SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DM-12-610

Rel. DV-12-234

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER                                                               

            Petitioner,                                                                                

v.

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER

            Respondent,

                                                           

RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPEAR; REQUEST TO VACATE THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 8, 2013 TO ALLOW THE NM COURT OF APPEAL’S JURISDICTION AND CONSIDERATION OF “RECUSAL”; JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012 VOID, FRAUDULENT AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6), AN ORDER THAT CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT THE DEATH OF DAVID DERRINGER; REQUEST FOR STAY OF ALL ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS OF DM-12-610 PENDING APPEAL DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CASE LAW DEPRIVATIONS AND BIAS OF JUDGE THAT WON’T RECUSE, MAKING ORDERS IN POLITICAL RETRIBUTION AGAINST THE REGISTERED REPUBLICAN THAT SOUGHT TO STOP JUDGE HADFIELD’S RE-ELECTION; NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAWS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST BARRIE DERRINGER AND HER ATTORNEY

COMES NOW the Respondent Pro-Se with his Response in opposition as stated above.

Order was issued on November 15, 2012, with Judge Hadfield deliberately waiting until after being re-elected of the November 6, 2012 election, wherein the trial of this matter was held on August 23, 2012, and the Respondent’s findings of facts and conclusions of law filed on August 31, 2012, with extreme “authority” citations by David Derringer of Constitution, US Code, NM Statutory laws, and appurtenant case laws that demanded Judge Hadfield to conform to these laws under Oath, wherein by “law” all decisions of the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 are “legally impossible”. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, 14 F.3d 818. ; Delgado v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App. 1978).

The record will show undeniably that David Derringer sought formerly distant of this Final Judgement, with legal motions to “recuse for cause” Judge Hadfield due to extreme bias, prejudice, non-conformity of law, discharge of duties under Oath and a hatred against men in general and David Derringer in particular that tainted any decisions from this court, and that contention is again requested in this pleading for Judge Hadfield to stop the bias against David Derringer and unfairness proven by law, and “recuse”. Frates v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494 US 1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474. Any rational individual that is presented with the facts of the egregious Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 would conclude that no law is enforced by Judge Hadfield except the verbal, (without sustainable facts, exhibits or other witnesses, and with proven perjury without legal credibility) the opinions and desires of Barrie Derringer. In re Wyoming Tight Sands Antitrust Cases, 726 F. Supp. 288. All testimony of David Derringer, including stopping David Derringer from testimony of the sexually transmitted disease Herpes by Barrie Derringer without notice in “acts of battery, tortious fraud and negligence” that has everything to do with both a marital settlement agreement and alimony, and exhibits and witnesses of David Derringer have been ignored and disregarded, as well as disregarding all “law” including NM Statutory rights, all former case law, and the US Code and Constitution for the outrageous decisions of the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 wherein thus it is unenforceable under NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6) in total conflict with federal superceding laws, and violations against NM statutes. Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986; US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996. Since Judge Hadfield deliberately violates Constitution, NMSA 45-2-804 and other law against David Derringer, and seeks to “murder” David Derringer and the Derringer animals in the ruling of November 15, 2012, the Judgement is unenforceable and mandates rescinding the Judgement as well as mandating “recusal”, without doubt necessity of continued legal jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals of the appeal of same by “Notice of Appeal” of November 21, 2012 taking all “jurisdiction and judicial capacity” from Judge Hadfield, with the statement in Final Judgement that “This is a Final Appealable Order”. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken.”; 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.”;  US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455(a). The Petitioner seeks to attain “unjust enrichment” and make a profit from the courts with the assistance of the bias and prejudice of Judge Hadfield before the appeal court can rule on recusal of the blatantly biased judge, so that the Final Judgement can precipitate the “murder” of David Derringer and the animals and to take all possessions with a “NO CONTACT” illegal order to keep David Derringer from any recovery of same.

LACK OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY DUE TO APPEAL ALREADY TAKEN

Of total knowledge by the Petitioner and her attorney Alain Jackson, the Final Order and Judgement of DM-12-610 was entered on November 15, 2012, with egregious errors of law, Constitutional deprivations and non-adherence to the NMSA Legislated statutes NMSA 45-2-804 and others, and disregarding prior case laws of substantive appurtenance to the issues, with also a former denial of a “motion to recuse for cause” regarding the presiding Judge Hadfield that was at all times working in bias, prejudice and in discharge of all duties to enforce existing laws. It was stated specifically in the Judgement of November 15, 2012 that “this is a final appealable order”, and Appellant David Derringer appealed all Orders and Judgements of DM-12-610 by the “NOTICE OF APPEAL” on November 21, 2012 to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, thus taking all further jurisdiction and judicial capacity from the trial court. Throughout the trial court, Judge Hadfield acted in discharge of law, in a total bias and prejudice against the “man” Respondent, and David Derringer in particular, so as to corrupt the court record, deny legal “community income”, “access and allowed perjury and fraud by Barrie Derringer, allowed and persecuted the “community debt” to be forced only upon the Respondent, and granting a “bifurcated divorce” in response only to the Petitioner’s request to stop due process and equal protection of the Respondent’s legal and authority sustained pleadings. Judge Hadfield ignored the “infliction of a venereal disease” by the Petitioner against the Respondent that has all bearing on the “settlement agreement” of Judgement of November 15, 2012, and disregarded Respondent’s “sole and separate inheritance” while accusing without substance the Respondent stealing money from “community income” and stashing that in the trunk of a car, which never happened, and yet sustained the fraud of the Petitioner admitting under oath that she stole “community income” and placed that in a non-communal bank account, and other “fabrications” and opinions of the Judge herself in fraud and perjury to disrupt and corrupt the court record and punish the Respondent in the settlement Final Judgement. The Petitioner seeks to act immediately before these facts are ruled upon by the appeal. 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.” In a race for speed before the appeal is perfected, and in total violation of “Rule 11"and “fraud”, the Petitioner seeks to act expeditiously to gain all assets, wherein it is obvious that the judgements of Judge Hadfield cannot be upheld in total violation of all law. Simply put, Judge Hadfield has herself lied in perjury in the Judgement making conjecture and opinion not supported by facts and disregarding deliberately the percentage of debt to income ratio to purposefully persecute the Respondent so that Barrie Derringer can continue to discharge duties and responsibilities under law and make a profit of unjust enrichment from these divorce proceedings. Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in trial court’s opinion.” Without fairness or redress, Judge Hadfield has entered “facts” of record only based on her own agenda, viewpoint, and conjecture, having nothing sustainable under the testimony or evidence of trial, and assessing extreme amounts of money payments against the small fraction of the “community income” generated by the Respondent, while disregarding the extreme large fraction of “community income” from the Petitioner, making the unfairness blatant and extreme, in “unequal protection of law” (a federal and Constitutional violation) as well as “punishing” the Respondent under the meaning of persecution of the 13^th Amendment with additional sanctions for having exercised his rights of due process to file pleading that sought to make Judge Hadfield follow the Constitution, NM statutes and former case laws supporting the contentions of the Respondent; each motion and pleading thus of the Respondent hardly being able to be categorized as “frivolous”, but a “criminal violation” of sanctions against David Derringer by Judge Hadfield under the meaning of US Code Title 18 Section 241 “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”. The trial court has no jurisdiction to make the rulings in error of law, and has no jurisdiction to entertain and force these egregious rulings at this time due to violations of law making the Final Judgement “void” under NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6), and wherein an appeal is already taken, making the “Motion” by the Petitioner brought in fraud, improper purposes, and meant to disrupt the judicial procedures of a legal appeal; clearly a “sanctionable act” by both the Petitioner and her attorney under NMSA Rule 11.

FINAL JUDGEMENT VOID UNDER  NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6)

All Orders of the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 are  acts in violation of laws, both federal and state, and in prejudice to the rights of the Respondent, making the Judgement of November 15, 2012 “void” and unenforceable under applicable laws. Barela v. Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966). The Respondent is in a proper time frame to notice this court, precipitated by the illegal Motion for Order to Show Cause by the Petitioner, that the Final Order is “void” under NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6). State v. Romero, 76 NM 449, 415 P.2d 837 (1966). The “validity” of the Judgement is lacking under law and therefore no provisions of this Judgement can be enforced as written collectively. State v. Rayburn, 76 NM 681, 417 P.2d 813  (1966).;  In re Acosta, 200 BR 57; “Exceptional circumstances” exist that destroy the very “life” of David Derringer and are totally illegal. Dyer v. Pacheco, 98 NM 670, 651 P.2d 1314 (Ct. App. 1982). The Judgement can and must be attacked by the Respondent as it seeks to “murder” David Derringer and the Derringer animals and is totally in violation of federal rights, privileges and immunities of David Derringer under Constitution and NM Statutory law NMSA 45-2-804 and the criminal code of NM. Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 91 NM 455, 575 P.2d 1340 (1977).; 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.’ ”  The Final Judgment has already been appealed, and that appeal is perfected by the Notice of Appeal of November 21, 2012. The Petitioner cannot seek to force compliance with a Judgment that violates Constitutional and statutory rights before that appeal is final and remanded back to the court. Hort v. General Electric Co., 92 NM 359, 588 P.2d 560 (Ct. App. 1978); In re Acosta, 200 BR 57 “Order or judgement becomes final when all judicial labor in matter is complete.”       In the Judgement of November 15, 2012, there are manifest errors of law, making the denial of “equal protection” against the Respondent so blatant and extreme that it is the “murder” of David Derringer for any compliance.

DISSECTION OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012

Barrie Derringer left David Derringer on December 27, 2011, and took all “community money” from both all bank accounts, claims to have been taking money from “community income” in court testimony for about a year previous, and changed the “community income” from herself from the joint account to only for her own use and possession, a direct violation of NMSA 45-2-804 without paying “community debt”. Necessary for evaluation is the “mathematical truth”. New Mexico is a “community state” under marriage, and all income generated is owned by both parties, and is to be used “collectively” to pay debts. 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.; Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296; Flores v. Flores, 506 P.2d 345, 84 NM 601, cert denied 506 P.2d 336, 84 NM 592; Martinez v. Block, 858 P.2d 429, 115 NM 762. In this marriage husband David Derringer contributed income each year of $8,376.00 of disability due to cancer, and Barrie Derringer contributed $45,000.00 income by employment of Maestas and Ward, for a total income of the Derringer “family” of $53,376.00. The “community income” contribution of David Derringer is 15.69% and the Barrie Derringer “community income” contribution is 84.31%, or in a year David Derringer’s “50%” share of debt due is $4,187.00 and Barrie Derringer’s “50%” share of the debt due is $22,501.00. Illegally Barrie Derringer took all of her income after December 27, 2012, leaving David Derringer with all debt, and Barrie Derringer rented a new place illegally using “community income” of about $1,500.00 each month to procure separate residence, food, and utilities, and refused to allow David Derringer to share that residence. Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild, 208. Barrie Derringer denied payment to the PNM for electricity of the Derringer family, while paying for a new electric bill without David Derringer and without her husband’s agreement while accruing late fees against the existing account unnecessary. Barrie Derringer refused to pay the rent of storage with illegally removing herself from the lease in violation of state law NMSA 45-2-804 while still married, forcing David Derringer to pay $700.00 each month while the marriage was still legally effective, causing David Derringer to use “sole and separate” inheritance funds until those ran out and David Derringer was evicted, while Barrie Derringer stole the “community income” for only herself and defaulted on numerous other bills including, but not limited to failure and “refusal” to provide food and water for the Derringer animals, making a criminal act by Barrie Derringer under NMSA 30-18-1. Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996; Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749.  In the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 Judge Hadfiled “lies” to the court record, without substance that the animals taken care of by the Derringers were “strays” wherein all animals of the Derringers were pets and working livestock or “rescued and saved” thrown away animals by others that were the pets taken in by the Derringers and not “strays” simply fed by the Derringers. Clearly Judge Hadfield conjectured this “lie” simply to protect Barrie Derringer having to use part of her “community income” to feed and water family animals after she left even though state law NMSA 45-2-804 mandated the “community income” to go to the food and water of the Derringer animals as well as other bills. Barrie Derringer and the corruption of Judge Hadfield forced David Derringer to burden all debt. It is inconceivable how Barrie Derringer can look into the mirror each morning with all of what she has done in this action and since December 27, 2011.

All income generated by the Derringer’s collectively was at all times “available” physically by Barrie Derringer during the marriage with all bank accounts being “joint” and indeed, Barrie Derringer having access physically at all times with keys to the residence and all vehicles, even to the cash money of David Derringer’s sole and separate inheritance monies. Judge Hadfield again “lies” to distort the court record that David Derringer was keeping any money from access by Barrie Derringer or taking any “community income” and locking it away from Barrie Derringer, and “lies” to distort the court record that Barrie Derringer did not have a “key” to the car trunk containing the cash money of David Derringer’s inheritance, which is a blatant “lie” conjured up by Judge Hadfield to corrupt the court record, not sustained by any evidence or testimony.  Judge Hadfiled continues to “lie” to the court record that Barrie Derringer in 2010 attempted to leave David Derringer and could not leave because she had no financial means to leave, when in “fact” Barrie Derringer had access at all times to $500.00 cash stored in the residence in a cabinet, both known and available to Barrie Derringer at any time with her “key”, and had another $3000.00 cash in the Derringer safety deposit box of New Mexico Educator’s Credit Union available to Barrie Derringer by her own bank “key” of the safety deposit box, and had yet another access to over $20,000.00 of David Derringer’s inheritance money stored in the trunk of a Derringer vehicle with Barrie Derringer at all times having a “key” to that vehicle trunk, and also access to both David Derringer’s monthly income and her own monthly income by Barrie Derringer being a co-signer and with total availability of any bank funds of both the account of New Mexico Educator’s Credit Union, and the account of Rio Grande Credit Union shared equally in “community income” by both David Derringer and Barrie Derringer, wherein David Derringer placed Barrie Derringer on these formerly private David Derringer accounts well before the legal marriage occurred.

Despite the Court’s Orders of April 10, 2012 and again on July 3, 2012 to pay all vehicle insurance and registrations, Barrie Derringer defied the Court’s order and has not and has “refused” at all times to pay the insurance of the three vehicles of a 1979 5-ton military vehicle, 2005 3500 Chevy truck, and a 1997 Ford truck, and has failed and refused at all times to renew the legal registration on any of these three Derringer vehicles, but pays the registration and insurance on the 2003 Lexis that is the sole and separate property of Barrie Derringer, and such violations of law have been performed and upheld by Judge Hadfield before and after Orders of April 10, 2012 in deliberate violations of all case laws and NMSA 45-2-804 by Judge Hadfield for the protection and “unjust enrichment” and “profit” by Barrie Derringer; all matters therein in violation of “equal protection” of federal laws Title 42 Section 1981 and violations of the 5^th and 14^th Amendments against David Derringer. 

Barrie Derringer broke into the Derringer storage after David Derringer was forced to lock Barrie Derringer from such storage in January, 2012 for her own life protection and Barrie Derringer certified under testimony under Oath on August 23, 2012 that she is indeed suicidal and that she knew that David Derringer had locked the storage from her access to protect her life out of love for his wife. Barrie Derringer and 12 persons took all property available to them as well as did vandalism, larceny and destruction of over $55,000.00 of David Derringer property on February 4, 2012, February 25, 2012 and March 8, 2012 and likely “friends” of Barrie Derringer burglarized the residence of David Derringer exactly at the time David Derringer was in court with Barrie Derringer on the afternoon of July 3, 2012. At the storage unit Barrie Derringer and 12 other persons destroyed over $300.00 in locks to gain access with 12 other persons that had done assault and battery against David Derringer on February 4, 2012. Without any “receipts”, evidence or witnesses, Barrie Derringer claims that items were “missing” from the storage, safety deposit box and without any standard of proof and with the contradicting testimony of David Derringer, in a bias for Barrie Derringer, Judge Hadfield Orders David Derringer without any credible evidence to “return” items that might not ever have existed, likely Barrie Derringer already has with her break-ins of February 4, 25 and March 8 of 2012, or that her 12 persons in attendance with Barrie Derringer likely have, of which David Derringer cannot “return” what never existed or does not have. Judge Hadfield knows that Barrie Derringer illegally removed her name from the “community debt” lease with the landlord of 101 Florida SE Unit C while still legally married to David Derringer in violation of NMSA 45-2-804 making “equal protection” afforded under Constitution and federal rights for David Derringer a “joke” to Judge Hadfield.

In the illegal and unconstitutional Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 Judge Hadfield demands that David Derringer pay 50% of bills with only 15.69% of the “community income” penalizing David Derringer for an additional 34.31% of the debt, while deliberately allowing Barrie Derringer a “profit” and “unjust enrichment” of 34% by not having to use her full 84.31% of the “community income” for the payment of the same bill, and worse, burdening David Derringer with “late payment fees” and “penalties” wherein Barrie Derringer did not pay these same bills “on time” when still in the marriage with David Derringer, making Barrie Derringer “escape” of debt and “profit” further enhanced by the court in violation of “equal protection” of the laws.

Judge Hadfield disregards the testimony of David Derringer wherein David Derringer used $7,000.00 of sole and separate inheritance funds for down payment to purchase the 2005 Chevy truck and placed upon this truck the David Derringer sole and separate previous new camper shell ARE of value $2,800.00, and then used sole and separate inheritance funds to make 8 payments of $600.00 each on the same vehicle, giving David Derringer an extreme amount more in “equity” in the vehicle than Barrie Derringer. Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749. Without any verified amount still owing on the vehicle, Judge Hadfield arbitrarily and capriciously assigned an amount of $20,000.00 owing which is incorrect, and without appraisal of any kind or evidence of substantiation, Judge Hadfield in an arbitrary and capricious “abuse of discretion” awards “possession” of the vehicle to the “co-signer” of the legal vehicle contract, taking illegally and possession away from the primary loan David Derringer in violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1982 and then violates the “equal protection” of the Respondent by allowing Barrie Derringer to sell the vehicle without consideration or valuation consultation by the owner/signer of the loan, David Derringer, and ignores the extreme amount of equity of David Derringer in sole and separate property in acquisition, and allows Barrie Derringer with mis-use of the courts to make a “profit” of taking 50% of the equity in defeat of David Derringer’s “equal protection” of the law, in or for Barrie Derringer to acquire “unjust enrichment”. In additional injury of “violations of equal protection” under US Code Title 42 Section 1981, the 5^th and 14^th Amendments, Judge Hadfield requires David Derringer to pay Barrie Derringer any amount in deficiency upon any sale, totally disregarding the extreme amount of “equity” that David Derringer has in the vehicle by “sole and separate inheritance funds”.

Judge Hadfield “lies” to corrupt the court record that David Derringer paid $2,500.00 to relieve Barrie Derringer’s past due and previous before marriage debt of IRS, when the debt was $7,000.00 and David Derringer paid this amount to rectify and remove extreme penalties and interest affecting detrimentally the income to debt ratio of the Derringer’s after marriage. Judge Hadfield protects in bias and prejudice the necessity of Barrie Derringer “reimbursing” David Derringer his $7,000.00 used from sole and separate inheritance funds, by Judge Hadfield “lying” to the court record without agreement or testimony by David Derringer that the “incorrect amount” stated of $2,500.00 was a “gift”, and yet the Final Judgement “contradicts” itself mandating that Barrie Derringer “Petitioner shall pay any debts she incurred prior to the parties marriage”, which of course would mandate that Barrie Derringer reimburse David Derringer for the actual “$7,000.00" that David Derringer paid Barrie Beverley’s IRS debt of taxes and penalties.

The fraud of Judge Hadfield working in concert with Barrie Derringer is blatant not to allow David Derringer the reimbursement of sole and separate money paid to “survive” ov over $20,000.00 due to the illegal actions against NMSA 45-2-804 by Judge Hadfield working in conspiracy with Barrie Derringer with “community income” illegally withheld by Barrie Derringer after December 27, 2011, and allowing Barrie Derringer to “make a profit” by mis-use of the courts in stealing $7,000.00 of David Derringer’s sole and separate inheritance by the “vehicle” of a divorce action, when such money was never intended to pay previous debt of Barrie Derringer before the marriage with a divorce then used to “embezzle” such money by “larceny” against David Derringer by use of the vehicle of an unsubstantiated “divorce”.

The “insanity” of Judge Hadfield in total violations of “equal protection” and “abuse of discretion” demands that David Derringer pay Barrie Derringer $1,817.50 with interest within 10 days of the Final Judgement, when the Court is well aware that David Derringer’s income is only $698.00 per month, thus mandating the “murder” of David Derringer and the Derringer animals by taking all income with deprivation of food and water for a period of three months to pay such a bill, with “abuse of discretion” to award interest, while stealing David Derringer’s property, sole and separate inheritance and other damages to David Derringer.

Judge Hadfield orders David Derringer to pay ½ of settlement fees wherein at no time did Barrie Derringer enter into the settlement conference with any contentions of “settlement” or good faith, and Judge Hadfield abuses the Constitutional rights of David Derringer under US Code Title 42 Section 1981, and the 5^th and 14^th Amendments for “equal protection” to persecute David Derringer in $500.00 fees for “exercising his rights, privileges and immunities” to file legal and proper pleadings and other court papers, including motions to recuse for cause, that were all referencing Judge Hadfield’s mandates to conform with all laws, which Judge Hadfield refuses to comply with Oath, Constitution, case laws and particularly defies NMSA 45-2-804 in preferential treatment of Barrie Derringer, all making the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 “moot” in violation of federal law mandates and “void” in the meaning of NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6).

REQUEST FOR STAY OF ALL ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS OF DM-12-610 PENDING APPEAL DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CASE LAW DEPRIVATIONS AND BIAS OF JUDGE THAT WON’T RECUSE, MAKING ORDERS IN POLITICAL RETRIBUTION AGAINST THE REGISTERED REPUBLICAN THAT SOUGHT TO STOP JUDGE HADFIELD’S RE-ELECTION

All acts of the trial court are in violation of laws, shown above, with federal mandates of all US Code and Constitution taking precedent over the Final Judgement, and with “contradictions” within the Final Judgement making Barrie Derringer pay for previous debts prior to the marriage and yet taking illegally the Derringer sole and separate money that was used for paying those particular debt, and the insane order for David Derringer to pay within days an amount of over three months of his income, not leaving any money for food or water for three months, clearly Ordering the “murder” of David Derringer and the Derringer animals, and illegally awarding Barrie Derringer “interest” in abuse of discretion on money not legally owing by David Derringer due to the “fraud”, “bias” and “prejudice” “persecution” by a Democrat reeling in retribution after gaining an election to persecute a Republican that sought publically in the extreme to block and defeat the re-election of Judge Hadfield; all thus making it imperative for the Court to grant a “stay” on all orders and judgements of the entirety of DM-12-610 pending appeal wherein David Derringer on appeal will demand a “fair and impartial” retrial on all matters of DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234.Society National Bank v. Parson Partnership LTD., 122 F.3d 574 “Trial court’s decision to award interest as part of equitable remedy is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”;  In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 “Where party has made challenge to judge’s failure to recuse, Court of Appeals reviews judge’s decision to hear case on abuse of discretion standard.”

Judge Hadfield has not granted David Derringer his rights to a “fair and impartial” trial or decisions on any matter, that also included without any “standard of proof” under US Code Title 18 Section 922, civil or criminal rules of evidence or other, Judge Hadfield disregarding the due process and equal protection of David Derringer and taking without law David Derringer’s “right to bear arms” under the 2^nd Amendment and in violation of the US Supreme Court ruling No. 10-1521, and in direct violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) EQUAL RIGHT UNDER LAW; violations of David Derringer’s rights to own, use and possess personal property as violations of US Code Title 42 Section 1982 PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS; a total deprivation of rights under NM State statutes, in particular NMSA 45-2-804 and the criminal code of NMSA Sections 30, and total violations of due process and equal protection in violation of the US and NM Constitutions under the 5^th and 14^th Amendments with underlying criminal acts by this court under the meaning of “conspiracy against rights”, “conspiracy to interfere with civil rights”, “deprivation of rights under color or law” and the sedition and treason so intertwined, with now the actions and Orders of Judge Hadfield meant to “murder David Derringer and the Derringer animals”. The “facts and conclusions of law” presented by the Respondent, as well as the un-sustained testimony of the Petitioner and the proven impeachment of the Petitioner time and again in this matter as well as in the trial, and the law authorities cited by the Respondent disallowed all decisions rendered in the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012, wherein it is blatantly obvious that Judge Hadfield acted in retaliation, retribution, and revenge against the registered “Republican” David Derringer that strenuously campaigned against the re-election of Judge Hadfield with use of the Internet and active participation in the political arena, coupled with the bias and prejudice already specified in the former David Derringer’s Motions to Recuse for Cause, of which Judge Hadfield ignored and refused to obey NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D) and US Code Title 28 Section 455, in order to continue to persecute the “husband” that is contesting the divorce in DM-12-610 of irrational and irresponsible acts by his bi-polar and suicidal wife Barrie Derringer that also involved the intentional infliction of a venereal incurable disease of Herpes (HSV) that Barrie Derringer gave without notice to David Derringer, which entirely affects the “settlement agreement”, of which Judge Hadfield has total knowledge and ignores. U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied. Judge Hadfield denies equal protection under NMSA 45-2-804 and attempts to Order David Derringer to return or replace a “wish list” by Barrie Derringer’s perjury of items “missing” that were likely never in existence, were never confirmed by evidence that David Derringer at any time has these items, was not confirmed by any evidence that the 12 persons with Barrie Derringer might have these items and that they are not actually in already the possession of Barrie Derringer herself, and certainly the “values” of such items are not confirmed by any evidence, receipts or other tangible evidence whatsoever, and David Derringer cannot return what he does not have.

David Derringer cannot pay illegal fees, monies and be deprived equal protection of his own property and money stolen by Barrie Derringer and 12 other persons that Barrie Derringer stated under oath on August 23, 2012 helped her in all possessions of the Derringer’s in storage, that each could have taken and did in fact vandalize and destroy David Derringer’s property, all without any authorization by David Derringer for any of these 12 persons to “touch” any property of David Derringer which Barrie Derringer under oath admitted that they did. It is illegal for the Court to Order each party to pay both debts and to retain possession of property obtained by either party after December 27, 2011 when at that time until a divorce is final or at the least until April 10, 2012 when the Court ordered a “bifurcated divorce”, both the debt and the property purchased are “community debt” and “community property”. 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. All purchases of Barrie Derringer between December 27, 2011 and April 10, 2012 are equally the property of David Derringer, legal husband during that time frame, and with “fraud” Judge Hadfield protects Barrie Derringer’s acquisitions of such property by refusal to allow David Derringer to find out or know such purchases and defied the law to not allow David Derringer a settlement agreement that encompasses the value of each of those purchases as “community property” as according to law. Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296. Judge Hafield defies the law in “criminal fraud” to gain unjust enrichment for Barrie Derringer when the law has already established that all property from the marriage on January 15, 2010 until the Order of April 10, 2012, (or until that is resolved by appeal) such property is “community property” and the court is in extreme “abuse of discretion” and criminal fraud to Order that Barrie Derringer is exempt of either “community debt” or “community property” assets during a time frame of December 27, 2011 until April 10, 2012 under mandates of NMSA 45-2-804 and Constitution, and US Code Title 42 Section 1982.

The Motions JJ, KK, LL, MM for the Court to order “community income” delegated for animal support while the marriage was in effect at all times is a legal and well taken “motion” under NMSA 45-2-804 and NMSA 30-18-1 and all other NM Statutory laws, case laws and Constitutional parameters, with law disregarded by Judge Hadfield, and then the Respondent “punished” with $500.00 sanctions to persecute the Respondent with “cruel and unusual punishment” for exercising rights of due process with legal pleadings designed to enforce current laws, against a Judge acting in discharge of all laws, and in violation of state statues. Gonzales v. Oil Workers Int’l Union, 77 N.M. 61, 419 p.2d 257 (1966);  “Alleging acts contrary to statute may refer generally to statute and is sufficient to allege a statutory violation.”;    US v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by decisions interpreting them.”; US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.” ; Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647 “The right to freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is one secured to every person within the jurisdiction of the United States by USCA Const. Amendment 13, and a conspiracy to deprive any citizen of such right was indictable under Title 18 Section 241.”

The Court is bound under “fairness” and sound justice to grant both a stay against the illegal orders and judgements of the trial court pending appeal, but this situation demands “sanctions” for deliberate mis-use of pleading by the Petitioner seeking to use the bias of the trial court before it can be stopped by the appeal. Desjardin v. Albuquerque National Bank, 93 N.M. 89, 596 P.2d 858 (1979) “Rule 60 authorizes court to grant relief. Clearly, there are exceptional circumstances here that deprive the trial court from jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner’s motion filed after taking the appeal in order to circumvent the appeal and defeat justice, and the fraud of mis use of a motion for “ulterior and improper purposes” under the meaning of Rule 11. Smith v. Bradfield, 97 N.M. 611, 642 P.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1982) there is invested a “reservoir of equitable power to vacate where justice clearly dictates in exceptional circumstances, such as where the court initially lacked jurisdiction.” In this matter, Judge Hadfield has already set a date for hearing on the Motion for Order to Show Cause by the Petitioner for February 8, 2013, whereas the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter, but only the Appeal court could entertain this ill-conceived Motion, necessitating the Court to vacate the planned hearing until any remand until the Appeal court relinquishes jurisdiction back to the trial court as “other reasons” that the trial court cannot continue the egregious acts in violation of Constitution, NM Statutory laws, in discharge of federal supremacy Congressional laws, and other egregious acts against “equal protection” as is in “fundamental error” in the Judgement of November 15, 2012. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Martin, 79 NM 737, 449 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1968); Perez v. Perez, 75 NM 656, 409 p.2d 804 (1966); Barker v. Barker, 94 NM 162, 608 p.2d 138 (1980) “In simple English, the language of the “other reasons” clause, ...vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgement whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” There is no legal doubt that the NM Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of this entire matter as of the Notice of Appeal of November 21, 2012. English v. English, 118 NM 170, 879 P.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1994).

In this matter, if the Motion for Order to Show Cause is allowed to be considered by the trial court, the underlying issues on appeal will be corrupted, and the action of the trail court will definitely affect the judgement of November 15, 2012  that is already on appeal. Barela v. ABF Freight Systems, 116 NM 574, 865 P.2d 1218 (Ct. App. 1993). The Judgement of November 15, 2012, while in error of laws, and thus cannot be enforced, affects the rights, privileges and immunities of the Respondent and the Judgement is appealable before enforcement can be established. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm’n v. Quesenberry, 74 Nm 30, 390 P.2d 273 (1964). Since the entire matter also involves the “proper recusal” of the presiding judge under “cause” of bias, prejudice, and law violations, to increase these issues before a ruling has been made by the appellate court, make the “equal protection” of the Respondent/Appellant more in defeat. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10^th Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is clearly present.”;  US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239. The Judgement of November 15, 2012 encompasses violations of US Code Title 1981(a) “equal protection”, violations of US Code Title 1982 “private property rights”, violations of the 2^nd, 5^th and 14^th Amendments, and violations of NMSA 45-2-804 and New Mexico criminal statutes under Article 30 for the perjury and fraud of the Petitioner Barrie Derringer, and thus with such violations in abeyance of “federal laws”, the issues before enforcement of the Judgement must be considered by the appeal. 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).”; 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.

Clearly, the Final Judgement of November 15, 2012 is “unenforceable” under all standards of law, morality, ethics and sanity, and the hearing of February 8, 2013 should be vacated as a matter of law and allow all issues to be properly addressed with the appeal already in progress without any current jurisdiction of the trial court.   Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789 “Even a sensible and efficient use of supervisory power by court is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.” 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

This Court must stop the abuse of jurisdiction and to appropriately sanction and discipline the Petitioner and her attorney Alain Jackson for mis- use of pleadings meant to illegally invoke the jurisdiction of a trial court for reasons of fraud and use of the underlying bias and prejudice, to defeat the appeal, and gain property before the issues are fully considered on appeal. What the Petitioner is doing here is  to mis-use process to gain advantage over the Respondent before the issues to be decided on appeal are resolved. Poorbaugh v. Mullen, 99 N.M. 11, 653 P.2d 511 (Ct. App. 1982) “The improper use of process of a court may be redressed by a motion to quash, inquiry into the matter under the Supreme Court disciplinary rules, a motion to set aside judgement under Paragraph (B)(6), or a determination of whether such an action amount to facts giving rise to an action for abuse of process. Under proper circumstances, the matter may also constitute contempt of court.”  The Petitioner fails and “refuses” to enter the NM Court of Appeals, just as in No. 32,113 past and current No. 32,326, and continues to attempt to use the bias known of the trial court for her own agenda of fraud when the court is without jurisdiction over pending issues of the judgement attempted to be enforced. State ex rel. Baca v. Board of Comm’rs, 22 N.M. 502, 165 P.213 (1916) “Judgement without jury final, when it passes from court’s control. In this jurisdiction there are no terms of court except for jury trials and no statute extending control of a court over its judgements, ...and it necessarily follows that final judgements rendered by the district courts in cases tried without a jury become final when rendered and pass from the control of the court.”  If there is any “justice” to be served in this matter regarding both issues and the underlying bias and necessary recusal of the trial judge, the matter has to be addressed on appeal before Judge Hadfield destroys more of the “equal protection” of the Respondent. In this matter, there has been “tampering of evidence” and “facts” unsustained by either evidence or testimony by the trial justice Hadfield in “fraud”, so as to corrupt the trial court record and constitute “exceptional circumstances” as to why a “stay” is mandated and the necessity to stop any further actions by the trial court’s biased judge pending all of these issues on appeal. Jemez Properties Inc. v . Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 608 P.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1979) cert denied 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980) “Tampering with evidence constitutes exceptional circumstances. Tampering with evidence in the case ... went beyond the common fraud contemplated in paragraph B(3) of this rule, and constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Petitioner acts in retribution and retaliation with the “Motion for Order to Show Cause” and seeks, after the fact of the filing of another suit against her for redress of issues involving this Divorce action, CV-12-10816, to gain all property and money prior to any judgement against her in the new suit David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe (aka Barrie Derringer) and Alain Jackson et al. CV-12-10816. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Martin, 79 NM 737, 449 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1968). Attorney Alain Jackson files this “motion” with violations of Rule 11 to gain revenge against Plaintiff David Derringer in CV-12-10816. Suit CV-12-10816 was filed on November 26, 2012,

[COMPLAINT FOR ANIMAL ABUSE, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, MISREPRESENTATION, ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH FACILITATION, BATTERY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, TORTIOUS FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, CONVERSION OF MONEY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, VANDALISM, DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, DEPRIVATION OF INCOME, BREACH OF CONTRACT, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, ALIENATION OF AFFECTION, INTERFERENCE WITH A LEGAL MARRIAGE, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MENTAL ANGUISH, CONSPIRACY, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND PRIMA FACIE TORT]

and immediate “retaliation” was filed by Barrie Derringer and Alain Jackson, Defendants, by the known illegal and unjustifiable “Motion for ‘contempt’” on November 27, 2012. The Petitioner and her unethical attorney Alain Jackson have reveled in the total bias and prejudice of the trial court, and have sought even before any divorce was filed on February 8, 2012, for the Petitioner to steal all property from the Derringer storage on February 4, 2012 so as to gain “possession” of all assets before filing DM-12-610 under the mistaken belief of “power perceived is power achieved” and “possession is 9/10ths of the law”. The “process” of the Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause to pre-defeat the appeal is designed to accomplish an illegitimate end. DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corporation, 124 NM 512, 953 P.2d 277. ; There is deceit here with the Petitioner without “good faith”. McKay v. Farmers & Stockmans Bank, 92 NM 181, 585 P.2d325 (Ct. App.) Cert denied 92 N.M. 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978) “Good faith is usually a question of fact.” The Petitioner’s “pleading” of November 27, 2012 is designed specifically to deprive “equal protection” before appeal against the Respondent and is meant for “improper purposes” under the meaning of Rule 11. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971).

Both the Petitioner and her attorney Alain Jackson have been “served” a copy of the Notice of Appeal of all orders and judgements on November 21, 2012 and have total knowledge that the jurisdiction of all matters is now in the NM Court of Appeals, including, but not limited to the un-Constitutional Judgement of November 15, 2012 that is unenforceable under egregious acts in violation of federal laws, Constitution, and “fraud”,  making it in violation of the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution Article VI, and other outrageous violations, giving cause under NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6) that the Judgement of November 15, 2012 cannot be enforced as written.

As a total violation of NMRA Rule 1-011 and in a blatant attempt to both circumvent the jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals and to attempt to continue to use the bias, prejudice and corruption of the trial court of Judge Hadfield, the Petitioner filed on November 27, 2012 a Petition for Order to Show Cause against the Respondent with the “trial court” when such motion had to be filed if at all with the court of jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.” This was not “error” or “mistake” by the Petitioner, but a well calculated illegal maneuver to attempt to again gain all monies and assets ‘before the appeal’ by mis-using the trial court to achieve once again “possession is 9/10ths of the law”, in predictable “fraud” and mis-use of the courts to gain all assets.

The Appellant requests sanctions be levied against both the Petitioner/Appellee Barrie Derringer and her attorney Alain Jackson for filing a “frivolous” pleading for improper purposes of fraud with the trial court to gain access to all moneys and property before an appeal can be perfected that encompasses “abuse of process” and “malicious prosecution” explicitly for the violations of the deprivation of due process and equal protection, and the criminal acts against the Appellant. US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239.; US v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288. This necessitates a “stay” against all Orders and Judgements of the underlying trial court to stop the continued abuse and bias against rights by Judge Hadfield to further destroy the “equal protection” of the Appellant since she refused to recuse for cause under NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D) and under mandates of US Code Title 28 Section 455, with her violations of Oath and discharge of duties to enforce Constitution and all “law”.  This court has become aware of the vicious and malicious violations of law by Petitioner Barrie Derringer with her own perjury and fraud in the DV-12-234 and No. 32,326 Order of Protection meant to destroy Constitutional rights of the 2^nd, 5^th and 14^th Amendments against David Derringer as well as violate property rights under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 and right to a “profession”. The continued fraud of Barrie Derringer and her attorney Alain Jackson is blatant in attempt to gain the bias “unjust enrichment” of the illegal order of Judgement of November 15, 2012 before it can be defeated by issues in the already taken appeal. This deception of the courts is both malicious and against Rule 11 for “improper purposes”. In re Stewart, 104 N.M. 337, 721 P.2d 405 (1986) “Protection of public is primary concern. The court’s primary concern...is to assure that the public is protected from dishonest attorneys, whatever the explanation for the dishonesty.”  ; In re Rickard, 93 N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248 (1979) “Unprofessional conduct involving dishonesty and fraud warrants disbarment.”These violations are mandated to be stopped by this court. In re Ayala, 102 N.M. 214, 693 p.2d 580 (1984) “Attorney disbarred for having engaged in ..misconduct, including subornation of false statements,..dishonesty, and intentional misrepresentations..in the form of false statements”.

RULE 11 STANDARDS NMRA 0-11 provides:  The signature of (a)... party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper: that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay....For a willful violation of this rule (a)...party may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary or other action.   In adopting an abuse of discretion standard for the review of an award of sanctions, the Supreme Court stated:  “A court may exercise its discretion and impose sanctions for a willful violation of the rule when it finds, for example, that a pleading or other paper signed by an attorney is not well grounded in fact, is not warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for its extension, or is interposed for an improper purpose.”  The primary goal of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court...Although the rule should be read in light of concerns that it will spawn satellite litigation and chill vigorous advocacy, an interpretation must give effect to the rules’ central purpose of deterrence. Id.; see also White v. General Motors Corp. 908 P.2d 675, 683 (10^th Cir. 1990) (sanctions are intended to deter future litigation abuse, punish present litigations abuse, compensate victims of litigation abuse, and streamline court dockets and facilitate case management); Invest Fin. Group. Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc., 815 P.2d 391, 404 (6^th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987). The Petitioner and Attorney Jackson filed the Petitioner Motion for Order to Show Cause to gain all property before an appeal is complete that would under law deny the Judgement of November 15, 2012 as written. This intentional Motion was not properly sent to the appeal court of jurisdiction to be considered, because the Petitioner Barrie Derringer wanted to further exploit the known bias and prejudice of the trial judge Hadfield for her own purposes of “unjust enrichment” and fraud. Sanctions are warranted against both the Petitioner/Appellee Barrie Derringer (or “Barrie Crowe”, as she claims to already have achieved a divorce) and against the fraud of Alain Jackson with attending violations of NMRA Rule 16-804 and “fraud with client” of Rule 16-401(B). United Nuclear Corp. V. General Atomic Co.  96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231 (1980) “ In imposing stringent sanctions, court are free to consider the general deterrent effect their orders may have on the instant case and on other litigation.” Sanctions are mandated to enforce the integrity of the judicial system rather than bend all law and rules to protect either an Appellee or an attorney. Invst Fin Group. Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc. 815 P.2d, 391, 404 (6^th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987) goals of Rule 11 are deterrence and punishment of offenders and compensation of their opponents for expenditure of time and resources responding to ill-founded pleadings and other papers. Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.   111 N.M. at 959 (1991). It is time to impose sanctions of Order from this Court to stop additional “equal protection” violations and additional fraud and “unjust enrichment” by Barrie Derringer;  Order for $18,000.00 fines and fees be assessed against Barrie Derringer and  against attorney Alain Jackson are in the best interest of the judicial system to prevent manifold errors in law and a miscarriage of justice of available appeal issues; and Order disciplinary action against attorney Jackson to be disbarred. Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.   111 N.M. at 959.(goals of Rule 11 are deterrence and punishment of offenders and compensation of their opponents for expenditure of time and resources responding to ill-founded pleading and other papers).   “The primary purpose of Rule 1-011 NMRA 2000 is to deter baseless filings in the district court by testing the conduct of counsel”. Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.   111 N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991). “An objective of Rule 1-011 is to promote good faith and honesty in pleading.” Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.   111 N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991). “A violation depends on what the attorney or litigant knew and believed at the relevant time, and involves the question of whether the litigant or attorney was aware that a particular pleading should not have been brought.” Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.  111 N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991).; Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp., 111 N.M. 670, 808 P.2d 955 (1991) Sanctions should be entered against an attorney rather than a party for violation of the “good ground” requirement of this rule only when a pleading or other paper is unsupported by existing law rather than unsupported by facts. This court is mandated to act and not protect the violations occurring here. In Rivera v.Brazos Lodge Corp., 111 N.M. 670, (1991), the trial court awarded sanctions in excess of $18,000.00 because of the violations of Rule 11. Attorney Jackson must be disbarred due to facilitation of the fraud of the Motion meant to take all money and property before an appeal and then not ever allow it to be recovered by the “fraudulent no contact order” in place in the appeal of No. 32,326 so the “unjust enrichment” if received by Barrie Derringer without redress, and the “facilitation” of this act by Attorney Alain Jackson must be addressed and sanctioned. 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." Lowe v. Bloom, 112 NM 203, 813 P.2d 480 (1991).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

1)                  Order an immediate stay on all Orders and Judgements of DM-12-610 pending appeal, inclusive, but not limited to the Judgement of November 15, 2012.

2)                  Vacate the hearing date of February 8, 2013 and allow the NM Court of Appeals to have the jurisdiction that they already have by law. 

3)                  Order sanctions against Barrie Derringer and Alain Jackson separately in the amount of $18,000.00 for malicious acts of a motion designed for “improper purposes” of fraud and to gain “unjust enrichment” of the use of the bias and prejudice of the trial judge before an appeal can be perfected.

4)                  Any other and all relief that is appurtenant and just for this matter.

Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________

David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                        December 7, 2012

Petitioner’s attorney

Alain Jackson, 423 6^th St. NW

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

On December 7, 2012 I hereby certify that I sent a  copy of this pleading to:

New Mexico Second Judicial District Court

400 Lomas NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102