STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO
SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BARRIE
DERRINGER, No. DV-12-0234
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID
DERRINGER,
Respondent,
APPEAL AND OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION/HEARING OFFICER COSGROVE/AGUILAR’S ILLEGAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL APRIL
15, 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
COMES
NOW the Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se with appeal and objections to
the ongoing illegal Order of Protection of February 21, 2012, now continued
with additional 1st Amendment rights deprivations, with sedition and
treason by the proven biased and prejudiced Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar in
the hearing of March 19, 2013 and the subsequent illegal and unconstitutional
Minute Order of April 15, 2013. There is no jurisdiction or judicial capacity
of the Commissioner due to “fundamental error” of DV-12-234 initiated and
continued without any service of legal summons and violations of 1st
and 2nd Amendment rights without any standard of proof or standard
of evidence. The current deprivation of 1st Amendment rights is
covered more fully in the Memorandum in Support. In the first ruling of February 21, 2012 and in the second ruling of April 15, 2013 many violations of the
Rules of evidence and fraud of the Commissioner herself are contained in the
court records, including the refusal to recuse for “cause” of bias and
prejudice and the falsification of the record by the Commissioner herself. The
commissioner “denied” the Respondent’s Motion to use a standard or proof and a
standard of evidence in the hearing of March
19, 2013 and refused to recuse for cause in order to violate the
Respondent with no law enforced.
Violations
of NMRA 11-103. Rulings on evidence are extreme, wherein the Commissioner sustains an
objection by Respondent that in hearing of March 19, 2013 Petitioner’s exhibits
1-10 are incomplete with only the first page of each exhibit containing at
least 20 more pages and the Commissioner makes a ruling that such exhibits 1-10
are incomplete and cannot be introduced into court record and are
“inadmissible”, giving Attorney Jackson and the Petitioner a court recess to
produce all parts of each exhibit 1-10. After an extensive recess on March 19,
2013, Petitioner and her attorney Jackson failed and refused to produce all
parts of each exhibit 1-10 making those exhibits in legal error of evidence and could not be introduced into
evidence, nor taken in advisement or ruling by the Commissioner. Instead, in
the written Minute Order of April 15, 2013 the Commissioner makes a false, fraudulent
and unconstitutional ruling based on the exhibits 1-10 that could not be
introduced as evidence.
A. Preserving
a claim of error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or
exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party
and
(1) if the ruling admits
evidence, the party, on the record
(a) timely
objects or moves to strike, and
(b) states
the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context, or
(2) if the ruling excludes
evidence, the party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof,
unless the substance was apparent from the context.
B. Not
needing to renew an objection or offer of proof. Once the court rules
definitively on the record – either before or at trial – a party need not renew
an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
C. Court’s statement about the ruling;
directing an offer of proof. The
court may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the
objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of
proof be made in question-and-answer form.
D. Preventing
the jury from hearing inadmissible evidence. To the extent
practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence
is not suggested to the jury by any means.
E. Taking
notice of plain error. A court may take notice of a plain error
affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly
preserved.
There is “plain error” of violations of evidence, lack of evidence, lack
of jurisdiction, lack of service of summons and other “fundamental error” that
mandates the Appeal dismiss DV-12-234 in its entirety. State v. Quintana,
87 N.M. 414, 534 P.2d 1126 (Ct. App.),
cert. denied, 88 N.M. 28, 536 P.2d 1084, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832, 96 S. Ct. 54, 46 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1975).
The “error” was on March 19, 2013 in the illegal hearing and when this is a civil case and no notice was
given to David Derringer that his testimony or that the hearing was to be ruled
upon in “criminal statutes”; thus depriving David Derringer rights to due
process, equal protection, right to be represented by an attorney to face criminal
charges, and no “miranda rights” were read to the Respondent before the civil
hearing, and yet the Commissioner “sentenced” David Derringer under criminal
statutes not available in this “civil proceeding”. The Commissioner violated
all law and rules and stopped the inadmissible evidence in the hearing on March 19, 2013, and yet used it to
her bias and prejudice in the Minute Order of April 15, 2013 against Respondent David Derringer to
accuse and sentence David Derringer for unfounded “criminal violations”; all
without Miranda rights or allowable attorney for David Derringer. State v. Reynolds,
111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct. App. 1990). The Respondent’s
confrontational rights of deprivation of due process and illegal hearing has
been preserved. State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 653 P.2d 879 (Ct. App.
1982). The
illegal hearing was held to deprive 1st Amendment rights from David
Derringer with also the intent of illegally mis-using power to create a
criminal record for Respondent David Derringer. As will be discussed in detail,
David Derringer proved in the hearing, despite the Commissioner refusing to
recuse, and already denying to hold the hearing with standards of proof and
standards of evidence, that there was no violation of the illegal,
unconstitutional and non-jurisdictional “order of protection” still illegally
held against David Derringer, and in both testimony under oath and in cross
examination, Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer testified that David Derringer’s
blogs and other court filing had not been direct communication to her, and had
not violated the “no-contact” order. Despite the illegal and incomplete
exhibits presented by the Petitioner, that could not be used in a court of law
as “inadmissible”, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar formed on Order using the
illegal exhibits 1-10 anyway and an order diametrically opposed to the
testimony of both the Petitioner and the Respondent, wherein there had been no
violations of the no-contact order and everything that David Derringer had done
in Internet blogs was protected under the 1st Amendment. With direct
fraud and illegal acts outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity, the
Commissioner mis-used her power to attack and give David Derringer a criminal
record by sentencing David Derringer to 30 days in jail and then deferred such
sentence, putting the matter on criminal record, without any actual
incarceration with a total disregard for the Respondent’s right to an attorney
and rights to have been read “Miranda” rights before any testimony was to be
taken for any action of any criminal nature. All rights were violated here in
“plain error” and “fundamental error”.
These acts by the biased Commissioner come after David Derringer
motioning to recuse her for cause, filing judicial standards complaints against
her, turning her illegal and unconstitutional acts into Chief Judge Ted Baca,
and appealing her illegal initial Constitutional deprivations of the 2nd
Amendment in New Mexico Court of
Appeals No. 32, 326 still ongoing at this time, leaving the Commissioner
without any jurisdiction of this matter until remanded back by the higher court.
In direct retaliation, revenge, and retribution, the Commissioner creates a
criminal record against the Respondent that has done no violation against an
order that was without original summons service in “fundamental error”, without
Constitutional deprivation ability and not only continues to deprive 2nd
Amendment rights, but now attacks and deprives 1st Amendment rights.
HISTORY OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION STARTED IN FEBRUARY 21, 2012
WITH
DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL
ERROR OF LAW
This matter started with Barrie
Derringer, whom is bi-polar and suicidal, and on 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: Barrie Derringer aka Barrie
Crowe going mentally out-of-control with cult control of her parents and bosses
at Maestas and Ward and 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 December 27,
2011, 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. David
Derringer had locked storage Unit of 101 Florida SE Unit C from Barrie
Derringer in late 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 Appellant’s “interference”
with the planned “larceny” of all property by one marriage partner. The gang of
12 persons did criminal assault and battery against Appellant before the police showed up; that included
two Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe bosses of Debbie and Irwin Harms. With
police sirens coming precipitated turning David Derringer loose from the
battery, Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe 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 Appellant,
just as also the Sprint phone text of January 2012 support; as exhibits to DV-12-234.
The Police report of Appellant’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 Appellee at
any time with 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 on February
6, 2012” 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 aka
Barrie Crowe from leaving and that Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe is very
afraid of physical harm from Appellant, 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 aka Barrie Crowe
constituted a “fourth degree felony” (NMSA 30-25-1), and Barrie Derringer aka
Barrie Crowe is herself a notary and knows better than to lie under oath. No
summons was ever legally served (R.P. 2-17-2012
DV-12-234 unable to serve.)
In the hearing of February 21, 2012,
Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe 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, Appellant was never legally served any summons, was
prevented from proper testimony, was prevented from presenting all evidence in
defense, was 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 aka
Barrie Crowe then “impeached” herself under Oath to state that despite her
written perjury that Appellant had hurt her physically and her fear of
Appellant, Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe testified that “David
would not hurt me physically”. In
total manifest errors of “law” and in Constitutional violations, Commissioner
proceeded to grant an order of protection without any standard of proof in any
issue, in violation of all Rules of Evidence, additionally illegally taking all
Constitutional rights to firearms under violations of the 2nd
Amendment, with full “knowledge” that Appellant’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 Appellant, that was “denied”
appeal by Judge Hadfield with no substantiation of denial upon “objection”
appeal of the “findings and conclusions” of the Commissioner. Appellant has now
been illegally deprived Constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd,
4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments,
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, ongoing
for a period of one year and four months, “singled out” in America as a
“targeted individual” for Constitutional persecution, from illegal acts by Barrie
Derringer aka Barrie Crowe, attorney Alain Jackson, Commissioner, Judge
Hadfield, and the State of New Mexico, subjecting all to civil and criminal
actions and civil rights deprivations entitling Appellant 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. Appellant
has sought “recusal for cause” of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, whom
stay on the cases to persecute the Respondent. Respondent 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.]
Because
David Derringer was forced to sue Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe and the
Crowe family and attorney Alain Jackson for extreme torts in suit CV-12-10816
on November 26, 2012; in
retaliation, retribution and revenge, both Alain Jackson “Defendant” and Barrie
Crowe “Defendant” reopened both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to get back at David
Derringer. Additionally, now as of December 11, 2012, Barrie Derringer aka
Barrie Crowe has committed additional perjury and fraud with “re-opening” the
Order of Protection of DV-12-234 with
lies that Appellant has violated the Order of Protection, and made false
statements that David Derringer is “mentally unstable” and lied that David has
possession of firearms, which is not fact, and then impeaches herself
immediately to state that she has no evidence whether or not David Derringer
has firearms. Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe 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 aka Barrie Crowe to her parents, bosses, and friends. Reno v. Am. Civil
Liberties Union,
521 U.S. 844, 852, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) The information is stored in the form of blogs
on Web “pages.” “Web pages frequently contain information..”. The blogs are not
tied to anyone’s web page or email nor were they sent to any persons making
them not in violation of the “no-contact” order as testified by Barrie herself
both in testimony of witness and under cross examination that Barrie
Petitioner did not consider the Internet blogs to be a way to contact her directly.
U.S. v. Tucker,
305 F.3d 1193, C.A.10 (Utah), September 16, 2002 (NO. 01-4150)...“is analogous to a bulletin board” for information. It allows computer users “to search for and retrieve information.” These blogs did expose however also 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 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. The 1st Amendment guarantees David Derringer the rights to put legal public record of court pleadings on blogs on Google, as well as David Derringer has the 1st Amendment right to exercise his “opinion” of the Derringer marriage, post a photo taken of his wife during their marriage ceremony, and other ideas, , 2012 -NMCA- 086, N.M.App., May 31, 2012 (NO. 30,203)
...to warrant First Amendment protection; (4) NMHRA was a neutral regulation of commercial conduct and did not infringe upon freedom of opinions and discussions about the Derringer situation as freedom of “expression”. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock 284 P.3d 428 this could not impeded the freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression; and did not violate the free exercise clause protections of First Amendment. First Amendment's freedom of expression applies not only to the written or spoken word, but also to expressive conduct and artistic expression. The Commissioner has both no “jurisdiction” or legal ability to deny David Derringer “free speech”, or control or limit what David Derringer chooses to say about his personal life, opinions of his marriage, or certainly cannot stop David Derringer from posting “legal public documents of court pleadings”. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n 131 S.Ct. 2729, U.S.,2011 On First Amendment challenge to California law that restricted speech based on its content, California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified or by compelling government interest.
305 F.3d 1193, C.A.10 (Utah), September 16, 2002 (NO. 01-4150)...“is analogous to a bulletin board” for information. It allows computer users “to search for and retrieve information.” These blogs did expose however also 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 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. The 1st Amendment guarantees David Derringer the rights to put legal public record of court pleadings on blogs on Google, as well as David Derringer has the 1st Amendment right to exercise his “opinion” of the Derringer marriage, post a photo taken of his wife during their marriage ceremony, and other ideas, , 2012 -NMCA- 086, N.M.App., May 31, 2012 (NO. 30,203)
...to warrant First Amendment protection; (4) NMHRA was a neutral regulation of commercial conduct and did not infringe upon freedom of opinions and discussions about the Derringer situation as freedom of “expression”. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock 284 P.3d 428 this could not impeded the freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression; and did not violate the free exercise clause protections of First Amendment. First Amendment's freedom of expression applies not only to the written or spoken word, but also to expressive conduct and artistic expression. The Commissioner has both no “jurisdiction” or legal ability to deny David Derringer “free speech”, or control or limit what David Derringer chooses to say about his personal life, opinions of his marriage, or certainly cannot stop David Derringer from posting “legal public documents of court pleadings”. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n 131 S.Ct. 2729, U.S.,2011 On First Amendment challenge to California law that restricted speech based on its content, California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified or by compelling government interest.
Barrie
Derringer aka Barrie Crowe and Commissioner team up in fraud in attempts thus
to mis-use the Order of Protection to “protect, Barrie and Commissioner from
illegal and fraud, Judge Hadfield, bosses Maestas and Ward and her unethical
attorney Jackson” from the exposure on the Internet by Appellant of the
underlying corruption and lies by all involved, including lies, perjury and
fraud of Barrie Derringer to her parents, friends, and employers. Political
opposition “Republican” attorney David Standridge also used one of Appellant’s
public record court pleadings of DM-12-610 on his web site to show the
corruption of Judge Hadfield and the Commissioner’s illegal Order of April 15,
2013 did and could not mention him using the same exact Internet blogs taken
directly from the David Derringer blogs. Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe
seeks an Order to muzzle any dissention to exposure of the lies and fraud by the
aggrieved Appellant and this or any other court cannot deprive or punish
Respondent David Derringer as the Commissioner has illegally done in the
Minute Order of April 15, 2013, or force David Derringer to remove, re-label or
stop public records, his personal opinion of his marriage and the corruption of
the courts, or actions taken that are legal by the Respondent. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164, 71 USLW
4125, 71 USLW 4182, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1974, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R.
2474, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 142, U.S., March 05, 2003 Blog posts of information on the Internet does not alter our conclusion. It
must be acknowledged that notice of a criminal conviction subjects the offender
to public shame, the humiliation increasing in
proportion to the extent of the publicity. And the geographic reach of the Internet is greater than anything which
could have been designed in colonial times. These facts do not render Internet notification punitive. The
purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate
the offender. Widespread public access is necessary for the efficacy
of the scheme, and the attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of
a valid regulation. U.S. Supreme Court Brief
“In addition, citizen amici explain that a decision to the contrary will
endanger the free and open character of the Internet, thus implicating First
Amendment principles.. 2001 United
States Supreme Court Amicus Brief. ...It
is hard to see how the public interest will be better served by having no
public Internet access than substantially increased, free Internet access.”
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar has no “jurisdiction” to stop David Derringer
from freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to exercise his own
opinions and photographs of his marriage and ideas of what happened to his
marriage by posting blogs not tied to any other person on the Internet. The
“fundamental errors” of this entire matter of DV-12-234 are outrageous, and
then the Commissioner simply moves forward to do more and extreme
Constitutional damages and more deprivations of due process and equal
protection. Without a proper service of summons in the beginning to blatant
violations of due process and deprivation of Constitutional 2nd
Amendment right, the Commissioner now falsely believes that she is “above the
law” and can deprive David Derringer of 1st Amendment right to keep
the Respondent from exposing both the fraud and perjury of Barrie Derringer as
well as the corruption of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar. State v. Martinez, P.3d, 2013 WL 597038,
N.M.App., January 31, 2013
(NO. 32,271) OPINION SUTIN , Judge...for review
does not preclude the appellate court from considering questions, in its
discretion, involving fundamental error or the fundamental rights of a party). “Information” no matter
how damaging, exposing, or distasteful, is allowed to be put on the Internet,
including “public records of court pleadings” and the Commissioner cannot
regulate or control the Respondent in any manner regarding the Internet. Schwartz v. New Mexico Medical Bd., P.3d,
2012 WL 4434739, N.M.App., August 14, 2012 (NO. 31,303) Complaint...of contract alleging that the breach resulted
from the Board's publication of “damaging defamatory communications regarding
Dr. Schwartz on the internet.” The district court held a hearing
on the matter and, after....certain records, including licensing information
and disciplinary actions taken by the Board, will be available to the public on
the internet. 16.10.1.9(C) NMAC (7/15/2001). At the
onset of the hearing of February 21,
2012 Appellant 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”. No summons was ever legally served (R.P. 2-17-2012 unable to serve.) The Commissioner “ignored” the law and
proceeded with the illegal hearing anyway in deprivation of due process and
equal protection. The Commissioner constantly intimidated and harassed the
Pro-Se Male party Appellant with her well known hatred of men, by
intimidating Appellant at all times regarding the “fact presented by the
Commissioner herself without merit” that wife Appellee was determined to
divorce Appellant 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 Appellee despite any evidence to the contrary. Baker
v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v.
New York City Transit Authority, 14 F.3d 818; Record shows
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 any male party due process and
equal protection in abuse of discretion. Beal v. Reidy, 80
N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969). 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, 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 the
Petitioner perjured herself to the court. The court itself then claimed that Petitioner in past meetings
with Petitioner in which the court was not present, also perjured
herself to Petitioner simply to “lead David Derringer on” to smooth the divorce
procedure by stating that she had put her wedding ring back on. Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 457 US
731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger. Commissioner then sided in bias with
the Petitioner as a woman against any man in the “Band-Aid”
discussion of Commissioner that the court would support Barrie Derringer at any
costs. Federalist No. 78 by
Alexander Hamilton, Court bias
prevailed, even when proven beyond any shadow of doubt that Petitioner lied to
the court that she was afraid of Appellant and that she was afraid that she
would be hurt. In fact, under oath Petitioner specifically testified that “David
Derringer would NOT HURT ME PHYSICALLY”.
The Court simply ignored this testimony and the facts presented by well
documented Sprint phone texting between Respondent and Petitioner from December
27, 2011 to February 3, 2012 showing with specifics that it was Petitioner
numerous times who voluntarily set up and actually met physically Respondent numerous
times by herself alone, in deserted parking lots in the dark, at night, and
allowed Respondent into her car alone for discussions, entered and locked the
door behind her in a dark storage unit at 101 Florida Unit C where David and
Barrie were totally alone together and then fraudulently filed domestic
violence petitions against David well after these documented facts February 6,
2012, which Commissioner chose specifically to ignore despite “knowledge” of
the perjury and fraud of Petitioner in “abuse of discretion”. United Salt Corp. v. McKee 96
N.M. 65, 628 p.2d 310 (1981). Commissioner could hardly be considered
“impartial” after listening to the court record of the court attack on the
Respondent. US v. Hanhardt, 134 F.Supp.2d 972 ND Ill.
2001.
At no time was any Subpoena or
Summons properly or legally served to Respondent, 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) The Order of Protection of February 21, 2012 must be vacated in
its entirety as a matter of law and the Order thus of April 15, 2013 is “illegal” and without
jurisdiction. Smith v. Bradfield, 97 N.M. 611, 642 P.2d
214 (Ct. App. 1982). Sua sponte “recusal” of Commissioner was mandated 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. David
Derringer has repeatedly been forced to stand before a biased and prejudiced 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).
In this matter the record shows a forceful animosity by the commissioner
against David Derringer Respondent 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 PTSD; 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.
It is clear that from the record
that the Respondent was at a serious disadvantage as a “Pro-Se” party, with the
court itself depriving Respondent rights to questioning the Petitioner, cross examination, introduction of exhibits
and deprivation multiple times to present Respondent’s witness Bruce Davis. State
v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me.
1996. Due process of Respondent was denied to be exercised by the Commissioner
in order to “facilitate” the “woman” winning in this matter at all costs. US
v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998 This was clearly a
“woman” commissioner upholding the “changing of mind” of a confused Petitioner
after a disaster, in order to allow a “woman” to get rid of a husband at any
time she chose. In re A.tl Robins Co. Inc., 97 BR 525
ED.Va 1995 Time after time, the
commissioner denied Respondent’s exhibits and Commissioner denied Respondent’s witness
Bruce Davis, and because Respondent was “Pro-Se” made it easier for the
commissioner to intimidate and force deprivations of due process and equal
protection against Respondent. Petition of Wittrock, 649
A.2d 1053 (Del.) Supra.
1994; US v. Craft,
105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.)
1997. In the process, the Commissioner
looked up and considered in decision the just filed Case of David
Derringer v. Maestas and Ward et al CV-2012-1307 well outside of her
jurisdiction and judicial capacity to assist her in rendering a decision for
the lying Petitioner. Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct or
Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97; In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d
194. These atrocious acts in violation of Oath denied Respondent’s fair and
impartial trial and subjected Respondent to an invalid Order of Protection
which affects not only Respondent’s rights under the 1st, 2nd,
4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to “equal
protection” but denied Respondent’s rights under the 2nd Amendment
to keep and possess his firearms as illegal “cruel and unusual punishment”
under violations of the 13th Amendment. U.S.
v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, rehearing denied 113 F.3d 1253, cert.
denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139 L.Ed.2d 148. In the process, the commissioner
also allowed the suicidal past Petitioner to possess Respondent’s firearms
loaded and unsupervised, in Petitioner’s admissions to such possession after
taking them in a break-in of the Derringer storage on February 4, 2012, making
the Commissioner acting in “reckless
endangerment” of the Respondent’s wife.[1] McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp.
USA, 921 F. Supp. 1473 In this matter it
is clear that Petitioner conducted herself with total at-ease and un-afraid of
husband Appellant multiple times before perjuring herself in the Petition for
Order of Protection, and then testifies in direct opposition to Petitioner’s
own Petition 1st showing in writing that she is afraid Respondent
will physically hurt her, and then 2nd testifies under oath that “David
Derringer would never hurt me physically”. US v. Miller,
161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369.
Clearly, Petitioner must be prosecuted for criminal perjury in the courtroom
itself as well as the criminal fraud of the false filing of the Petition for
Order of Protection and TRO in “corruption”; both a 4th degree
felony under NMSA 30-25-1. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F.
Supp.2d. 1 The Commissioner completely denied Respondent’s witness Bruce Davis
who was at the scene of February 4,
2012 in which date the Petitioners lies that physical abuse took
place which it did not with APD 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.
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)(1); with sexual discrimination
against male parties. ; Title 28 Section
453 -Oaths of justices and judges- . Clearly in this matter the Commissioner
violated Oath and Canon 3(B)(2)(7), 3(D)(2).
David Derringer’s Civil Rights have
been violated with rights to have equal protection and protect his property
under US Code Title 42 Section 1981. Here, Barrie
had already gone to the travel trailer January 2nd, 3rd,
and 8th, and taken any and all of what she wanted of the “community
property” of both Derringer’s. Petitioner then on February 4, 2012, with 12
persons broke into the Derringer storage on 101 Florida SE Unit C after
Appellant locked it for Barrie’s own protection of “suicidal attempts” wherein
there were totally loaded firearms inside, and Barrie took most of the
“community personal property” without Respondent’s agreement or supervision,
and thus already has not only her own claims to property, but also $55,000.00
of Respondent’s personal possessions before they were married, including Respondent’s
two handguns and two rifles; one rifle admitted in possession of Barrie 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. Petitioner and the courts conducted violations of Constitutional Rights 1st, 2nd,,
4th, 5th, 8th, 13th and 14th
Amendments. “Commissioner” then
unlawfully allows Barrie under illegal Order of February 21, 2012 to again
enter the Derringer storage on February 25, 2012, unsupervised by David
Derringer under “Order of Protection” to then steal and confiscate anything Barrie
wants of the “community property” to gain “possession” before any marital
settlement can be reached in division of such property, in a total disregard
for the rights of husband Respondent. This entirely violates David Derringer’s Rights
to personal property under US Code Title 42 Section 1982. Benevidez v.
Benevidez, 99 N.M. 535, 660 P.2d 1017 (1983). Clear violations
of due process and equal protection under the 1st, 2nd, 4th,
5th , 13th , and 14th Amendments against Respondent
deliberately by the commissioner, and from ‘the State of New
Mexico’. Additionally, depriving Respondent his
firearms and “personal property” violated the “right to a profession” as a
property right under Title 42 Section 1982. Robbins v. Wilkie,
433 F.3d 755 C.A.10.Wyo.,2006; Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and
Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 ; Muckleroy v.
Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 ; Adamson v. C.I.R.
CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541. Barela v.
Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966). It is mandated for this court to stop and
reverse this case of the instant and ongoing stealing of Respondent’s property by a “woman” Petitioner mis-using
the courts in fraud and perjury to gain all of the community property that was
done before any legal division. Desjardin v. Albuquerque National Bank,
93 N.M. 89, 596 p.2d 858 (1979). Since the “jurisdiction” of this matter
was lacking in the beginning without proper legal service to Respondent,
this matter must be stopped by total dismissal in “fundamental error”. Wisdom
v. Kopel, 95 N.M. 513, 623, P.2d 1027 (Ct. App. 1981). Commissioner was simply acting in sexual
harassment of Respondent as a “man” to gain the advantage of a “woman” as
Petitioner. In re Hey, 193 W. Va.
572, 457 S.E.2d 509 (1995). Commissioner has no jurisdiction to allow Petitioner
in perjury and fraud to gain a bogus Order of Protection simply to steal all
“community property” she wants before any legal division could be made to then
gain “possession” of all items that cannot be retrieved by the husband. Mireless
v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 116
S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991). Petitioner was
allowed with her 12 thugs in conspiracy to steal $55,000.00 of Respondent’s
sole and separate personal property. US
v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 US 941
130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied.
Commissioner had direct proof of Petitioner
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 Petitioner, with
facilitation by attorney Jackson NMRA Rule 16-401 ‘FRAUD WITH CLIENT’ and Rule 16-804. Kevlik v.
Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844. Petitioner
knew she lied in the Petition after already seeing Respondent personally many
times in dark, secluded, and alone, and then lied to say she was afraid of Respondent
even in the courtroom itself. Her attorney 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; “Fraud by
Client” “ Paragraph B of 16-401 ; In re Ayala, 102 N.M.
214, 693 p.2d 580 (1984). Jackson
is as criminally implicated as his client Barrie Derringer. All actions mandate
the dismissal immediately of the Order of February 21, 2012 of DV-12-234 with “restitution” in
extreme amounts to Respondent instead of continuing the fraud and lack of
jurisdiction of the Order of April 15,
2013. Hedrick v. Perry,
102 F.2d 802
The record shows 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’s perjury
and fraud, and the proven indications that Barrie
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. Commissioner was emphatic that Barrie 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
88 (1971). In the process, Commissioner allowed the attorney Jackson to
facilitate the crimes in total violations of disciplinary responsibilities
against an attorney that knowingly conducted fraud with a client. This was a total prejudice to Respondent’s
rights to protection against theft, abuse and confiscation of personal “community”
property without proper court division. This also entailed the reckless
endangerment by Commissioner of Barrie with suicidal past attempts documented
with the court with admission by Barrie
in possession of loaded Respondent’s firearms taken by Barrie
on February 4, 2012. Barrie
admitted to having one “rifle” of Respondent in her possession taken in the
break-in by Barrie of the storage on February 4, 2012, and then the filing of
the Petition for Order of Protection on February 6, 2012 not even mentioning
that break-in of February 4, 2012 and the past confiscation of everything Barrie
wanted in “community property” from the travel trailer on the West Mesa on
January 2nd, 3rd, and 8th. This also ignores
that there is also “community property” of piano and music at the home of Barrie’s
friend Kris Riley at 8809 Rio Grande #1 NW in Albuquerque, NM in which Barrie
has full control and “possession” of that “community property” as well. This
actions of “larceny” (conversion) with assault and battery and the infliction
of the venereal disease by Barrie Derringer against David Derringer
precipitated the tort law suit against Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer of
CV-12-10816.
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 and while David Derringer exposes that fraud in public records on the
Internet, Barrie Derringer and this court seek to stop 1st Amendment
rights illegally against David Derringer to muzzle him. City of Albuquerque v. Pangaea Cinema LLC, 284 P.3d 1090, 2012 -NMCA- 075, N.M.App., May 29, 2012 (NO. 30,380) the courts are without jurisdiction to form a personal
opinion and use subjective bias, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and
discriminatory application against Constitutional Law Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press or to inhibit
matters of..
...flow of ideas and opinions or on matters of public interest and concern. This is a violation of Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press and in General viewpoint or idea discrimination.
...flow of ideas and opinions or on matters of public interest and concern. This is a violation of Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press and in General viewpoint or idea discrimination.
The
US Supreme
Court No. 10-1521 held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second
Amendment right, recognized in Heller,
to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court held self defense as a 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. 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. The DV-12-234 Order
of Protection thus is “federally illegal” against David Derringer both under
Constitutional law and lack of summons service, and thus so is the illegal
Order of April 15, 2013 denying 1st Amendment rights and attempting
to sentence David Derringer to criminal accusations without Miranda rights or
legal right to an attorney. Clearly, David Derringer did no at any time waive
his rights to an attorney or Miranda notification by verbal or written waiver
and the Commissioner’s idea to persecute David Derringer without such Miranda
rights had to stop instantly at the onset of the hearing of March 19, 2013 well
prior to the Commissioner’s later Order of her own deprivations of April 15,
2013. State v. King, P.3d, 2013 WL 1502195, N.M., April 15, 2013 (NO. 33,395) The actions of the Commissioner holding an
illegal hearing of March 19, 2-13 without jurisdiction as a “civil” matter, and
then after the hearing turning the action into a “criminal” action against
David Derringer illegally without Miranda rights or attorney, and without any
actions by David Derringer to waive any rights, mandate that the matter is
jurisdictionally defective and David Derringer would have remained silent in
the entire process if he knew that the underlying corruption of the
Commissioner was to attack David Derringer criminally when well outside of her
jurisdiction to do so. Instead of complying with evidence and Miranda rights
and rights to an attorney, the Commissioners leads the Respondent to believe
that this was still a civil matter and wherein all of the law was on the side
of the Respondent that no violations had occurred due to the rights under the 1st
Amendment, and the Commissioner then “tailors” the Order into something
entirely different in cruel an unusual punishment against the Respondent,
clearly hoping that the Respondent does not appeal her outrageous acts in
conspiracy to stop the exposure of herself and Barrie Derringer legally on the
Internet.
Under
the unlawful Order of Protection, both Respondent, 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. In this matter, several Derringer
pets have been killed needlessly by coyotes due to the prevention available if only
Respondent had had his firearms to protect them. Respondent has also been under
a “death threat” with no means of protecting himself. 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. 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.
The Respondent can ‘keep and bear arms” under Title 42 Section 1982 guarantees
and "arms" definitely includes
“firearms” with use of some form of ammunition, and is not restricted to any other
weapon that is not capable of discharge for effect at some distance. 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
resident Appellant. Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy, one of the five in decision stated that: “the point of their ruling --
that the right to bear arms was fundamental to liberty.” The US Supreme court already has incorporated
most of the Bill of Rights through a part of the 14th Amendment that says
states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." Respondent did not receive due process or
equal protection of the laws in DV-12-234 and rights were taken anyway in corruption
of the courts. The combination of both Constitution and US Code rights under
Title 42 Section 1981 and 1982 forbids laws that abridge "the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States." as does the DV-12-234
Order of Protection. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the right of an
individual to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution and is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The right to own a handgun in
your home, the 2nd Amendment now affirmed as an individual right and enforced
against the states, is quite unambiguously to "keep and bear." That
means carry, and an order of protection that prohibits that is “unconstitutional”.
In 1857, the Supreme Court denied the Bill of Rights to blacks by disregarding
the privileges and immunities clause, just as DV-12-234 has done against rights
of David Derringer. What the court said
back then was illegal and stunning: "It would give to persons of the negro
race, . . . the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . .
the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon
which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political
affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. " and it denied
those rights to blacks. The Dred Scott case was wrongly decided and the basic
privileges of citizenship were well-known, and clearly discussed by the court.
"Keep and carry arms wherever they went" is an old, traditional,
well-grounded part of being a free man and a citizen, and Respondent’s “citizenship”
has been taken by a mere unfounded and fraudulent “allegation” that was
impeached by the very person claiming; Barrie Derringer.
David Derringer is a “free”
citizen in New Mexico never
convicted of any crime, and has certainly done no crimes against Barrie
Derringer. This Court cannot conjure up bogus and illegal charges of a criminal
nature in a civil proceeding to affect and disrupt the life of David Derringer
by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar’s “corruption”. David Derringer has tried
repeatedly to protect and “understand” a wife that Respondent loves with all of his heart, despite a strong
possibility of emotional and mental disorders requiring medications by Petitioner’s
outrageous actions and criminal acts against David that indicate an extreme 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 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 aka Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Beverley 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”. Peter R. Breggin, MD recent studies show
that those antidepressants that are supposedly helping emotionally challenged
people like Barrie actually are making them crazy, violent, suicidal, agitated,
and Barrie has admitted under oath to being suicidal in DM-12-610 on August 23,
2012 and admitted to doing domestic violence against David and then in
DM-12-610 on April 3, 2013 admitted under Oath that she “lies”. “Accusing”
Appellant of domestic violence that never happened, while Barrie
admits to actually doing domestic violence against Appellant is of court
record. [2] The fact that every one of the recent
suicide killers was either on or had been on one of these drugs Barrie uses,
and that psychiatric drugs are the second-largest category of drugs, makes the
Order of Protection unfounded both in facts and law. Clearly, Barrie does not
need “protection” from a man that loves this woman and has her best interests
in mind at all times, but needs counseling and “protection” from herself, and
depriving Respondent 1st and 2nd Amendment Constitutional
rights does not at all address any past or present marriage situation, but only
penalizes the husband against being a US citizen, and properly caring for and
loving his own wife. In the past marriage with living with Petitioner, Barrie
was happy and secure in the love between the couple. However Barrie
used very little of any prescribed drugs and to the knowledge of husband David did
not drink alcohol and did not use any illegal drugs at any time. So for the
corruption of the NM courts to illegally defy oath and condone Constitutional
deprivations against an American citizen, who can travel freely between the
United States without permission, passports, or papers, can speak freely in
public or private, and can freely defend himself is profoundly unclear. The
latest action of Barrie and this court in corruption in DV-12-234 is to illegally
take away the 1st Amendment, causing more waste of tax payer dollars
as Respondent will have to defend himself against a new onslaught of criminal
fraud without cause and will continue to expose this corruption in the courts
and on the Internet against all that do this “conspiracy against rights”. David
Derringer has no legal recourse but to continue to expose these and other
unlawful activities until some element of the Government takes corrective
action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia
Pictures 508 U.S.
49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993). In 1857 in Dred Scott
actions were taken to make someone less than a full citizen, exactly what the Commissioner
and Barrie are doing “in tandem” against the laws to the Respondent in
DV-12-234, stating that just because of unfounded accusations by Barrie, David
was not and could not be a citizen and therefore did not have the protection of
the Constitution afforded all full citizens free travel, free expression, free
press, free opinions, free speech, or carrying arms wherever you went to be a
free man and citizen of the United States. Heller makes right to
bear arms an individual right, and clearly McDonald v. Chicago
does not reverse Heller or change Heller at all; it
is consistent with Heller and incorporates the 2nd Amendment
against the States. It is now a matter of settled law from the US Supreme Court
that Respondent has a right to possess, own, use and carry loaded with
ammunition firearms and certainly has a right to use those in a profession of
New Mexico Big Game outfitter/hunter #32 whenever he chooses to use that
occupation. Neither the trial courts of Commissioner or Judge Hadfield, nor any
Court have any legal ability to “over-rule” the US Supreme Court, deny free speech,
freedom of expression or any other Constitutional right. Disregarding David’s
age, indeed, the notion of the collective right of any man capable of joining a
militia to provide for the common defense would be entitled to keep and bear
military weapons, so-called assault rifles, and similar, and the Order of
Protection would not hold. United
States citizen and “rights” have long been
synonyms. The only way a man could be denied these fundamental rights by a
woman’s whim or perjury could be by making Respondent less than a full citizen,
or unable to be a citizen at all in doing as in the case of Dred Scott of 1857;
Barrie Derringer does to David Derringer in DV-12-234. People have lives outside their homes and the
constitutional rights apply outside their home including rights to bear arms
and rights to post blogs on Google on the Internet of public documents,
personal opinions, photographs of marriage, and other “information”. Village of Ruidoso v. Warner, 274 P.3d
791, 2012 -NMCA- 035, N.M.App., February 15, 2012 (NO. 30,591) It is illegal even when claims of facially valid if it deprived the challenger of a protected right of Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press and cannot
hold with interfering with First Amendment freedoms.
The case DV-12-234 has had “fundamental error” from
the onset, to where the 1st and 2nd Amendment violations
are simply a culmination of the extreme egregious acts of prior violations of
the 4th, 5th , 13th, and 14th Amendments. The current
attack on the 1st Amendment by Barrie and Commissioner is 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”.
Commissioner simply will not comply with any law of Constitution, NM statutory
laws, US Code, or case laws blaspheming her Oath; constituting “criminal
perjury” of the justice involved that must be prosecuted to protect the
integrity of the judicial system. In re Williamson, 43 BR
813. ; 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,
122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). ; McBeth v. Nissan Motor
Corp. USA,
921 F. Supp. 1473 “DSC 1996. DV-12-234
is without legal doubt a “conspiracy against rights” to obtain no due process
or equal protection. US v. Guest,
US Ga.
1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239. DV-12-234 is in a lack of
jurisdiction and judicial capacity wherein the entire DV-12-234 must be
dismissed with prejudice, reinstating David Derringer’s rights including, but
not limited to the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Historical Supreme
Court ruling that violated 2nd Amendment. 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. Rulings that applies to Respondent’s 1st
and 2nd Amendment rights and attempts to create a bogus criminal
record are illegal with the Order of Protection. 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. US Supreme Court No.
10-1521- is case law this Commissioner 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 Respondent is lawfully entitled. That
the right to bear arms was fundamental to liberty. The Bill of Rights through a
part of the 14th Amendment says that states may not "deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But in accepting
the McDonald case, it forbids laws that abridge "the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States." The deprivation of Respondent’s
2nd Amendment rights on February
21, 2012 and still continued and now deprivation of 1st
Amendment rights with a bogus and illegal creating of criminal charges with
“sentencing” are totally illegal under both due process, equal protection and
all US laws.
This outrageous act of the Commissioner 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 the Commissioner. 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 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 Respondent is included as a US Citizen. Moreover, on April 20, 2009, in Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266
(9th Cir. 2009) a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed and further expanded the
Supreme Court's District of Columbia
v. Heller 2nd amendment decision. The court stated that the 2nd
Amendment is an individual right and is incorporated against all states.
The Second Amendment stands as a protection against both external threat and
internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second
Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states,
is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. This court is mandated to remand the issue of
2nd Amendment rights back in DV-12-234 and dismiss it with
prejudice, making sure thqat the bogus “criminal sentencing” is withdrawn and
not of any record, and making sure that no further 1st Amendment
right are taken or abridged and that the Order of April 15, 2013 is entirely
withdrawn with “instructions” to reenstate David Derringer’s rights with
restitution of millions of dollars for depriving Constitutional rights for a
period exceeding one year and four months. Sanctions should also be applied
against Barrie Derringer, Alain Jackson, and the Commissioner for
$50,000,000.00 each and restitution from the State of New Mexico. The 2nd Amendment was
presented at all times with all Courts, and Constitutional rights are protected
without “preservation” as a matter of Constitutional doctrine, the Charter of
existence of this court. Civil Rights 13.4(4) Conspiracy 7.5
. At all times David Derringer preserved both his 1st and 2nd
Amendment rights before the Commissioner 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 DV-12-234 Respondent 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, and all rights to “1st
Amendment” ability to post blogs on Google on the Internet and to post public
records of court pleadings. 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 and 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. 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. Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar is somewhere between Adolf
Hitler and Stalin, and the 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 has
protected both his 1st and 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 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 Respondent, there is no
evidence whatsoever to support the order of protection in the record as Respondent
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, Respondent
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 is not afraid of David and Barrie’s own testimony that she
states that “David Derringer would not hurt me physically” in the court
record of DV-12-234 on February 21, 2012. The Commissioner “refused” to allow David’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”. When asked to recuse for cause,
the Commissioner continued to preside and “refused’ to grant the standard of
evidence in the hearing of March 19,
2013, proving without doubt the corruption and bias of this court. 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 Respondent’s
1st and 2nd Amendment rights to be taken by a “simple
civil allegation” of Barrie that David did domestic violence, when she
impeaches herself under Oath 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]
Once again, the Respondent has to appeal the outrageous acts of sedition and
treason of the Commissioner taking now the4 1st Amendment rights and
trying to create a criminal record without any criminal acts by the Respondent.
The Commissioner states no authority to do any of her unconstitutional acts,
save the total corruption of the New Mexico
family court system. 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle
Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
405, 421 (1975) Id., at 416,
quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d)
(CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). United
States v. Taylor,
487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56
U.S.L.W. 4744. ; Schwarz v.
Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985).
Not only then did the Respondent appealed this matter to this New Mexico Court
of Appeals under No. 32,326, that has current jurisdiction but the Commissioner
disregards both legal and other court jurisdiction of this matter to take
additional Constitutional rights. There
is clear and convincing evidence, factual support, case laws, deprivation of
Constitution and blatant violations of evidence and criminal code amongst the
“conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law held
against Respondent that mandates this matter completely dismissed of DV-12-234.
Respondent is also entitled to extreme amounts of money for deprivation of
rights and illegal criminal sentencing without Miranda rights, without an
attorney and in corruption of the entire matter by the Commissioner. Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981
524 F. Supp. 927. ; Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S.
527, 101 Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) . In the meantime, Respondent
has been denied his Constitutional rights for over 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 1st and 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 from the
bench; and restitution for David Derringer in extreme amounts of money from the
justices involved and from the State of New Mexico. (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). ; Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary
responsibilities: Thus, the “corruption” of New Mexico justices knows
no bounds, and is instrumental in taking all rights from a US citizen without
legality. In this matter, David’s citizenship and Constitutional rights are
taken by a fraudulent “civil allegation” of Barrie with facilitation of public
corrupt justices with use of Barrie admitting to being suicidal under oath, and
while under her bipolar drugs, in PTSD, and possibly back on cocaine, with her
mental state in question and her emotional state in turmoil, and wherein New
Mexico is not a functional part of the union, and a rogue instrument of
sedition and tyranny to any that come or reside here. A quote from U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Tom C. Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.
Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a
government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its
disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice
Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S.
438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the
Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis
added).
The attached
Memorandum in support details the subversion of this court against law and
defines each act of the Commissioner without any jurisdiction or judicial
capacity. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________
David
Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE April 24,
2013
Petitioner=s attorney of record
Alain
Jackson
423
6th St. NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
505-620-6688
On
April 24, 2013 I hand
delivered a copy of this pleading to:
The
Second Judicial District Court
400,
Lomas NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
[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