STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
COUNTY OF
BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No.
CV-12-10816
v.
BARRIE CROWE AKA BARRIE DERRINGER
AKA BARRIE BEVERLEY, ALAIN JACKSON,
GERALDINE (JERRY) CROWE, AND WARREN
CROWE; ALL AS INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
RESPONSE OF GERALDINE AND WARREN CROWE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMPLIANCE AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS GERALDINE AND WARREN CROWE AND
ATTORNEY FLOYD WILSON
COMES NOW the Pro-Se Plaintiff David Derringer with his response to Geraldine
and Warren Crowe’s response of
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.
The original attorney for the Defendants
herein at the time of filing by the Plaintiff of his motion to compel, was
attorney Floyd Wilson, who was not contacted creatively, due to this attorney
having a SOP (standard operating procedure) to violate the Code of Professional
Conduct, waste the time of the courts and to defy discovery for all of his
clients, as exemplified in CV-12-1307 wherein the Plaintiff had to seek and did
receive an Order for discovery compliance, when Floyd Wilson refused with his
clients to obey the Rules of Civil Procedure and there was no motion to the
court to enlarge the time frame for compliance, but simply to not answer or
produce discovery. “Fraud by Client” “ Paragraph
B of NMRA Rule 16-401
(Truthfulness in statements to others) recognizes that substantive law may
require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have
assisted the clients’ crime or fraud.” “Sanctions” are appropriate.
In this instance, wherein the Plaintiff
is the same in CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816, and the Plaintiff had just had to
seek Order in CV-12-1307, there was no point to wasting any time as the
Defendants want to delay these cases, and it was prudent to go to the court for
discovery compliance. New York State
National Org. for Women v. Terry, 732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990
Attorneys do not possess immunity from sanctions for their conduct in judicial
proceedings so as to preclude imposition of Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to rules
enabling act. Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USCA, 28 USCA 2072." Clearly,
the attorneys play games with the court and obstruct justice as a means to line
their pockets with cash and harass a
pro-se Plaintiff with extra burdens of work, very un-necessary when all
involved “know the rules”. Cf. NM LBR-2090-1b (requiring non-resident attorney
who apply to appear before the court pro hac vice to file a statement that the
attorney has read and is familiar with these rules); In re Kirkland, 181 BR 563, 568 (D. Utah 1995) aff’d
86 F.3d 172 (10th Cir. 1996) (“even pro se parties are charged with
knowledge of the rules”). Although all case laws defeat the pretense, the
attorneys still seek to hide behind “relevancy”, and what would lead to
admissible evidence, wherein the case laws preclude this erratic and
delay-obstructive behavior. 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.” .
“Under Rule 34 as amended in 1970, there is no requirement that moving party
demonstrate good cause for production of documents.”; In this matter, now, the
“new attorney” of Alicia Santos of O’Brian and Padilla, exemplifies the same
exact violations of discovery; ie. not seeking order from the court enabling
any non-compliance with discovery or to seek extension or enlargement of time;
last minute response to the motion to compel, after the already defiance of
discovery by the Defendants with their past attorney Floyd Wilson; and taking
upon themselves to what they want to answer and what they don’t as though they
believe they have “judicial power of a court”. Condry
v. Bucheye, SS Co., (1945 DC Pa.) 4 FRD 310 “This rule
(relevancy) is not available for discovery purposes..”; Pittard v. Four Seasons Motor Inn, Inc. 101 N.M. 723, 688
p.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1984) “Severe sanctions should be imposed where there is a
willful or bad faith failure to comply.”; Wieneke
v. Chalmers, 73 N.M. 8, 385 P.2d 65 (1963) refusal for discovery would
require a court order. There is nothing sought here that is not “relevant” and
discovery does not annoy or harass the Defendants, but seeks properly under law
to uncover the reasons of the torts complained of and sustain reasons for the
suit CV-12-10816 for “accountability” of tort actions without cause against the
Plaintiff. 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.”
What we have here is a loving and
emotionally stable wife Barrie Derringer of about 2 ½ years that left her Plaintiff
husband without cause after the PTSD of a home fire that killed animals, with a
history of bi-polar, depression, suicidal tendencies, and other “mental and
emotional disorders” brought to the front again due to the pressure of family,
friends and employers meddling in a legal marriage during, and then
opportunistic after a disaster, instead of supporting a marriage or at least
leaving it alone, and the inability of a emotionally stable husband to stop the
ugly rearing up of a past history of abuse, drugs, alcohol and mental
disabilities, pitting only 2 ½ years against the history precedent of the
former Barrie 54 years of the bad life style encompassing the abuse and
dysfunctional family upbringing. Hickman v. Taylor, (1947)
329 US 495, 91 L.Ed 451, 67 S. Ct. 385, 34 Ohio Ops 395 “Deposition-discovery
rules are to be accorded broad and liberal treatment, and no longer can
time-honored cry of “fishing expedition” serve to preclude party from inquiring
into facts
underlying his opponent’s case.” Defendant Barrie Crowe aka Barrie
Derringer is now, and has been on bi-polar medication since long before meeting
and marrying David Derringer of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, sedatives and
tranquilizers, and multiple medications with the opiate drug “codeine”; and with
also a past history of extreme alcohol abuse, marijuana use and cocaine use,
and possibly other extreme related “street drugs”. Prior to David Derringer,
Barrie married extreme alcoholic/cocaine user Harley biker Charles Beverley
“twice” of about 7 years with a one year divorce and went back into the abusive
relationship for another 22 years until 2008, with all of the domestic physical
and mental violence and abuse that entailed from beating and cheating, and
constant fear by Barrie of husband “Charlie”, now such “abuse” replaced in the
work place of NAI Maestas and Ward. Barrie Derringer aka Defendant Barrie Crowe
has now already testified under Oath in open court and under cross examination in
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610, to “being
suicidal”, “doing domestic violence of hitting David Derringer in the face
during a “rage”, “admitted to lying”, “admitted to taking anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, sedatives and
tranquilizers, and multiple medications with the opiate drug “codeine”, and
admitted to having the STD sexually transmitted disease “herpes”.
Undeniably, the “relevancy” of the past history of domestic violence, drug and
alcohol use, herpes obtained from cheating biker husband Charles Beverley, mental
and emotional stability and other gang and conspiracy activities have
everything to do with this tort law suit and the reasons that there is
currently forming a DA “grand jury” against Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer
due to her criminal acts that are exemplified by her lack of control, manipulation
by others without ability due to non-assertiveness, emotional instability and
sudden total personality change after December 27, 2011, after a disaster
wherein she is no longer herself, and chooses yet again, the past life of “battered
woman familiarity” rather then the “sane life” and stability that she had with
her husband David Derringer; where she was allowed simply to be “herself”
without someone exerting power over her.
At no time has the Plaintiff abused the
discovery process, but sought properly to uncover the reasons why Defendant
Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe is out of control in all of the underlying
acts of doing torts, and the reasoning
why the “gang” of the Crowe’s, Barrie’s 10 friends and 2 bosses Debbie and
Irwin Harms conducted criminal assault and battery against David Derringer for no cause, and continue to take Constitutional
rights, attack and deprive and do extreme torts, as a “conspiratory unit” no
different in methodology than the 98 St. “homeboys” or the “Bloods or Crypts”
of gangs nation wide, using violence, drugs and money and power to subdue
another. All of the discovery requests, no matter how “private” or sensitive,
have everything to do with the torts of this law suit and the underlying
reasons that they occurred. If a Defendant does acts individually or
collectively while on drugs or under the direct influence of another or under
pressure from groups or gangs, the reasoning for this erratic behavior can and
should be uncovered in discovery, particularly in this case where there is a motivation of
the others to produce irrational behavior or condone irrational behavior in
Defendant Barrie Crowe, making all Defendants, as well as the other 10 un-named
persons of the assault and battery “accountable” under law. 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 “Discovery rules are to construed liberally in favor of party seeking
discovery, and pleadings do not rigidly fix permissible range of inquiry.” Under
these circumstances, to claim that this “information is confidential” is only
to hide and conceal the damaging information that created all of the torts
complained of in this matter. Clearly, instead of Defendants and other gang
members seeking to help and make stable Defendant Barrie Crowe, all Defendants
and others deny and ignore the underlying problems and attack instead the
Plaintiff, that as an alternative life style always sought to love and protect
Defendant Barrie from any harm. The acts by not only Barrie Crowe (aka Barrie
Derringer) were not only irrational but
turned “criminal” with perjury, fraud, violent acts, and other matters of
“torts” that stem and are entirely “related” to the growing up of family abuse
and domestic violence, drinking excessively and illegal drug use by the Crowe
family, and the penchant due to “years of familiarity” of Defendant Barrie with
such a life style. In this instance, it can be shown that for the benefit of
Barrie, she needs counseling, and “help” that the Crowe family and others are
unwilling to provide. Instead, the Crowe family and friends, employers, and
others perpetuate the criminal and outrageous acts against a husband that did
nothing but love and protect the Barrie as his wife, wherein the Plaintiff now
has to not only defend himself against the onslaught of egregious actions of
the gang of Barrie Crowe, that encompasses, the Crowe family and others, that
have done attack on David Derringer mentally, physically, emotionally, and with
criminal acts including assault and battery. The “history” of the Crowe family is part of the evidence sought here and it is
absolutely relevant and admissible in a court of law regarding torts that
include criminal acts, conspiratory acts, subversive acts, facilitation acts,
and acts designed not only to destroy and hurt the life of the Plaintiff, but
also to destroy the life of Defendant Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer through
arrogance and ignorance. All information sought here is discoverable under NMRA
Rule 1-026 and under Rule 1-034 medical records will substantiate not only the
genetic predispostion to “bi-polar” and other emotional instability of
Defendant Barrie, but also show the emotional instability of Defendants
Geraldine and Warren Crowe that sabotaged and defeated the Derringer marriage
through mental and emotional problems of their own manifested upon the
Derringer marriage, manipulating and destroying everyone’s life in the process.
The court will see the totally intertwined substance of this tort law suit,
with all involved wherein torts of assault and battery, interference with a
legal marriage, alienation of affection, loss of consortium, conversion, malicious
prosecution and abuse of process, and infliction of a venereal disease, and
other torts are not each a mild or small claim. Clearly, there was no violation
of NMRA Rule 1-037 here by the Plaintiff going on past non-compliance of attorney
Floyd Wilson defying discovery as his standard of “obstruction”, and this is
still seen obviously in the new attorney Alicia Santos. Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 552 P.2d 227 (Ct. App. 1976)
“Just as it is proper for a trial court to dismiss an action for failure of the
Plaintiff to appear for deposition, it is also proper to dismiss an action for
failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the Court if this case, and
order to answer interrogatories.”
WHERFORE the Plaintiff seeks immediate relief of
Order for compliance, or in the alternative judgment of the Complaint by
defiance of discovery and sanctions directly applicable to this instant case
and to deter others similarly situated in future cases where attorneys and
Defendants defy discovery to cover up and conceal damaging information that
would prove the case of a Plaintiff. 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 24, 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:
Alicia Santos of O’Brien & Padilla
P.C.
6000 Indian School Road NE Suite 200
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
No comments:
Post a Comment