IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. DV-12-234 rel. DM-12-610
Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent/Appellant,
APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN CHIEF
APPEAL FROM THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
HONORABLE ALISA HADFIELD
DISTRICT JUDGE
Respectfully submitted by:_____________________
David Derringer Pro-se
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page number
Summary of Proceedings. Page 1
Legal Argument Page 4
Point 1. Page 4
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Point 2 Point 2 Page 6
NO JURISDICTION OR JUDICIAL CAPACITY OF HEARING WITHOUT
PROPER LEGAL SERVICE TO RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER
Point 3 Point 3 Page 7
BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST PRO-SE PARTIES MANDATING RECUSAL FOR CAUSE
Point 4 Point 4 Page 10
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS US CODE TITLE 42 SECTION 1981 AND SECTION 1982 “PROFESSION”
Point 5 Point 5 Page 12
CRIMINAL ACTS OF PERJURY AND FRAUD BY BARRIE
Point 6 Page 13
INTIMIDATION OF A RESPONDENT/WITNESS BY THE COMMISSIONER
Point 7 Page 14
VIOLATION OF 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITHOUT ANY STANDARD OF PROOF IN CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Request for relief Page 33
Conclusion. Page 34
Statement Regarding Transcripts
There were hearings, exhibits, and transcripts of Bernalillo County Case DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 that should be considered as all are intertwined with the fraud and deprivations in this matter
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
US Constitution
US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986
Title 28 Section 455(a)
Canon 3(B)(2)(7), 3(D)(2)
Civil Rights 13.4(4) Conspiracy 7.5 Page 14, 21
Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary responsibilities
Adamson v. C.I.R. CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541 Page 10, 26
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
Alexander v. Delgado, 84 NM 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973) Page 30
Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 Page 4,
Barela v. Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966) Page 10
Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) Page 4,
Benevidez v. Benevidez, 99 N.M. 535, 660 P.2d 1017 (1983) Page 10
Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 “CA6 (Mich.
California v. Ramos, 463 U.S.
(1983) Page 26
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
69 L.Ed.2d 965 Page 9, 21
DB v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Education, 985 F. Supp. 457, affirmed 159
F.3d 1350 “DNJ 1997 Page 6
Desjardin v. Albuquerque National Bank, 93 N.M. 89, 596 P.2d 858 (1979) Page 10
Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d at 596 (10th Circuit 1976) at 599 Page 26
Dunn v. McFeeley, 984 P.2d 760, 127 NM 513, 1999-NMCA-084 cert. denied Page 29
Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton
Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 Page 29
(Ct. App. 1972) Page 31
Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802 Page 11
Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993) Page 30
In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194 Page 7, 26
In re A.tl Robins Co. Inc., 97 BR 525 ED.Va 1995 Page 7
In re Ayala, 102 N.M. 214, 693 p.2d 580 (1984) Page 11
In re Doe, 519 P.2d 133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Page 8
In re Hey, 193 W. Va.
In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 Page 18
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S.
118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972) Page 22
Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d Page 11
Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961 ) Page 25
Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309,
US App. DC 97 Page 7
McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA
Mead v. O’Connor, 66 NM 170, 344 p.2d 478 (1959) Page 30
Mireless v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991) Page 10
Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 Page 10, 21
Nissan Motor Corp. USA
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US
Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2009) Page 20
No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton Page 5
Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981 524 F. Supp. 927 Page 24
Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S.
Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2009) Page 20
Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S.
P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) Page 24
People v. Walsh, 210 Ill. Dec. 126, 652 N.E.2d 1102, 273 Ill.
App. 3d 453, Ill
Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del.
Phelps v. Hamilton
Robbins v. Wilkie, 433 F.3d 755 C.A.10.Wyo.,2006 Page 10
Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61
N.M.,1967 Page 10, 26
Rozelle v. Barnard, 72 NM 182, 382 P.2d 180 Page 31
Salitan v. Carrillo, 69 N.M. 476, 368 P.2d 149 (1961) Page 6
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985 )
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) Page 20
Smith v. Bradfield, 97 N.M. 611, 642 P.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1982) Page 6
State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964) Page 32
State v. Hargrove, 81 NM 145, 464, P.2d 564 (Ct. App. 1970).
Mead v. O’Connor, 66 NM 170, 344 p.2d 478 (1959) Page 30
State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940)
(1963) Page 31
State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me.
State v. Miller, 92 NM 520, 590 P.2d 1175 (1979) Page 30
State v. Sedillo Page 30
State ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966) Page 6
Stoneking v. Bank of America
Suster v. Marshall
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice and Procedure 2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) Page 25
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985 ). Page 24
Tyus v. Martinez , 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US
90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 Page 11
United Salt Corp. v. McKee 96 N.M. 65, 628 p.2d 310 (1981) Page 5, 31
US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill.
cert. denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139 L.Ed.2d 148 Page 7
(Marshall, C.J.)
US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.
US v. Ellis WDSC 1942, 43 F.Supp. 321 Page 32
and Mississippi
US v. Guest , US Ga.
US v. Hanhardt, 134 F.Supp.2d 972 ND Ill.
US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d. 1 Page 8
US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Page 8, 13
US v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513
US 941 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied
US v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479
US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1512 Page 4, 12
297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744
Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City
14 F.3d 818 Page 4
Wisdom v. Kopel, 95 N.M. 513, 623, P.2d 1027 (Ct. App. 1981) Page 10
This matter started with Barrie Derringer, whom was already bi-polar and suicidal, and on many medications of codeine, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, sedatives and tranquilizers, going through a disaster on December 23, 2011 of the Derringer home burning by arson two days before Christmas, killing 5 of the Derringer dogs, just after the week prior of three other Derringer pets had died of old age, and Barrie Derringer going mentally out-of-control with cult control of her parents and bosses at Maestas and Ward, with the unethical attorney Alain Jackson, to leave the Derringer Marriage on December 27, 2011, leaving her husband in the aftermath of the disaster. Barrie Derringer had an entire personality change on December 27, 2011, and was preyed upon by the opportunistic scavengers, so as to ruin the Derringer marriage, and possibility even precipitate Barrie Derringer going back to the gang of persons of her former life that included her biker past husband Charles Beverley that had previously gotten Barrie into severe alcohol use, marijuana and cocaine, and possibly other illegal drugs and conduct. All during January, 2012, David Derringer attempted to both put the marriage back together, as David Derringer loves his wife with all of his heart and has never done anything but love and protect Barrie, with no abuse at any time physically, mentally, verbally or other, and at all times David Derringer sought to somehow gain the needed “counseling” for Barrie Derringer that she so desperately needs with bi-polar and PTSD, but the court corruption seeks only to herd citizens into divorce instead of support of the marriage institution and needed counseling for actual emotional problems that arise in the community. Barrie Derringer’s bosses and others convinced Barrie Derringer to set up her own separate abode with stealing community income and savings, in violation of laws, and with Barrie Derringer going more out-of-control in January, 2012, conspiracy plans were made to break into the Derringer storage by Barrie Derringer with 12 persons on February 4, 2012 on a “Saturday”; with two of those 12 persons being two of Barrie Derringer’s bosses of NAI Maestas as Ward Commercial Real Estate, Debbie and Irwin Harms; to steal all moveable Derringer property. Conspiracy plan was made for Barrie Derringer to break into the storage Unit of 101 Florida SE Unit C in Albuquerque that husband David Derringer had locked from Barrie Derringer in January 2012 to keep the irrational and mentally unstable “suicidal” Barrie Derringer from professional outfitter David Derringer’s loaded firearms, so as to protect “wife” Barrie Derringer from any harm. David Derringer (legal owner and lessee) caught the gang of 12 persons with Barrie Derringer attempting to take everything of the Derringer’s “personal property” well before filing any “divorce” action, on February 4, 2012 , and called “911”. To stop husband David Derringer’s “interference” with the planned “larceny” of all property by one marriage partner, the gang of 12 persons did criminal assault and battery against David Derringer before the police showed up; that included two Barrie Derringer bosses of Debbie and Irwin Harms. As the police sirens coming precipitated turning David Derringer loose from the battery, Barrie Derringer then ran right to her husband, placing both her hands on David Derringer’s face and stated: “calm down, you’re OK”, showing implicitly that Barrie Derringer has “no fear” of harm from David Derringer, just as also the Sprint phone text of January 2012 support; as exhibits to DV-12-234 (record proper). The Police report of David Derringer’s exhibits of DV-12-234 hearing of February 21, 2012 show there was nothing that happened between Barrie Derringer and David Derringer and no allegations of “domestic violence” were made by Barrie Derringer at any time with the police on February 4, 2012. The police “ordered” Barrie Derringer to leave the premises with her gang of 12 other persons on February 4, 2012 , and that she could not simply steal all property without a divorce settlement Order from a court of law.
In retribution, retaliation, and revenge for not being able to take all Derringer property before filing any divorce action, and in revenge for the police ordering Barrie Derringer to leave, as well as an attempt to violate and irritate David Derringer into having harsh feelings for his wife’s erratic actions, that would hopefully facilitate a divorce, Barrie Derringer criminally attacked David Derringer in both perjury and fraud by filing a bogus “civil petition for order of protection” claiming that on February 4, 2012 at the incident at storage in which there were many witnesses, Barrie Derringer “lied” that David Derringer had knocked her down, hurt her hip, caused bruises, kept Barrie Derringer from leaving and that Barrie Derringer is very afraid of physical harm from David Derringer, all of which is defeated as “perjury” by the police report and witnesses at the incident. Signing this “petition” of fraud and perjury under “notary” by Barrie Derringer constituted a “fourth degree felony” (NMSA 30-25-1), and Barrie Derringer is herself a notary and knows better than to lie under oath.
In the hearing of February 21, 2012 , Barrie Derringer presented no evidence, witnesses (although there were many that proved none of the allegations were true), no photographs of bruises, no doctor’s reports, and no “standard of proof” of the fraudulent “petition”. On the other hand, David Derringer was never legally served any summons, was prevented from proper testimony, prevented from presenting all evidence in defense, prevented from his witnesses, and totally denied due process and equal protection, from a court that had no “jurisdiction or judicial capacity” without service of summons, in “fundamental error”. Barrie Derringer then “impeached” herself under Oath to state that despite her written perjury that David Derringer had hurt her physically and her fear of David Derringer, Barrie Derringer testified that “David would not hurt me physically” (record proper DV-12-234 Feb 21, 2012).
In total manifest errors of “law” and in Constitutional violations, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar proceeded to grant an order of protection without any standard of proof in any issue, additionally illegally taking all Constitutional rights to firearms under violations of the 2nd Amendment, with full “knowledge” that David Derringer’s “profession” is an outfitter/hunter NM Fish and Game #32 that requires firearms for making a living, and a “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law as “criminal federal acts against David Derringer”, that was “denied” appeal by Judge Hadfield with no substantiation of denial upon “objection” appeal of the “findings and conclusions” of the Commissioner. David Derringer has now been illegally deprived Constitutional rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments, subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, ongoing for a period of one year and three months, “singled out” in America as a “targeted individual” for Constitutional persecution, from illegal acts by Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Alisa Hadfield, and the State of New Mexico, subjecting all to civil and criminal actions and civil rights deprivations entitling David Derringer to restitution, and compensation of at least $50,000,000.00 from each participant in this illegal “conspiracy against rights”, and “deprivation of rights under color of law” under the meaning of US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986; with which this court is mandated under “Canon” to disbar attorney Jackson, and seek removal from the bench of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield; already of which the high courts “have knowledge” and yet protect the NM Corruption of this matter. David Derringer has sought “recusal for cause” of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, whom stay on the cases to persecute the Appellant. David Derringer exposed this corruption to the NM Supreme Court in a petition for writ of superintending control against Judge Hadfield and “was denied”, which then brings us to this appeal of the underling corruption and Constitutional deprivations seeking legal redress. [ David Derringer’s “Petition for Writ of Superintending Control” with the New Mexico Supreme Court under No. 33,826, showing the violations of Constitution, Oath, Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon, exposing the “public corruption” of Judge Hadfield.]
Additionally, now as of December 11, 2012 , Barrie Derringer has committed additional perjury and fraud with “re-opening” the Order of Protection of DV-12-234 with lies that David Derringer has violated the Order of Protection. Barrie Derringer makes false claims of violations that have not occurred with simply the Appellant exercising 1st Amendment rights by placing legal public records of court pleadings of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 on the Internet exposing both the “lies” of Barrie Derringer to her parents, bosses, friends and to the courts in fraud, as well as exposing the public corruption of the State of New Mexico family court system of the “known hatred” of men by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield, and the severe “sedition and treason” of deprivation of Constitutional rights without due process by the bias of the judiciary, including violations of Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct, Oath and ignoring all laws that violated the Order of Protection. Barrie Derringer, in fraud attempts thus to mis-use the Order of Protection to “protect, herself, Judge Hadfield, bosses Maestas and Ward and her unethical attorney Alain Jackson” from the exposure on the Internet by David Derringer of the underlying corruption and lies by all involved. Political opposition “Republican” attorney David Standridge also used one of David Derringer’s public record court pleadings of DM-12-610 on his web site to show the corruption of Judge Hadfield. Barrie Derringer seeks an Order to muzzle any dissention to exposure of the lies and fraud by the aggrieved Appellant. In short, now, Barrie Derringer and the courts want to take away David Derringer’s 1st Amendment rights so that they can cover up the fraud and deprivations so the World Wide Web cannot see the corruption of “America
LEGAL ARGUMENT
POINT 1:
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
At the onset of the hearing of February 21, 2012 David Derringer stated that the hearing could not be held due to no legal service of summons, negating any “jurisdiction or judicial capacity of the court” in “fundamental error”. The Commissioner “ignored” the law and proceeded with the illegal hearing anyway in deprivation of due process and equal protection. The Commissioner Cosgrove-Aquilar constantly intimidated and harassed the Pro-Se Male party David Derringer with her well known hatred of men, by intimidating Derringer at all times regarding the “fact presented by the Commissioner herself without merit” that wife Barrie Derringer was determined to divorce David Derringer and that it is a woman’s right to change her mind and that the court would insist that there is no possible way of reconciliation and that protection would be afforded to Barrie Derringer despite any evidence to the contrary. Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in trial court’s opinion.”; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, 14 F.3d 818 “Determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis in reason.”; It is shown in record conclusively that this is a “female” court for the benefit of only the female of the species and will disregard any evidence of rights of Male parties depriving thus any male party due process and equal protection in abuse of discretion. Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive party of due process of law.” The commissioner conducted herself in abuse of the Respondent, deprivation of exhibits and witnesses and intimidated and sided with the Petitioner at all times getting more severe in bias as the hearing continued. US v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479 US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1512, “which prohibits any party from intimidating or harassing another party in order to influence testimony at official proceeding, does not require that party harassed or intimidated be witness at proceeding.” This matter is clearly seen in court record that it was a “woman” commissioner insisting that another “woman” is allowed to gain any possible source of ability for divorce at any time, despite marital contract, and that it is immaterial that Barrie Derringer perjured herself to the court. The court itself then claimed that Barrie Derringer in past meetings with David Derringer in which the court was not present, also perjured herself to David Derringer simply to “lead David Derringer on” to smooth the divorce procedure. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US
POINT 2:
NO JURISDICTION OR JUDICIAL CAPACITY OF HEARING WITHOUT
PROPER LEGAL SERVICE TO RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER
At no time was any Subpoena or Summons properly or legally served to Respondent David Derringer, making the hearing of February 21, 2012 jurisdictionally defective and mandated to be dismissed. David Derringer learned of the action only by attempting himself to file his “Petition for Court Ordered Psychiatric Evaluation, Counseling and Psychiatric or Medical Treatment for Petitioner’s Legal Wife Barrie Derringer” and attended the hearing despite not being properly served. This mandated the hearing be abandoned and set for a different date after legal service had been performed. Salitan v. Carrillo, 69 N.M. 476, 368 P.2d 149 (1961) “These Rules (Rules of Civil Procedure) are in the interest of the administration of justice and transcend in importance mere inconvenience to a party litigant.” The Order of Protection of February 21, 2012 must be vacated in its entirety as a matter of law. Smith v. Bradfield, 97 N.M. 611, 642 P.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1982) “The trial court is invested with a reservoir of equitable power to vacate a final order where justice clearly dictates in exceptional circumstances, such as where the court initially lacked jurisdiction.” In this matter as well “recusal” of Cosgrove-Aquilar was mandated sua sponte due to her partiality of “women” over any male Respondent. 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.” David Derringer was forced to stand before an impartial judge that was determined to award any remedy to a woman despite any evidence to the contrary and with total violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure. State ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966) “Requiring petitioner to stand trial before biased or prejudiced judge does not conform to adequate remedy.” In this matter the record shows a forceful animosity by the commissioner against David Derringer as simply a man trying to save his marriage in total love with his wife, and a showing that his wife had changed her “personality” in only one day to seek this redress due to an extreme situation of a home burning down and killing 5 of the Derringer dogs just after losing an additional three pets to old age only a week before; showing a matter of irrational acts of the Petitioner and not showing a lack of love of the Respondent. People v. Walsh, 210 Ill. Dec. 126, 652 N.E.2d 1102, 273 Ill. App. 3d 453, Ill App. 1 Dist. 1995 “To prevail on motion for substitution of judge for cause, accused has to show actual prejudice, animosity, hostility, ill-will, or distrust directed towards accused.”
POINT 3:
BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST PRO-SE PARTIES MANDATING RECUSAL FOR CAUSE
It is clear from the record that David Derringer was at a serious disadvantage as a “Pro-Se” party, with the court itself depriving David Derringer rights to questioning the Petitioner, cross examination, introduction of exhibits and deprivation multiple times to present David Derringer’s witness Bruce Davis. State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me. Del. USA February 4, 2012 in which date the Petitioners lies that physical abuse took place which it did not. [Exhibit 2 record proper] as the APD were in attendance, substantially proving the perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer in the Petition. 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.” The commissioner had to step down before the hearing in this matter due to her own predisposition of bias and prejudice against Pro-Se Male parties in sexual discrimination. Title 28 Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States
POINT 4:
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS US CODE TITLE 42 SECTION 1981 AND SECTION 1982 “PROFESSION”
David Derringer Civil Rights have been violated with rights to have equal protection and protect his property under US Code Title 42 Section 1981. Here, Petitioner Barrie Derringer had already gone to the travel trailer January 2nd, again on January 3rd, and again on January 8th, and taken any and all of what she wanted of the “community property” of both Derringer’s. Barrie Derringer then on February 4, 2012, with 12 persons broke into the Derringer storage on 101 Florida SE Unit C after David Derringer locked it for Barrie Derringer’s own protection of “suicidal attempts” wherein there were totally loaded firearms inside, and Barrie Derringer took most of the “community personal property” without David Derringer’s agreement or supervision, and thus already has not only her own claims to property, but also $55,000.00 of David Derringer’s personal possessions before they were married, including David Derringer’s two handguns and two rifles; one rifle admitted in possession of Barrie Derringer in the hearing of February 21, 2012. City of Memphis v. Greene, Tenn. 1981 101 S. Court 1584, 451 US 100, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 rehearing denied 101 S. Ct. 3100, 452 US 955, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 “Private Individuals-This section [Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982] guaranteeing all citizens of the US the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property is directly applicable to private parties.” Both Barrie Va. U.S.
POINT 5:
CRIMINAL ACTS OF PERJURY AND FRAUD BY BARRIE
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aquilar had direct proof of Barrie Derringer lying to the court time after time. U.S. v. Austin, 614 F. Supp. 1208 This mandated an Order to stop this criminal activity in the courtroom and a mandated directive to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute for criminal acts occurring in a court of law by Barrie Lee Derringer, with facilitation by attorney Alain Jackson NMRA Rule 16-401 ‘FRAUD WITH CLIENT’ and Rule 16-804. Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844 “The district court has duty and responsibility of supervising conduct of attorneys who appear before it.” Barrie Derringer knew she lied in the Petition after already seeing David Derringer personally many times in dark, secluded, and alone, and then lied to say she was afraid of David Derringer even in the courtroom itself. Her attorney Alain Jackson knew of the perjury and fraud of the Petition and conducted himself to facilitate the fraud and perjury within the courtroom to attain an Order of Protection that is not valid. Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230; Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193 “Authority of a court over officers of its bar is at least as great as its power over litigants”; “Fraud by Client” “ Paragraph B of 16-401 (Truthfulness in statements to others) recognizes that substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have assisted the clients’ crime or fraud.”; 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”. Jackson February 21, 2012 of DV-12-234 with “restitution” in extreme amounts to David Derringer. Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802
POINT 6:
INTIMIDATION OF A RESPONDENT/WITNESS BY THE COMMISSIONER
The record shows that the commissioner herself sided with the Petitioner time after time and punished the Respondent, admonished the Respondent and denied the Respondent every time the Respondent presented evidence of Barrie Derringer’s perjury and fraud, and the proven indications that Barrie Derringer could possibly repair the marriage with counseling. U.S. v. Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848 The commissioner was emphatic that David Derringer was not to pursue any attempt at reconciliation or attempt for “mediator or counseling” while also preventing the Respondent for any “care” of the medical and emotional condition of his wife that is clearly not addressed by the Petitioner herself or the court. In short the court does not care if the Petitioner is sound medically, physically, or sound emotionally, but rams through an Order for Protection in fraud simply to help the woman escape a marriage in which she changed her mind and personality in one day after a disaster event on December 27, 2011 . US v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479 US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1512 There was a “conspiracy” here to allow the Petitioner to ravage the “community property” and be “protected” in doing so by a “woman” commissioner protecting another “woman” having nothing to do with law in violation of all rights of the “husband”. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US
POINT 7:
VIOLATION OF 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITHOUT ANY STANDARD OF PROOF IN CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
David Derringer’s rights under the 2nd Amendment have been denied without any standard of proof whatsoever, without any evidence and sustained on proven perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer.
Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The main contention was an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation. The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States village of Oak Park
Under the unlawful Order of Protection, both David Derringer, and any other citizen subjected to the pre-formed Order by the 2nd Judicial District Court is denied self-defense as a matter of course of any person affected by an order of protection without any reasoning or cause. The US Supreme Court has already reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. In this matter, several Derringer pets have been killed needlessly by coyotes due to the prevention available if only David Derringer had had his firearms to protect them. David Derringer has also been under a “death threat” with no means of protecting himself. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. U.S. v. Emerson (1999 - 5th Judicial Circuit - Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) - 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.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of people, the word "people" to mean citizens as individuals; otherwise the founding fathers would have said the rights of states. Well-armed individuals can defend themselves better from crime, studies citing an estimated 2.5 million defensive gun usages (DGU) a year. Gun ownership is a personal freedom because you can determine your own fate, and this right is near the top of the list of fundamental freedoms. Civil Rights Act of 1866. “That amendment declared that all persons in the United States United States US
The US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 is the case, McDonald v. Chicago, and was the logical follow to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That 2008 decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. The decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not state exemption of New Mexico
David Derringer is a “free” citizen in New Mexico never convicted of any crime, and has certainly done no crimes against Barrie Derringer, a wife that David Derringer loves with all of his heart, despite a strong possibility of emotional and mental disorders requiring medications by Barrie Derringer in a bi-polar condition that necessitates attaining a “balance” from the taking of prescription drugs of tranquilizers, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, hormone medications and pain medications with addictive drugs included such a codeine (such drug can be a hallucinogen and can distort reality for users), such as, but not limited to ibuprofen, pseudovent, oxycodone, flonase, benzonatate, hydrocodone, allegra, promethazine, estradiol, guaifen, acetaminophen with codeine, and singulair. All of these drugs when combined with any alcohol or absolutely with any use of marijuana, cocaine, meth or heroin would cause an explosion of delusions or death or strong suicidal tendencies; and the strong possibility of Barrie Derringer again as in the past history doing alcohol abuse, marijuana and cocaine that disrupt her way of thinking and indeed create a penchant to “lie”. As exposed on the Internet, Peter R. Breggin, MD recent studies show that those antidepressants that are supposedly helping emotionally challenged people like Barrie Derringer actually are making them crazy, violent, suicidal, agitated, and Barrie Derringer has admitted under oath to being suicidal in DM-12-610 on August 23, 2012. “Accusing” David Derringer of domestic violence that never happened, while Barrie Barrie United States
The case DV-12-234 has had “fundamental error” from the onset, to where the 2nd Amendment violations are simply a culmination of the extreme egregious acts of prior violations of the 4th, 5th , 13th, and 14th Amendments. The upcoming attack on the 1st Amendment by Barrie and Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield is of running rampant and out of control in a total disregard all former case laws, disregard the US Supreme Court rulings and violations of “due process and equal protection” wherein public officials all “swore to God” to uphold the law of the United States and instead performs acts of their own agenda and personal beliefs as simply acts by “judges” without jurisdiction acting without law, but not acts that are “judicial in nature”. Both Cosgrove, and Hadfield, simply will not comply with any law of Constitution, NM statutory laws, US Code, or case laws blaspheming their Oath; constituting “criminal perjury” of the justices involved that must be prosecuted to protect the integrity of the judicial system. In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 “An oath is an affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting an untruth punishable for perjury.”; Canon: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.” Phelps v. Hamilton
THE RIGHT TO ARMS CLAUSE
In past, the Supreme Court has consistently refused (denied certiorari) to hear cases involving this clause of the Second Amendment. They have expressed opinions only in a few, obtusely related cases, and prefer to express themselves by letting Appellate Court rulings stand. Scholars such as Halbrook (1986; 1993) consider much of that case law to be unconstitutional, with academic debates focusing on the meaning of words like "people", "keep and bear", and "arms." Before we discuss those debates, let's look at what few Supreme Court rulings there actually were.
· U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) - involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their rights to assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied.
· U.S. v. Emerson (1999 - 5th Judical Circuit - Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) - 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.
Individual rights advocates, like the NRA, interpret the word "people" to mean citizens as individuals. Collective right advocates, like the HCI, interpret the word "people" to mean the collective body, as in the American people. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by individual rights advocates to mean the retention of personal firearms in the home, the free carrying of them elsewhere, and learning how to handle them. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by collective right advocates in the military sense that soldiers "bear" arms, civilians "carry" them, and society doesn't need citizen-soldiers since we have arsenals and public barracks in the form of police. The word "arms" is interpreted by individual rights advocates as anything suitable for militia or military purposes (the insurrectionist argument). The word "arms" is interpreted by collective right advocates as weapons suitable for hunting or self defense only. Each side seems to pick and choose whatever interpretive approach suits their purposes, but these are the most common interpretations. Hardy (1986) presents a nice word-by-word breakdown of the Second Amendment in terms of collective v. individual approaches, and argues for a hybrid, or dual purpose, approach.
US Supreme Court No. 10-1521- case law this NM Court of Appeals is forced to obey.
The case, McDonald v. Chicago, was the logical follow to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That 2008 decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service of which David Derringer is lawfully entitled. But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park had a ban on handgun ownership virtually identical to Washington United States
The deprivation of David Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights on February 21, 2012 and included in the final judgment of November 15, 2012 of intertwined DM-12-610 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" and David Derringer is included as a US New Mexico
At all times David Derringer preserved his 2nd Amendment rights, as under Constitution rights are guaranteed and do not have to be protected day by day or from person to person. Yet at all times from the onset of the hearing of February 21, 2012 and ongoing in both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 David Derringer has continued to state his rights to both firearms, a profession of professional outfitter/big game hunter No. 32 in New Mexico as registration with NM Game and Fish, and a right to an occupation by case laws exclaiming that a "profession" is a property right, which brings it under jurisdiction of the US Code Title 42 Section 1982. Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972. A constitutional right is a legal right of its citizens (and possibly others within its jurisdiction) protected by a sovereignty's constitution. The United States Constitution has several articles and amendments that establish constitutional rights. Although debated in political circles, the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" establishes a right to own, possess, and use firearms for lawful purposes, and the fairly recent ruling by the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 established the right for firearms as a "personal right" "not to be infringed", under the meaning of right to "bear" meaning right to possess and hold. The 2nd Amendment involving “firearms” includes such tangible items as “personal property” as defined available for all citizens under US Code Title 42 Section 1982. City of Memphis v. Greene, Tenn. 1981 101 S. Court 1584, 451 US 100, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 rehearing denied 101 S. Ct. 3100, 452 US 955, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 “Private Individuals-This section [Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982] guaranteeing all citizens of the US the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property is directly applicable to private parties.”. Not only can there be “no infringement” of the right to firearms under the 2nd Amendment, but under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 there can be no “interference” with owning, using and possession of “personal property of firearms”. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Congress provided that the right to real and personal property was to be enjoyed equally throughout the United States
The “justice” in New Mexico is somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and burning at the stake, having nothing to do with Constitution or law, but only the egotistical tyranny and oppression of judicial persons in power; New Mexico known as the “land of entrapment” that can easily be seen as a “dictatorship”. David Derringer “protected” his 2nd Amendment rights from the unlawful DV-12-234 that was held without due process, equal protection, without legal service of summons, under provable perjury and fraud, and with a proven bias and prejudiced Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar that hates “men”, and without any standard of proof mandated, and with no criminal charges of “domestic violence”. The Commissioner stuck an Order of Protection against David Derringer for a period of two years, summarily taking Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment as a matter of illegal “regularity” by a standardized “form” blanketed against all that enter this court. “Order of Protection” 2: Consequences of entry of order of protection (B) “if you are the spouse or former spouse of the other party, an individual who cohabitates with or has cohabitated with the other party, or if you and the other party have had a child together, federal law prohibits you from possessing or transporting firearms or ammunition, you should immediately dispose of the firearm or ammunition.” Clearly, without due process of law, and without any domestic violence violation, and without any criminal conviction of either a firearms violation or domestic violence violation, “federal law” does not presume that the citizen is guilty of any matter to prevent possession, use or ownership of firearms. US Citizens are innocent until proven guilty. The “standardized” form of the 2nd Judicial District Court Order of Protection simply, without due process or cause takes Constitutional rights as a matter of every citizen that comes before them. In this matter involving David Derringer, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the order of protection in the record as Barrie Derringer produced no witnesses, no doctor’s report of injury or bruises, no photographs of bruises and no evidence of keeping her from leaving; in short here is no evidence whatsoever to sustain the Order of Protection. On the contrary, David Derringer has the police report of 2-4-2012 of APD showing no domestic violence, a witness Bruce Davis testifying later in DM-12-610 on August 23, 2012, that there was no domestic violence, and pages of Sprint text phone print outs showing Barrie Derringer is not afraid of David Derringer and Barrie Derringer’s own testimony that she states that “David Derringer would never hurt me physically” in the court record of DV-12-234 on February 21, 2012. The trial court “refused” to allow David Derringer’s witness, Bruce Davis at the hearing of February 21, 2012 proving not only a bias of the court that mandated dismissal of the case, but deprivation of due process and equal protection that rendered the trial court without jurisdiction or judicial capacity in “fundamental error”. The trial court sustains an order of protection without any evidence in the court record and defies the Constitution 2nd amendment and US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 in blatant “judicial terrorism” against David Derringer. The “federal law”, namely US Code Title 18 Section 922, does not allow David Derringer’s second Amendment rights to be taken by a “simple civil allegation” of Barrie Derringer that David Derringer did domestic violence, when she impeaches herself that “David Derringer would never hurt me physically.”; thus clearly no domestic violence occurred to even apply or gain any Order of Protection; an act by Barrie Derringer of a 4th degree felony. [3] David Derringer immediately “appealed” the findings of the Commissioner to Judge Hadfield, who disregarded and summarily denied the legal appeal by simply stating “denied” without any authorities or reasons for the denial, save the total corruption of the New Mexico Id. U.S. United States v. Taylor , 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added) “At a minimum, the district court must listen to a party’s arguments and give reasons for its decision.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985 ). Not only then did the Respondent appeal this matter to this New Mexico New Mexico
There is clear and convincing evidence, factual support, case laws, deprivation of Constitution and blatant violations of NMSA 45-2-804 amongst the “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law held against David Derringer mandating this matter remanded for complete dismissal of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610. David Derringer is also entitled to extreme amounts of money for deprivation of rights. Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981 524 F. Supp. 927 “Provisions do not limit amount of punitive damages recoverable.” Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527, 101 Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) “where state employee negligently deprives an individual of property, individual has no cognizable section 1983 claim if state makes available an adequate post-deprivation remedy.”
In the meantime, David Derringer has been denied his Constitutional rights for a year, deprived income by legal occupation involving firearms, and made homeless and destitute by the public corruption of New Mexico, mandating this court to legally correct this matter by reinstating Constitutional rights; sanctions and punishment for all involved in taking 2nd Amendment rights and profession; Order for law enforcement criminal prosecution against Barrie Derringer for perjury and fraud; federal investigation of public corruption including violations of oath and “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law” that involves removing Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield from the bench; and restitution for David Derringer in extreme amounts of money from the justices involved and from the State of New Mexico. “When an alleged constitutional rights is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary” (citing 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) see also Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998). “...the loss of Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury”. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary responsibilities: “A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate action. A Judge having “knowledge” that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority”. Thus, the “corruption” of New Mexico justices knows no bounds, and is instrumental in taking all rights from a US New Mexico U.S.
The provisions providing for rights under the Bill of Rights were originally binding upon only the federal government. In time, most of these provisions became binding upon the states through selective incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. When a provision is made binding on a state, a state can no longer restrict the rights guaranteed in that provision. The 2nd Amendment right cannot be restricted or denied by the Order of Protection as simply a write in of a pre-select form, that always incorporates a deprivation of use, ownership and possession of firearms as a standard of any order of protection against any person that comes before the court. In this matter, the original due process and equal protection provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendment were already violated by DV-12-234 without legal service of summons in personam, discharge of duties and rights to present evidence, have witnesses, and proper cross examination deprived. These egregious acts in the original hearing of February 21, 2012 make it without jurisdiction and judicial capacity in "fundamental error". The egregious acts that followed violate every provision of the Constitution, both Federal and State, as well as violations of federal property rights laws under the US Code Title 42 Section 1982, that includes a New Mexico case law support of an occupation and profession being also a "property right". Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 Recently, on December 11, 2012, Barrie Derringer again commits perjury and fraud again to attempt to reopen the legally defective DV-12-234 again to take away David Derringer's 1st Amendment rights. The corruption of the 2nd District Court's family court division is extreme, and Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar has already “denied” a motion to state what standard of evidence and proof will be used by the court in deprivation of 1st Amendment rights, just as none was used to deny David Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights, and Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar “refuses” to recuse for cause. In short, when a proper pleading asks the court if the law will be followed, the DV-12-234 court declines to follow the rules of civil procedure or the law. The various provisions of the 1st Amendment, guaranteeing the freedoms of speech, the press, government, and assembly, and the provisions of the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms" are fundamental rights that "cannot be infringed". No simple "allegation" of claimed and yet totally unsubstantiated "domestic violence" by Barrie Derringer is far less than sufficient for any court to rule against the Constitution in violation of Oath, making such Order or Protection both in violation of the Supremacy Clause, as well as sedition and treason against the United States under the meaning of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d at 596 (10th Circuit 1976) at 599 “A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction in relations to review of alleged federal constitutional due process or equal protection deprivations.”; In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194 “Presumption exists that a judge will put personal beliefs aside and rule according to the laws as enacted, as required by his or her Oath. 28 USCA 455(a)”.; Adamson v. C.I.R. CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541 “Federal Courts cannot countenance deliberate violations of basic Constitutional rights; to do so would violate judicial oath to uphold Constitution of United States.”
The State of New Mexico New Mexico State U.S.
The preformed Order of Protection that is held against each and every person that comes into contact with the 2nd judicial domestic violence civil division violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution Article VI particularly when there has in this matter been no "criminal charges" of domestic violence, no arrest, no criminal indictment or conviction, and wherein Barrie Derringer provably impeached herself and her bogus and fraudulent "allegations" of domestic violence when she stated under oath on February 21, 2012; "David would never hurt me physically" which is in a total contradiction to the writing under notary oath of her "Petition for Order of Protection", making Barrie Derringer provably committing a forth degree felony. “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, a new question arises as to the legitimacy of the state’s participation in the federal program. Because federal regulations and laws cannot infringe upon the Constitutional rights of United States
The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits unlawful search and seisure, upon which this trial court both seizes and denies possession of firearms without due process and equal protection in a hearing that is jurisdictionally defective, of which rights are guaranteed to David Derringer as a "personal possession" in the recent ruling of the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 that allows "firearms" to be used not just as a "militia" but as "personal protection". The United States Constitution 4th Amendment IV: Security from Unwarrantable Search and Seizure- “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” The "probable cause" in this matter was a woman, Barrie Derringer seeking revenge, retribution and retaliation of not being able to obtain all of the Derringer's family moveable property on February 4, 2012, when shut down in the break-in by David and APD, she carefully planned with 12 other friends, bosses and criminal accomplices, and two days later, without any domestic violence actions by David Derringer perjured herself in fraud to "allege" that David Derringer had done domestic violence on that date simply to gain both “revenge” and a no-contact order so that David Derringer could not find all of the personal property stolen by Barrie Derringer and her 12 criminal accomplices. In fact, on that date the 12 other person with Barrie Derringer, including, but not limited to Debbie Harms and Irwin Harms did criminal assault and battery on David Derringer due to David Derringer telling them to leave his property alone and to remove themselves from the premises owned and leased by David Derringer which was in every effect the right of David Derringer. The Order of Protection of DV-12-234 used in legal error and “judicial terrorism” against David Derringer all underlying this entire malicious filing of divorce DM-12-610 must be dismissed and released immediately against David Derringer. The Constitution of the State of New Mexico Article II Bill of Rights Section 4: Inherent rights-“All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, and acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.” The New Mexico Constitution, thus grants David Derringer even more rights to protect his profession, his property including firearms, and use of firearms legally to protect and defend his own life and the lives of his livestock and animals.
The Order of Protection DV-12-234 was without legal service of summons, and David Derringer notified the court before hearing so that the hearing had to be dismissed. The material witness Bruce Davis was denied by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and this bias and prejudice makes the hearing jurisdictionally defective, although Bruce Davis testified under oath on August 23, 2012 in DM-12-610 that no domestic violence occurred between David Derringer and Barrie Derringer but that criminal assault and battery did occur by 12 persons with Barrie Derringer, with obviously Barrie Derringer as “accessory”. Barrie Derringer lied in criminal perjury and fraud in the “Petition for Order of Protection” on February 6, 2012, by statements that on February 4, 2012 David Derringer had knocked her down and hurt her hip, caused bruises, kept her from leaving and wherein Barrie Derringer is very afraid of being hurt physically by David Derringer. Instead, testimony proves that at no time did David Derringer ever “touch” Barrie Derringer on February 4, 2012, even when Barrie Derringer came rushing to calm and console her husband after the assault and battery by Barrie Derringer’s own gang of 12 persons, and wherein Barrie Derringer placed her hands on David Derringer’s cheeks, and said “Calm down, you’re OK”, David Derringer still did not physically touch, hug or kiss, or make any other actions with contact of Barrie Derringer. On that day, nor at any other time in the history of the Derringer’s relationship or marriage did any domestic violence occur by David Derringer, but Barrie Derringer admitted under oath on August 23, 2012 to hitting David Derringer in the face multiple times in “domestic violence” of her own, not reciprocated by David Derringer. DV-12-234 arose out of only criminal perjury of Barrie Derringer “accusing” David Derringer of on February 4, 2012 knocking Barrie August 23, 2012 that all statements of Barrie Derringer to gain the Order of Protection are false, fraud and perjury. There are also other witnesses of the incident that prove the perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer, as was proven by the APD police report of February 4, 2012, proven again by the conflict of Barrie Derringer’s own testimony, proven again by the testimony of David Derringer and Sprint phone texts printouts of the Derringer’s phones and proven by witness of Bruce Davis in the trial of August 23, 2012 in open court of DM-12-610.
At no time could any justice deny David Derringer’s rights to bear arms under no evidence, no prior record of criminal activity and no present criminal accusations of Barrie Derringer due to US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 ruling that a firearm is a personal right under the 2nd Amendment. Dunn v. McFeeley, 984 P.2d 760, 127 NM 513, 1999-NMCA-084 cert. denied “A legal point is clearly established, when it has been decided by either the highest court where the cause of action arose, by a United States Court of Appeals, or by the United States Supreme Court. The district Court knew that the Order of Protection violated all Constitutional rights to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as well as knew, as does this court that it violates the ruling of the US Supreme Court No. 10-1521. Judge Hadfield “did not” deny David Derringer’s “appeal” of DV-12-234 with facts that deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights against David Derringer are supported by substantial evidence, as there was “no evidence”. Judge Hadfield simply denied an appeal of DV-12-234 with no mandated hearing on the matter, and without any explanation whatsoever, and did so without any jurisdiction on May 6, 2012 after losing all jurisdiction of the case when an appeal (No. 32,113) was taken legally on May 4, 2012 . The deprivation of Constitutional rights was willful and malicious and without legal ability. On June 6, 2005 , the United States Supreme Court ruled that. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail...” in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. DV-12-234 has violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to regulate an area of federal law controlled in the Second Amendment. Alexander v. Delgado, 84 NM 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973); State v. Sedillo, “it appears that the Supreme Court necessarily decided the issues underlying the claim” in US Supreme Court No. 08-1521 in 2010. Stoneking v. Bank of America United States US
In the United States of America, a citizen is presumed innocent of any and all allegations against him, until a valid court of law is convened under civil or criminal circumstances deems that citizen “guilty”, that would disrupt Constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities by evidence in extreme so as to allow any disabling of those rights. Mere “allegations” by another citizen, or the mis-use of a court without jurisdiction, without judicial capacity and without or with mis-use of power is not enough to take away Constitutional rights or rights to a profession under “private property rights” as with the meaning of the US Code Title 42 Section 1982. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
This court should be extremely interested in the DM-12-610 hearing of February 8, 2013 wherein the Petitioner/Appellee attempted to muzzle David Derringer with a request to block all legal appeals and to obtain an injunction to stop David Derringer’s use of the US Court system entirely in total violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment, making “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” of the Appellant without any laws being followed by either the Petitioner or the trial courts. This obviously entailed not only extreme violations of an attorney under NMRA 16-804, but attempts to bribe and coerce a judge to violate Oath and do sedition and treason against the Constitution. (SEE: 14th Amendment Section 3) What we have here is an underlying matter that has nothing to do with “law” but simply rulings that occur at the whim of the justices and their own beliefs, without any concern for “stare decisis” or precedent of either prior case laws or Constitution. State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940). “The object of stare decisis is to promote uniformity, certainty, and stability in the law.” This court is well to take “judicial notice” of the information contained in the Appellants cases to view the contained information of the corruption of the lower courts’ actions. Rozelle v. Barnard, 72 NM 182, 382 P.2d 180 (1963) Rule 11-201B NMRA states that the only types of facts that may be judicially noticed are facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are either generally known within the community or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Hartford
In each matter, the law was not followed, and basically Barrie Derringer was simply allowed and endorsed by the court to do outrageous acts, criminal acts without any redress or lawful ability. At the same time, the justices and commissioner allowed criminal perjury and fraud time after time in both Petitions, open court and defiance of discovery, defeating both due process and making a mockery of both the court and institution of marriage. The Petitioner has been investigated by Bernalillo Sheriff and such valid investigation precipitated a report to the District Attorney that could include prosecution of the Petitioner for 4th degree felonies. This is not a simple divorce here as the various court records will sustain the reasons for this court to stop the entire matter with extreme Constitutional deprivations against David Derringer. Clearly, as this court will see the “large picture” with the proper court records before it, this is not a simple wife wanting to divorce a husband for no valid reasons, as in deficiency here, but encompassing mental and emotional illness of the Petitioner, extreme outside interference from many third parties with irons in the fire that include bosses Maestas and Ward controlling the Petitioner and paying her incentives to do likely criminal activities as the accountant of a multimillion dollar real estate firm of which David Derringer has already informed activities to the IRS, the FBI and to the Department of Labor. All manners of actions are involved here by both the court and the Petitioner to ruin the Respondent, including illegal deprivation of Constitutional rights, and a total disregard for the rights of “citizenship” of David Derringer. US v. Ellis WDSC 1942, 43 F.Supp. 321 “The provision of Title 18 Section 241 covering offense of conspiracy to injure citizens in exercise of civil rights was applicable to instances of conspiracy on part of both private individuals and public officials.”. The “laws” that control each matter are simply disregarded. State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964).“Stare Decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent, and it lies at the very core of the judicial process of interpreting and announcing law.”
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Respondent/Appellant David Derringer requests the following relief mandated by law to be Ordered by a court working under Constitutional provisions.
1. Order reinstatement of all of David Derringer’s Constitutional and citizen’s rights in the United States, that include the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th , 13th, and 14th Amendments and rights under all US Code to include Title 42 Section 1982.
2. Order the dismissal with prejudice DV-12-234 in its entirety as “fundamental error” with no jurisdiction or judicial capacity and “void” under Constitutional violations and order intertwined DM-12-610 dismissed entirely as it is based on DV-12-234 not granting any divorce for Barrie Derringer.
3. Order under Canon 3 (D)(1) duties, the permanent removal from the bench of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Alisa Hadfield for violations of oath, and the 14th Amendment section 3.
4. Order sanctions and damages subjecting David Derringer to one year of deprivation of Constitutional rights, citizen privileges and immunities, and deprivation of income and emotional distress by all persons of Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield and from the State of New Mexico, for $50,000,000.00 to be awarded David Derringer from each of the above persons that did the “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color or law” under the meaning of US Code Title 42 Sections 1983, 1985, 1986 and Title 18 Sections 241 and 242.
5. Order law enforcement for investigation and prosecution of Barrie Derringer for perjury, fraud, falsification of the court record, conspiracy and malicious prosecution.
6. Order by mandate that the “standardized” form of the domestic violence courts delete the actions of taking 2nd Amendment rights without due process or equal protection.
7. Any and all other relief as is deemed just and proper.
CONCLUSION
It can unquestionably be seen at this time, that this matter began with the illegal lack of jurisdiction and judicial capacity in fundamental error and proceeded in bias and prejudice to deprive Constitutional rights; all of which is in manifest errors of law; mandating both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to be dismissed with prejudice re-instating all of David Derringer’s Constitutional rights with “restitution” and not granting any divorce for Barrie Derringer, with her basis of perjury and fraud.
Respectfully submitted
By:________________________________
David Derringer Pro-se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3-7-2013
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
The New Mexico Court of Appeals in Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102
New Mexico Court of Appeals clerk
I further certify that I sent by mail only as a courtesy a copy of this pleading to an attorney not representing this matter:
Petitioner’s attorney not of record Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102 New Mexico
[1] This court should take “judicial notice” of the testimony under oath by Barrie Derringer on August 23, 2012 in DM-12-610 where she admits to being “suicidal”.
[2] Under oath, Barrie Derringer admitted criminal domestic violence against David Derringer by hitting David Derringer in the face multiple times in some rage of emotional instability in 2010, in which David Derringer did not participate in the attack, nor did he “defend” and tried to understand the bipolar and mental instability of his wife Barrie Derringer.
[3] “perjury consists of making a false statement under oath or affirmation under notary, material to the issue or matter involved in the course of any judicial, administrative, legislative or other official proceeding, knowing such a statement to be untrue. Whoever commits perjury is guilty of a fourth degree felony” Section 30-25-1 NMSA (1978). “malicious criminal prosecution consists of maliciously procuring or attempting to procure an indictment or otherwise causing or attempting to cause criminal charged to be performed or prosecuted against an innocent person, knowing him to be innocent. Section 30-27-1 NMSA
No comments:
Post a Comment