STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No.
CV-12-1307 consolidated CV-12-10816
v.
DEBBIE HARMS, IRWIN HARMS, BARRIE
CROWE AKA
BARRIE
DERRINGER AKA BARRIE BEVERLEY,
ALAIN JACKSON,
GERALDINE (JERRY) CROWE, AND
WARREN
CROWE; ALL AS INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECUSAL FOR CAUSE OF JUDGE MALOTT WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE
HEARD BY A DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION WITH ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, with his motion as
stated above, with a request for this motion to be heard in a different
district with an impartial justice.
Judge Malott must be recused for cause involving (1.) deprivation of statutory
rights, (2.) denial of Constitutional rights, (3.) failure
and “refusal” to comply with former case laws involving the substantive matter
of the complaints which translates to a (4.) violation of Oath,
Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct, (5.) working outside of
jurisdiction with use of other cases and other judge’s opinions to make
decisions in the instant case, (6.) a shown animosity and hatred
towards the Plaintiff with abusive, derogatory and threatening remarks in both
open court and in written Orders, (7.) degradation of the right
to state facts and the truth as known by the Plaintiff, (8.) a
bias and prejudice against the Plaintiff, and for the Defendants manifested in
rulings against New Mexico laws to protect and insulate a multi-million dollar
corporation and the CEO’s of same against the private pro-se party, (9.)
and a shown distaste and subjugation of pro-se parties in general.
(1.)
The Legislated NM Statute NMSA 38-3-9 gives
David Derringer a right to excuse one judge under peremptory excusal without
stating cause with following the NMRA Rule 1-088.1(B)(C). This rule grants the
right to excuse a judge reassigned to an existing case under sections (B)(b) mailing by the clerk of notice of
assignment or reassignment of the case to a judge; and (C) Notice of Reassignment:
Service of Excusal. After the filing of the complaint, if the case is
reassigned to a different judge, the clerk shall give notice of the
reassignment to all parties. Any party electing to excuse a judge shall serve
notice of such election on all parties. Judge Malott denies David Derringer’s
statutory right to excuse himself, by mis-stating the facts wherein Judge
Malott illegally defeats NMSA 38-3-9 and NMRA Rule 1-088.1(B)(C) against David
Derringer by falsly stating that the Plaintiff sought Motion to Strike relief
of CV-12-10816 from Judge Malott and thus had no standing under Rule to
peremptory excusal, and was outside of time frame. This information is false
for the record clearly substantiates that David Derringer filed his
Motion to Strike with “Judge Brickhouse” (filed “request for hearing” of court record April
22, 2013)
and did not file any motions with Judge Malott over CV-12-10816. [1] In point of fact, there was to be a hearing
on April 24, 2013 before Judge Brickhouse, which had been vacated without any
notice to the Plaintiff. Only then, when the Plaintiff showed up properly for
the hearing before Judge Brickhouse did the Plaintiff learn that in clerk
error, the case had been “reassigned” to Judge Malott. The Plaintiff on April
22, 2013 had
already filed his Motion to Strike the illegal April 10,
2013 peremptory
excusal of the Defendants “Crowe”. Only as of April 24,
2013 at the scheduled
hearing did David Derringer receive a copy of the clerk signed Notice of Judge
Reassignment which was never mailed to Plaintiff David Derringer by the court.
As the illegal April 10, 2013 Defendant’s peremptory excusal was Ordered
invalid and striken on May 30, 2013, wherein legally the case CV-12-10816 had
legally been and was then proven to be before Judge Brickhouse, only as of May
30, 2013 was the case CV-12-10816 legally “reassigned to Judge Malott, making
Plaintiff David Derringer’s peremptory excusal under NMRA Rule 1-088.1(B)(C)
under NMSA 38-3-9 on May 30, 2013 entirely valid under “statutory rights” of
David Derringer. Upon actual notice of April 24, 2013 when handed the Notice of
Reassignment that proved to be invalid, and upon reassignment actually upon
consolidation of May 30, 2013 David Derringer had a statutory
right to excuse Judge Malott. Instead, Judge Malott rules illegally,
manipulating the facts and dates to claim that David Derringer was both late
and had requested a Motion under Judge Malott; both of which are untrue by the
court record. Baker v. Horn,
201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion
in trial court’s opinion.” Thus, the statutory law “right” was taken illegally
from David Derringer by manipulation of the court cases by Judge Malott. Martinez v. Carmona,
624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of
Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or
ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article
6, Section 18.” Taking away statutory rights is a reason for cause for recusal.
(2.)
David Derringer has a Constitutional right to “due process and equal
protection” under US Code Title 42 Section 1981, and under the 4th ,
5th, and 14th
Amendments. 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.@ Judge Malott has ruled in CV-12-1307
that “loss of consortium”, “alienation of affection” and “interference with a
legal marriage contract” are not torts in the State of New Mexico, defeating
David Derringer’s rights to prosecute those torts in both Cases of CV-12-1307
and CV-12-10816, when proven by laws to Judge Malott that his ruling was in
manifest errors of law, and wherein Judge Malott refuses to correct the ruling
to be in compliance with law; thus taking all ability to use the court system
from the Plaintiff under the meaning of “due process” to have the redress and
ability to prosecute valid claims, and to take “equal protection” from the
Plaintiff wherein the torts are deemed valid and available for prosecution by
the New Mexico Supreme Court where relief can be granted, and yet denied such
by Judge Malott. Romero v. Byers,872 P.2d 840, 117 NM 422 rehearing denied.
“A claim for loss of spousal consortium exists under New Mexico law; overruling
Rosebery v. Starkovitch, 73
NM 211, 387 P.2d 321; and Tondre v.
Thurmond-Hollis-Thurmond Inc., 03 NM 292, 706 P.2d 156.; Martinez v. Carmona, 624
P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of
Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or
ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article
6, Section 18.” Taking away “due process and equal protection” is a violation
of Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct and valid cause for recusal.
(3.)
Judge Malott has a failure and “refusal” to
comply with former case laws involving the substantive matter of the complaints
being thus in perjury under Oath, and not abiding by the laws. Oath taken by Judge ____: “I, Judge ___, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office
of Judge on which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability, SO HELP ME
GOD.”; In re Williamson,
43 BR 813 “An oath is an
affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting an
untruth punishable for perjury.”; Canon
3 (B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it. Canon: “Law” “denotes court rules as well as
statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional law.” Martinez v. Carmona,
624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of
Appeals 1980 “Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or
ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article
6, Section 18.” Violations of the “laws” of New Mexico including former case laws decided
by the New Mexico Supreme Court are cause for recusal.
(4.)
Judge Malott has violated Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Violations of such display misconduct in office. Under the legal sufficiency
doctrine "[when a trial judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or
disqualify, accompanied by an affidavit," the state statute or rule limits
the judge to passing upon the timeliness of the motion and the legal
sufficiency of the affidavit. If the judge finds the motion timely, the
affidavit sufficient, and that the recusal would be authorized if some or all
of the facts set forth in the affidavit are true, another judge is assigned to
hear the motion. Johnson v.
District Court, 674 P.2d 952, 956 (Colo. 1984).; Goebel v. Benton, 830
P.2d 995 (Colo. 1992); Wright
v. District Court, 731 P.2d
661, 664 (Colo. 1987); Hammons
v. Birket, 759 P.2d 783, 784
(Colo. Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied (Colo. 1988). Birt v. State, 350 S.E.2d 241, 242 (Ga. 1986). Such violations are cause for recusal.
(5.)
Working outside of jurisdiction with use of
other cases and other judge’s opinions to make decisions in the instant case is
without authority or jurisdiction wherein the instant judge is not the assigned
justice or the finder of facts and other cases are well outside of his
jurisdiction and judicial authority. 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.” In short the Plaintiff is persecuted and penalized for prior
use of the courts regardless of the issues of which this instant judge “was
not” the finder of facts. State v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267,
804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) “Matters outside the record present no
issue for review”. Use of other cases to malign or defeat the Plaintiff and use
of decisions contrary to law take all jurisdiction from the Judge. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9
(1991) “were performed in the complete lack of jurisdiction”. In this matter,
Judge Malott has no jurisdiction over any issues of the Order of Protection of
DV-12-234 (illegally held without any service of summons) or the “divorce”
action between David and Barrie Derringer DM-12-610 or any decisions from these
cases, which are not intertwined or legally bound to either CV-12-1307 or
CV-12-10816. Wascura v. Carver,
169 F.3d 683 “If court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, that
claim cannot provide a basis for imposing liability.” Judge Malott cannot
consider actions of DV-12-234 or DM-12-610 for purposes of conversion, personal
property, or loss of consortium, alienation of affection or interference with a
marriage contract, or any of the actions or decisions by Judge Hadfield; all of
which are on legal appeals. Beverly
Health and Rehabilitation Services Inc. v. Feinstein, 103 F.3d 151, 322
US App DC 245 Rehearing denied 118 S. Ct. 65, 139 L.Ed.2d 27 “Courts decide
cases within their jurisdiction rather than asserting jurisdiction because they
believe that substantive claim ought to be considered.”. Working outside of
jurisdiction, considering actions that have no direct bearing on the instant substantive
litigation, or simply maligning the Plaintiff for having used the courts in
other litigation, and persecuting the Plaintiff for prior use of the courts
multiple times is cause for recusal.
(6.)
Judge Malott exhibits an animosity and hatred towards the Plaintiff,
exemplified with derogatory, slanderous, accusatory and defaiming remarks in
both open court and in the Orders from the court. As example, when the
Plaintiff seeks to enforce his statutory rights under NMSA 38-3-9 Judge Malott
declares that David Derringer is without good grounds, not in good faith,
vociferous, and vexatious, when in fact David Derringer was legally correct and
Judge Malott was violating state law and Rule to remain on the case. As the
Plaintiff attempts to gain enforcement of discovery needed before trial and to
identify the other Defendants properly under rule and law, Judge Malott ignores
the proven fraud and perjury of the Defendants in their discovery answers, disregards
Plaintiff David Derringer request and showing need against the Defendants for
“sanctions”, all showing preferential treatment and favoritism. David Derringer
is accused that he is of tautness, inappropriate, vexatious, and improper. Defaming
the character of David Derringer when proper legal attempts are made to show
the court the fraud, perjury and non-compliance with both rules and law by the
Defendants hardly are due an unprofessional tirade of accusations and
defamation by the justice. 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. “Partiality” that requires judicial
disqualification is apparent disposition against party that is wrongful or
inappropriate.” Admonishing a particular litigant that is operating under the
Rules and law to protect the opposition or corrupt the record that there have
been no indiscretions by the Defendants, when in fact shown and proven in
record by the Plaintiff is both inappropriate and illegal. Sexson v. Servaas, 830F. Supp. 175 “Motion for
recusal must identify cold, hard facts which create appearance of partiality.” As
the Plaintiff asserts with cause of blatant preferential treatment of
Defendants (violations of laws to stop Plaintiff’s litigation, and violation of
laws enabling the Plaintiff to excuse the judge) precipitate threats.
“Plaintiff’s assertion that Judge Malott has personal reasons that he wants to
continue to preside over this matter”. “Plaintiff
is warned that continued examples of his vitriol and hyperbole will be sternly
addressed including imposition of sanctions”. Clearly, the Plaintiff is
being singled out in such a manner to give later excuse of Judge Malott to
“dismiss” the entire action under the false guise of “sanctions” so as to
entirely protect and insulate the Defendants from any further prosecution. 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”. Both the judge and the
Plaintiff know what is happening here. The Plaintiff seeks to properly litigate
and has never done any violations of the rules in pleadings, but has used
“truthful” statements of a “cult control of Barrie Derringer, abuse, coercion, domination,
forced submission, and exploitation”, such words and phrases not obscene or
profanity, but apparently very distasteful to the judge and the Defendants,
regardless of those allegations being the “truth” under NMRA Rule 1-090. The
Plaintiff is then threatened not to continue. Thus, the Plaintiff David
Derringer has the conundrum of succumbing to the threats and intimidation of
Judge Malott and not further disclosing the truth in pleadings, not continuing
to prosecute his case, not continuing to seek proper discovery, not to seek
identity of the proper other 10 Defendants to come before the court being
hidden by Defendants, and not exposing any perjury and fraud of the Defendants
for proper “due process”, which in fact will not properly place facts and
issues in the court record that will precipitate losing and not prosecuting the
case properly, or, to continue to properly use the courts in due process,
wherein Judge Malott will sanction the Plaintiff by dismissing the entire
matter; either way exhibiting a penchant for the Defendants to win this matter
with abuse of discretion and manipulation of the rules meant to perfect
ruination of the Plaintiff’s cause of action. The US Congress never intended a
justice to use “Rule 11” or his discretion and mis-use of power to deny due
process, equal protection, prejudice the Plaintiff, and manipulate the means of
litigation so as to gain an advantage from one party to another to “defeat
justice”. Chavez v. Board of County
Comm’rs, 2001-NMCA-065 130 NM 753, 31 P.3d 1027. “prejudice of a party;
A party is not entitled to relief for a discovery violation unless the party
has been prejudiced by the violation”. In this case, the court has precluded
means of finding the other 10 parties by ignoring the Motion for Order for
such, exempting the Defendants’ Harms despite their “availability or control”
by having at their disposal an “employee” Barrie Derringer that knows this
information, and no action to make Barrie Derringer herself, Defendant, to
disclose the identity of the other 10 persons involved, thus keeping the
Plaintiff from proper parties before the court and obstructing the justice
demanded of the court for proper prosecution of the entire matter; accordingly
allowing knowingly the perpetrators to escape prosecution. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 96 NM 155, 629
P.2d 231 (1980) appeal dismissed 451 US 901, 101 S. Ct. 1966, 68L.Ed.2d 289
(1981) “Mere possession of information by different party is not determinative
of the question of availability or control”. NMRA Rule 1-026: (B) scope of discovery (1) Parties may
obtain discovery “including the custody and the identity of persons having
knowledge of any discovery matter”. Disparaging and slanderous remarks, threats
and intimidation are a violation of Canon, Oath and the Rules of Judicial
Conduct and are conduct unbecoming a justice to give rise to reasons for
recusal for cause.
(7.)
Judge Malott uses threats and intimidation for
degradation of the right to state facts and the truth as known and believed by
the Plaintiff as mandated under NMRA Rule 1-090, with claims that it is both
distasteful to the court and the Defendants. The Plaintiff is being “set up” by
the judge to stop litigation and needed disclosure in the court record, and if
it continues from the Plaintiff, the idea to then sanction the Plaintiff by an
entire dismissal of the cases so as to protect and obliviate the entire
litigation under pretext that the pro-se Plaintiff did something so offensive
to tell the truth that dismissal was in order. Orders maligning, admonishing, and brandishing
the Plaintiff for his attempts to “tell the truth” under NMRA Rule 1-090, and
state facts in which obviously those facts are distasteful to the judge, and
implicate the Defendants being protected, extends well beyond the availability
under the laws that have already been presented by the Plaintiff numerous
times. Judge Malott states: “Plaintiff is
warned that continued examples of his vitriol and hyperbole will be sternly
addressed including imposition of sanctions”. 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 entitled to “opportunity to be heard”. 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). To any person, the claims of “alienation of
affection”, “loss of consortium” and “interference with a legal marriage”
involve emotions, suppositions, facts supported by actions and reactions in
reality, and matters of personality known mostly by the two spouses and their
interaction, wherein this court denies the Plaintiffs “assertions” when
behavior regarding such torts is hardly presentable in a tangible piece or
stone or document to the court, but in “testimony” and intangible evidence from
parties; information of intangible “facts” that this court refuses to allow the
Plaintiff to put in his legal pleadings. In re Doe, 519 P.2d 133,
86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear one party’s evidence, when offered,
establishes a presumption of prejudice.”
Admonishing a Plaintiff for his presentation of issues is hardly a way for
any equitable justice to handle tort claims that involve comfort, fellowship,
affection, companionship, conjugal love, fellowship, and assistance; hardly
something the Plaintiff can set on the table in front of the judge. US v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp.
523 S.D.N.Y. 1993 “Recusal is appropriate when judge has personal interest at
stake, or some personal bias in favor for or against party to the action.” Clearly, the claims of “loss of consortium”,
“alienation of affection” and “interference with a legal marriage contract”
involve obviously containing “opinions”. The justice intends to stop the
Plaintiff from exposing Defendants and stating facts that are “distasteful” to
the Defendants such as a STD venereal disease involved in tort, even though
such facts presented have extreme bearing on the emotional torts claimed in the
Complaint. Deprivation of “due process”, “equal protection”, “opportunity to be
heard” and a set up to mis-use NMRA Rule 1-011 to “dismiss” the entire action
under guise of sanctions for the protection of the preferred multi-million
dollar Defendants to defeat the litigation of the individual pro-se party is
outrageous acts meant to defeat “justice”; acts that are a cause for recusal.
(8.)
The bias and prejudice against the Plaintiff is exhibited both in rude
and admonishing behavior against the Plaintiff both in Orders and open court
and the penchant of not ever discipline or admonishing either the Defendants or
their attorneys when blatant violation of rules occur, such as simply denying
and ignoring the Pro-Se Plaintiffs request for sanctions when the Defendant’s
attorney was proven to have violated Rule 1-088.1, and the constant violations
of discovery with Plaintiff’s requested sanctions; each request for sanctions
being very valid, yet the Plaintiff admonished for such a request and no
request properly granted. The bias and prejudice for the Defendants is more
than obvious in rulings, wherein the law is not followed to allow the
Defendants to escape the claims of the Plaintiff, even when the Plaintiff’s
claims are fully supported by law in which relief can be granted. The
Plaintiff, however is precluded from any trial on the matters as summarily
dismissed in legal error. Instead of an American court being outraged that the
institution of marriage has been destroyed and defiled by a “corporation”
exploiting one spouse; the court here is outraged that an individual would sue
a corporation and CEO’s that did extensive damages to his person, his marriage
and his property. Bias and prejudice that is seen in this matter manifested in rulings against New
Mexico laws to protect and insulate a
multi-million dollar corporation and the CEO’s of same against the private
pro-se party is a cause
of recusal.
(9.)
Plaintiff David Derringer is continually threatened with “sanctions” by
Judge Malott, but when the opposition attorneys are proven to have committed
sanctionable acts under “Rule 11” of
blatant violations of discovery including not even identification of themselves
in the first round, necessitating the Plaintiff to have to file for an Order of
compliance, and their fraudulent attempt to peremptory excuse Judge Brickhouse,
and wherein Plaintiff David Derringer requests sanctions in both pleadings and
open court that are both supported by law and necessary for “discipline” of
attorneys, Judge Malott protects and insulates both the Defendants and their
attorneys since it is merely a Pro-Se party seeking sanctions, wherein they
would have been granted as proper litigant had an attorney been representing
the Plaintiff. NMRA 21-400 disqualification: A Recusal: A judge is disqualified
and shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to
instances where: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party. Threatening and intimidating a pro-se party seems to be a viable
exercise to end the litigation and keep damaging information from the court
record, if only Judge Malott could achieve David Derringer into forced submission,
or the alternative is to create sanctions against the Plaintiff and simply
dismiss the case; all in judicial mis-use of power and a manifest injustice as
the judicial system was originally conceived by the US Congress and
Constitution for “justice for all” and entire parameters set forth in the ideas
of “due process and equal protection”. Daitchman v. Daitchman, 483 A.2d 270, 271 (Vt. 1984). Vt.
R. Crim. P. 50(d) “requires Vermont judges
faced with a motion to recuse to pass the motion to a disinterested judge.” and
to. "It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial
as the lot of humanity will admit." N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 35. State v. Linsky, 379 A.2d
813, 823-24 (N.H. 1977).
WHEREFORE for the above reasons, the Plaintiff request Judge Malott to
recuse for cause and for this motion to be heard by a disinterested justice in
another district.
Respectfully submitted by:
______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
June 17, 2013
I hereby certify
that I hand 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 mailed a copy of this pleading to Defendant Jackson at:
423 6th
St. NW. Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
And to the attorney Floyd Wilson
for Defendant Barrie Crowe:
Floyd Wilson
12480 Hwy. 14 North. Ste.
105
Cedar Crest, NM
87008
And to the attorney for Geraldine and Warren Crowe:
Alicia
Santos of O’Brien & Padilla P.C.
6000
Indian School Road NE Suite 200
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87110
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No.
CV-12-1307 consolidated CV-12-10816
v.
DEBBIE HARMS, IRWIN HARMS, BARRIE
CROWE AKA
BARRIE
DERRINGER AKA BARRIE BEVERLEY,
ALAIN JACKSON,
GERALDINE (JERRY) CROWE, AND
WARREN
CROWE; ALL AS INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID
DERRINGER
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )
David
Derringer, being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
1.
I am the Plaintiff, Pro-Se in the matter of No.
CV-12-1307 consolidated with CV-12-10816.
2.
I believe that I cannot have justice in the
venue in which No. CV-12-1307 consolidated with CV-12-10816 is currently
located with the legal indiscretions that have been performed against the laws
by Judge Hadfield and Judge Malott.
3.
I believe fully that I have been the victim of
discrimination and abuse of discretion under my rights to have ability to use
the United States Court
system for redress of torts committed against me in proper due process and
equal protection of the law and all of my Constitutional rights have been
defiled.
4.
I believe that I have not received proper use of
the court under Judge Malott for the following reasons:
(1.)
deprivation of statutory rights
(2.)
denial of Constitutional rights
(3.)
failure and “refusal” to comply with former case laws involving the substantive
matter of the complaints
(4.)
violation of Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct
(5.)
working outside of jurisdiction with use of other cases and other judge’s
opinions to make decisions in the instant case
(6.)
a shown animosity and hatred towards the Plaintiff with abusive, derogatory and
threatening remarks in both open court and in written Orders
(7.)
degradation of the right to state facts and the truth as known by the Plaintiff
(8.)
a bias and prejudice against the Plaintiff, and for the Defendants manifested
in rulings against New Mexico
laws to protect and insulate a multi-million dollar corporation and the CEO’s
of same against the private pro-se party
(9.)
a shown distaste and subjugation of pro-se parties in general with manipulation
of the rules and abuse of discretion to use Rule 11 and threats thereof to stop
and control the instant litigation or arrange for the discretion to dismiss the
case with claims of sanctions under Rule 11 to defeat the cause of the
Plaintiff, and allow the Defendants to escape prosecution; not at all what the
US Congress envisioned a justice to do while legislating the US Court system
Further,
Affiant sayeth naught.
____________________________________
David Derringer
SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN TO before me this 17th day of June, 2013 by David Derringer.
____________________________________
(Seal) Notary
Public
My commission expires:_________________________
[1] (C) Notice
of Reassignment: Service of Excusal. After the filing of the complaint, if
the case is reassigned to a different judge, the clerk shall give notice of
the reassignment to all parties. Only as of April 24, 2013 in the courtroom of Judge Brickhouse did
David Derringer receive any notice of any reassignment, handed to him, which
proved to be invalid on May 30, 2013
making the case at all times before Judge Brickhouse.
No comments:
Post a Comment