 |
 |
|
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
On June
17, 2-13 Judge Hadfield created a
Minute Order and an Order regarding Order to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner
past. Judge Hadfield knew and
it is of court record that on June 4, 2013 hearing was held
wherein Petitioner Barrie Derringer admitted in testimony under Oath to taking
legal and physical possession of the Derringer’s 2005 Chevy Silverado as
ordered that David Derringer relinquish on April 3, 2013 in open court
hearing. Despite that, the with Judge Hadfield’s direct knowledge due to the
testimony of both Petitioner and Respondent on June 4, 2013 that Barrie
Derringer aka Barrie Crowe had committed criminal insurance fraud to GEICO by
claiming $8,542.01 repairs to the truck under “vandalism” when no vandalism had
occurred and it would have taken only one diesel fuel filter and someone installing
it to have the truck running properly and all other cosmetic or body damages
were well prior to April 8, 2013. In the Minute Order of June 17, 2013 it is
clear that Judge Hadfield is committing fraud and corruption of the court
record to lead the record to believe that Barrie Derringer does not yet have
the truck and that David Derringer is still responsible for the truck, with
threats of incarceration against David Derringer in acts of intimidation and
obstruction of justice, clearly trying by court order to cover up the insurance
fraud, with Judge Hadfield thus being a party to the crime. In the Order
regarding Order to Show Cause filed by Judge Hadfield on the same exact date and time, this order contradicts entirely the
other Minute Order by admitting that Barrie Derringer admitted receipt of the
truck on April
8, 2013. The acts by this judge were corrupt
and devious means of tainting the court record against David Derringer and
threatened to incarcerate David Derringer for no
cause, clearly to intimidate and shut up David Derringer in
litigation. There were insinuations that could only be meant to believe that
either murder or bad would happen to David Derringer if he
continued to expose the corruption of Judge Hadfield and the perjury, fraud and acts of Barrie Derringer. Since leaving David
Derringer Barrie Derringer has not at all been “herself” the woman that David
Derringer was married to after a PTSD disaster of our home burning down and
killing our five dogs and David Derringer believes that Barrie Derringer is
being extremely manipulated by very unsavory persons to do criminal acts,
instead of the court helping to gain proper counseling for her.
On June 25, 2013, David Derringer property
sought to remove Judge Hadfield from this
case DM-12-610 and related DV-12-234 by RESPONDENT’S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FROM THE INJUSTICE AND PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A
DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL/DISMISSAL OF THE ORDER
REGARDING VERIFIED MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF JUNE 17, 2013 UNDER NMRA
RULE 1-059, AND RULE 1-060 UNDER (B)(1)”MISTAKE”(3)”FRAUD”(4)”THE JUDGMENT IS
VOID”(6)”OTHER REASONS OF VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION AND ALL LAWS” WITH ACTS BY
JUDGE HADFIELD OF ORDERS WELL OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS
MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION AND
REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATIONS OF OATH, CANON UNDER 3(D)(1), AND
CRIMINAL FACILITATION OF FRAUD AND INSURANCE FRAUD BY BARRIE DERRINGER, ALAIN
JACKSON AND JUDGE HADFIELD
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL/DISMISSAL OF THE MINUTE
ORDER OF JUNE 17, 2013 UNDER NMRA RULE 1-059, AND RULE 1-060 UNDER
(B)(1)”MISTAKE”(3)”FRAUD”(4)”THE JUDGMENT IS VOID”(6)”OTHER REASONS OF
VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION AND ALL LAWS” WITH ACTS BY JUDGE HADFIELD OF ORDERS
WELL OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
AND EQUAL PROTECTION, WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A
DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION AND REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION
OF VIOLATIONS OF OATH, CANON UNDER 3(D)(1), AND CRIMINAL FACILITATION OF FRAUD
AND INSURANCE FRAUD BY BARRIE DERRINGER, ALAIN JACKSON AND JUDGE HADFIELD
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL FOR CAUSE OF JUDGE ALISA HADFIELD WITH
LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A
DIFFERENT DIVISION WITH ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT AND REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION
UNDER BOTH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CANON (3)(D)(1)
David Derringer sought to file his
legal Affidavit to support the legal motions of change of venue and motion to
recuse for cause Judge Hadfield. On June
25, 2013,
David Derringer went to the family
court for filing and Judge Hadfield had ordered the court
clerks not to file any papers of David Derringer. David Derringer then
went downstairs properly to the Second Judicial District Court clerk and they
refused to file the legal pleadings of David Derringer and told David Derringer
to go back up to the family court clerk, that had just refused to file them. David Derringer then contacted the
secretary of the Chief Judge Ted Baca and told her the situation
that the clerks refused to file legal court papers. Illegally keeping David
Derringer from legal use of the United States Court system. David Derringer was told to go down to Judge Whitehouse and the head of
justices of the family court division and her office refused to file the David Derringer legal pleadings. David
Derringer then went back up to the Chief Judge Ted Baca and was told to leave
the pleadings for filing and come back to pick them up. On June 27, 2013, David
Derringer went to the Second Judicial District Court to get David Derringer’s
filed papers and found that Judge Ted Baca had refused to file them and had
given them to Judge Hadfield and when David Derringer was redirected to the
family court clerks, they informed me that Judge Hadfield was keeping my
pleadings to be filed, illegally also keeping all copies to be stamped and
delivered to other parties, including keeping necessary envelopes and the
secretary to Judge Hadfield and the court clerks “refused” to give David
Derringer any document or tangible evidence that they would not file my
pleadings and would not date stamp that David Derringer had delivered them to
the court on June 25, 2013. June 27, 2013 was the last day for
filing the Respondent’s two motions brought under Rule 60 for reconsideration,
and thus the proper motion was illegally blocked without jurisdiction and the
Respondent had properly brought these motions to be filed prior to the
deadline. Judge Hadfield clearly believed that
she could cover up the entire matter by keeping all copies of the pleadings, or
destroying all copies of David Derringer’s pleadings, clearly
not living in the real world of today when everyone has their documents on a
flash drive. David Derringer then immediately
reprinted all of his pleadings and filed a motion with the NM Court of Appeals
including copies of all pleadings that were illegally kept from filing by Judge Hadfield. David Derringer also re-notarized a
copy of the Affidavit and filed that also the the motion to the NM Court of
Appeals on the last day for properly filing the two motions for
reconsideration.
Judge Hadfield has done extreme sedition and
treason against the Constitution and US Code Title 42 Section 1981 keeping an
American from legal fling and use of the United States Court system and has
been aided and abetted by her secretary, the court clerks and Judge Whitefield
and Chief Judge Ted Baca, that also know that Judge Hadfield was covering up
criminal insurance fraud, and herself doing fraud, corruption and tainting and controlling
the court record without any jurisdiction wherein no judge has jurisdiction
over any court pleading until it is filed and becomes court record. Judge Hadfield has acted in criminal
obstruction of justice, conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights
under color of law, including outrageous acts of violations of Oath, Canon, and
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This matter is well beyond the simple discipline
and removal from the bench of justices involved in this matter for these are
very serious felonies under federal law US Code Title 18 Sections 1503, 241 and
242 among others that demand the involvement and prosecution by the FBI and US
Attorney.
David Derringer encloses here numerous case laws
that prevent any justice from taking court pleading and keeping them or
destroying them so as to block due process and equal protection, and there is
multiple proof that Judge Hadfield works outside of jurisdiction and judicial
capacity also trying to make orders for February 4, 2012, when she did not have
any legal case before her until February 8, 2012. 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.
Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 this section
(Title 18 Section 241) pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens
encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of USCA Constitution
Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vagueUS 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.”; 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) “Tampering with evidence constitutes exceptional
circumstances. Tampering with evidence in the case and with public records in
the clerk’s office went beyond the common fraud contemplated in paragraph B(3)
of this rule, and constituted exceptional circumstances to allow a reopening of
judgment more than a year after its entry, under paragraph B(6) of this rule
[Rule 1-060] San Juan 1990-A.,
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.
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) “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. Judges present in the courthouse have
the authority to accept filings in open court at any time. Effective February
19, 2001,
the district court implemented a “multiple filing policy.” The purpose of the
multiple filing policy was to balance lawyers' tendencies to file multiple
pleadings “at the last minute” with the personnel and budgetary restraints.”
Castillo v. Northwest Transport Service, 113
N.M. 119, 823 P.2d 919, N.M.App., June 20,
1991
(NO. 12,911) “When a party presents the court clerk a document that should be
filed has filed the document. We should note that, in applying these
principles, we are not holding that the statute of limitations period is
necessarily tolled by the failure of the clerk to perform the ministerial act
of accepting claimant's documents and noting the date on which they were
received. Compare.
Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143
P.2d 572 (1943) (failure to file within time prescribed by the act was excused).
Instead, we determine that the claim was effectively filed on the date the
document was taken to the clerk's office, as opposed to when the claim was
accepted by the clerk.”
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". NM Ct. App.,
June
21, 2001 (NO. 20,977) ...Clerks of Courts Ministerial Functions and
Acts. Pleading 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. Since Judge Hadfield
or any court justice only has jurisdiction after filing, no judge can abuse a
litigant by viewing his pleading prior to filing. “A judge only has
jurisdiction over any pleading after a
proper filing with the court clerk.”
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"
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"
Wilson & Co. v.
Banque Francaise du Mexique, 124 Misc.
690, 208 N.Y.S. 213, N.Y.Sup., June 11, 192 Filing or court record. Filing of papers with court clerk is condition precedent to jurisdiction of court, and court cannot make order nunc pro tunc to cure such jurisdictional
defect. Judge Hadfield cannot make an order to tell the court clerks not to
file any of David Derringer’s pleadings, and cannot tell the court clerks not
to file any pleadings of David Derringer until she peruses their content, and
certainly cannot peruse the content of David Derringer’s court pleadings before
filing and have the court clerk then refuse to file them, and cannot single out
David Derringer for persecution or to be a “targeted individual”.
Hamilton v. Department
of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 56 Wis.2d 673, 203 N.W.2d 7, Wis.,
January 03, 1973 (NO. 249) the clerk of court, in a legal sense, abused his
discretion by not filing the petition when it was received.
Robinson
v. Sawyer, 23 N.M. 688, 170 P. 881, N.M., January 07, 1918
(NO. 2007) Papers only become a part of the record by being filed in the office
of the clerk of the district court.”
Zanesville
v. Rouse, 126 Ohio
St.3d 1, 929 N.E.2d 1044, 2010 -Ohio-
2218, Ohio,
May
26, 2010 (NO. 2009-1282) “Until
a pleading is filed in a case, the trial
court has not obtained jurisdiction over it.”
Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc.
v. Department Of Indus. Relations, Cal.Rptr.3d, 2010 WL 969628, Cal.App. 5
Dist., March 18, 2010
(NO. F057574) “documents are deemed filed by the clerk at the time they are
presented for filing, when the clerk erroneously refuses to file them.”
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.
I ask
that Judge Hadfield and all other justices involved in this corruption and
conspiracy be removed from the bench and a full investigation of the white
collar crime of public corruption be instigated by the FBI for the most serious
crime that any American can face; that of keeping court papers from the record
or destruction of court records for acts of sabotage of the United States
Judicial System in our government. 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.” ;
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
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 by blocking legal filings of
pleadings or destruction of court pleadings so as to corrupt and limit the
court record. .
A) Names,
addresses and daytime telephone numbers of attorneys involved in the
proceeding:
David Derringer Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
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” on NM Ct. App. No.
32,326 and No. 32,587.
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 ________ July, 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