the Internet in blogs, and to allow the whole world to view “public records” of court actions that are notably “distasteful” to Barrie, as they expose additionally the a woman betrayed without any cause the one person in her life that loved and stood by her, and now seeks to destroy that husband in any way possible for no just cause, even after David stood by her as “husband” after being infected without warning by Barrie of her incurable venereal disease (HSV-2) “Herpes”, and married her anyway with a life long commitment out of pure love, now being totally betrayed of the trust reposed in Barrie.

            David was forced by an illegal ‘order of protection’ on February 21, 2012 to give up possession and use of firearms for a period of two years, totally violating David’s 2^nd Amendment rights with no standard of proof under US Code Title 18 Section 922 or any standard of evidence, and that matter is in the appeal process, as well as formulating a federal Civil Rights suit over same. Now that this court has been “re-opened” by Barrie, the Commissioner has a Constitutional mandate to dissolve the Order of Protection as a matter of law. Barrie criminally attacks David again by mis-use of the “domestic violence” courts to make fraudulent claim that David has firearms, which is false, David is violation the Order of Protection by exercising his 1^st Amendment rights of freedom of speech to expose to the world the corruption of Barrie and the family divorce courts, and makes slanderous statements that David is emotionally and mentally unstable; all of which are brought with malice, abuse of process, perjury and fraud, and Barrie is already under criminal investigation by the Bernalillo County Sheriff Department for the past perjury and fraud to DV-12-234 in attaining the Order of Protection where she claimed under Oath that David had hurt her physically and then impeached herself under Oath to state that “David would never hurt me physically”.

            It is proven that Barrie herself is on bi-polar medications of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, sedatives and tranquilizers and has five different narcotic medicines of “codeine” available to her of Vicodin, Percocet, oxycodeine, hydrocodeine and acetaminophen with codeine; all of which she can abuse or overdose at any time due to her extreme depression and being suicidal which she has admitted to under Oath on the witness stand of DM-12-610 on August 23, 2012 of court record, and wherein David has no mental illness, and filing suits or defending against outrageous acts of torts and deprivation of Constitutional rights does not classify David as “mentally unstable”. Barrie is acting “out of control” with bad advice from her parents, Alain Jackson, and her bosses of Maestas and Ward where she works as accountant, and attempts to use the domestic violence court to “protect” all of these and other persons from suit, even attempting to protect Judge Hadfield from exposure on the Internet, and wherein Debbie and Irwin Harms bosses are already Defendants to David in CV-12-1307, and Alain Jackson and Barrie’s parents are already Defendants to David in CV-12-10816as is Barrie herself.

            It is both emotionally distressing and sad that Barrie has gone to criminal extremes in persecuting and maligning David, who at all times seeks to “defend” himself and his Constitutional rights against the onslaught of a woman that he in fact loves; in which none of this should be happening, leaving David forced into court and forced to litigate against Barrie simply to protect himself, and his rights, immunities and privileges against a woman that should not be attacking her own husband, and moreover should not be attacking any US citizen to attempt to bar and deprive Constitutional rights. The Derringers had a very good marriage, and David was always a very good husband to Barrie. Due to violations of Constitutional rights, due process and equal protection violations by corrupt “judges”, David has filed complaints against Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar with head judge Ted Baca, and two “judicial standards” complaints against Judge Hadfield, and motions to “recuse for cause” against both, and even filed a “petition for writ of superintending control” in the New Mexico Supreme Court against Judge Hadfield exposing the violations of Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct and in fact “sedition and treason” against the United States Constitution under the meaning of the 14^th Amendment Section 3, and Barrie seeks to use that bias and prejudice against David before fruition of the ongoing appeals of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to take away other Constitutional rights of “1^st Amendment”. Barrie has been “exposed” in her lies to family, friends, and employers to gain their assistance in a bogus divorce action, portraying David as a “terrible person”, when David was a very good husband to Barrie at all times; did nothing ever against Barrie; and loves the “rational Barrie” that David was married to with all of his heart.

            Barrie and attorney Alain Jackson have filed a bogus, fraudulent and malicious allegations of violations of the Order of Protection of DV-12-234 in order to ride the wave of current outrage against firearms to falsely accuse David of having guns that were already dispossessed at the first Order of Protection on February 21, 2012, and which Barrie is simply lying and conducting fraud in this accusation to see what “sticks”. David has never violated the Order of Protection at any time in any manner, since February 21, 2012 even though the Order is “illegal” under Constitutional rights and never had due process, equal protection or any standard of proof initially, and David has properly used the court appeal process to attempt to attain justice over this matter. Since before Barrie left David is the only time David has any contact with Barrie’s parents, family, and to David’s knowledge Barrie has no friends, save associates at where she works at Maestas and Ward. Before any divorce filing or Petition for Order of Protection, David dressed up in his wedding suit and took red roses and a wedding anniversary card, in the middle of January, 2012 to attempt to talk to his own wife and invite her to lunch for their January wedding anniversary, after Barrie had left David on December 27, 2011, and was forced by boss Debbie Harms to leave the Maestas and Ward premises and could not even talk to his own wife, with Debbie Harms claiming that she would call APD for criminal trespass if David did not leave. On February 4, 2012 Debbie and Irwin Harms, bosses of Barrie and 10 “others” with Barrie, did criminal acts of assault and battery against David at the Derringer storage unit at 101 Florida SE Unit C while Barrie had them and 10 other “friends” attempting to steal all of the Derringer moveable property, and David legally and properly filed civil suit CV-12-1307 against the perpetrators, wherein at all times appurtenant to the matter, both Barrie and the two named Defendants “Harms” attempt to violate discovery and try to protect and refuse to disclose the identities of the other 10 persons that attacked David so as to keep David from both criminal and civil litigation prosecution against them, and now in malicious prosecution Barrie attempts to mis-use DV-12-234 for furthering that end. At no time since February 4, 2012 has David had any contact with any persons connected in any way with Barrie, Barrie’s family, parents, friends, employers or others connected in any way with Barrie, in total compliance with the DV-12-234 Order of Protection, except seeing Barrie Derringer in a court of law in DM-12-610 and DV-12-234 on February21, April 10, July 3 and August 23, 2012. Barrie and Alain Jackson are maliciously using DV-12-234 allegations to persecute by “criminal fraud”, and here lies in the want of probable cause by Barrie to bring the action of reopening DV-12-234. Both the “motive” and “purposes” of attempting to fraudulently re-open DV-12-234 were “improper ones” by Barrie with also a 4^th degree felony by Barrie to use “perjury” under the meaning of NMSA 30-25-1 “notarized” to instigate malicious prosecution. Barrie and attorney Alain Jackson simply act in “malicious prosecution” and “abuse of process” to bring an illegal and fraudulent action in order to attempt to “protect” persons already legally “Defendants” to David in CV-12-1307 and herself and others as “defendants” in CV-12-10816, and to stop David from legal “rights to sue” under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and to continue to pursue David’s persecution by riding the wave of public sentiment of the latest Connecticut killing of “children” in attempts to keep David forever from his firearms, as well as direct retaliation, retribution, and revenge over the law suits involving her bosses, parents, attorney acting in reckless disregard of rights, and herself subject to other civil actions due to her unbelievable misconduct and disregard for any rights of David.

            Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar is aware and should dismiss this Barrie abuse of process which is a perversion of court processes that she is using to accomplish some end which the process was never intended to accomplish, and she attempts to compel the party David against whom it has been used to do some collateral thing of dismissing his legal suits, which he could not legally and regularly be compelled to do, keep from exercising David’s rights to freedom of speech under the 1^st Amendment putting “public record” on the Internet that exposes Barrie’s devious actions and venereal disease, and to keep the party David against whom it has been used to stop doing some the collateral thing of exposing the egregious acts of Barrie and the courts on the Internet in which he has rights to do, and in which “for the protection of the public”, is in the best interests of the public. The Commissioner is dutifully bound to “Order” criminal investigation and prosecution against Barrie with the Bernalillo County Sheriff Department. 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.”

            Barrie has thrown wild, unsubstantiated and fraudulent accusations against David to reopen DV-12-234 to misuse the domestic violence filing “process” in which she and Alain Jackson have designed to accomplish an illegitimate end. Here there are “multiple” ulterior, collateral, and unlawful purposes of DV-12-234 that support “abuse of process” and damages. The Barrie fraud perfected with the ulterior motives of Barrie and “defendant” attorney Alain Jackson (Defendant in DV-12-10816) produce the foundation of an abuse of process and criminal charges that are appurtenant. (1) an illegal, improper, perverted use of process that is not warranted or authorized; (2) an improper purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; (3) and resulting damages. It is unbelievable that the Barrie Derringer, wonderful wife of David Derringer has become an actor in the underlying maliciousness is to also deprive David his 1^st Amendment rights and to “muzzle” David’s exposure to the public the egregious acts conducted by a woman that claimed 15 times each day that she used to love David, in some sort of cult power control that she has already exercised in deprivation of David’s 2^nd Amendment rights designed to accomplish and illegitimate end.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE Respondent David Derringer motions this Court for Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar to immediately dismiss and dissolve the entire Order of Protection for Constitutional and statutory deprivations without any foundation of standard of proof, Order damages, and immediately recuse for any hearing of January 8, 2012 for “causes” stated in detail above with explicit examples as to why David Derringer cannot legally be forced before the Commissioner again in denial of “due process and equal protection” and further violations of Constitution and law.

Respectfully submitted by ____________________________________________

Respondent David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the domestic violence courts of the Second Judicial District Court on 400 Lomas NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico on December 31, 12012.

I also hereby certify that I sent a copy of this pleading by first class mail to:

Alain Jackson, 423, 6^th Street NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102