Barrie Derringer/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 FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE SCHEDULED HEARING ON JANUARY 8, 2013 FOR RESPONDENT TO GAIN ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION IN THIS MATTER DUE TO THE ONGOING VIOLATIONS OF LAWS AND COURT CORRUPTION, AND STATEMENT OF INNOCENCE OF ALL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT

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

Due to the undeniable corruption of this court, and refusal to obey laws, David Derringer has a right to procure an attorney for this matter, and the time allotted to be able to do so, although that itself will probably not stop the egregious acts of this court and the hearing of January 8, 2013 must be continued to gain that legal counsel. To date, all attorneys contacted know well the corruption of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and her hatred of men coming before her and some for that reason alone, not wanting to “lose” in any case, will not represent the Respondent under the current egregious circumstances of the presiding Commissioner. Civil Rights 13.4(4) Conspiracy 7.5  State and federal officers are liable under US Code Title 42 Sections 1983 and 1985(2) when they conspire based on fabricated evidence or false, distorted, perjury in testimony presented to official bodies and use such distortion to take rights from citizens. In determining whether federal law preempts state law, we assess whether the state law actually conflicts with the federal law or interferes with the purpose of the federal law. See Ray v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158, 98 S. Ct. 988, 55 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1978).

The Respondent has properly attempted to gain legal compliance from this court over both past and ongoing issues, including the upcoming hearing of January 8, 2013, with the recent filing of: MOTION FOR THE COURT TO PRODUCE WRITTEN MEMORANDUM PRIOR TO THE HEARING OF JANUARY 8, 2013 EXPLICITLY DEFINING WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF IS TO BE USED IN THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DAVID DERRINGER OF THE ALLLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION FILED BY BARRIE DERRINGER ON DECEMBER 11, 2012, AND TO MANDATES OF “BURDEN OF PROOF” STANDARDS THAT WILL BE UPHELD AGAINST BARRIE DERRIGNER, WITH WHAT OBJECTIVENESS WILL BE DEFINED FOR ANY PROVABLE PERJURY AND FRAUD UNDER NOTARY BY BARRIE DERRINGER IN THAT FILING OF DECEMBER 11, 2012, which was simply ignored and summarily “denied” by this court, ( a motion that was simply requesting the court to act at all times according to “law”) setting the obvious writing on the wall that this court will not rule according to law, and thus this court will continue to make “arbitrary and capricious” decisions that deny any “due process and equal protection” of David Derringer without “any standard of proof” or evidence, which makes the court of such corruption that NMSA Rule 60 will apply in any and all decisions from this court of “fraud”, and decisions not according to the laws of this state or nation. Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2 651 (1985) the deprivation of 2^nd Amendment rights on February 21, 2012 did not occur pursuant to an official custom or procedure, and was entirely in opposition to any standard of proof, and in violation of the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 ruling that obviously overpowers Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar.  Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar has already  violated Constitution and Civil Rights 13.4(2) and she  is accountable via 1983 action where she is in a position of responsibility, and knows or should have known of her gross Constitutional misconduct and yet failed to prevent future harm against David Derringer, and will do so again to stop 1^st Amendment rights, thinking that she can “order” David Derringer to stop allowing the world to know of her corruption via the Internet by exposing “public record” on Google blogs. Obviously, this court will not thus enforce any “burden of proof” from the Petitioner, and will simply rule according to frivolous and arbitrary feelings of the Commissioner herself upon any information or lack thereof in this entire matter; as has been already done against David Derringer by this court on February 21, 2012. A quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis added). Clearly, this places Respondent David Derringer in a position of mandated “refusal” under any set of circumstances to divulge to this court where he resides, where he can be found outside of court or any other situation that obviously would endanger the life and well being of David Derringer. Where the state is not in compliance with the federal regulations because of judicial constructions that circumvent or undermine the legislative intentions of the act, and because this court cannot mis-use perceived power to persecute and malign a citizen without “equal protection” of law in non-compliance with federal regulations and statutory and case laws, this court or Commissioner cannot order David Derringer into psychiatric evaluation, (particularly without also the Petitioner into same), and the Commissioner cannot order David Derringer to disclose his living parameters, and the Commissioner cannot infringe upon the Constitutional rights of United States Citizens, as those Constitutional parameters that are protected under the federal mandates, including, but not limited to safety of the Respondent at all times, without violations of any further 1^st, 4^th or 5^th Amendment rights. If the state is going to make rules or practice procedures, which deny those rights, then the state actions become void, and this issue prevails over any other under consideration. And where the Constitution of the state or the state statutory laws are subverted through similar means, the people have no duty to perform unless under threat or coercion by further illegitimate means in order to protect their very lives. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.” It seem fully the intent of this court, with denying any ability of duty of this court to perform according to the rules of evidence or standard of proof, that nothing will be necessary from the Petitioner besides blatant and unverified accusations, conjecture and allegations, but that this court will continue to act outside of law and grant any and all outrageous requests of a Petitioner regardless of legal inability to do so.

David Derringer has a 1^st Amendment right to expose the corruption of this court and underlying matter to the “world” on the Internet, as the blogs are not connected in any way to any other web site or email of any others, but will enable the world to see the atrocities of the Commissioner and the Second Judicial District court and the lack of enforceable laws in the United States. The Respondent for his own safety and self protection, has no legal recourse but to continue to expose these and other unlawful activities until some element of the Government takes corrective action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993). Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar has already been turned into head Justice Ted Baca for Constitutional deprivations and outrageous acts outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity doing Constitutional deprivations without any “standard of proof” and the corruption of the family courts has been disregarded. Silva v. Town of Springer, 912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M. 375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996 Public official as a reasonable person would have known that his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.”

This court is both “refusing and ignoring” all Constitution and laws in an absolutism of public corruption and mis-use of perceived power against all US Citizens, but in particular against “men” in general and also pro-se parties in particular. This leaves a citizen with a dictatorship of tyranny by a public official ruining lives and depriving the Constitutional and statutory rights of any person before them; in particular it is well known in attorney circles that Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar hates men and rules accordingly in persecution thereof, well outside of law and in discharge of duties under any Oath or available rational reasoning. Federalist No. 47 by James Madison, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” Respondent David Derringer repeatedly has both attempted to present witnesses and evidence as well as legal court pleadings to this court, and the “law” of the United States of America under Constitution, statues, US Code and case laws are entirely ignored by this court, with rulings in bias capricious and irrational manners that have nothing to do with “law”. The New Mexico public thus is severely injured by this court, both in members of society coming before it and the egregious acts of a public official mis-using tax payer monies to waste the time of the courts, rule not according to law, and thus forcing some to be oppressed, and others forced to take matters to appeal, thus wasting the additional time and resources of the judicial system, all due to an outrageous Commission and corruption of the family court system that is not being properly addressed. Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them..”

            Respondent David Derringer has properly filed a: 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, of which the clear intent here, without a ruling directly upon that motion filed, is that the Commissioner will refuse to obey the Rules of Civil Procedure NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D) and will “refuse” to step down on January 8, 2013, and then will continue to proceed on that date to rule not according to law or Constitution, leaving the Respondent again as on February 21, 2012 without “due process or equal protection of the laws”, forcing yet further Constitutional deprivations without legal ability, and forcing the Respondent to yet again appeal the process of outrageous acts without jurisdiction or judicial ability of this court, further wasting both the time and resources of the Respondent as well as wasting the tax dollars of the public; all due to the arrogance and disgusting corruption of this court.

STATEMENT OF COMPLETE INNOCENCE OF DAVID DERRINGER OF ALL ALLEGATIONS EVER BROUGHT IN DV-12-234

David Derringer, Respondent is innocent of all allegations, and is “presumed innocent” in a valid equal protection court in the United States of America until any preponderance of evidence to the contrary is presented that is clear and convincing, that of itself does not preclude appeal over same.

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 in 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.

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. What happened past is that Commissioner simply ruled without law by her own conjectures. Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in trial court’s opinion.”

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”, and David Derringer is attempting to gain an attorney to mandate the corruption of this court is stopped or at lease further exposed. State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me. 1996.; 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.; SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300 Subd. A(3) 21-400.

What occurred here both prior to the first decision, and now again in allegations, is that 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, and alcohol. 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.

            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. 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. 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. ; Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Now, Barrie Derringer intends to use the known bias and prejudice of her “in pocket” 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.

            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.

            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.          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.

            On December 11, 2012, Barrie and attorney Alain Jackson have filed a bogus, fraudulent and malicious allegations of violations of the Order of Protection of DV-12-234. 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 February 21, 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.

            David Derringer has not violated the Order of Protection by exercising 1^st Amendment rights; David Derringer is not mentally incompetent, is not under any influence of alcohol, drugs of any kind, and does not have any emotional instability; and David Derringer has no possession of any firearms as per the Order of Protection parameters of February 21, 2012.

            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.

            For the above reasons, the hearing of January 8, 2013 must be continued with enough time to enable David Derringer to procure an attorney for legal representation, wherein as pro-se, even though David Derringer quotes the Constitution, laws, mandates of rules of evidence and required standard of proof that must be used in this court, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar defies the law against a pro-se party, and the record must then show her defying the law even after the Respondent has an attorney representing him in this matter.

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 January 4, 2013.