IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
DM-12-610
BARRIE
DERRINGER
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID DERRINGER
Respondent,
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE SCHEDULED HEARING ON FEBRUARY 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 THAT NO VIOLATION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS
BEEN DONE AS THE NOVEMBER 15, 2012 FINAL JUDGEMENT IS FRAUD AND UNENFORCEABLE
AND CONTRADICTORY AS WRITTEN
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 February 8, 2013
must be continued to gain that legal counsel. To date, all and multiple attorneys
contacted know well the corruption of Judge Hadfield and the violations of
Constitution from cases in her courtroom, 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 Judge Hadfield. 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 motioned Judge Hadfield to recuse for “cause” under
Constitution, case laws and her violations of NM state statutory laws, and she
has refused to step down, thus time after time forcing David Derringer before
this biased judge that takes away all due process and equal protection. David
Derringer has talked to the FBI in December, 2012 about the public corruption
of Judge Hadfield and again on February 1, 2013 and again on February 5, 2013
with other parties that have been before her also with a deprivation of due
process and equal protection and the likely possibility of “payoffs” underlying
some of the unethical and unconstitutional decisions coming from this court
that under law simply cannot be made at any time.
The Respondent has properly
attempted to gain legal compliance from this court over both past and ongoing
issues, including the upcoming hearing of February 8, 2013, with the recent
filing of: 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, and the underlying “recusal” issue, 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” of which the November 15, 2012
final judgment is totally lacking with Constitutional deprivations and
“contradictory” wording) 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 2nd Amendment rights on
February 21, 2012 and included in the final judgment of November 15, 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 Judge Hadfield. Judge Hadfield continues
to violate the 2nd Amendment rights in the final judgment of November 15, 2012 and in
violation of federal case law already established. U.S. v. Emerson (1999
- 5th Judicial Circuit - Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) 270 F.3d 203 5th
Cir 2001- reversed the conviction of a
man prohibited from owing a gun as part of a marital restraining order on
grounds that this deprived him of his Second Amendment rights. United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d
203 (5th Cir. 2001), is a decision by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution guarantees
individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii),
a federal statute which prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition
in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its
explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner
or child. The Fifth Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis of the
text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including
many state supreme court decisions), and it ultimately determined that the
Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. In 2002,
the Ninth Circuit ruled
that the domestic order of protection denied Constitutional rights Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). In 2008, the D.C.
Circuit held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, in Parker v. District of Columbia,
478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) which was reviewed by the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. (2008). In the District
of Columbia v. Heller decision the Supreme Court ruled that the
Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear
arms". Moreover, on April 20, 2009, in Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2009) a panel of
the 9th Circuit affirmed and further expanded the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller 2nd amendment
decision. The court stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and is
incorporated against all states. Both Judge O'Scannlain and Judge Gould
concurred that "the right to bear arms is a protection against the
possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and
though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with
individual diligence. And while the Second Amendment thus stands as a
protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition
of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the
Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable
regulation of weaponry."
In this case,
Judge Hadfield blatantly disregards, Constitution, case laws, higher rulings of
federal courts and her lack of jurisdiction when the NM Court of Appeals has
the case and simply continues on as though she were the only court justice in
the United States. Clearly, maybe not even any attorney can get through to this
judge to “comply with oath”, Canon and the Code of Judicial Standards: Canon
3 (B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to
the law and maintain professional competence in it; but certainly Judge
Hadfield will not listen or comply with laws presented properly by a pro-se
citizen. Hence, Judge Hadfield will
continue to defile David Derringer’s rights, privileges and immunities and will
disregard everything save her own writing of the final judgment and force these
legal atrocities against David Derringer without proper recusal on February 8, 2013 without a continuance of
this hearing, giving both time for David Derringer to find some attorney to
face this corruption and time for the FBI and the NM Court of Appeals to rule
according to and enforce the laws of this state and nation. Judge Hadfield 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 all
Constitutional 1st , 2nd, 4th, 5th,
13th and 14th 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 and do whatever it
takes to kill David Derringer by attrition or “other”, muzzle David
Derringer’s exposure of these atrocities, and ruin David Derringer’s life
undeniably. 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 Judge herself upon any information or lack thereof in this
entire matter; and will act to punish and persecute David Derringer before or
to “obstruct” the appeal already ongoing. 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, Judge Hadfield and the court cannot
Order David Derringer to comply with a final judgment that writing contradicts
itself particularly to Barrie Derringer paying past pre-marriage “IRS” debt,
that David Derringer already paid by his sole and separate inheritance, and
with “community income” under parameters of NMSA 45-2-804, that Hadfield
“disregards”, and thus even the writing of the final judgement is both
incomprehensible and unconstitutional; cannot order David Derringer to disclose
his living parameters, and 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 1st, 2nd
, 4th , 5th , 13th , or 14th
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 seems fully the intent of this court, 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, and will
attempt to enforce an illegal, fraudulent and unconstitutional final judgment
that contradicts itself; or without any jurisdiction due to time restraints
under “rules”[1] will attempt
on February 8, 2013, to rewrite and redo the final judgment to correct
“contradictions” without jurisdiction to do so due to the appeal, and yet will
still claim that David Derringer has violated the original final judgment. NMSA
39-1-1. Final judgments and decrees, entered by district courts in all
cases... shall remain under the control of such courts for a period of thirty
days after the entry thereof..” (final judgment entered on November 15, 2012, and
hearing on February 8, 2013
with no ability to amend the final judgment to “correct” the contradictions)
In short, there is no legal way of stopping the corruption of Judge
Hadfield, as to why David Derringer has had multiple conversations of “public
corruption” regarding these matters with the FBI with the last conversation
including another NM citizen with also a case under Judge Hadfield coming forth
to the FBI with David Derringer on February 5, 2013, and with other “pro-se”
victims of the Hadfield court also being found and willing to testify to the
FBI regarding the “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under
color of law” in violations of due process, equal protection and Constitutional
deprivations, which are “federal criminal acts” [US Code Title 18 Sections 241,
242] in which Judge Hadfield has no “immunity”. Consolo v. George, 58 F.3d 791 cert. denied 116
Supreme Court 520, 133 L.Ed.2d 428 “ CA1 (Mass.) 1995 Operative inquiry on
qualified immunity is not whether defendants actually abridged plaintiff’s
Constitutional rights, but whether defendants’ conduct was objectively
reasonable, given Constitutional understandings then current.”; Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield,
87 F. Supp. 508 affirmed 76 F.3d 1 “Law or Constitutional right is “clearly
established” such that public official who violated it is not entitled to
qualified immunity if its contours are sufficiently clear that reasonable
person would understand its terms and be able to measure his or her conduct
against it.”
David Derringer has a 1st
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 Second Judicial District court and the lack of enforceable
laws in the United States, and as previously mentioned, David Derringer and
with others coming forth under the illegal tyranny of Judge Hadfield are
talking to the FBI about the “public corruption”. David Derringer will continue
to seek out others in the family court that have faced similar deprivation of
rights. 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). Judge Hadfield has already
been turned into the Judicial Standards Commission twice by David Derringer
,with the corruption and good o’l boy system taking no action, as to why now
letters have been written to the Department of Justice in Washington and the FBI has been involved. 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 pro-se
parties in particular, as several of the parties contacted under Judge Hadfield
are both “Respondents” and defending themselves “pro-se”. 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 and has already been exposed to
the judicial community and to the public in the past election that Judge Hadfield
destroys “constitutional rights” 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 cited all authorities, Constitutional US Code,
NM Statutes and state and federal case laws to Judge Hadfield; all of which
have been ignored totally, with then forthcoming rulings in bias capricious and
irrational manners that have nothing to do with “law” such as the Order of
April 10, 2012 and the final judgment of November 15, 2012. 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..”
Previously,
David Derringer has filed written motions and verbal motions for legal cause
for Judge Hadfield to recuse as the Judge not only violates the law, but
disregards the rules of the court and the jurisdiction of higher courts both
upon appeal and with prior decisions of the subject matter upon which the low
“District Court of a State of New Mexico” cannot supersede rulings by the US
Supreme Court or federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. Tucker v. Outwater, 118
F.3d 930 cert denied 118 S. Ct. 562, 522 US 997, 139 L.Ed.2d 402 “Judge will be
denied immunity for damages where he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction,
and knew or must have known that he was acting in such manner.” Upon notice,
Judge Hadfield then chooses to deny mandates of the Rules of Civil Procedure
NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D) and will “refuse” to step down again on February 8, 2013,
and then will continue to proceed on that date to rule not according to law or
Constitution, leaving the Respondent again 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. Green v.
Clarendon County School Dist. Three, 923 F. Supp. 829 “Test of
qualified immunity is whether defendant has engaged in conduct that violates
clearly established Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.”; Owen v. City of
Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779
“Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person”
acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a
deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to
immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with
general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of
them”.; Beal v. Reidy,
80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive
party of due process of law.”
For the
above reasons, the hearing of February 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, Judge Hadfield is oblivious to the laws of this state and
nation, and 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 February
6, 2013
I
hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the Second
Judicial District Court on 400 Lomas NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 6,
2013.
This
date, I mailed a copy of this pleading to:
Petitioner’s attorney
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
[1] Albuquerque Prods. Credit Ass’n v. Martinez,
91 N.M. 317, 573 P.2d 672 (1978) NMSA 39-1-1, 1978, giving district courts
jurisdiction over judgments and decrees for 30 days after entry thereof.”
No comments:
Post a Comment