STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No. CV-2012-10816
v.
BARRIE CROWE aka BARRIE DERRINGER ET AL.
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO BARRIE CROWE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMPLIANCE AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BARRIE CROWE/DERRINGER AND ATTORNEY FLOYD WILSON
COMES NOW the Pro-Se Plaintiff David Derringer with his response to Barrie Lee Crowe’s non-compliance with discovery.
This matter is very simple as far as the court and legality are concerned. Plaintiff legally and properly sought through discovery to investigate and obtain documents for trial on all underlying issues, which include motives and the facts underlying foundations of the irrational acts of the Defendants. Smith v Schlesinger, (1975) 168 US App DC 204, 513 F2d, 462, 20 FR Serv 2d 473 “Test of relevancy for purposes of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is broader than test for admissibility at trial, so that party may discover information which is not admissible at trial if such information will have some probable effect on organization and presentation of moving party’s case.” Such discovery was legally presented with the proper 30 day requirement for compliance and the Defendant and her attorney have no authority to decide what is relevant or not to simply not respond. Condry v. Bucheye, SS Co., (1945 DC Pa.) 4 FRD 310 “This rule (relevancy) is not available for discovery purposes.” Defendant and attorney Floyd Wilson wait until the later days for response and then defy discovery, keeping both information and documents from the Plaintiff in a willful attempt to conceal damaging information and documents that both prove the Plaintiff’s case and likely are objectionable, sensitive and embarrassing to the Defendant, but which under law have to be provided anyway. At no time did the Defendant or attorney Wilson seek limitations from the court by motion, but as noted in the SOP of Floyd Wilson in CV-12-1307 defiance of discovery and forced litigation by necessary motions to gain compliance are the only way to get that attorney to make his clients comply with the court rules, sanctionable acts wasting the time of the courts and the Plaintiff. If the Defendant had notable and sustainable reasoning for non-compliance with any of the interrogatories, request for production or other discovery, the Defendant and her attorney were obligated “before the deadline” to motion the court for some claim of relief. They did not, but simply defied discovery with Floyd Wilson believing he alone has the power of the court to decide what is relevant, what and what not they can themselves choose to answer or provide, and disregard the discovery based upon their own egos and agendas, ignoring that only the court can make such decisions, with Floyd Wilson having no judicial power despite his arrogance. Wieneke v. Chalmers, 73 N.M. 8, 385 P.2d 65 (1963) refusal for discovery would require a court order. What we have here is simple. Discovery was lawfully requested, discovery was obstructed without a court order, blatant violations of discovery abound with claims of reasons well outside of the control allowable obstruction by the Defendant or her attorney, sanctions definitely apply both against the Defendant and her attorney, and Order should issue for the Defendant to answer all discovery and provide all documents regardless of how sensitive or embarrassing they are to put into court record.
What we have here, is a woman Defendant Barrie with doing extreme torts and actions irrational for any 57 year old woman after leaving a third marriage for no cause, but after a “PTSD fire disaster” affected her mental and emotional stability on December 27, 2011. Hickman v. Taylor, (1947) 329 US 495, 91 L.Ed 451, 67 S. Ct. 385, 34 Ohio Ops 395. There are underlying reasons to be found in the discovery process supporting the contention of extreme third party interference, emotional heredity mental disorders and underlying motives for the illegal torts of the Complaint that are “facts” inexplicably intertwined with this suit. David always loves Barrie, and this suit is for damages sustained, not a witch hunt or any sort of retaliation. Instead of seeking, as did David, to gain the best interest of Barrie, both during the marriage and after Barrie left, third party interference acts both in sabotage to Barrie, absolute and vicious attack on the Plaintiff, and seeks to hide and disregard disorders that caused the ongoing damages. It is clearly more important to the Defendants’ Crowes to hide facts, rather than use the facts to explore viable results that are in the best interest of all involved. Crowe v. Chesapeake & OR Co., (1961 ED Mich) 29 FRD 148, 5 FR Serv 2d 586. Hiding “skeletons” in the closet is more important to the Crowes than actual stability and viability of the family and marriages of the offspring.
The suit involves acts of violence, illegal acts, retaliation acts, malicious prosecution, torts of assault and battery, infliction of a venereal disease and other matters, that had not occurred in the Derringer marriage, and those that did, ie, the herpes, were talked out, commitments made and damages at that time were both mitigated and absorbed by the marriage itself, keeping the issues within the marriage as proper between husband and wife.[1] Hercules Powder Co. v Rohm & Haas Co. (1944 DC Del) 3 FRDJ 328, 60 USPQ 437. In the Derringer marriage David and Barrie had properly worked out all marital problems or living conditions, each other’s emotional and physical disabilities, finances, circumstances, including Barrie infecting David with a STD venereal disease Herpes, and accepted each other with an unconditional love, not to be broken, and constant agreement was held to make always a better future for both spouses by their cooperation and loyalty to one another.[2] In short, the marriage was good, relaxed and righteous under biblical guidelines of a woman leaving her parents and forsaking all others and cleaving to her husband as the permanent relationship. There, as all “families” were underlying situations, medical problems, and emotional baggage that all were talked out, properly compensated, concessions made from both parties for a mutual compromise over all issues rendered an equality reached of harmony and equilibrium between Barrie and David. In short, in the Derringer marriage there was a “cleaving” indicating such closeness as should be no closer relationship than that between the two spouses, not with any former friend or with any parent.
Deliberately of information precluded to parents Geraldine and Warren Crowe, ‘ADULT’ Barrie Derringer and David Derringer were married on January 15, 2010 without obtaining ‘authorization’ , ‘consent’, or ‘agreement’ of the parents or any other, as is proper for two adults in love and of the age of the Plaintiff and Defendant Barrie. This “emotional” rift and non-discussion with the parents, caused immediate and continual retaliation, anger, and sabotage forthwith and forever for the parents to seek the destruction of the Derringer marriage. The Plaintiff already has evidence, documents and sustainable facts for a trial to prove “alienation of affection”, “loss of consortium”, “assault and battery”, “infliction of a venereal disease” and “bipolar” mental and emotional instability of Barrie Crowe, and that history of mental disorders of the Crowe family that underlies much of what has happened after December 27, 2011. [3] All acts by the Plaintiff, since Barrie left have been to both love and protect and seek counseling and the best interest of Barrie, but with the litigation necessary that has been forced upon the Plaintiff to defend himself, his Constitutional rights, his future life and that of the animals, and in defense of egregious and violent acts by Barrie and others unjustly directed at the Plaintiff. Disclosure of “mental disorders” are not meant to discredit or malign anyone, but to gain facts that should be used by the prudent and rational to seek a balance and repair of all wrong for everyone involved for the “best interest” of the persons and society in general. This suit contains claims of “malicious prosecution” and thus all facts and evidence is mandated under discovery to be produced as questioned and requested in documents. The Plaintiff already has all documents of Barrie Derringer’s prescriptions of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, tranquilizers, sedatives and other medications proving a bipolar and unstable personality without proper assistance by medications, without which all irrational actions by Barrie since December 27, 2011 have occurred. Rubinstein v. Kleven, (1957 DC Mass) 21 FRD 183. Clearly, the court has reason to see the facts underlying the need for this “stability” medication, and medical records are mandated as correlated with “court records” in both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 where Barrie has testified under oath to being “suicidal”, “doing physical domestic violence to David Derringer”, admittance that Barrie “lies”, and admittance to having “Herpes STD a venereal disease” . Even in the “discovery” Barrie admits to having herpes, and then disregards and obstructs the request for the medical records sustaining that admittance under oath. The Plaintiff already knows that Geraldine Crowe has a history of hospitalization for mental and emotional disorders that are genetic and passed on to Defendant Barrie that have everything to do with the current personality change of Barrie after December, 2011 that have funneled Barrie into a slide towards jail and very bad decisions with the interference of Defendant parents Crowe, employer Maestas and Ward, and the unethical attorneys of Defendant Jackson and Wilson. Barrie is being railroaded into a bleak future and is being sabotaged by herself, her third parties and her counsel. Enriquez v. Cochran, 1998-NMCA-157, 126 NM 196, 967 P.2d 1136, cert denied, 126 NM 532, 972 P.2d 351 (1998). Defendants Geraldine and Warren Crowe refuse to divulge medical records of facts that grossly affect and are the cause of the irrational and criminal decisions being made by their own daughter; giving their own egos priority over the best interest of their child, while destroying the husband that seeks to preserve Barrie against all odds. The discovery process will bring forth the facts that put this whole matter into perspective. Smith v Schlesinger, (1975) 168 US App DC 204, 513 F2d, 462, 20 FR Serv 2d 473 “Test of relevancy for purposes of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is broader than test for admissibility at trial, so that party may discover information which is not admissible at trial if such information will have some probable effect on organization and presentation of moving party’s case.”
It is self evident that the Defendants choose to destroy David Derringer rather than to actually repair damages and seek a balance in Barrie and use power for the best interest of everyone. This attitude is blatant wherein from the beginning Barrie left without logical or sustainable reasons, and the Defendants with other third parties collectively started both a barrage of attacks on David Derringer, created a “no-contact” order so that the Plaintiff could have no influence or discussions with his wife, and make no effort at any time to resolve any legal matters or produce any settlement, but instead attack the Plaintiff seeking to take Constitutional rights, keep the Plaintiff from use of the courts, obstruct and block legal appeals; all of which are not rational acts of either the Defendants and the other third parties, nor the involved attorneys. At all times the Plaintiff has pleaded with statements that Barrie needs to talk, discussions need to be had, settlements should be considered, and the Defendants and other third parties seek only to ruin the life of David Derringer as well as ruin the life of Barrie by actions that are violent, illegal and a coercion and subversion of Barrie not at all in her best interest in any future life. Barrie never lied in her marriage to David but has now admitted to lies, done perjury and fraud and corruption of court records, facilitated and did not stop criminal assault and battery against her own husband and is facing “a grand jury” to be convened by the Bernalillo County District Attorney for her actions, having nothing to do with David’s desire to protect the best interest of Barrie, and having everything to do with third party “bad advise”, betrayal of her marriage for no just cause, and sabotage of herself due to irrational thoughts or lack of proper needed medications. The defiance of discovery is one more step in the self destruction of Barrie by her own hand, but of which she does more extensive damages to the Plaintiff, forcing the Plaintiff to again have to defend himself, and make the Defendants “accountable”. Marshall v. Electric Hose and Rubber Co. (1975 DC Del) 68 FRD 287, 11 BNA PEP Cas 753, 10 CCH EPD 10394, 22 FR Serv 2d 57. ; Griego v. Griego, 90 N.M. 174, 561 P.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1977). Both Barrie and Geraldine and Warren Crowe want to keep medical records from the courts as they undeniably prove mental and emotional instability that is at the core of Barrie leaving a good marriage, the devastation that is occurring against David Derringer and the underlying possibilities of Barrie’s extreme personality change under the extremes of a fire disaster and PTSD, causing now irrational and illegal behavior, that needs to be corrected by counseling and treatments, not to condemn or insult, but to attain a good balance again in the life of Barrie. Barrie wants to keep medical records from the court that prove instability of her personality without proper medications and those medications already prescribed are for a bipolar condition that is underlying all irrational acts since December, 2011 of all of these court matters. Barrie attempts to conceal and protect 12 other persons that she orchestrated in the shop/storage break-ins of 101 Florida SE Unit C who, on February 4, 2012 did criminal assault and battery against husband David Derringer either as “spontaneous” or under the pre-conceived discussions or direction of Barrie herself; neither a legal or rational act to do against your own husband, showing again the need for medical records as well as accountability and mandated discovery identity of those 12 persons.
The Plaintiff cannot be blocked by Defendants and their attorney simply taking it upon themselves what or not they will disclose. The Defendants have to be ordered to disclose all discovery requested of them and pay sanctions and damages for non-compliance thus far. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231 (1980) appeal dismissed 451 US 901, 101 Supreme Court 1966, 68 L.Ed 2d 289 (1981) “Such as where illicit attempt to conceal information or gross disregard for discovery, the willfulness to sustain the severe sanctions may be predicated upon either an illicit attempt to conceal damaging information, or a gross disregard for the requirements of the discovery process.”
Respectfully submitted by:________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April 9, 2013
I hereby certify that I delivered a copy of this pleading for filing to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to Defendant Jackson at:
423 6th St. NW. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
mailed to Floyd Wilson for Barrie Crowe Defendant at:
Floyd Wilson
12480 Hwy. 14 North. Ste. 105
Cedar Crest, NM 87008
and mailed to the attorneys for Geraldine and Warren Crowe at:
O’Brien & Padilla P.C.
6000 Indian School Road NE Suite 200
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
[1] The husband-wife relationship is the permanent one —“what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6).
[2] Marriage takes two individuals and creates a new single entity. There is to be such sharing and oneness in every aspect (physical, emotional, intellectual, financial, social) the resulting unity can be best described as “one flesh.”
3 When there is greater sharing and emotional support gained from a continuing parent-child relationship than from the husband-wife relationship, the oneness within the marriage is being threatened, resulting in an imbalance. When an adult child has married and this parent-child relationship remains primary, the newly formed union is threatened.
No comments:
Post a Comment