 |
 |
JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
Post Office Box 1012
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1012
(505) 841-9438
|
COMPLAINT CONCERNING A JUDGE
David Derringer
Box 7431
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
Information regarding the Judge of the Complaint
Judge Alisa Hadfield
Family court judge
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Bernalillo County
State of New Mexico
I believe the judge has done the following (please check as appropriate):
YES Committed acts that constitute willful misconduct in office;
YES Committed acts that constitute persistent failure or inability to perform his/her duties.
SECTION I
Hearing was illegally held on June 4, 2013 in DM-12-610 with the entire matter in the New Mexico Supreme Court under a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with Appellant David Derringer of NM Ct. App. No. 32,587. Judge Hadfield was notified by numerous case laws read into record that she had no legal jurisdiction or ability to change the Final Judgment of that appeal until a “remand” of jurisdiction. David Derringer read into court record the following case laws, mandating that Judge Hadfield stop the illegal actions outside of her jurisdiction while under appeal.
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.”
Matter on appeal, granting no jurisdiction or judicial capacity for this hearing
This hearing is jurisdictionally defective in violation of NMRA Rule 1-054.1. The written Judgment and orders have a time limit under this rule. “The Court shall enter an order within 60 days after submission.”
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.
There had been 62 days since the trial of this particular matter, making this presentment hearing outside of the jurisdictional limits of this court. This jurisdictional issue was properly preserved for appeal.
ILLEGAL AND NON-JURISDICTIONAL AMENDMENT OF FINAL JUDGEMENT
Since the court of Judge Hadfield is changing some of the Orders of the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012, this court has no jurisdiction for this hearing, due to the jurisdiction being in the New Mexico Supreme Court for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari of New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 32,587.
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.”
Judge Hadfield ignored all of the law presented.
Judge Hadfield also presides over the case DV-12-234 in which there is proven “fundamental error” of law without any summons ever served upon David Derringer. Despite that, the action has been continued for well over a year against David Derringer taking illegally all 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendments. At all times, and in every court, David Derringer defines and preserves the "jurisdictional and fundamental error defect". In all of David Derringer pleadings in all court in New Mexico, David Derringer presents proper forms of pleadings, facts that are the truth of the matter pursuant to NMRA Rule 1-090, despite how those facts contradict with lies of the opposing parties, or wherein such "truth" also exposes the corruption of the courts, or in this matter constantly contests Judge Hadfield making rulings without authority under law, and rulings in total contradiction to Constitution and all law, despite her mandate and Oath of office to conform to the law and Constitution. In all pleadings filed by David Derringer, all conform to the Rules of Civil Procedure and contentions presented under law, are always entirely supported by case laws, Constitution and statutory laws of both the State of New Mexico and Federal US Code. In this matter, record will show the bias and prejudice of Judge Hadfield against David Derringer and there have been three filings prior to Judicial Standards regarding her unlawful conduct in non-conformity to Constitution and disregard of all law, and other matters of bias and prejudice mandating she recuse; wherein instead she will not step down for valid cause and forces David Derringer to stand before herr violations of law each time. David Derringer has also filed past a Petition for Writ of Superintending Control, entirely known to Judge Hadfield, and has disclosed her illegal actions denying due process in the court wherein she entirely controls the testimony of Pro-Se David Derringer on the witness stand, not allowing David Derringer to testify freely in due process and opportunity to be heard, but instead controlling the testimony to only allow in the court record what Judge Hadfield wants and no more. US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998 “Obstruction of justice statute is construed broadly to include the various corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted; variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined.” 18 USCA 1503
In the latest re-opening actions meant to stop David Derringer from posting legal public record already properly filed court pleadings on the Internet by way of Google “blogs”, Judge Hadfield upheld the actions of deprivation of 1st Amendment rights, deprivation of due process, equal protection and Constitutional deprivations of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar to Order David Derringer to not post any public records on the Internet because they exposed the public corruption of Judge Hadfield and Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and also the lies and fraud of Petitioner Barrie Derringer. Judge Hadfield and the Commissioner were both notified of the higher court rulings of the New Mexico Court of Appeals and absolutely “refused” 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); all of which prohibited the ruling depriving David Derringer’s 1st Amendment right, the illegal conversion of the civil matter to a criminal matter in the order without Miranda rights, without attorney, without due process or equal protection, without any jury and a total violation of the 6th Amendment against David Derringer and yet still “sentencing” David Derringer to 30 days in jail, suspended only if David Derringer removes and does not place other items on the Internet illegally accusing David Derringer of “criminal harassment”.
There has always been "just cause" to recuse Judge Hadfield, with multiple motions, and she refuses to recuse, now even having done slanderous accusations against David Derringer as a party. The newest "technique" of Judge Hadfield now is to totally control the Second Judicial Court record by emailing specific instructions to all court clerks and known and disclosed on June 5, 2013 to David Derringer, that Judge Hadfield has ordered all court clerks not to file any suits, pleadings or other court papers by David Derringer until perused and "approved" by Judge Hadfield. Judge Hadfield thus has become a "dictatorship" and "tyrant" in her own right, without either jurisdiction or judicial authority to inspect all David Derringer's pleadings before filing so as to taint the court record under the meaning of "obstruction of justice" to ensue that any material substance of distaste to Judge Hadfield can then be discarded and not allowed to become of court record by denial of filing with a court clerk. 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.” This "obstruction" and "conspiracy against rights" and "deprivation of rights under color of law" was discussed by David Derringer to the FBI on June 5, 2013. Since there is a very solid past history of legal and proper attempts to recuse Judge Hadfield for just legal cause, several filings against her with the Judicial Standards, and even a Petition for Writ or Superintending Control filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court as proper legal seeking of redress of the corruption of this court, the latest "order" to the court clerks not to file any court papers of David Derringer, of which some expose the illegal rulings of Judge Hadfield, it only holds that this deprivation of due process and equal protection violation of the 14th Amendment is an attempt by Judge Hadfield not only to corrupt and taint the court records in which David Derringer is party, but to entirely control the litigation legal efforts of pro-se David Derringer so as to protect herself from exposure of her violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct "Canon" and her deprivation of Constitutional rights, but also to ensure that the parties in opposition to David Derringer win and succeed in all litigation in which David Derringer is a party. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.” At no time has any pleading of David Derringer contained any offensive language, cussing, or other scandalous wording, and all facts and allegations in all pleadings have been sustained by facts, later witnesses, and the truth as known to David Derringer at the time of writing. In essence, thus, all pleading cannot be pre-screened by a dictatorship bent on limiting the record so as to help the opposition, keep public corruption from the eye of the judicial circles or limit David Derringer illegally under the "Whistleblowing Act of 1989" as a matter of federal law. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) “intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities....The conspiracy, in other words must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.” Ordering the clerks not to file any pleading or other court paper by David Derringer has singled out and ''targeted" David Derringer in violation of equal protection, meant to expressly take the rights, immunities and privileges of David Derringer as entitled to all other citizens of the United States in a blatant violation of the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution Article VI. Pepper v. Alezander, 599 Supp. 523 “To maintain a cause of action under 1983, plaintiff must prove that he has been deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that defendants subjected plaintiff to this deprivation, or caused him to be so subjected, and that the defendants acted under color of state law.”
David Derringer has the same right as all citizens to come to any US Court and properly and without delay file any court pleading in a form supported by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and not be persecuted, prejudiced and compromised in time or obstruction for such filing. Anderson v. Martin, (1964) 375 US 399, 11 L.Ed.2d 430, 84 S Ct 454 “ In determining whether state action violates equal protection clause of 14th Amendment where private action is also involved, crucial factor is interplay of governmental and private action.”; Flagg Bros., Inc V Brooks, (1978) 436 US 149, 56 L.Ed.2d 185, 98 S. Ct 1729, 23 UCCRS 1105 “Involvement of state official may provide state actions essential to show direct violation of petitioner’s 14th Amendment rights, whether or not official’s actions were officially authorized or lawful.”
On June 5, 2013, David Derringer sought to file his proper and legal "Notice of Appeal" of the illegal and unconstitutional rulings of Judge Hadfield and her illegal and unconstitutional support of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar wherein they collectively were over-riding and ignoring knowingly all rulings regarding the Internet that allowed David Derringer to have conducted the conduct complained of in the illegal "re-opining" of DV-12-234, the same case that has always been "jurisdictionally defective" and in "fundamental error" with never any summons being served. The Second Judicial District Court clerks "refused" to file the Notice of Appeal as and when presented for filing by David Derringer, and mandated that David Derringer leave his filing for a time frame for "approval" by the order of Judge Hadfield. When David Derringer later returned to access his filing, there was some argument from the clerks as to filing, requiring David Derringer to ask for the supervisor of the court clerks to gain a filing of his legal Notice of Appeal. The head supervisor of the clerks, informed David Derringer directly that Judge Hadfield had ordered the clerks to single out exclusively David Derringer to deny any filings of any court papers until "approved" for filing by Judge Hadfield. This mis-use of power was never condoned, allowed and is without any ability by the United States Congress and the Constitution. In contrast, and particularly under these circumstances of a Judge doing "retaliation", "retribution" and "revenge" for David Derringer's past judicial complaints, Petition for Superintending Control and exposure of the "facts" of violations of Oath and sedition and treason against the Constitution by deliberate rulings that are contrary to all law, and well known by Judge Hadfield that the law is not being upheld in her rulings, it is easily "sustained" that the reasoning for any order to the court clerks falls under the guise of "criminal obstruction of justice" by Judge Hadfield and such order is not at all for the integrity of the judicial system. Swann v. City of Dallas, 922 F. Supp. 1184 “To be entitled to qualified immunity from liability for violation of constitutional right, officials must observe general, well developed legal principles.”
In this matter, David Derringer has been singled out by Judge Hadfield after numerous complaints against her violations of Oath, and her power has been misused as a judge to persecute and punish David Derringer by criminal acts against David Derringer's Constitutional rights both in her outrageous rulings taking David Derringer's 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendments, and now a persecution outside of other citizens to limit and manage the court record to her liking depriving due process and total control of the litigation information presented to this court by a "censorship" of pleadings that are in a "conspiracy against rights". 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) “To satisfy a case for violations of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “Defendant was singled out for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.”; US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1 “Statute defining “corruptly”, as “acting with an improper purpose, personally influencing another, including making a false, misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” ; In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245 “Obstruction of justice statute is satisfied whenever a person with the intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings, takes action having the natural and probable effect of doing so.”
The court clerks have no legal ability to obstruct or deny filings of a judicial nature as supported in New Mexico by case laws.
San Juan 1990-A., L.P. v. El Paso Production Co. 132 N.M. 73, 75, 43 P.3d 1083, 1085 (N.M.App.,2002)
Facts Concerning the Filing of the Notices of Appeal.
{8} The normal business hours of the district court clerk's office are 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition to filing papers with the district court clerk's office, litigants may also file papers in open court with a district judge at any time. There are also other judges present in the courthouse that have the authority to accept filings in open court at any time.
Ennis v. Kmart Corp. 131 N.M. 32, 33 P.3d 32 (N.M.App.,2001)
Clerks of Courts; Powers and Proceedings in General; Ministerial Functions and Acts; Filing and Service; Requisites and Sufficiency of Filing.
The clerk does not possess the power to reject a pleading for lack of conformity with form requirements, and a pleading is considered filed when placed in the possession of the clerk of the court. It is not necessary for the clerk of court to endorse a pleading upon its receipt to effect the filing. Customer's complaint in slip and fall action was timely filed when first presented to clerk of court, even though clerk refused to accept pleading for filing for a technical violation; clerk lacked authority to reject the pleading, and trial court was proper authority to determine whether pleading violated rules. NMRA, Rule 1-005, subd. E.
Gallagher v. Linwood 231 P. 627 (N.M. 1924)
A paper is filed when it is delivered to proper officer to be kept on file, and held, where attorney delivered pleading to clerk of court, who indorsed usual filing certificate, though attorney immediately thereafter, pursuant to permission of clerk, withdrew pleading to serve on opposing counsel, that it was filed. A paper is filed when it is delivered to the proper officer to be kept on file.
Ennis v. Kmart Corp., 2001-NMCA-068, 131 NM 32, 33 P.3d 32, cert denied, 130 NM 722, 31 p.3d 380 (2001). "A court clerk lacks the discretion to reject pleadings …, and a pleading will be considered filed when delivered to the clerk. It is then up to the trial court to decide whether to allow a party to correct and deficiencies or to strike the pleadings". Vossburg v. Carter, 33 NM 86 262 p. 175 (1927); Pershing v. Ward, 33 NM 91, 262 P. 177 (1927) "Signed motion deemed "regularly filed" paper. A motion signed by a party or his attorney is a paper "regularly filed in a cause with the clerk of the district court"
Guiden v. Morrow 92 Fed.Appx. 663, 666, 2004 WL 296983, 2 (C.A.10 (Kan.) (C.A.10 (Kan.),2004)
Background: State prisoner filed in forma pauperis § 1983 action against state court clerk, alleging that clerk's failure to file court documents deprived him of his right of access to the courts, and violated due process and equal protection. State court clerk was entitled to judicial immunity from liability for her conduct in failing to file state prisoner's court documents, in prisoner's § 1983 in forma pauperis action, seeking damages for alleged deprivation of right of access to courts, and violation of due process and equal protection, where clerk acted pursuant to specific instruction of state court judge, and complaint did not give any indication that prisoner sought injunctive relief or an order requiring clerk to file his court documents. Guiden, an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas, mailed a petition and an inmate account statement to Martha Morrow, the Clerk of the District Court of Butler County, Kansas, for filing. Morrow did not immediately file these papers but instead referred them to a district judge for review. Guiden filed suit against Morrow in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.FN2 He alleged Morrow's failure to file his papers deprived him of his right of access to the courts and violated his due process and equal protection rights. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted.
In this matter, since Judge Hadfield has no possible "jurisdiction" in DV-12-234, a case that was never served a summons on David Derringer, giving Judge Hadfield no party or subject matter jurisdiction, she had no legal ability to order the clerks to be able to "approve" or "disapprove" any filing of David Derringer, with particularity of the Notice of Appeal of DV-12-234. Injunctive relief, criminal prosecution, civil rights 1983 action and investigation by the Department of Justice is needed in this matter, as well as removal from the bench in violation of Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge Hadfield. Wallace v. David Hayse, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette District Court, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit August 6, 1993 No. 93-5382. “Judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity.”; Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984) “Judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity.”; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities, this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”.
In this matter the Rules of Civil Procedure NMRA Rule 1-005 are directives to the parties concerning the filing of pleadings. They impose a ministerial act of duty upon court clerks. This filing is simply an act of recording having nothing to do with substance or content of the pleading if the filing with the court was to be defined. The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court is made by filing them with the clerk of the court and in New Mexico pleadings and other papers may be filed by telefacsimile communication and electronic filing. The NM judges may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. Particularly with the underlying history of attempts to properly recuse Judge Hadfield for "cause" of Constitutional violations, Judge Hadfield had no legal jurisdiction or judicial authority to impose any "order" to the court clerks to limit, stop, delay or otherwise "obstruct justice" of any filings by David Derringer and certainly had no ability to impose orders against David Derringer in discrimination and deprivation of rights affording to every other citizen of the United States similarly situated as a Pro-Se party having to represent themselves against public corruption and Constitutional deprivations with the courts not obeying the laws of "proper service" in the commencement of a court action and taking Constitutional rights and a judge acting in sedition against the Constitution in a bias and prejudice against the party without honoring the mandated recusal under the US Code Title 28 Sections 451 and 455 under Oath.
On June 5, 2013, David Derringer goes to legally file his “Notice of Appeal” of the illegal orders of the Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield to the NM Court of Appeals, and was told by the supervisor of the Second Judicial District Court Family Division that they had received an email from Judge Hadfield to “all filing clerks” to single out David Derringer and for no clerk to file any court pleading of David Derringer in the Second Judicial District Court until it was “reviewed” and “approved” for filing by Judge Hadfield. Judge Hadfield has no possible jurisdiction or judicial capacity to view, read, or otherwise scan the Derringer pleadings until filed and of court record in a case in which Judge Hadfield presides, and has no possible ability with mis use of power to obstruct, delay and intimidate David Derringer to stall, or deny any court pleading that David Derringer files in the Second Judicial District Court by the operation of Federal law Title 42 Section 1981, the Constitution 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendments including “due process and equal protection” but Judge Hadfield has misused power and “dictatorship” to override Federal Constitution and Federal US code in order to stop David Derringer from due process, entirely control the wording and thoughts of David Derringer in pleadings, just as Judge Hadfield does the same to Pro-Se David Derringer on the witness stand in her court, not enabling David Derringer to “represent himself” properly, but controlling every thing that David Derringer says by selective “questioning” of the witness for himself and not allowing David Derringer to speak freely on his own pro-se behalf in deprivation of “opportunity to be heard”. Judge Hadfield now entirely controls the filings of David Derringer picking and choosing which pleadings she is willing to have filed, and denying any pleading that exposes her corruption or is displeasing in content to oppose her preferred party, making her Oath worthless, the Code of Judicial Conduct worthless and a dictator and tyrant controlling the record and blocking appeal. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1 “Statute defining “corruptly”, as “acting with an improper purpose, personally influencing another, including making a false, misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” Judge Hadfield’s “intent” is to totally control the litigation of David Derringer by allowing or disallowing certain pleadings to become part of the court record and keep other pleadings from the court record with an arbitrary and willful disregard for law by mis use of her power to “control” the clerks of the Second Judicial District Court to persecute and single out David Derringer to “taint” the court record under her own supervision long before she actually has any judicial ability to read the pleadings after filing and taking jurisdiction of same. In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245 “Obstruction of justice statute is satisfied whenever a person with the intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings, takes action having the natural and probable effect of doing so. Federal law, Constitution and New Mexico case law mandate that a court clerk file all pleadings of the public pro-se persons before any justice can “view” them and the US Congress made no provision of any justice to be able to “approve” or “disapprove” of any filings of pleadings before they are filed with a court of law.
”Judge Hadfield “lied” to the public of the United States where she “swore to God” to uphold the Constitution and statutory laws to attain office of “judge”, and then simply mis-uses her power to do as she wants over any issue on the opposite side of the law in total violation of the State of New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, 2, 3, and 4. I will continue to expose this continue to expose these and other unlawful activities until some element of the Government takes corrective action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).
I believe the judge has done the following (please check as appropriate):
YES Committed acts that constitute willful misconduct in office;
YES Committed acts that constitute persistent failure or inability to perform his/her duties;
SECTION II
In this section, please list the specific factual allegations you are making against the Judge. Remember, the Commission can only proceed on allegations that fall within its jurisdiction and that are proven by clear and convincing evidence. The factual allegations you list should be specific, but brief and to the point.
After each allegation you list, provide the following information:
(A) the names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of any attorneys involved in the proceeding at issue;
(B) the names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of witnesses who can offer support for each allegation; and
(C) a list of the clear and convincing evidence/ exhibits that you are submitting in support of each allegation. Be sure to label and number each document and make specific reference to the exhibit number. For example: "Exhibit 1, letter from my attorney dated 9/2/98. Exhibit 2, Court Order dated 10/28/98."
Revised May-01
Please provide only one-sided copies of documents that are relevant to allegations you listed in Section II. The documents you submit will not be returned to you. An example of a properly completed complaint would be the following:
ALLEGATION 1: The judge violated all due process and equal protection and refuses to allow me to represent myself pro se in a court of law.
A) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of attorneys involved in the
proceeding: David Derringer Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
B) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of witnesses who can support this allegation: unethical attorney Alain Jackson 423 6th St. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
C) Evidence/Exhibits supporting this allegation: All pleadings and court records of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with “appeal” attached.
ALLEGATION 2: The judge violated every provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct and lied under Oath.
A) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of attorneys involved in the proceeding: attorney Alain Jackson 423 6th St. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
B) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of witnesses who can support this allegation: David Derringer Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
C) Evidence/Exhibits supporting this allegation: All pleadings and court records of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with “appeal” attached.
ALLEGATION 1:
Judge Hadfield has violated and defied all law Constitutional, statutory, case laws, and US Code with full knowledge of ruling in higher court that prevent her decisions and continues to operate in a case without ever legal service of summons. To stop the legal and supported authorities cited each time by David Derringer, Judge Hadfield now has ordered and specifically instructed the court clerks not to file any pleadings by David Derringer until pre-read and approved or disapproved by Judge Hadfield, making a mockery of the judicial system and deprivation of due process, with an ability now for Judge Hadfield to limit and totally control the court record, and take all "opportunity to be heard" from David Derringer, and to obstruct, limit and prevent appeals. The sedition and treason of Judge Hadfield mandates removal from the bench. All acts by corruption by Judge Hadfield are against David Derringer in “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”. Judge Hadfield is working for the state of New Mexico in violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1-5 and must be immediately removed from office of any service to the state of New Mexico.
A) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of attorneys involved in the proceeding:
Unethical attorney Alain Jackson 423 6th St. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
B) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of witnesses who can support this allegation:
David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
C) Evidence/Exhibits supporting this allegation: all pleadings in DV-12-234 and DM-12-610
ALLEGATION 2:
Judge Hadfield has done criminal acts against David Derringer to limit and control any and all court pleadings, meaning obviously that she taints and controls the court record and can manipulate and prevent appeals, as requested of her time and again against David Derringer by Petitioner Barrie Derringer and attorney Alain Jackson. This is a “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”. Judge Hadfield is working for the state of New Mexico in violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1-5 and must be immediately removed from office of any service to the state of New Mexico.
A) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of attorneys involved in the proceeding:
Unethical attorney Alain Jackson 423 6th St. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
B) Names, addresses and daytime telephone numbers of witnesses who can support this allegation:
David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
C) Evidence/Exhibits supporting this allegation: all pleadings in DV-12-234 and DM-12-610
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )
1, (print/type your name) have read the forgoing complaint and all supporting documents/ exhibits submitted with it, and affirm that the complaint and documents/ exhibits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Dated:
Complainant's Signature
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this day of ________ June, 2013 by David Derringer ____________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires:
(SEAL)
Mail completed form to: JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
P.O. Box 1012
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1012
No comments:
Post a Comment