STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO
SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DM-12-610
BARRIE
DERRINGER, APPEAL OF No. DV-12-0234
Petitioner, Judge
Hadfield
v.
DAVID
DERRINGER,
Respondent,
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL OF THE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER OF
APRIL 30, 2013 UNDER NMRA RULES 1-059 & RULE 1-060 DENYING APPEAL AND OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION/HEARING OFFICER
COSGROVE/AGUILAR’S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL APRIL 15, 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT WITHOUT A HEARING IN DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTION,
RULES AND STATUTORY RIGHTS; MOTION FOR REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THIS COURT
IN THE ORDER OF APRIL 30, 2013 SUPPORTED BY LEGAL AUTHORITIES PURSUANT TO
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW SCHWARZ V. FOLLODER, 767
F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985); AND MOTION TO RECUSE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS CAUSE AND FAILURE TO RULE OUTSIDE OF BIAS AND
PREJUDICE
COMES
NOW the Appellant/Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se with his three (3) motions as stated
above.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL OF THE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER OF
APRIL 30, 2013 UNDER NMRA RULES 1-059 & RULE 1-060 DENYING APPEAL AND OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION/HEARING OFFICER
COSGROVE/AGUILAR’S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL APRIL 15, 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT WITHOUT A HEARING IN DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTION,
RULES
AND
STATUTORY RIGHTS
Motion
is brought for a “retrial” under Rule 1-059 due to Judge Hadfield refusing to
give the Respondent his legal hearing for appeal and deprivations of
Constitutional rights. This was not inadvertent, but deliberate to stop David
Derringer’s due process and opportunity to be heard so as to block the Respondent
putting the proper items of exhibits and issues to present in the trial court
to preserve them for appeal. Both Judge Hadfield and the Respondent know that
if the Respondent is prevented by “maneuvering” by this court of gaining all
issues in the trial court, they will not be considered on further appeal. State
v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990)
“Matters outside the record present no issue for review”. Judge Hadfield
already did this same maneuver on the appeal of the Commissioner’s findings of
the February 21, 2012 appeal by denying the appeal without any reasons or authorities for
Hadfield’s denial, and “refused” at that time also to give the Respondent his
legal hearing on appeal. Instead of dismissing the entire matter as legally
mandated, Judge Hadfield is the “advocate” for Barrie Derringer, rather than a
finder of facts, and ensures that Barrie Derringer prevails despite any Rules
of Civil Procedure, and well outside of the laws of Constitution, US Code,
statutory and case laws that legally control that no decisions by the
Commissioner or Hadfield have been “legal”. This is easily shown at this time
by a “time sequence” wherein Judge Hadfield deprives the Petitioner “due
process” in order to rule against the Respondent with “knowledge” that the Petitioner
herself will not complain to gain the “win”; stealing all of the Respondent’s
money, personal property, doing assault and battery and other torts in this
mess, and since the conspiracy is to allow Barrie Derringer to win everything
she has requested from this court. The Respondent filed the appeal of
Commissioner’s illegal Order of April 15, 2013 on April 24, 2013, and NMRA Rule 1-007.1(D)(E) allows the
Petitioner 15 days plus 3 for mailing to respond to the Respondent’s Appeal.
Judge Hadfield is to wait the 15 days for NMRA Rule 1-007.1(D) before sua
sponte filing an appropriate Order. Instead, Judge Hadfield violated the time
sequence and files the Order on April 30, 2013 only 6 days after the filing of
the appeal, with no time ability “or conspiracy need” for the Petitioner to
take any time or money to respond as Barrie Derringer knew that the Judge would
rule against the extreme amounts of law presented in the appeal and memorandum
in support against all law. The Record will show that time after time, and
particularly with pleadings in DM-12-610 and in the hearing of February
3, 2013 the
Petitioner and attorney Alain Jackson requested of Judge Hadfield to “stop
David Derringer’s appeals”. Judge Hadfield is shown in the record of the
hearing of April 3, 2013 to deliberately not write and file any Order
so as to keep David Derringer from his legal motion for reconsideration and to
keep David Derringer from filing his notice of appeal. The effect of that was
to allow the Petitioner to illegally steal the Derringer Chevy truck and tens
of thousands of David Derringer’s inheritance, and to stop David Derringer from
appeal of same. The case and all judgments are “void” and mandated to be
dismissed, but instead illegally the Respondent’s Constitutional rights have
been unlawfully deprived for 1 ½ years thus far. Eaton v. Cooke,
74 NM 301, 393 P.2d 329 (1964); State v. Romero, 76 NM 449, 415
P.2d 837 (1966).
The
Respondent brings this Motion under NMRA Rule 1-060(B)(1)(3)(4)(6) as not only
the Order but the entire case is malicious legal errors, fraud, the case is
“void”, and many other reasons that it
has to be dismissed including bias, prejudice, fundamental error,
jurisdictional defects, Constitutional deprivations, public corruption and
more. Clearly, both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield have illegally deprived
Constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th,
5th, and 14th Amendments constituting “cruel and unusual
punishment” under the 13th Amendment as well as a “conspiracy
against rights” and a “deprivation of rights under color of law against David
Derringer.
Since
the beginning of this matter of DV-12-234 [1] the Respondent has not been legally brought
before the court; with no legal service of summons, David Derringer is not
under the jurisdiction of this court with no service in personam; and by no
legal service of summons the proper parties are not before the court, making
the case mandated to be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective and in
“fundamental error”. State ex
rel Walker v. Hastings, 79 N.M. 338, 443 P.2d 508 (Ct. App.
1968); State Game Commission v.
Tackett, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54 (1962). David Derringer cannot
be held under any order of this court with defective lack of service. Clark v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P.2d
1075 (1979). Judge Hadfield is well aware that the initial Commissioner hearing
of February 21, 2012 was
without jurisdiction or judicial capacity and could not be held as in
“fundamental error” without any legal service of summons at any time against
David Derringer, “claimed Respondent”. DV-12-234 No summons was ever legally
served (R.P. 2-17-2012 unable to serve.). Simply put,
the failure to serve David Derringer mandates dismissal. German-American Insurance Co. v. Etheridge, 8 NM 18, 41,
P.535. There is total judicial error of law due to the public corruption of the
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield that both simply “refuse” to correct. Deerman v. Board of County Comm’rs, 116 NM 501, 864 P.2d 317, (Ct.
App. 1993). This “fundamental error” and lack of jurisdiction legally flawed
the entire Order of Protection whereas DV-12-234 has been without ability to be
held against David Derringer since February
21, 2012, and yet enforced illegally taking Constitutional,
statutory and case law rights, immunities and privileges from David Derringer
henceforth. Both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield are well aware they are
working outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but in a total bias and
prejudice, both are deliberately ignoring the absolute defect to rule against
David Derringer from the onset, and both on the 1st illegal Order of
Protection of February 21, 2012 appeal, and now on this appeal of the Order of
April 15, 2013 Judge Hadfield knows she cannot condone any of this case, and
defies Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct and every law in the United States
to deprive the Respondent his Constitutional rights and persecute and oppress
David Derringer to ruin his life. Varney v. Taylor, 79 NM 652, 448 P.2d 164
(1968) “This appears to be the total effect of deciding a case in which
jurisdiction is lacking but overlooked on appeal.” Judge Hadfield is well aware, or is now by way of this motion for
reconsideration/retrial, whereas to establish for the court record that the
Order of April 30, 2013 or the future denial of these motions is a “willful”
deprivation of rights under Constitution, a “willful” discharge of duties under
Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct to purposefully rule in an
arbitrary and capricious manner, in “abuse of discretion”, and in point of
fact, a ruling maliciously intended to deprive rights under Constitution to
ruin the life of the Appellant/Respondent, without any possibility of claims of
“mistake”, “inadvertent error or law” or “misapprehension” of law. 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.” Judge Hadfield had “knowledge” that the
higher courts’ previous and some very recent rulings are totally contradictory
to Judge Hadfield, as is the Constitution and Rulings of the US Supreme Court
No. 10-1521, in which Judge Hadfield has to be aware by the “saturation” of the
court pleadings with multiple and extreme authorities by the
Appellant/Respondent in the Appeal and Memorandum in support as “required
reading” before ruling on April 30, 2013, that absolutely preclude the
Order of this court of April 30, 2013. 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.” With “knowledge” that the higher New Mexico Court of Appeals has made
multiple rulings that deny any ability of Judge Hadfield to condone or accept
the illegal and unconstitutional findings of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar of
April 15, 2013, Judge Hadfield still defies the higher New Mexico Court of
Appeals to force the Respondent on into further appeal, wasting the time and
resources of the courts simply due to “refusal” to obey New Mexico Court of
Appeals rulings of No. (NO. 24,101), (NO. 27,959), (NO. 30,380), (NO. 30,591),
(NO. 31,303), and (NO.
32,271). What is clear here is that Judge
Hadfield knows the law does not support any of her decisions even in the higher
courts of New Mexico and yet still defies all law to attend to Barrie
Derringer; a total violation of Oath and all other ability to be on the bench.
The Judge has “knowledge” that
the Commissioner has maintained and continued an illegal Order of Protection
that was in fundamental error and without original jurisdiction by no legal
service of summons upon David Derringer, and then “converted” a “civil”
proceeding to a “criminal proceeding” after a civil hearing without legal
notice, without reading Miranda rights and without allowing David Derringer to
have an attorney present, and moreover without the court providing or
appointing an attorney for David Derringer whom is well known by this court to
be in “forma pauperis” by the former illegal actions of this very court. The
Judge knows that this illegal action without jurisdiction constitutes criminal
fraud, sedition and treason against the US and renders not only this matter of
DV-12-234 to be dismissed entirely with prejudice, but mandates “restitution”
for David Derringer from all involved including the State of New Mexico for
deprivation of rights for a period of 1 ½ years without redress or compensation
on any level by the absolute public corruption of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar
and Judge Alisa Hadfield. 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”. This “knowledge” coupled with the continuation of taking 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment
right from David Derringer as well as malicious deprivation of laws already
established by higher court that defeat and prevent the rulings of both the
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield preclude any of the issues both in DV-12-234
and the errors of law in DM-12-610 which has the foundation of errors of law in
DV-12-234 and is “cruel and unusual punishment and direct and violent acts of
abuse, persecution, oppression, and targeting David Derringer in singling out
the Appellant/Respondent for acts of a “conspiracy against rights” and
“deprivation of rights under color of law”. Anderson v. U.S.
U.S. W. Va 1974
94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 “Single conspiracy may have several
purposes, but if one of them, whether primary or secondary, be violation of
federal law, conspiracy is unlawful under federal law.” The acts of the
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield deliberately increase in violence, bias and
abuse of discretion over the last 1 ½ years, now depriving additional
Constitutional 1st Amendment rights, and doing now “criminal acts”
of underlying subversion with simply acts of mis-use of power, attempting to
gain a “criminal conviction” of David Derringer without any due process,
without reading or advising of the mandatory Miranda rights before trial, and
without allowing, providing, appointing or designating an attorney for David Derringer
prior to any hearing for criminal purposes with David Derringer’s 5th
Amendment rights to “remain silent”. The
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield believe that they have power to oppress, take
citizenship, and jail or cause involuntary servitude of David Derringer without
respect to any law of Constitution, US Code, NM Constitution, NM Statutory
rights and disobeying and disregarding all case laws that enforce David
Derringer’s rights and all of which preclude any of the rulings contained in
both DV-12-234 and related and totally intertwined DM-12-610. The due process
and equal protection violations contained here are monumental in criminal and
egregious errors of law, and are willful and purposeful from the Commissioner
and Judge Hadfield without any possible immunity or claim that such outrageous
acts were in any way circumstantial, inadvertent or misapprehension of the laws
that were mandated to be upheld and yet entirely disregarded by the corrupt
public officials of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield. These outrageous acts
of sedition entailed a conspiracy with the Petitioner Barrie Derringer aka
Barrie Crowe, possible payoffs, and certainly the record will show evidence of
undeniable ex-parte “plans”, “schemes” and “effects” by correlation with
attorney Alain Jackson for the end results of deprivation of rights of David
Derringer, blocking legal appeals against David Derringer and attempts to jail,
kill or somehow muzzle and stop David Derringer from the exposure of this
corruption to both the authorities and to the world via the legal placement of
public court record documents upon the Internet under rights under the 1st
Amendment that this court now Orders David Derringer precluded from exercising
civil and Constitutional rights. 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.” At least 6 cases from New
Mexico’s own Court of Appeals deny any ability of
Judge Hadfield and all are ignored and disregarded.
MOTION
FOR REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE ORDER OF APRIL 30, 2013
SUPPORTED BY LEGAL AUTHORITIES PURSUANT TO APPELLANT/RESPONDENT RIGHTS UNDER
FEDERAL LAW SCHWARZ V. FOLLODER,
767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985)
The Respondent has a right to a
hearing on the appeal so as to have due process and equal protection of the
law. The Respondent has a right to “reasons” for Judge Hadfield to disregard
law created by higher courts than herself that absolutely prohibit the rulings
from this court. The Respondent has a right to citation of authorities by Judge
Hadfield that sustain all decisions by this court, and in particular how Judge
Hadfield can over-rule and disregard the United States Supreme Court rulings
being herself only a State District Court justice. “This Court previously has
recognized–even with respect to another statute the legislative history of
which indicated that courts were to have “wide discretion exercising their
equitable powers,” 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper
Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)–that “discretionary choices are
not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its
judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ ” Id.,
at 416, quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No.
14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, a decision calling for the
exercise of judicial discretion “hardly means that it is unfettered by
meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review.” Albemarle
Paper Co., 422 U.S.,
at 416.”” United States
v. Taylor,
487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56
U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added).The Respondent has a legal right
for authorities of Constitution, US Code, statutes and case law to be presented
to sustain decisions regarding the following:
1.
How can Judge Hadfield disregard mandated due
process to be served a summons prior to any ability to continue with a case;
that did not occur here?
2.
How can Judge Hadfield disregard mandated
standards of proof and standards of evidence not provided, and disregard
mandates to allow due process of testimony, cross examination, presentation of
exhibits and witnesses, all denied in both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610?
3.
How can Judge Hadfield rule in contradiction to
US Code Title 42 section 1981 and 1982 to take personal property, money and
firearms illegally away from David Derringer and deny use of firearms in an
occupation in violation of the US Supreme Court No, 10-1521; a state justice in
pure arrogance “over-ruling” the US Supreme Court?
4.
How can Judge Hadfield rule to take
Constitutional rights of the 1st, 2nd 4th, 5th,
13th and 14th Amendments away from the Respondent?
5.
How can Judge Hadfield rule against higher
decisions from the US Supreme Court and federal courts of higher jurisdiction
than herself regarding 1st Amendment rights?
6.
How can Judge Hadfield rule against recent
decisions of the higher New Mexico Court of Appeals in cases (NO. 24,101), (NO.
27,959), (NO. 30,380), (NO. 30,591), (NO. 31,303), and (NO.
32,271) that support that David Derringer
can express his opinions, facts, rhetorical questions, concerns, worries, public records, court pleadings, photographs,
and “expressions” legally posted in blogs on Google on the Internet?
7.
How can Judge
Hadfield allow a civil case to be turned into a criminal case without reading
Miranda rights to David Derringer or without appointing an attorney before
illegally punishing the Respondent for his exercising his rights under the 1st
Amendment to include punishment for placing public records of court documents
on the Internet that expose the public corruption of this court, which at the least is protected by the
“Whistleblowing Act of 1989”?
8.
How can Judge
Hadfield obstruct appeals by denying the appeal hearing and preventing appeal
by denying a written order in which to appeal?
9.
How can Judge Hadfield allow decisions to be
made in error of law with use of inadmissible evidence?
10.
How can Judge Hadfield make decisions that
are all contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure, Constitution, US Code, NM
Statutes, and all case laws?
“At a minimum, the district court must listen to a party’s
arguments and give reasons for its decision.” Schwarz v. Folloder,
767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985).
MOTION TO RECUSE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS CAUSE AND FAILURE TO RULE OUTSIDE OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE
Time after time the Respondent if
forced before a biased and prejudiced judge Hadfield. It is shown that Judge
Hadfield disregards all law and rules in her personal view of all matters,
rather than ruling according to case laws, Constitution and statutory laws already
decided that precede her ruling for the same exact matters. SCRA 1986, 1-088.1(D) ANo district judge shall sit in any
action in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the
provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct,
and shall recuse himself in any such action.@
The doctrine of Astare
decisis@ as well
as Oath and Canon mandate Judge Hadfield to rule according to law. In re
Antar, 71 F.3d 97. Despite Respondent David Derringer backing
all of his motions and redress in particular
tons of case laws supporting these requests as well as other authorities
mandating decisions by Judge Hadfield in
support of these laws, Judge Hadfield repeatedly rules for Barrie Derringer
without any authority support whatsoever and does so simply to allow Barrie
Derringer to steal community money, disregard paying bills, leave the Derringer
animals starving, who left her husband without cause and then took all community income for January, February, March
and April, and ongoing, and ignoring the David Derringer personal property and money
by stealing David’s property in three consecutive break-ins of storage and
larceny of David Derringer=s
own inheritance of $27,000.00 from his deceased Mother Mary MacGregor Derringer
in the year 2010 that must be repaid in this case or in other tort action
against the Petitioner. Martinez
v. Carmona, 624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535,
95 N.M. 593 AN.M.
Court of Appeals 1980. Judge Hadfield is intertwined into this case with a bias
and prejudice and has great animosity against the Respondent, rendering her
judgment in any fair an impartial manner impossible. The Judge has resorted to
insulting, demeaning and unacceptable accusations of a personal nature against
the Respondent and rules against all law in order to grant Barrie Derringer
anything requested. In the illegal ruling of April 3, 2013 the malicious claim of Order to Show
Cause by the Petitioner, despite all of the outrageous acts, criminal larceny
and fraud conducted by the court working in conspiracy with the Petitioner in
deprivation of due process and Constitutional deprivations, verbal Order
mandated that David Derringer immediately relinquish both control and legal and
physical possession of the 2005 Chevy Silverado in the hearing of April 3,
2013. Title 28 Section 455(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (1 Where
he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. David Derringer totally
complied upon court demand and divulged the location of the truck and that gave
total control, legal possession and physical possession on April 3, 2013 of the truck to Barrie Crowe
aka Barrie Derringer as ordered by the court. Despite the total cooperation of
the Respondent with no defiance of the court, Judge Hadfield made slanderous,
defamatory and personal insult remarks against the Respondent totally outside
of both jurisdiction and the judicial code of ethics to state; “David
may be playing games with the court”. Sexson
v. Servaas, 830F. Supp. 175 “Motion for recusal must identify
cold, hard facts which create appearance of partiality.” This outrageous act of
personal insult and defamation exemplifies the hatred, bias, prejudice and
personal animosity that Judge Hadfield has for the Respondent, yet David
Derringer is continually forced before this Judge without redress for multiple
motions to “recuse for cause”. DB v.
Ocean Tp. Bd. of Education, 985 F. Supp. 457, affirmed 159 F.3d
1350 DNJ 1997 “If through obduracy, honest mistake, or simply inability to
attain self knowledge judge fails to acknowledge disqualifying predisposition
or circumstance, appellate court must order recusal no matter what the source;
litigants ought not have to face judge with respect to whom there is reasonable
question as to impartiality.”; Frates
v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494
US 1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474 “Recusal motion should be permitted at any time it
becomes apparent that judge is biased or suffers from appearance of bias.” David
Derringer is forced to come with a motion to recuse again, because Judge
Hadfield has now taken jurisdiction of yet another appeal from the illegal acts
of a commissioner, and continues to abuse the Respondent by denying Constitutional
rights and subjecting the Respondent to illegal claims and “sentencing” of a
criminal act without any criminal trial. State
v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me.
1996 “No judge should preside in case in which he is not wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent.”; US v. Baum, 32 F. Supp.2d 642 “SCNY 1999 Obstruction
statute is intended to prevent the obstruction of the administration of justice
in any court of the United States, corruptly by threats of force.” 18 USCA
1503(a).
The acts outside of jurisdiction
have become so extreme that no law is followed by this court, and yet David
Derringer is again forced in front of Judge Hadfield in the appeal of the
Commissioner’s outrageous acts of April
15, 2013. This does not grant any due process or equal protection. Beal v Reidy, 80 N.M.
444. 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Authority of court to affect substantive rights
limited. This section confers no authority upon the district court to limit the
extent of the substantive right to disqualify judges by Rule.” Judge Hadfield
has David Derringer in total oppression and tyranny, and despite the proper
pleadings saturated with case laws that prohibit the rulings that come with
this court, Judge Hadfield rules against the law and against David Derringer. In re Wyoming Tight Sands Antitrust Cases,
726 F. Supp. 288 “Party moving to disqualify judge must show that reasonable
person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about judge’s
impartiality; standard is objective one.” The outrageous acts against law force
David Derringer into appeal to attempt to gain justice, and Judge Hadfield
repeatedly tries to block all appeals, in a criminal “obstruction of justice”
under federal laws, as requested illegally from her by the Petitioner and the
unethical attorney Alain Jackson. Purpura
v. Purpura, 847 P.2d 314, 115 N.M.80 cert denied 847 P.2d 313,
115 N.M. 79 “N.M. Ct. of Appeals 1993 “If judge becomes so embroiled in
controversy that he or she is unable to make fair and objective decision, judge
must recuse himself or herself. SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300 Subd.
A(3) 21-400" Time after time the Respondent motions Judge Hadfield to step
down in order to gain “justice” and a fair and impartial hearing, and each time
Judge Hadfield “refuses” in order to keep David Derringer under the illegal
control of this court to deny Constitutional rights. Gladden v. Dist of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 659 A.2d 249 D.C. App. 1995
“Recusal is necessary when alleged bias is traceable to source other than judge’s
participation in the case.” David Derringer is a prisoner to this court and
cannot escape, and now the Judge and Commissioner want to actually take away
David Derringer’s freedoms by illegal extortion of threats of real
incarceration if David Derringer does not submit to the corruption of Judge
Hadfield and the Commissioner. Jones
v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 No. 645 (1968) “Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Threats of incarceration without
cause in order to stop David Derringer from continued exposing of the public
corruption here, is criminal extortion, making Judge Hadfield and the
Commissioner nothing less than common thugs with political power. US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d
CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455(a)
“Despite external source requirement, recusal of judge may still be required if
judge’s actions during trial considered objectively, display deep seated
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” For the
illegal acts against David Derringer of Constitutional deprivations alone, this
judge has to stop abusing the Respondent and get off of all cases involving
David Derringer at this time and any time in the future. Simmons v.
Conger, 86 F.3d 1080 ATo
be entitled to relief from allegedly unconstitutional actions of a judge acting
pursuant to a state statute, plaintiff must allege...that a particular judge=s actions pursuant to that statute
violated limits placed upon him by Constitution.@
The subversion of this court against
law defines each act of the Commissioner without any jurisdiction or judicial
capacity, and Judge Hadfield goes right along with the public corruption
against David Derringer. U.S. v.
Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, rehearing denied 113 F.3d 1253, cert.
denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139 L.Ed.2d 148 “Federal obstruction-of-justice
statute reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing effect that prevents
justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed. 18 U.CA
1503.”
Respectfully
submitted by: _______________________________
David
Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE May 6, 2013
Petitioner=s attorney of record
Alain
Jackson
423
6th St. NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
505-620-6688
On
May 6, 2013 I hand delivered
a copy of this pleading to:
The
Second Judicial District Court
400,
Lomas NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
[1] DV-12-234 is based in perjury and fraud of
Barrie Derringer and is also the illegal basis for DM-12-610 that is
intertwined whereas with no legal service of DV-12-234, both DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610 are mandated to be dismissed as “jurisdictionally defective” and in
“fundamental error”.
No comments:
Post a Comment