STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO
SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BARRIE
DERRINGER, No.
DV-12-0234
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID
DERRINGER,
Respondent,
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL AND OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION/HEARING OFFICER
COSGROVE/AGUILAR’S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL APRIL 15, 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS
COMES NOW the Respondent David
Derringer with his Memorandum in Support for Objections to Commission/Hearing
Officer Recommendations of April 15,
2013 that must be dismissed entirely, including striking any Order
for jail sentencing or any reference to criminal conduct without any criminal
hearing, under the following: No summons was ever legally served (R.P. 2-17-2012 unable to serve.)
On March 19, 2013 hearing was held illegally and without jurisdiction
both due to the underlying lack of legal service of summons of this original
case making it both in “fundamental error” and without jurisdiction and the
matter that the jurisdiction of this DV-12-234 is in the New Mexico Court of
Appeals under No. 32,326.
The
hearing was a “civil matter” of false claims of a violation of the order of
protection due to Respondent placing legal court public record pleadings and
his own “opinion” and headings on the Internet in blogs, that are not connected
to any person or entity or any email or web site. Thus, under the 1st
Amendment of freedom of speech, freedom or press, freedom of expression, and
artistic license of expression, David Derringer has every right to make his own
blogs on the Internet Google and to place this “information” for the world to
see, including rhetorical questions of concern and confusion as to what
happened in the Derringer marriage and a right to photographs of the
Derringer’s in their wedding of 2010. Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 852, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874
(1997); U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, C.A.10 (Utah), September 16,
2002 (NO. 01-4150); 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 Respondent was witness and the court record shows that Petitioner Barrie
Derringer was asked and agreed that the Internet blogs were not direct contact
with her and thus did not violate the no-contact provisions of the Order of
Protection. In cross examination, Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer again
reiterated that the Internet blogs were not a direct communication to her, as
they could not be since they were not sent to her email, were not tied to any
web site and she had no obligation or need to access the blog site on which the
court public records were posted. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction
whatsoever to stop Internet postings by David Derringer of public record,
opinions, marriage wedding photographs or commentary of artistic and freedom of
expression of David Derringer’s thoughts, concerns, worries, and confusion
about the Derringer marriage or the reality or deception of the last three years
with wife Barrie Derringer. Brown v.
Entertainment Merchants Ass'n 131 S.Ct. 2729, U.S.,2011; U.S. v. Alvarez 132 S.Ct. 2537
U.S.,2012.June 28, 2012 As a general matter, the First Amendment means that
government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its
content, and as a result, the Constitution demands that content-based
restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the Government bear the
burden of showing their constitutionality. (Per opinion of Justice Kennedy,
with three Justices concurring and two Justices concurring in the judgment.)
Accordingly,
the Commissioner cannot punish, persecute, sentence with criminal charges or
act to stop, inhibit or prevent David Derringer from putting any blog on Google
with a content of his own opinions, his own writings, public record court
pleadings, captions to those pleadings, or dialog of thoughts, artistic
interpretation or other means of personal blogs, that are meant not only to
expose the public corruption underlying this family court system, but also the
lies, untruths, slander and defamation of character that Barrie Derringer aka
Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Beverley has spread to friends, employers, family and
others of acts that David Derringer did not do, and that seek to fraudulently
sustain the irrational and erratic actions of a wife that betrayed her husband
and animals and seeks continually to ruin the life of David Derringer without
cause. Woodhull v. Meinel, 145 N.M. 533, 202 P.3d
126, 2009 -NMCA- 015, N.M.App., October 24, 2008 (NO. 27,959) information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a
computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides
access to the Internet provides all the world access to
information and is well beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in
DV-12-234. The information is available for anyone and is not direct contact or
use of writing to the Petitioner and does not violate the no contact order to which anyone
may freely post information or commentary. Since David Derringer
is a party to the litigation, and since the litigation specifically is titled Barrie Lee Derringer Petitioner v. David
Brian Derringer Respondent, and in suit David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie
Beverley Defendants, the title of the blogs are appropriately named
with Barrie’s various names as in the court documents and this court has no
jurisdiction to stop or order a change to the blog names any more than it has
jurisdiction to change the name of the legal case and pleadings filed. Claiming
that David Derringer tailored his title or speech as a criminal act was illegal
and without the jurisdiction of this Commissioner or any court. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,
542 U.S. 656, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690, 72 USLW 4649, 32 Media L. Rep.
1865, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5781, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7896, 32
Communications Reg. (P&F) 1089, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 507, U.S., June
29, 2004 (NO. 03-218) regulating
speech or content by criminalizing
certain Internet speech, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
governmental interest. Web speakers and others as well as the Constitution 1st
Amendment is concerned with protecting the freedom of speech.
In
this matter, there is simply a situation that Barrie Derringer found by
accident or by someone other than David Derringer a reference to her name of
public record, that was listed in court documents on the Internet not tied in
any way to Barrie Derringer by email, web site or other, and was at no time
sent to Barrie Derringer. After finding the legal “expressions” opinions and
feelings of David Derringer on his own blog with attending public records of
court pleadings that exposed Barrie Derringer’s lies about the abandonment of
the Derringer marriage and her abandonment of her vows and loyalty to David
Derringer, Barrie Derringer sought in fraud and perjury to attack David
Derringer illegally in malicious prosecution with re-opening the order of
protection, claiming violation in a retaliatory act of viciousness. Barrie
Derringer cannot sue, claim damages, claim violations or any other tort act due
to the legal use of David Derringer’s 1st Amendment rights. Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179
L.Ed.2d 172, 79 USLW 4135, 39 Media L. Rep. 1353, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2774,
2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3307, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 836, U.S., March 02,
2011 (NO. 09-751) ...Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press in general, and
particular issues and applications cannot be used to deprive 1st
Amendment rights under Constitution. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve
as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Matters of “public concern” which in this matter
includes the fact admitted to under oath by Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer
aka Barrie Beverley that she is infected and will spread the STD Sexually
Transmitted Disease Herpes that is a part of the tort suit David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe of public record and as
public record can be on the blogs of the Internet as “information” and as matters of public concern. Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First
Amendment's protection.
In
DV-12-234, Barrie Derringer seeks to mis-use the court system in malicious
prosecution to silence David Derringer’s feeling, opinions and public record to
stem and stop any members of the public, Barrie’s friends, Barrie’s parents,
Barrie’s employers, future dates or others of acquaintance from knowing what
Barrie did to her marriage, discharge of her marriage vows, abandoning her
husband and animals, particularly after a disaster, with leaving a good
marriage without cause. It is notably “disturbing” that the world can hear the
truth and the other side of the picture of Barrie’s filing for a no-contact
order, a dissolution of marriage and other outrageous acts against a husband
that only loved and protected this woman with a loyalty still standing. Both Barrie and the Courts cannot stop the 1st Amendment
rights to David Derringer’s opinion of this matter. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653,
180 L.Ed.2d 544, 79 USLW 4591, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7745, 2011 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 9263, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1246, 67 A.L.R.6th 755, U.S., June 23,
2011 (NO. 10-779) ..Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press is so important in
the Constitution that the State finds expression too persuasive and does not
permit it to quiet the speech or to burden its messengers.The State may
not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction. As law and general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value
of information presented in..Internet
blogs, outside of the jurisdiction of the courts.
This court and the Commissioner, as well as Barrie Derringer have no ability to muzzle or control the writings or opinions of David Derringer under rights of the 1st Amendment, no matter how exposing those opinions are to the Petitioner’s statements formerly to others. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 121 S.Ct. 1753, 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2199, 149 L.Ed.2d 787, 69 USLW 4323, 143 Lab.Cas. P 59,221, 29 Media L. Rep. 1737, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4037, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4961, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 254, 2001 DJCAR 2488, U.S.Pa., May 21, 2001 (NO. 99-1728, 99-1687) Freedom of speech, is different from freedom of conduct. As David Derringer expresses his views, opinions, dreams, expressions and viewpoints, law dictates that no one can control, stop or limit such freedoms under the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press in general mandate content-neutral regulations or restrictions preventing injunctions or court limitations on speech, Internet blogs and freedom of “expressions”. In determining whether regulation of speech is content-based or content-neutral, court looks to purpose behind regulation; typically, government regulation of expressive activity is content-neutral so long as it is justified without reference to content of regulated speech. As David Derringer is the husband that is aggrieved and violated by the abandonment and abuse of a wife without any cause and with emotional disorders that the husband sought at all times to remedy or assist to a balance, the husband Respondent of the unreasonable acts by Barrie Derringer has a right to expound on his feelings, opinions and his seeking to help a wife he believes is in trouble. There is certainly no crime of a husband loving a wife and seeking to keep a marriage intact and gain counseling for a woman believed to be under emotional PTSD and a bi-polar condition or drugs that render herself incapable for “self-rescue”. State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) “substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.” In blogs, just as in the press, if David Derringer lawfully obtains information by his own knowledge or through discovery or other that is the truth or believed to be the truth in good faith, and seeks to use that information to expose the truth and stem lies and corruption that includes truthful information about a matter of public significance, state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of such information. Post-traumatic stress disorder admissible. — Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is both valid and probative and, because it is not unduly prejudicial, it is admissible for establishing whether an alleged victim exhibits symptoms of PTSD that are consistent with emotional disasters. State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192 (1993).
This court and the Commissioner, as well as Barrie Derringer have no ability to muzzle or control the writings or opinions of David Derringer under rights of the 1st Amendment, no matter how exposing those opinions are to the Petitioner’s statements formerly to others. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 121 S.Ct. 1753, 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2199, 149 L.Ed.2d 787, 69 USLW 4323, 143 Lab.Cas. P 59,221, 29 Media L. Rep. 1737, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4037, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4961, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 254, 2001 DJCAR 2488, U.S.Pa., May 21, 2001 (NO. 99-1728, 99-1687) Freedom of speech, is different from freedom of conduct. As David Derringer expresses his views, opinions, dreams, expressions and viewpoints, law dictates that no one can control, stop or limit such freedoms under the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press in general mandate content-neutral regulations or restrictions preventing injunctions or court limitations on speech, Internet blogs and freedom of “expressions”. In determining whether regulation of speech is content-based or content-neutral, court looks to purpose behind regulation; typically, government regulation of expressive activity is content-neutral so long as it is justified without reference to content of regulated speech. As David Derringer is the husband that is aggrieved and violated by the abandonment and abuse of a wife without any cause and with emotional disorders that the husband sought at all times to remedy or assist to a balance, the husband Respondent of the unreasonable acts by Barrie Derringer has a right to expound on his feelings, opinions and his seeking to help a wife he believes is in trouble. There is certainly no crime of a husband loving a wife and seeking to keep a marriage intact and gain counseling for a woman believed to be under emotional PTSD and a bi-polar condition or drugs that render herself incapable for “self-rescue”. State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) “substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.” In blogs, just as in the press, if David Derringer lawfully obtains information by his own knowledge or through discovery or other that is the truth or believed to be the truth in good faith, and seeks to use that information to expose the truth and stem lies and corruption that includes truthful information about a matter of public significance, state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of such information. Post-traumatic stress disorder admissible. — Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is both valid and probative and, because it is not unduly prejudicial, it is admissible for establishing whether an alleged victim exhibits symptoms of PTSD that are consistent with emotional disasters. State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192 (1993).
In
this matter, the jurisdiction is lacking entirely in DV-12-234 to have any in
personam control or personal jurisdiction over David Derringer due to the
fundamental problem of lacking legal service of summons in the initiative of
the action, as well as having no jurisdiction of the subject matter of control
over the blogs on the Internet under the rights under the 1st
Amendment. Utah Licensed Beverage Ass'n v. Leavitt, 256
F.3d 1061, 29 Media L. Rep. 2193, 2001 DJCAR 3813, C.A.10 (Utah), July 24, 2001
(NO. 00-4058) Freedom of Speech. Finally, we come to the fourth element,
whether an injunction would be adverse to the public interest. In A.C.L.U. v. Johnson, we held that an injunction that would
block an unconstitutional New Mexico regulation of the Internet would not be “adverse to the public interest[,] as it will protect the free
expression of the millions of Internet users both within and outside of the
State of New Mexico.” Johnson, 194 F.3d at 1163. Because we have held that
Utah's challenged statutes also unconstitutionally limit free speech, we conclude that enjoining their
enforcement is an appropriate remedy not adverse to the public interest. See also Elam Constr., Inc. v. Regional Transp. Dist., 129 F.3d 1343,
1347 (10th Cir.1997) (stating, in the context of a request for injunctive
relief, that “[t]he public interest . These case laws legally
support that the Commissioner cannot stop, punish, cause directive, Order
changes, or control or limit David Derringer’s blogs on the Internet and that
the Order of April 15, 2013 is both illegal and “cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the 13th Amendment and has to be entirely withdrawn
with also making sure that the “sentencing” punishment for retaliation is not
placed on any public record against David Derringer regarding “criminal
charges”. Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 38 Media L. Rep.
1961, C.A.10 (Colo.), July 19, 2010 (NO. 08-1250) ...Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press. The 1st
Amendment free speech is protection from defamation claims
extends to parody, fantasy, rhetorical hyperbole, and imaginative expressions,
that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an
individual. Even though this court claims that David Derringer asked
rehetorical questions regarding his wife and marriage, that does no constitute
any violation of a no-contact order, nor can it be controlled, stopped or
muzzled to deny the Respondent freedom or speech, freedom or press or freedom
of emotional, artistic, or other expression. This court has no ability to convict without standard of
evidence or based on conjecture and without Miranda rights or attorney, the
Respondent to face and be assessed “criminal sentence” for a crime that did not
occur in abuse of discretion and humiliation of cruel and unusual punishment,
persecution and bias of the Commissioner and such Order is mandated to be
withdrawn with restitution for its formation. David Derringer has no criminal
liability. Civil and criminal libel cases are subject to the same First
Amendment free speech limitations. Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 38 Media L. Rep.
1961, C.A.10 (Colo.), July 19, 2010
(NO. 08-1250).
This
court and particularly the Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the world wide
Internet mandating the Order of April 15, 2013
be quashed and dismissed in its entirety. Quik Payday, Inc. v. Stork, 549 F.3d 1302,
C.A.10 (Kan.), December 12, 2008 (NO. 07-3289) blogs on Google and...posting the information. See id. at 1157. If such a posting were subject to New Mexico law, it would
be equally subject to the laws of every jurisdiction in which the Internet operated. See id. at 1159 ( “[V]irtually
all communication on the Internet would meet the statutory definition of
‘knowingly’ and potentially be subject to liability under [the statute]. ” )
Such a regulatory regime could obviously cripple that medium of communication. There
is no such regulation of one-to-one commercial exchanges via the Internet. David Derringer’s blogs and Internet
postings do not give this Commissioner in personam jurisdiction over either
David Derringer or his writings. Sublett v. Wallin, 136 N.M. 102, 94 P.3d
845, 2004 -NMCA- 089, N.M.App., May 24, 2004 (NO. 24101) A Post website is not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction. See Jason H. Eaton, Annotation, Effect of Use, or Alleged Use, of
Internet on Personal Jurisdiction in, or Venue
of, Federal Court Case, 155 A.L.R. Fed 535, § 4[b] (1999) (listing the many
cases that do not find personal jurisdiction where informational websites are involved); see
generally Richard E. Kaye, Annotation, Internet Web Site Activities of Nonresident
Person or Corporation as Conferring Personal Jurisdiction Under Long–Arm
Statutes and Due Process Clause, 81 A.L.R.5th 41 (2000) . {30} The Pillar To Post website appears to be primarily passive. We
note at the outset that the only evidence in the record pertaining to the
Pillar To Post website is a two-page printout of the page
containing information on Wallin and Plaintiff's affidavit
detailing her experience with the website. The long arm statute of New Mexico does not confer jurisdiction against David Derringer for
any blogs of public record or opinions of David Derringer regarding his
marriage or of his opinions of wife Barrie Derringer. Barrie Derringer aka
Barrie Crowe cannot exert her control, manipulation and oppression over David
Derringer via the Internet.
LEGAL
AND CONSTITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE MINUTE ORDER MANDATING ITS WITHDRAWAL WITH
RESTITUTION AFFORDED THE RESPONDENT FROM BARRIE CROWE AKA BARRIE DERRINGER,
ATTORNEY ALAIN JACKSON, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE/AGUILAR, AND THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
David
Derringer Respondent has been egregiously violated by abuse of process,
malicious prosecution and outrageous
Constitutional deprivations that encompass “conspiracy against rights” and
“deprivation of rights under color of law” by the Court outside of jurisdiction
and judicial capacity and the violent wrath of Barrie Derringer and her
unscrupulous attorney Alain Jackson. In the hearing of March 19, 2013 no
statements or mention was made that the Commissioner was intending to persecute
the Respondent by arbitrarily changing the civil venue of the order of
protection to attempt to force a criminal record against the Respondent with in
fact no criminal violations have occurred. In this instance, there was no
notification to David Derringer of his Miranda rights, there was no ability to
gain an attorney for criminal defense and the Commissioner and the Petitioner
met in conspiracy to persecute the Respondent in any way possible. Before the
hearing, the Respondent had already motioned the Commissioner to recuse for
cause, and had motioned the Commissioner to comply with legal Rules of evidence
and standards of proof and the Respondent had been denied all relief, with the
court stating before the hearing that the court would not be subject to any
law, any standard of proof and would not comply with any standard of evidence;
obviously a biased and prejudiced court that would stop at nothing to “convict
and sentence” the Respondent for criminal act that had not occurred. The Motion
and this Memorandum make it clear that there is no possibility of the Order of April 15, 2013 without any jurisdiction of either subject matter or
personam jurisdiction over David Derringer and that all actions of the
Commissioner were illegal, and well outside of all law.
No. 1. The Respondent had
made all allegations to sustain recusal for cause in written pleading that was
reiterated in verbal motion before the court in hearing of March 19, 2013 mandating the Commissioner to recuse; of which she refused
in violation of NMRA 1-088.1. It was found in “common knowledge” as the
Respondent attempted to gain a “civil attorney” to go up against the
Commissioner that all attorneys knew they would lose simply because it was
common knowledge that there was both a bias against men in this court as well
as a bias against pro-se parties. Since at all times the Commissioner has
violated Constitution, violated due process and equal protection and continued
with a case that was without any legal service of summons, the recusal was
mandated. Huff v. Standard
Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986 “Strict construction of statute
disqualifying trial judge for bias or prejudice is grounded upon sound principle that there is
possibility of substantial abuse since harsh remedy of cessation of trial proceedings
is mandated if allegations purport to state cause for bias. 28 USC 455"; In re A.tl Robins Co. Inc.,
97 BR 525 ED.Va 1995 “Bias” is condition of mind, which sways judgement and
renders judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case.”
No. 2. In the MAV Motion the Petitioner did fraud to
the court, just as is proven by her own impeachment of the primary Petition for
Order of Protection, and this court knows by Oath and Canon that the
Commissioner cannot violate provisions of the Constitution, and all case laws presented
prove that the court has no in personam jurisdiction over David Derringer and
Internet postings, and has no jurisdiction over David Derringer due to never
having been served any initial summons. The Order of Protection of February 21,
2012 is void under Constitutional law and lack of due process, and the
Petitioner’s Motion of December 11, 2012 was brought in retaliation,
retribution and revenge of the tort law suit prior of November 26, 2012 of David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe and
Alain Jackson et al. CV-12-10816. The act of Petitioner thus was
criminal fraud and malicious prosecution to reopen DV-12-234. Both the
“motive” and “purposes” of CV-2010-03825 were “improper ones”. Richter v.
Neilson, 11 Cal. App.2d
503, 54 P.2d 54 Cal. App. 1 Dist.
1936. The malicious prosecution here lies in the want of probable cause to
bring the action. Clearly, before filing the Petition, the Petitioner and her
attorney should have learned the law regarding 1st Amendment rights
in the United States of America
where we have a “Constitution”. In abuse of process a perversion of court
processes is used to accomplish some end which the process was never intended
to accomplish, or which compels the party against whom it has been used to do
some collateral thing which he could not do legally and regularly be compelled
to do, or to keep the party against whom it has been used to stop doing some
collateral thing in which he has rights to do. Geier v. Jordan
DC Mun. App. 107 A.2d 440.
No. 3 (mismarked on the Order as also No. 2) The Respondent has
placed legal court pleadings of public record and at the most, personal
thoughts, opinions and freedoms of expressions on the Internet Google under
blogs that are not tied to any emails, web sites and stand alone for the world
to see the lies and corruption of the courts and the fraud underlying the
Petitioner’s actions to ruin the life of the Respondent by falsely accusations
for a bogus Order of Protection that was never legally served in summons. All
actions in this matter are not within the jurisdiction of this court or the
Commissioner. 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. 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.
No. 4 (mismarked on the Order as No. 3) All of the postings on
the Internet are exact copies of legally filed court pleadings and court
papers, legal complaints against the Commissioner, attorney Alain Jackson and
show the corruption of the court by “public record”. The Court in hearing
sustained that the actual pleadings posted were identical to the filed and
stamped court record in DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 in the
Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo County. All court actions involve the Petitioner Barrie
Derringer, her employer NAI Maestas and Ward and owners and employees thus, and
the parents of Barrie Derringer; Geraldine and Warren Crowe, and the attorney
Alain Jackson and are a legal suit by David Derringer under US Code Title 42
Section 1981(a). 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.
No. 5 (mismarked
on the Order as No. 4) The acts of the court are a direct and unconscionable violation
by the court of all Rules of evidence as the exhibits of No 1-10 were
incomplete and not admissible in a court of law. Each “exhibit” marked as 1-10
was only a top page of what was at least 20 pages of document missing in each
exhibit. Objection was made in the hearing by the Respondent, that was
“sustained” by the Commissioner that such exhibits could not be introduced as
evidence for any purpose. In the hearing,
recess was extensive wherein the Commissioner allowed the Petitioner and
her attorney Alain Jackson to gain the other pages of each exhibit of which
they failed to produce. At all times the Respondent objected that exhibits 1-10
did not meet any standard of evidence and had to be discarded and not
considered by the court as “inadmissible”. Without legal merit, the
Commissioner after hearing now uses this inadmissible exhibits to attack
and condemn the Respondent well outside
of any judicial power. However. All names of Barrie Derringer are permitted to
be on any blog as they are defined in David
Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Beverley et al
in CV-12-10816 of court record as Title to the law suit, making no legal
problem with posting the title to what is of record with the Second Judicial
District Court in CV-12-10816. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction anyway of
the Internet and has no jurisdiction to use, peruse or validate exhibits 1-10
that are incomplete and inadmissible under the rules of evidence. Improper admission of exhibits afforded no ground for
reversal under former law unless it appeared that the court considered them in
deciding the case, particularly where there was testimony free from objection
to support the court's findings. Gish
v. Hart, 75 N.M. 765, 411 P.2d 349 (1966).
Where the improper evidence has been used for impeachment purposes, not only
does the error permit the jury to consider the substantive effect of the
evidence itself; it also discredits the testimony of the witness, including, of
course, the defendant if he or she has testified. Clark v. State, 112 N.M. 485, 816 P.2d 1107 (1991). In
this matter, the court sustained the inadmissible evidence, and then in “fraud”
against the Respondent illegally used that inadmissible evidence in the Order. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct. App. 1977),
overruled on other grounds State v.
Reynolds, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811 (1982).
No. 6 (mismarked as No. 5 in the Order) Exhibit 7, as all
exhibits 1-10 were incomplete and inadmissible as any evidence, and the
Respondent properly objected to this, and then in fraud, the Commissioner used
the inadmissible evidence against the Respondent in the Order. To preserve error on appeal, there must be a proper
objection. Poorbaugh v. Mullen,
99 N.M. 11, 653 P.2d 511 (Ct. App.
1982). All case laws sustain that the Commissioner has no
jurisdiction over David Derringer in personam due to a lack of legal service of
summons as well as has no jurisdiction over the Internet. Under Constitutional
provisions of freedom of speech, freedom or press, and freedom of expression
including freedom or artistic expression, there is no legal problem with the
husband of Barrie Derringer exercising his rights to post a photograph of his
wife at the time they were married with his opinion or confusions of the
divorce actions and other legal expressions of thought as a matte of law. Canon 3 (B)(2): A judge shall be
faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.
No. 7 (mismarked on the Order as No. 6) In the illegal and
unconstitutional Order of Protection of which was never served summons legally
upon David Derringer states without jurisdiction that the Respondent may not
abuse Petitioner. Specifically it states that the Respondent may not harass
Petitioner. 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 These facts do
not render Internet notification punitive. Placing
legal court public record on the Internet and placing legal opinions and
concerns does in no way either abuse or harass the Petitioner, as the actions
of David Derringer have been sustained in case laws to be expressions of the
rights under the 1st Amendment as well as rights to paraphrase
names, sequences and torts already complained of in court record, to include,
but not limited to the statements under Oath of Barrie Derringer in both
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 of “lying”, “domestic violence against husband David
Derringer”, “having the STD venereal disease of Herpes”, and being “suicidal”;
such statements thus not being slander or abuse but of court record. There was
no abuse or harassment of Barrie Derringer on any Internet sites that are not
under the jurisdiction of this court or the Commissioner. 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.
No. 8 (mismarked on the Order as No. 7) Although NMSA Section
30-3A-2 defines a section of statements, of which do not apply in this matter
as David Derringer has a right to post legal pleadings and truths and court
actions of torts in detail as in the pleadings regardless if those court
actions of tort claims annoy, alarm, terrorize, or cause emotional distress. The
Rules of Civil Procedure clearly state in NMRA Rule 1-090 that the “truth” must
be told to the courts, despite how “ugly” that truth is to Petitioner Barrie
Derringer or the corruption of the Commissioner being exposed in court record. 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.” Although maligned continuously by
the corrupt section of the judicial system, the Respondent states the facts as
truth that is distasteful to some, in “good faith” for justice to be served,
which rarely occurs. McKay v. Farmers
& Stockmans Bank, 92 NM 181, 585 P.2d325 (Ct. App.) Cert
denied 92 N.M. 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978) “Good faith is usually a question of
fact.” Clearly, if the Petitioner had not done torts
that caused a legal suit from the Respondent including infliction of a STD
venereal disease of Herpes, criminal conversion, assault and battery and other
egregious torts, the suit would not be of public record and there is no
violation by David Derringer of any criminal statutes including but not limited
to NMSA 30-3A-2 or other and this court does not have in personam jurisdiction
over David Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction
over the Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain
photographs, opinions, conclusions or public records. For any claim of criminal
violation of “harassment”, David Derringer was to be afforded an attorney to
defend criminally, his Miranda rights read before commencement of any criminal
proceeding, and this was denied to David Derringer, making the Order of April
15, 2013 “jurisdictionally defective” and in “fundamental error” of due process
and equal protection.
No. 9 (mismarked on the Order as No. 8) The court is legally
incorrect, as under all case laws presented to this court the Respondent did
not harass the Petitioner at any time, whether on the Internet and did no communication
with the Petitioner at any time, and this court has no in personam jurisdiction
over David Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction
over the Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain
photographs, opinions, conclusions or public records. 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. Since the Petitioner’s name is entitled in the public
record as “DV-12-234 and DM-12-610” Barrie
Lee Derringer Petitioner v. David Brian Derringer Respondent there is
legal application for the title of the blog to be so addresses as in public
record of the Second Judicial District Court as well as all names of the
Petitioner addressed in public record of CV-12-10816 as David Derringer v.
Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Beverley et al. Since public
records sustain all of the names of Barrie Derringer as the Petitioner in this
matter and the Internet posting all contain public court pleadings of such
cases, these is no “harassment” of using the legal names of the Petitioner and
Defendant to such cases. The wedding photographs of Barrie Derringer and David
Derringer are not in any way offensive or pornographic and are within the
guidelines of “expression and opinions and artistic expression” of the blogs of
David Derringer under all case laws that this court has to follow involving the
right of David Derringer under the 1st Amendment. Schwartz v. New Mexico Medical Bd., P.3d,
2012 WL 4434739, N.M.App., August 14, 2012
(NO. 31,303).
No. 10 (mismarked as No. 9 in the Order) Under law and former
case law that this court has to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot
order David Derringer to remove any text, photographs or other “1st
Amendment expressions” in any blogs on the Internet as the Court and this
Commissioner have no jurisdiction for such an order. 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.
This court cannot impose sanctions or criminal sentencing for actions supported
by Constitution and case laws that this court has to abide, nor can this court
sanction, persecute or condemn or cause cruel and unusual punishment against
David Derringer for exercising his rights under Constitution. US v. McDermott, CA2
(N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d
76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate
any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege
secured under Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged
Fourteenth Amendment violations.”; US
v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d
788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with
rights secured by Constitution or laws of the United States created no
substantive rights, but prohibits interference with rights established by
Constitution or laws and by decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section
241-Conspiracy against rights Title 18
Section 241 provides: “If two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title 18
Section 242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records.
No. 11 (mismarked as No. 10 on the Order) Under law and former
case law that this court has to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot
order David Derringer to remove any text, photographs or other “1st
Amendment expressions” in any blogs on the Internet. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542
U.S. 656, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690, 72 USLW 4649, 32 Media L. Rep. 1865,
04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5781, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7896, 32 Communications
Reg. (P&F) 1089, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 507, U.S., June 29, 2004 (NO. 03-218) criminalizing certain Internet speech, was unconstitutional as the Court and this Commissioner have no jurisdiction for such an
order, nor can this court sanction, persecute or condemn or cause cruel and
unusual punishment against David Derringer for exercising his rights under
Constitution. US v. McDermott,
CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114
L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or
intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or enjoyment of a right
or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United States applied to
alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.”; US
v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d
788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with
rights secured by Constitution or laws of the United States created no
substantive rights, but prohibits interference with rights established by
Constitution or laws and by decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section
241-Conspiracy against rights Title 18
Section 241 provides: “If two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title
18 Section 242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the Internet
or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs, opinions,
conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction to order
David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15, 2013 or
any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to sanction
the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with a
photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took place
that is not offensive in any manner.
No. 12 (mismarked on the Order as No. 11) The court misuses
“exhibit 4” that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence as “incomplete”
and without jurisdiction. Regardless, both exhibits 4 and 11 are Internet
postings of legal public records of court pleadings with the names of proper
parties of those pleadings which include public record as “DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610” Barrie Lee Derringer
Petitioner v. David Brian Derringer Respondent there is legal
application for the title of the blog to be so addresses as in public record of
the Second Judicial District Court as well as all names of the Petitioner
addressed in public record of CV-12-10816 as David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie
Beverley et al. Since public records sustain all of the names of Barrie
Derringer as the Petitioner in this matter and the Internet posting all contain
public court pleadings of such cases, these is no “harassment” of using the
legal names of the Petitioner and Defendant to such cases. Presumptions did not dictate a result in a civil trial
under this rule. Algermissen v. Sutin,
2003-NMSC-001, 133 N.M. 50, 61 P.3d 176. The
wedding photographs of Barrie Derringer and David Derringer are not in any way
offensive or pornographic and are within the guidelines of “expression and
opinions and artistic expression” of the blogs of David Derringer under all
case laws that this court has to follow involving the right of David Derringer
under the 1st Amendment. Under law and former case law that this
court has to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot order David
Derringer to remove any text, photographs or other “1st Amendment
expressions” in any blogs on the Internet as the Court and this Commissioner
have no jurisdiction for such an order, nor can this court sanction, persecute
or condemn or cause cruel and unusual punishment against David Derringer for
exercising his rights under Constitution. US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert.
denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting
conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state
in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under
Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment
violations.”; US v. Kozminski,
US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288
“Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by
Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but
prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by
decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against
rights Title 18 Section 241 provides: “If two or more persons conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title 18 Section
242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than
are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took
place that is not offensive in any manner.
No. 13
(mismarked as No. 12 of the Order) The Respondent has not abused the Petitioner
in any way by having public records on the Internet outside of the jurisdiction
of this court and is protected from criminal violation and torts by the 1st
Amendment of the Constitution wherein this court has no jurisdiction and cannot
inflict punishment against David Derringer for any action on the Internet which
indeed are not offensive, of public record and all fall under 1st
Amendment rights. Internet postings of legal public records of court pleadings
with the names of proper parties of those pleadings which include public record
as “DV-12-234 and DM-12-610” Barrie Lee Derringer Petitioner v. David Brian
Derringer Respondent there is legal application for the title of the blog to be
so addresses as in public record of the Second Judicial District Court as well
as all names of the Petitioner addressed in public record of CV-12-10816 as David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie
Derringer aka Barrie Beverley et al. Since public records sustain all
of the names of Barrie Derringer as the Petitioner in this matter and the
Internet posting all contain public court pleadings of such cases, these is no
“harassment” of using the legal names of the Petitioner and Defendant to such
cases. An inference may continue to operate in an
evidentiary sense even after introduction of evidence tending to establish the
contrary, and may sufficiently influence the trier of facts to conclude that the
presumed fact does exist. Sanchez v.
Quintana, 97 N.M. 508, 641 P.2d 539 (Ct. App. 1982);
Montoya v. Torres, 113 N.M. 105, 823 P.2d 905 (1991). The
wedding photographs of Barrie Derringer and David Derringer are not in any way
offensive or pornographic and are within the guidelines of “expression and
opinions and artistic expression” of the blogs of David Derringer under all
case laws that this court has to follow involving the right of David Derringer
under the 1st Amendment. Under law and former case law that this
court has to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot order David
Derringer to remove any text, photographs or other “1st Amendment
expressions” in any blogs on the Internet as the Court and this Commissioner
have no jurisdiction for such an order, nor can this court sanction, persecute
or condemn or cause cruel and unusual punishment against David Derringer for
exercising his rights under Constitution. US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert.
denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting
conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state
in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under
Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.”;
US v. Kozminski, US Mich
1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288
“Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by
Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but
prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by
decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against
rights Title 18 Section 241 provides: “If two or more persons conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title 18 Section
242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took
place that is not offensive in any manner.
No. 14
(improperly numbered No. 13 on the Order) The court misuses “exhibit 4” that is
inadmissible under the rules of evidence as “incomplete” and without
jurisdiction. Although objection was not as
specific as it might have been, as it sufficiently informed the court that
objection was being made to proof of content of a document in violation of the
best evidence rule, it was sufficient to preserve that objection for review. Frost v. Markham, 86 N.M. 261, 522 P.2d 808 (1974). Regardless,
both exhibits 4 and 11 are Internet postings of legal public records of court
pleadings with the names of proper parties of those pleadings which include
public record as “DV-12-234 and DM-12-610” Barrie
Lee Derringer Petitioner v. David Brian Derringer Respondent there is
legal application for the title of the blog to be so addresses as in public
record of the Second Judicial District Court as well as all names of the
Petitioner addressed in public record of CV-12-10816 as David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie
Beverley et al. Since public records sustain all of the names of Barrie
Derringer as the Petitioner in this matter and the Internet posting all contain
public court pleadings of such cases, these is no “harassment” of using the
legal names of the Petitioner and Defendant to such cases. The wedding
photographs of Barrie Derringer and David Derringer are not in any way
offensive or pornographic and are within the guidelines of “expression and
opinions and artistic expression” of the blogs of David Derringer under all
case laws that this court has to follow involving the right of David Derringer
under the 1st Amendment. Under law and former case law that this
court has to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot order David
Derringer to remove any text, photographs or other “1st Amendment
expressions” in any blogs on the Internet as the Court and this Commissioner
have no jurisdiction for such an order, nor can this court sanction, persecute
or condemn or cause cruel and unusual punishment against David Derringer for
exercising his rights under Constitution. US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert.
denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting
conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state
in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under
Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment
violations.”; US v. Kozminski,
US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d
1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by
Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but
prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by
decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against
rights Title 18 Section 241 provides: “If two or more persons conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title 18 Section
242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took
place that is not offensive in any manner. 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.”
No. 15 (mismarked as No. 14 on the Order) In no Internet blogs is
there any direct communication with the Petitioner and the Respondent under the
1st Amendment has a right to his opinion, his conjecture of what
happened and is able to use rhetorical questions or ideas to attempt to ease
his confusion of the incidents without punitive redress as “freedom of
expression” In the testimony of Barrie under Oath and under cross examination,
she repeatedly expressed her opinion that David Derringer had not contacted her
in any manner and as the Internet postings are not connected to any email or
web site and were never sent to the Petitioner there was “no contact” between
the Respondent and Petitioner. 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. This court has no in personam
jurisdiction over David Derringer without proper service of summons and has no
jurisdiction over the Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting
contain photographs, opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no
legal jurisdiction to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the
Internet by May 15, 2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or
juridical ability to sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st
Amendment right with a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any
court action took place that is not offensive in any manner. This court believes
in error that it can control the Internet and all that post upon it under
freedom of speech. This Court has no jurisdiction of the Internet or upon those
that post upon it with personal blogs. Allen v. McClellan,77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967)
“No court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party; it cannot
lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.
If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen.”
No. 16 (mismarked as No. 15 in the Order) Testimony is sustained
in every question to the Petitioner as to the Internet postings being
communication to the Petitioner. Despite the testimony of the Petitioner, 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. Since all postings are freedom of speech not
under the jurisdiction of this court and such postings are not connected in any
way and have never been sent in any way to the Petitioner, there is no
violation of a no-contact order and there was no communication between David
Derringer and the Petitioner.
No. 17 (mismarked as No. 16 of Order) Testimony is sustained in
every question to the Petitioner as to the Internet postings being
communication to the Petitioner. Despite the testimony of the Petitioner, 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. Since all postings are freedom of speech not
under the jurisdiction of this court and such postings are not connected in any
way and have never been sent in any way to the Petitioner, there is no
violation of a no-contact order and there was no communication between David
Derringer and the Petitioner. This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took
place that is not offensive in any manner. The court simply exercises its
corruption outside of law to have its own personal opinion in the ruling on the
matter, unavailable under the jurisdiction controlled in Canon by “law”. Baker v. Horn, 201
Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in
trial court’s opinion.”
No. 18 (mismarked as No. 17 in the Order) 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. This court
has no in personam jurisdiction over David Derringer without proper service of
summons and has no jurisdiction over the Internet or postings thereon, whether
or not such posting contain photographs, opinions, conclusions or public
records. This court has no legal jurisdiction to order David Derringer to
remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15, 2013 or any other time and
no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to sanction the Respondent for
exercising his 1st Amendment right with a photograph of a marriage
of the parties well before any court action took place that is not offensive in
any manner. This court cannot legally “sentence” David Derringer to jail
without a criminal trial with prior Miranda rights being noticed and without
David Derringer having a criminal attorney and without any jurisdiction to do
so. It is immaterial that the “sentence”
is suspended as this court has no ability to cause a criminal record or
a record in this court of jail time assessed without any crime being committed.
Clearly, under law there was no “contempt of this court,” but an attempt by
this court to falsely accuse and sentence David Derringer without jurisdiction
in a “conspiracy of bias with the Petitioner” The Respondent has not abused the
Petitioner in any way by having public records on the Internet outside of the
jurisdiction of this court and is protected from criminal violation and torts
by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution wherein this court has no
jurisdiction and cannot inflict punishment against David Derringer for any
action on the Internet which indeed are not offensive, of public record and all
fall under 1st Amendment rights. Internet postings of legal public
records of court pleadings with the names of proper parties of those pleadings
which include public record as “DV-12-234 and DM-12-610” Barrie Lee Derringer Petitioner v. David Brian Derringer Respondent
there is legal application for the title of the blog to be so addresses as in
public record of the Second Judicial District Court as well as all names of the
Petitioner addressed in public record of CV-12-10816 as David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer aka Barrie
Beverley et al. Since public records sustain all of the names of Barrie
Derringer as the Petitioner in this matter and the Internet posting all contain
public court pleadings of such cases, these is no “harassment” of using the
legal names of the Petitioner and Defendant to such cases. The wedding
photographs of Barrie Derringer and David Derringer are not in any way
offensive or pornographic and are within the guidelines of “expression and
opinions and artistic expression” of the blogs of David Derringer under all case
laws that this court has to follow involving the right of David Derringer under
the 1st Amendment. Under law and former case law that this court has
to follow under Oath and Canon, this court cannot order David Derringer to
remove any text, photographs or other “1st Amendment expressions” in
any blogs on the Internet as the Court and this Commissioner have no
jurisdiction for such an order, nor can this court sanction, persecute or
condemn or cause cruel and unusual punishment against David Derringer for
exercising his rights under Constitution. US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert.
denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting
conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state
in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under
Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment
violations.”; US v. Kozminski,
US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d
1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by
Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but
prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by
decisions interpreting them.”; Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against
rights Title 18 Section 241 provides: “If two or more persons conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised same”.; Title 18 Section
242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Title 18 Section 242
provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,
..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned..” This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took place
that is not offensive in any manner. The Order of April 15, 2013 must be rescinded as a matter of law with no record of
David Derringer being “sentenced to jail” for doing no crimes.
No. 19 (mis-numbered in the Order as No. 18) Testimony is
sustained in every question to the Petitioner as to the Internet postings being
communication to the Petitioner. Despite the testimony of the Petitioner, 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. Since all postings are freedom of speech not
under the jurisdiction of this court and such postings are not connected in any
way and have never been sent in any way to the Petitioner, there is no
violation of a no-contact order and there was no communication between David
Derringer and the Petitioner. This court has no in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer without proper service of summons and has no jurisdiction over the
Internet or postings thereon, whether or not such posting contain photographs,
opinions, conclusions or public records. This court has no legal jurisdiction
to order David Derringer to remove any photographs from the Internet by May 15,
2013 or any other time and no jurisdiction, authority, or juridical ability to
sanction the Respondent for exercising his 1st Amendment right with
a photograph of a marriage of the parties well before any court action took
place that is not offensive in any manner. The court simply exercises its
corruption outside of law to have its own personal opinion in the ruling on the
matter, unavailable under the jurisdiction controlled in Canon by “law”. Baker v. Horn, 201
Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in
trial court’s opinion.” Utah Licensed Beverage Ass'n v. Leavitt,
256 F.3d 1061, 29 Media L. Rep. 2193, 2001 DJCAR 3813, C.A.10 (Utah), July 24,
2001 (NO. 00-4058) Finally, we come to the fourth element, whether an
injunction would be adverse to the public interest. In A.C.L.U. v. Johnson, we held that an injunction that would
block an unconstitutional New Mexico regulation of the Internet would not be “adverse to the public interest[,] as it will protect the free
expression of the millions of Internet users both within and outside of the
State of New Mexico.” Johnson, 194 F.3d at 1163. Because we have held that
Utah's challenged statutes also unconstitutionally limit free speech, we conclude that enjoining their
enforcement is an appropriate remedy not adverse to the public interest. See also Elam Constr., Inc. v. Regional Transp. Dist., 129 F.3d 1343,
1347 (10th Cir.1997) (stating, in the context of a request for injunctive
relief, that “[t]he public interest . favors plaintiffs' assertion
of..facts and Information.
No. 20 (mismarked in Order as No. 19) The corruptive element of
this court chooses time after time to disregard Constitutional law, case law
and statutory law. The record is clear that the Respondent constantly uses many
authorities and in fact “saturates” the court record with “law” that this judge
has to obey, yet disregards. In the court record it is seen that the Petitioner
and her attorney rarely if ever answer any pleadings or motions of the
Respondent and at no time whatsoever, have the Petitioner or her attorney
sustained any motion, response or court litigation with any authority
whatsoever, whether that be construed to be Constitution, case law or statutes.
In matter of fact, the Commissioner as most courts in New Mexico disregard the Pro-Se person despite the law to be
enforced, and in this matter, the Commissioner chooses to malign, threaten, and
discharge duties under Canon and Oath to violate law, based upon only the
“word” of the opposition attorney without any law for support. Then, the
Commissioner admonishes this Respondent while ignoring all of the law presented
each time to simply find some other case wherein the corruption is being
covered as this instant case to reach outside of court record to make a
decision in this matter; all of these methods being “illegal”. Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct
or Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97 “Judge in adversarial
judicial proceeding...who reaches outside of record to decide case defiles
process.” This Commissioner violates Constitution, disregards lack of summons
service, disregards rules of evidence, does fraud to the Respondent with
inadmissible evidence, and then talk to the Respondent about “the nature of his
pleadings” all which the Respondent supports entirely with “LAW”. Simmons v. Conger, 86
F.3d 1080 “To be entitled to relief from allegedly unconstitutional actions of
a judge acting pursuant to a state statute, plaintiff must allege either that
statute is unconstitutional or that a particular judge’s actions pursuant to
that statute violated limits placed upon him by Constitution.”
No. 21 (mismarked in
Order as No. 20) The record is clear that the
Respondent constantly uses many authorities and in fact “saturates” the court
record with “law” that this judge has to obey, yet disregards. In the court
record it is seen that the Petitioner and her attorney rarely if ever answer
any pleadings or motions of the Respondent and at no time whatsoever, have the
Petitioner or her attorney sustained any motion, response or court litigation
with any authority whatsoever, whether that be construed to be Constitution,
case law or statutes. In matter of fact, the Commissioner as most courts in New Mexico disregard the Pro-Se person despite the law to be
enforced, and in this matter, the Commissioner chooses to malign, threaten, and
discharge duties under Canon and Oath to violate law, based upon only the
“word” of the opposition attorney without any law for support. The corruption
of this court is extreme, but with the exposure of this corruption and rulings
well outside of Constitution and law, the common defense of such exposure is to
attack the “whistleblower” of whom David Derringer is protected under Federal
Law the Whistleblowing Act of 1989. The truth of corruption in this matter is
“ugly” and under NMRA Rule 1-090, it will still be exposed under law. If the
Respondent was totally unfounded in his legal contentions, there would not be
the vast amount of case law in support of the Respondent that this court
ignores each hearing, pleading and Order. The Respondent is not a “vexatious
litigant” but a conscientious litigant that properly does his legal research,
states authorities and exposes the court not following the stare decisis of
“law”. Hill v. Silsbee
Independent Scholl dist., 933 F. Supp. 616 ED Tex. 1996 “Qualified
Immunity does not shield public official whose conduct violates clearly
established constitutional rights at the time of the incident, if reasonable
person would have known that such conduct was unconstitutional.” Then, the Commissioner admonishes this Respondent while
ignoring all of the law presented each time to simply find some other case
wherein the corruption is being covered as this instant case to reach outside
of court record to make a decision in this matter; all of these methods being “illegal”.
Wojcik v. Town of North Smithfield, 87 F. Supp. 508 affirmed
76 F.3d 1 “Law or Constitutional right is “clearly established” such that
public official who violated it is not entitled to qualified immunity if its
contours are sufficiently clear that reasonable person would understand its
terms and be able to measure his or her conduct against it.” US v. Barker, CADC 1976, 546 F.2d
940, 178 US App DC 174 “ Mistake of law will not generally excuse commission of
the offense; thus, defendant’s error as to his authority to engage in
particular activity, if based upon mistaken view of legal requirements or
ignorance thereof, is mistake of law, and fact that he relied upon erroneous
advice of another is not, typically , an exculpatory circumstance; he will
still be deemed to have acted with culpable state of mind.” “It is dangerous to
be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” -Voltaire
[Francois Marie Arouet] (1694-1778).
No. 22 (mismarked in
Order as No. 21) The Respondent files all pleadings in accordance with the
Rules of Civil Procedure, and it is those very Rules, such as the
Rules of Evidence NMRA Rule 11-103 that this court violated to sustain the
illegal Order of April 15, 2013 and ignores the fundamental
error that a summons was never served, defeating due process and equal
protection, then attack the Respondent that it believes that the Commissioner
can then persecute the Respondent to cover up the corruption of this court or
to single out the Respondent that voices his Constitutional rights to stop
litigation that the corruptive element does not want exposed. US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct.
1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 “This section (Title 18 Section 241)
pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens encompasses due process and
equal protection clauses of USCA Constitution Amendment 14 and is not
unconstitutionally vague.” US v.
Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986 “Word should in Canon..of
Judicial Conduct which states that judge “should” accord to every interested
person a full right to be heard, imposes mandatory standard of
conduct upon judges and requires presence of both prosecuting attorneys and
defendant at any proceeding which bears on outcome of pending..case.” Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3, Subd.
A(4) and C(1)(a) This court is
bound by the “supremacy clause” that defeats the Order of April 15, 2013 due to
violations of Constitution and case laws. This court uses intimidation, threats
of incarceration as coercion and extortion in order to enforce an order of
protection that in Constitutionally defective, and chooses to attack the
Respondent that divulges the law that must be followed defeating the irrational
decisions of this court. This court cannot punish exercise of Derringer’s
Constitutional rights and statutory rights “to sue” under Title 42 Section
1981(a) and prohibits the exercise of “sanctions” or specialized “control”
oppression and tyranny to stop the legal use and filings within the US judicial
system by a US citizen for use of vindictive persecution of the Plaintiff. 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,
where the court upheld that “ the [rule] violated the Supremacy Clause by
attempting to regulate an area of federal law controlled. Dismissing the need
to characterize the rule as either procedural or ethical, the court stated,
‘for purposes of determining whether [the rule] violates the Supremacy Clause,
it matters not at all what the Board or Baylson choose to call it. What matters
is whether the substance of [the rule] actually conflicts or is incompatible
with federal law.’ The [rule] “does not suddenly become consistent with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 17 as a state rule of professional conduct” “The Court held that the
rule’s judicial approval requirement violated the Supremacy Clause because it
was incompatible with the federal rules of criminal procedure”. In the same
manner, for this court to threaten to make David Derringer apply or gain
“approval” before filing is a violation of the Supremacy Clause to be liable
under US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Therefore the
threats and extortion fall under the Federal criminal code of Title 18 Section
1503 “obstruction of justice” and such a Commissioner working outside of
jurisdiction is liable to persecute the Respondent for exercising his
Constitutional and statutory rights to protect his rights under Constitution and
meant for “cruel and unusual punishment” and “oppression” and “tyranny” against
the Respondent where it destroys and is meant to kill the Plaintiff by attrition
of deprivation of income and necessities for life itself. See also the
parameters set forth in mis-use of a rule in Stoneking v. Bank of
America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. “Under Article VI of the
Constitution, the laws of the United States
“shall be the supreme law of the land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. US
Constitution Article VI Cl.2 “The Supremacy Clause prohibits the application of
state laws which conflict with federal laws.” Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan,
986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993).” US
v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 “This
section (Title 18 Section 241) pertaining to conspiracy against rights of
citizens encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of USCA
Constitution Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vague.” US v.
Ehrlichman, CADC 1976, 546 F.2d 910, 178 US
App.DC 144, cert denied 97 S. Ct. 1155, 429 US
1120, 51 Led.2d 570 “Title 18 Section 241- offender must act with specific intent
to interfere with rights in question.”; US
v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct.
1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure,
oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or
enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United
States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.”.
No. 23 (mismarked in Order as No. 22) 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.” “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
Citizens, it can be presumed that those rights are protected under the federal
mandates. If the state is going to make rules or practice procedures, which
deny those rights, then the state actions become void, and this issue prevails
over any other under consideration. And where the Constitution of the state or
the state statutory laws are subverted through similar means, the people have
no duty to perform unless under threat or coercion by further illegitimate
means in order to protect their very lives.”
“A judgment is void only if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction
or the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent
with due process of law.” Classen v. Classen, 119 NM 582, 585
(App 1995) 893 P.2d 478 see also Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque,
91 NM 455, 459 (1977) 575 P.2d 1340 “The district courts found as a matter of
law that the failure to give notice required by statute rendered all subsequent
acts void..by failing to follow statutory procedures, due process of law was
violated and no subsequent act could correct the defect.” With no summons
legally served, Constitutional rights denied, fraud of the Commissioner not
following the Rules of evidence and using inadmissible evidence against the
Respondent for “criminal sentencing” without Miranda rights read, and without
an attorney to represent the Respondent renders this Commissioner unfit to
serve upon the bench in sedition and treason against the United States. “US
Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3-No person shall be
an...elector..or hold any office, under the United
States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath,... as a judicial officer of any State, to support
the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Cartello v. US
CCA8 (Mo) 1937, 93 F.2d 412 “A conspiracy is the gist of the offense of
conspiring to injure citizens in exercise of right secured by federal
constitution or laws.”
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The order of protection has been always jurisdictionally
defective and in fundamental error and must be dismissed in its entirety. The
Order of April 15, 2013 was
brought in fraud by the Commissioner in bias and prejudice against the
Respondent using inadmissible evidence to persecute and attempt to create a
criminal record against the Respondent when no violations have occurred, by use
of “public corruption” in the extreme. The entire order of protection must be
dismissed with prejudice with restitution in extreme monetary amounts for David
Derringer for 1 ½ years of Constitutional deprivations, and the Order of April 15, 2013 must be dismissed with
restitution for taking and interfering with David Derringer’s 1st
Amendment rights. Barker
v. Barker, 94 NM
162, 608 p.2d 138 (1980) “In simple English, the language of the “other
reasons” clause, ...vests power in court adequate to enable them to vacate
judgment whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.”; “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”.
And
other relief that the court deems just and proper.
Respectfully
submitted by: _______________________________
David
Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87103
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 hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
The
Second Judicial District Court
400,
Lomas NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
No comments:
Post a Comment