Barrie Derringer Petitioner v. David Derringer Respondent: Docketing Statement July 1, 2013

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

No. DV-12-234

Rel DM-12-610

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,

Petitioner,

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Respondent,

DOCKETING STATEMENT

COMES NOW the Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se and hereby submits his docketing statement in support of his appeal to the NM Court of Appeals of the deprivation of Constitutional 1^st Amendment rights and illegal “sentencing” to jail in a civil matter with claims of criminal harassment without Miranda rights, without and attorney, without a trial, without a jury and other egregious acts without jurisdiction in Notice of Appeal June 5, 2013 of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar’s illegal Order of April 15, 2013 with illegal confirmation of that Order by Judge Hadfield on April 30, 2013 and then the illegal denial of the Motion for Reconsideration on May 16, 2013 all held without any hearing for due process for the Respondent, and without any reasons for the Orders or denials not sustained in any case law or authority, but in a total disregard for authorities already established by Constitution and 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). This court realizes that the trial court is working at all times without jurisdiction over this matter due to foundation fundamental error of no service of summons and no jurisdiction due to this matter already on appeal in No. 32,326, but the trial courts will not stop.

I Statement of the Nature of the Proceedings.

Time after time, the trial court of both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield disregard that the jurisdiction of this matter is already in NM Court of Appeals No. 32,326 and that they have no jurisdiction to do any modification of prior judgments or continue to persecute and attack the Respondent both due to no jurisdiction because of appeal taken and because there was never a summons served upon the original DV-12-234 making it outside of jurisdiction and in fundamental error and mandated as is related DM-12-610 to be both dismissed with prejudice without any divorce granted for Barrie Derringer. Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 NM 501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993). “The judicial errors of law are noticed to the court before appeal.” ; US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986 “Word should (shall) in Canon of Judicial Conduct states that judge “should”, imposes mandatory standard of conduct upon judges. Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 92 NM 412, 589 P.2d 196 (1979) “Once the time has lapsed within which an appeal may be taken from a divorce decree, a court cannot change the original division of the property as an exercise in its continuing jurisdiction.” ; Chavez v. Village of Cimmaron, 65 NM 141, 333 P,2d 882 (1958). “Timely allowance of appeal is jurisdictional to place a case on the docket of the Supreme Court for review.” ; State ex rel Bell v. Hansen Lumber Co., 86 NM 312, 523 P>2d 810 (1974) “During pendency of the appeal the court is without power to vacate, alter or amend the judgment under Rule, whether the amendment is made or considered after the appeal is taken except with the permission of the appellate court. For relief a motion must be filed with the appellate court and that the case be remanded to the trial court for consideration.” Both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield simply will not quit keeping on with defective hearings, orders and persecution of the Respondent in both defective DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with appeals already taken despite that the entire matter has to be dismissed with prejudice and extreme restitution for David Derringer was never served any summons. Trujillo v. Goodwin, 2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839 “service of summons-the District Court has no jurisdiction to issue binding judgment against a party not served summons in accordance with the rule who does not waive the defects of service.”; Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987) Service of process of summons is procedural and Supreme Court rule on service of process controls.” Summons was never served and the trial court cannot continue to persecute the Respondent as has now been going on for 1 ½ years. Clark v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P..2d 1075 (1979) “Two functions are served by service by personal delivery of the papers within the state: (1) it shows that defendant has an appropriate relationship to the state and is within the power of the court generally; and (2) it gives the defendant notice of the proceeding against him.” Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 “In action before federal court, the necessary and constitutional predicate for any decision is determination that court has jurisdiction, that is, the power, to adjudicate dispute; foundational support for all of court’s rulings flows from that power, and if that power is missing, court is not in position to act and its decisions cannot generally be enforced.” ; W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60 “Neither court by exercising its inherent equitable discretion, nor parties by entering into stipulation, can confer jurisdiction where none has been authorized.”

The original Petition for Order of Protection DV-12-234 has been shown to be in perjury and fraud by Barrie Derringer and without service of summons. The courts continue to persecute David Derringer for 1 ½ years taking all 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights, and each time give no authorities as to how they can act in such illegal oppression and tyranny. ^{^[1]} AAt 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 (5^th Cir. 08/01/1985). Simply put, Judge Hadfield, in serious Aabuse of discretion@ and violations of Oath and Canon, denied and Ablocked@ the legal appeals in Aobstruction of justice@, without any due process, and without any decisions or legal support of the many issues and corruption underlying, that also included known and proven in court record criminal perjury and fraud by Petitioner Barrie Derringer originally lying on the Petition for Order of Protection, and then lying in court, and yet minutes later in court stating that ADavid Derringer would NOT hurt me physically@; and yet with this knowledge, the Commissioner granted the Petition for Order of Protection for a period of Atwo years@; twice the normal time frame, and without anything but Barrie Derringer=s own word (contradicted in testimony), without evidence, documents, witnesses, or any other Aproof@; statements and allegations against David Derringer that not only are contradicted in Barrie=s own testimony under oath in the underlying hearing on February 21, 2012, but proven Barrie Derringer Afraud@ by the exhibit of David Derringer of the APD police report of the same incident date and time. AThis Court previously has recognizedBeven with respect to another statute the legislative history of which indicated that courts were to have Awide discretion exercising their equitable powers,@ 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)Bthat Adiscretionary 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 Ahardly 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)

Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield rule in arrogant disregard for all Constitution and law, making orders well outside of jurisdiction in both time history and without jurisdiction due to appeals, and they totally disregard due process as well as violating NMRA 11-501(D). “Privileges recognized only as provided. Except as otherwise required by constitution, and except as provided in these rules or in other rules adopted by the supreme court, no person has a privilege to: D. prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.” Judge Hadfield prevents David Derringer from producing “objects of writing” being normal and legal court pleadings of Motions for Reconsideration under NMRA Rule 1-060 and Motions for Recusal for Cause and Motions for Change of Venue; all legal pleadings that Judge Hadfield keeps from the court record by not allowing by her order to the clerks a legal filing of same to prevent them from the record; acts without jurisdiction as there is no jurisdiction to take any act regarding pleadings until filed properly of record with the court. In effect, Judge Hadfield “destroys” court documents, a criminal act of felony. The Commissioner and Judge Hadfield cannot legally be stopped despite oral and written case laws and statutory and Constitutional laws presented to them time after time. The Petitioner and her attorney unethical Alain Jackson ask and receive a “bifurcated divorce” in illegal DM-12-610 based on fundamental errors of no service in related DV-12-234 and in a direct response to asking Judge Hadfield to stop all pleadings, court papers and legal responses from Respondent David Derringer; asking and receiving an order essentially to stop all due process and equal protection of David Derringer. Properly requesting by motion for both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield to recuse for cause or using legal redress supposedly available of Judicial Standard and Petition for Writ of Superintending Control with the New Mexico Supreme Court finds no relief to the public corruption involved here. Now, when David Derringer files two separate motions for “reconsideration” under NMRA Rule 1-060 and a motion to recuse for cause and a motion for change of venue for justice to be served; all with legal request to be heard in a different district with an unbiased justice, Judge Hadfield orders the court clerks not to file such pleadings, illegally confiscates all copies of David Derringer’s pleadings to either keep or destroy them but certainly to keep them from the court record so as to block movement of the case, block appeal, and block any court record; all criminal acts of obstruction of justice. [See current motion in No. 32,326 EXTREME EMERGENCY APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL ALL COURT CLERK FILING, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND JURISDICTION.

It is also presumed that the Second Judicial District Court and Judge Hadfield will also refuse to file this docketing statement to block this appeal and prevent the court record from reaching the NM Court of Appeals. David Derringer will attempt to hand deliver for filing this docketing statement on July 1, 2013, and if it is not accepted, will mail it to the Second Judicial District Court by certified mail return receipt and will file the proper copy with the NM Court of Appeals on Monday July 1, 2013 with a copy attached of the post office certified number and indications that it was return receipt, so that if the Second Judicial District Court does not properly file this docketing statement and does not properly send the court record to the NM Court of Appeals, the public corruption will be exposed. It is mandatory that the persons of public service of Judges involved in this matter of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, Judge Ted Baca, and Judge Whitehouse be investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice and Constitutional deprivations.

II Date of Judgements and Orders and Notice of Appeal

The Commissioner=s Arecommendations@ DV-12-234 of the illegal Order of Protection were filed February 21, 2012 without service of any summons upon David Derringer, rendering this entire case and intertwined case DM-12-610 in jurisdictional defect and in fundamental error. Appeals have already been taken in both cases and despite that, the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield continue to judicially terrorize the Respondent with further hearings, trials, and orders. With the entire judicial system failing to grant “justice” over matters, and forming Constitutional deprivations of US citizens without law, David Derringer started placing legal public records documents of court pleadings already filed on the Internet in Google blogs for the entire world to see the judicial corruption of New Mexico, and more particularly the Commissioner, Judge Hadfield, and the perjury and fraud of Petitioner Barrie Derringer. This is a fundamental right under the 1^st Amendment of documents, opinions, and freedom of expression guaranteed to David Derringer under Constitution. However, since Judge Hadfield and others do not enjoy being exposed in public corruption, illegal Order issued by the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield was to attempt to stop public knowledge of their corruption. Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar formed an illegal Order of April 15, 2013 with Constitutional deprivations of 1^st Amendment rights for placing legal public court documents on the Internet by David Derringer exposing the public corruption of this entire matter, and without any legal “complaint” of a criminal nature against David Derringer, but with
sentencing” of 30 days in jail for “criminal harassment” was issued in this order despite the matter being “civil”. The illegal confirmation of that Order by Judge Hadfield was on April 30, 2013 and then the illegal denial of the Motion for Reconsideration that properly noticed Judge Hadfield of Constitutional and higher court case law violations was on May 16, 2013 all held without any hearing for due process for the Respondent, and without any reasons for the Orders or denials not sustained in any case law or authority, but in a total disregard for authorities already in bias and prejudice without substance, and David Derringer properly filed his legal appeal of DV-12-234 on these matters on Notice of Appeal June 5, 2013 despite the underlying justices not being able to legally do any of this due to NM Ct. App. No. 32,326.

III Statement of the Case

Case DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 are totally intertwined, making them inseparable in matters of “law” with both without foundation without proper service of summons, with extreme Constitutional deprivations and violations of all law in each, making both cases entirely jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error; mandating both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to be dismissed with prejudice without granting any divorce for Barrie Derringer. DV-12-234 was brought by perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer, proven in court record, and yet without service of summons granted an Order of Protection held illegally against David Derringer for a period thus far of 1 ½ years, encompassing violations of all law and deprivations by illegal Order of 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights as well as harassment, persecution, discrimination and other egregious acts of torts performed against David Derringer by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, attorney Alain Jackson and Barrie Derringer; acts that would shock the conscience of any equitable justice. Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”; Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 1998) “the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.”

Despite the NM Court of Appeals already having total jurisdiction over these matters of both cases, and without a proper remand for complete dismissal of all, as is the duty of this court under parameters of no jurisdiction and lack of judicial capacity of the trial courts, the trial courts simply ignore the jurisdiction of the appellate courts and move forward to do more and extensive additional damages to David Derringer, singled out as a “targeted individual” with the New Mexico Court system. 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.” Without jurisdiction, the trial courts simply use public funds and tyranny to terrorize David Derringer by mis-use of perceived judicial power, when without any service of summons, David Derringer as a non-party and citizen is not in their jurisdiction to do so in any realm. Freeman on Judgements 709 at 1496-1497 (1925) “The law of the case doctrine is binding only on those persons who were parties to that particular action. It is merely an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata” This matter is so outrageous that David Derringer has been denied the very citizenship of the United States and taken illegally from him evey right under the Constitution and US Code including, but no limited to the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendments. In the judicial circles, no one will stop these acts, although it is well known at this time in both the NM Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme Court and Judicial Standards. The violations of Oath and Canon are simply “ignored”

Due to placing legal court filed public documents of pleadings on the Internet under Google blogs, there was an instant attack again against David Derringer to muzzle him and prevent the world from knowledge of the extreme judicial public corruption in the State of New Mexico, and under the guise of “Motion for Order to Show Cause” of jurisdictionally defective DV-12-234, the court not only ordered David Derringer not to use the Internet as available to him under the 1^st Amendment with Google blogs of documents, opinions and freedom of expression, but took after a civil hearing and contrived an Order that accused, tried and sentenced David Derringer by written order to 30 days in jail with a “conviction” of criminal harassment, when there had been no criminal complaint, no trial, no jury, no attorney, no Miranda rights, and no possibility of redress by judicial terrorism victim David Derringer. As David Derringer attempts to properly file his pleadings to move the cases away from the horrible non-judicial acts of both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, the Second Judicial District Court, and more specifically Judge Ted Baca, Judge Whitehouse and the extreme actions of Judge Hadfield force the court clerks not to file any court papers of David Derringer and confiscate and/or destroy Respondent David Derringer’s legal pleadings so as to illegally keep the case imprisoned before them, stop any appeals, and destroy pleadings so as to taint and corrupt the court records so that this information is not “public record” so as to attempt to keep the world from knowledge of the judicial corruption; all acts federal criminal felonies under obstruction of justice, conspiracy against rights, and deprivation of rights under color of law. This “corruption” also entails Judge Hadfield and attorney Alain Jackson being an accessory to criminal insurance fraud of $8,542.01 against GEICO insurance corporation.

IV Statement of the Issues

Issue 1: Whether the Commissioner and Trial Judge Hadfield abused their discretion by Ordering an Order of Protection DV-12-234 and totally intertwined DM-12-610 based on proven perjury and fraud, to then be unlawfully Acontinued@ by Judge Hadfield with all knowledge of the Barrie Derringer criminal acts of perjury and fraud, with knowledge that the entire matter has no service of summons and is both jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error of law?

Preservation of Issue 1. New Mexico statutory laws, case laws of New Mexico and everywhere in the United States defeat DV-12-234 and totally intertwined DM-12-610 entirely as violations of due process, equal protection and violations of “jurisdiction” of both parties and subject matter.

List of authorities for Issue 1:

US Constitution 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th, and 14^th Amendments

NM State Constitution

NM State criminal code Section 30

New Mexico Statutes:

NMSA 21-6-6

NMSA 30-16-6

NMSA 30-16-18

NMSA 30-18-1

NMSA 30-25-1

NMSA 30-28-1

NMSA 30-28-2

NMSA 40-3-8

NMSA 45-2-804

NMSA 57-2-6

NMSA 57-3-4

NMSA 57-3-6

NMSA 57-3-9

US Code Title 28 Section 455

United States Code Title 28 Section 1655

US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242

US Code Title 18 Section 1503

14^th Amendment Section 3

US Code Title 28 Section 455

Declaration of Independence

US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239

U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied

Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991)

Molina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121 rehearing denied 1F.3d 304 on remand 1993 WL 534, 163

Ennis v. Kmart Corp., 131 N.M. 32, 33 P.3d 32, 2001 -NMCA- 068, N.M.App., June 21, 2001 (NO. 20,977)

Wilson & Co. v. Banque Francaise du Mexique, 124 Misc. 690, 208 N.Y.S. 213, N.Y.Sup.,

Hamilton v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 56 Wis.2d 673, 203 N.W.2d 7, Wis., January 03, 1973 (NO. 249)

Robinson v. Sawyer, 23 N.M. 688, 170 P. 881, N.M., January 07, 1918 (NO. 2007)

US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1

Silva v. Town of Springer, 912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M. 375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996

State v. Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied 112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991)

Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 929 N.E.2d 1044, 2010 -Ohio- 2218, Ohio, May 26, 2010 (NO. 2009-1282)

Civil Rights 13.4(2)

Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Department Of Indus. Relations, Cal.Rptr.3d, 2010 WL 969628, Cal.App. 5 Dist., March 18, 2010 (NO. F057574)

US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981)

Jemez Properties Inc. v . Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 608 P.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1979) cert denied 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980)

L.P. v. El Paso Production Co., 132 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083, 2002 -NMCA- 041, N.M.App., February 19, 2002 (NO. 22,130, 22,131, 22,132)

Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)

Castillo v. Northwest Transport Service, 113 N.M. 119, 823 P.2d 919, N.M.App., June 20, 1991 (NO. 12,911)

Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572 (1943)

Trujillo v. Goodwin, 2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839

Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987)

Clark v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P..2d 1075 (1979)

Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648

W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60

Chavez v. County of Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 521 P.2d 1154 (1974)

Wisdom v. Kopel, 95 N.M. 513, 623, P.2d 1027 (Ct. App. 1981)

Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 1998)

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

Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1990, 922 F.2d 60, on remand 771 F. Supp. 580

Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 NM 501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993).

US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986

Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 92 NM 412, 589 P.2d 196 (1979)

Chavez v. Village of Cimmaron, 65 NM 141, 333 P,2d 882 (1958)

State ex rel Bell v. Hansen Lumber Co., 86 NM 312, 523 P>2d 810 (1974)

Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974 aff’d in part reversed in part 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975)

Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969)

Sangre de Cristo Development Corporation, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, No. 9441 Supreme Court of New Mexico 503 P.2d 323, 84 N.M. 343 November 24, 1972

Freeman on Judgements 709 at 1496-1497 (1925)

Reichelt v. US Army Corp of Engineers, 923 F. Supp. 1090

Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand

US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789

Allen v. McClellan, 77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967)

Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683

Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992

Salmeron v. Highland Sports Sales, Inc., 248 F. Supp.2d 1035, 1037 (DNM 2003)

U.S. v. Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848

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)

Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971)

Archuleta v. Lacuesta, 988 P.2d 883, 128 N.M. 13, 1999-NMCA-113 cert denied 990 P.2d 822, 128 N.M. 148 cert denied 120 S. Ct. 937, 528 US 1117, 145 L.Ed.2d 815

Matter of Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172.

U.S. v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590

US v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479 US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1

Delgado v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App. 1978)

U.S. v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S. Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377

Whistleblowing Act of 1989

Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10^th Cir. 1997)

Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)

Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749

Bustos v. Bustos, 673 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556

Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990)

Douglas v. Douglas, 686 P.2d 260, 101 NM 570

Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296

Farmers Gin Company et al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.

Federalist No. 47 by James Madison

Flores v. Flores, 506 P.2d 345, 84 NM 601, cert denied 506 P.2d 336, 84 NM 592

In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245

Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996

Lauderdale v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 555 Pl2d 700, 89 NM 579.

Lucas v. Lucas, 621 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556

Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)

Martinez v. Block, 858 P.2d 429, 115 NM 762

Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild, 208

Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated

Matter of Morrow=s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81

Matter of Shadden=s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied

New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion No. 1998-NMSC-031 No. 18,296 consolidated with: No. 19,118 (Sept 8^th, 1998)

McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 921 F. Supp. 1473 ADSC 1996

Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

Owen v. City of Independence, United States Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779.

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 New Mexico Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981)

Portillo v. Shappie 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59

Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).

Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967

Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172.

State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964)

State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940)

State v. Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 AN.M. 1929

Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230

United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)

United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744.

US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998

U.S. v. Bowman, 173 F.3d 595 ACA6 (Ohio) 1999

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

US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 ACA6 (Ky.) 1997

US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1

US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 ACA6 (Mich.)

Issue 2: Whether a case can be continued for deprivation of Constitutional and law rights when in jurisdictional defect and in fundamental error without service of summons?

Preservation of Issue 2: The Constitution defeat any case that denies due process and equal protection and service of summons is fundamental to obtaining jurisdiction of parties and subject matter in fundamental error in DV-12-234 and thus in additional fundamental error of DM-12-610 based entirely upon DV-12-234.

List of authorities of Issue 2:

US Constitution 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th, and 14^th Amendments

NM State Constitution

NM State criminal code Section 30

New Mexico Statutes: