IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Court of
Appeals No. __________
Second
Judicial District Court No. DM-12-0610
Rel.
DV-12-234
BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,
Appellee/Petitioner,
v.
DAVID
BRIAN DERRINGER,
Appellant/Respondent,
EXTREME EMERGENCY MOTION BY APPELLANT DAVID
DERRINGER TO 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 THE FINAL JUDGEMENT OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012 VOID, FRAUDULENT
AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6); ORDER TO STOP
NON-JURISDICTIONAL ACTIONS AFTER APPEAL IN THE TRIAL COURT; AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST THE APPELLEE AND HER ATTORNEY ALAIN JACKSON
COMES NOW the Appellant/Respondent
Pro-Se with his Motion as stated above.
The appellant
properly filed with this NM Court of Appeals a motion to stay all trial court’s
Orders pending decisions form the New Mexico Court of Appeals on December 5,
2012 that has been ignored even though “unopposed” in the recent calendar
notice, placing David Derringer again before a biased judge in a trial court
without any legal jurisdiction.
In the past interlocutory
appeal of DM-12-610 to NM Ct. App. No. 32,113, Judge Hadfield disregarded the
jurisdiction of the higher court and continued with the trial court before any
remand of the matter back to the trial court; thus working outside of
jurisdiction and judicial capacity to go ahead and hold a trial on August 23,
2012 when legally unable to do so. Respondent (Appellant) David Derringer had
already motioned the trial court Judge Hadfield to recuse for cause, and she
refused, and the NM Court of Appeals disregarded this issues in 32,113 and
allowed/forced David Derringer/Respondent to continue to be forced before a
biased and prejudiced Judge that was working against Constitution and all state
statutes and case laws. The NM Court of Appeals now has jurisdiction of the
“final judgment” of November 15, 2012 in this appeal, thus taking away again
the jurisdiction of the trial court, and still circumvents and disregards one
of the numerous issues of corruption in the underlying trial court by refusing
to rule on the Judge Hadfield recusal issues placed for the second time before
this NM Court of Appeals in this same underlying case. On November 15, 2012,
Judge Hadfield created a “final order” from the August 23, 2012 illegal hearing
when she did not have legal jurisdiction, and in this final judgment of this
current appeal, there are contradictions to the Order; violations of due
process, equal protection and Constitutional deprivations making that final
order/judgment fraud and unenforceable as written, without any ability under
rule time constraints for Judge Hadfield already having lost jurisdiction by
appeal and lost the time frame to rewrite of amend the final judgment. This
matter is already on appeal and unenforceable, and David Derringer cannot be
forced again before this biased judge with the NM Court of Appeals constantly
ignoring the public corruption and constitutional violations of Hadfield and
the working outside of jurisdiction when the jurisdiction is undeniably in this
NM Court of Appeals. Simply put, the NM Court of Appeals has a legal obligation
to grant a “stay” by the David Derringer motion for stay of December 5, 2012, and this
court has ignored this motion on the latest calendar notice of January 29, 2013. In the
interim, in retribution, retaliation and revenge of civil suit CV-12-10816 David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe (Barrie
Derringer) et al, Barrie has, with “knowledge” that the matter of
DM-12-610 is already on appeal, and with “knowledge” that the final order is
unenforceable under Rule 1-060, come on December 11, 2012 in perjury and fraud,
attempting to circumvent the higher courts, with attaching herself to the known
public corruption of Judge Hadfield with a bogus “order to show cause” to
attempt to force compliance with an unconstitutional final judgment before the
NM Court of Appeals can rule on the multiple issues involved in this matter.
Judge Hadfield, as before in No. 32,113 disregards the jurisdiction of the NM
Court of Appeals and proceeds to go ahead with a hearing scheduled on February
8, 2013 when she had no jurisdiction, and with the nonchalant attitude of the
NM Court of Appeals disregarding the David Derringer Motion for stay, as well
as not addressing the extreme issue of “recusal”, David Derringer is again
forced to be before Judge Hadfield illegally taking again David Derringer’s due
process and equal protection. On February 1, and again on February 5, 2013 David Derringer talked
to the FBI about the corruption of Judge Hadfield and of the NM Courts in
general, protecting one another having nothing to do with Constitution or laws
against citizens.
This unethical and non-jurisdictional
Final Order and Judgment 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 Judgment 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. 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.” In
short, this court has a duty to stop by “stay” all issues on appeal, without
the trial court being able to force through compliance of an illegal and
unconstitutional final judgment making it take even more of the time of the
Respondent and that of the courts to correct in the future, placing illegal
burdens upon the Appellant. The prior Motion for Stay of December 5, 2012 was “unopposed” and
thus by that reason alone as well as laws and facts favoring the Appellant
should already have been granted entirely to put a stop to the actions now
proceeding. Barrie Derringer is simply using the corruption of the trial court
to force her way without the legal system using laws cited by the Respondent.
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 Judgment 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 Judgment, 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 Judgment 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, tortuous 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 Judgment of November 15, 2012 wherein thus it is
unenforceable under NMRA RULE 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6) in total conflict
with federal superseding 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 Judgment is unenforceable and mandates rescinding the Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment. 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 judgments of Judge Hadfield cannot be upheld in total
violation of all law. Simply put, Judge Hadfield has herself lied in perjury in
the Judgment 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 13th 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
Judgment “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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment is lacking under law and therefore
no provisions of this Judgment 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 Judgment 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 judgment 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 judgment becomes final when all judicial labor in matter is
complete.” In the Judgment 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, 2012, 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 Judgment 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 5th and 14th 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 5th and 14th
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 Judgment,
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 5th and 14th 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).
EMERGENY THUS, 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 Judgment, and with “contradictions” within the Final Judgment 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 publicly
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
judgments 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 2nd 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 5th and 14th
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 Judgment 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 judgments 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
Judgment 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
judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 (10th
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 Judgment 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 2nd,
5th and 14th 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 Judgment 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
(10th 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 Judgment 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 judgment 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 judgment attempted to
be enforced. State ex rel. Baca v. Board of Comm’rs, 22
N.M. 502, 165 P.213 (1916) “Judgment 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 judgments,
...and it necessarily follows that final judgments 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 judgment 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 judgments 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 Judgment
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 Judgment 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 Judgments 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 2nd, 5th and 14th 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 Judgment 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 (10th 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 (6th
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 Judgment 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 (6th
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).
For all of the above, the NM Court of Appeals must apply “justice” and
Order a stop and stay to all trial court proceedings and orders, and to Order
to vacate the hearing of February
8, 2013 of DM-12-610 until a decision is made for recusal of Judge
Hadfield and the underlying issues on appeal.
Respectfully submitted by:
_______________________________
David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE February 5, 2013
Petitioner’s attorney NOT
OF RECORD WITH THIS NM COURT OF APPEALS
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-620-6688 New Mexico 87109.
On February 5, 2013 I hereby certify that I sent
a copy of this pleading to:
New Mexico Court of Appeals
clerk
P.O. Box 2008
Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87504
No comments:
Post a Comment