STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BARRIE
LEE DERRINGER
Petitioner,
No.
DM-12-610 rel. DV-12-234
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER
Respondent,
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
COMES NOW the Respondent David Derringer,
with his motion as stated above, with a request for this motion to be heard in
a different district with an impartial justice.
The Respondent in these related cases has
been denied his Constitutional rights in violation of all case laws and without
service of any summons in the case DV-12-234 making it totally illegal and
without subject matter or personal jurisdiction over David Derringer. Despite this, the Commissioner
Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Alisa Hadfield have violated all law, performed
criminal state and federal felonies against David Derringer and deprived David
Derringer’s Constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th,
5th, 6th , 13th and 14th Amendments
included in DM-12-610. These egregious acts were then further pursued by Judge
Hadfield emailing the court clerks to stop and delay any further court filings
by David Derringer singled out for persecution and discrimination for legal use
of the courts, until Judge Hadfield herself perused and agreed or disagreed
with any pleadings of David Derringer to make the illegal decision whether or
not David Derringer could file such pleadings; an act of criminal obstruction
of justice without any possible jurisdiction of any pleading until already
filed by the court. Judge Hadfield also considers, at the illegal goading of
the Petitioner and her attorney Alain Jackson, other cases of a different
nature that David Derringer has or has had in the courts wherein Judge Hadfield
works outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity to use that
information in the instant case not of record to make decisions against David
Derringer; well outside of law, and under the meaning of federal “crimes” of
“obstruction of justice”, “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of
rights under color of law”. Several times the Petitioner with her attorney
Alain Jackson have asked Judge Hadfield to block and stop any further appeals
of Respondent David Derringer as is easily shown done in court record by
blocking the April 3, 2013 hearing stealing the 2005 Chevy Silverado along with
the incorporated $12,000.00 of David Derringer’s sole and separate inheritance
monies for Petitioner Barrie Derringer and then not filing any written order
for appeal of same until far after Rule 1-054, on June 17, 2013; hence blocking
and delaying ability to appeal for 2 ½ months. Both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar
and Judge Hadfield believe that in DV-12-234 David Derringer can be singled out
for persecution, having never even been served a legal summons in this case,
and yet this case continued against David Derringer ordering deprivation of
David Derringer’s 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
6th 13th and 14th Amendment rights, denying
due process by both “muzzling” and illegal control of what David Derringer can
or can not file in pleadings, and such other outrageous tyranny and oppression.
The justices now compare what is being done illegally against David Derringer in one court to make their own rulings against him in another court,
working outside of the record and disregarding that rulings in the court
plagiarized are highly illegal and unconstitutional. 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.”; State v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082,
1086 (Ct. App. 1990) “Matters outside the record present no issue for review”.
The
entire matter of DV-12-234 has been on appeal as New Mexico Court of Appeals
No. 32,326 since May 4, 2012 with no further ability or jurisdiction of either
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar or Judge Hadfield, but despite the higher courts’
jurisdictions, both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield continue with DV-12-234
against David Derringer even thought the entire case is both jurisdictionally
and fundamentally in legal error without any original service of summons. The
legal appeal of DM-12-610 was taken November
21, 2013 to the New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 32,587. All after
that time, regardless that Judge Hadfield had no further jurisdiction as the trial court, Judge Hadfield continued
with the trial court in hearings, changing the final judgment and other matters
totally disregarding that the higher court had total jurisdiction of the entire
matter. Hearing was illegally held on April
3, 2013 stealing the David Derringer 2005 Chevy Silverado and doing
“changes” to the Final Judgment of November
15, 2012 illegally without jurisdiction. 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.” Because the matter was on
appeal, Judge Hadfield had no jurisdiction or judicial capacity for that
hearing. The hearing was 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 on April 3, 2013,
making the presentment hearing outside of the jurisdictional limits of this
court. The Respondent has this jurisdictional issue preserved for appeal. Since
the court changed some of the Orders of the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012, this court had 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 disregards all of the law
and presides as though she is the only judge and court in the United
States of America.
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. 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 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. This is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment and in
doing so the Commissioner coupled in agreement with Judge Hadfield changed in
only the Order for David Derringer to have been “convicted” of criminal
harassment without any Miranda rights, without any attorney or jury, and
without any criminal complaint, but yet “sentenced” to 30 days in the
Bernalillo County jail deferred if David Derringer does not further exposure of
the public corruption of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield or
Barrie Derringer again on the Internet.
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 if David Derringer removes and does not place other
items on the Internet illegally accusing David Derringer of “criminal
harassment”.
On June 5, 2013, David Derringer went
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 has 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. the Respondent will
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).
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge
Hadfield have entered into a system of injustice wherein they compare with one
another and support each other in treason against the Constitution what is
happening in DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 in a “divorce” involving Barrie Derringer.
In corruption, attorney Alain Jackson then attempts to intertwine many other
past and present cases in courts in which both the Commissioner and Judge
Hadfield are not the finder of facts, and Judge Hadfield uses such information
in her own rulings to assist her in persecution of David Derringer against all
law. However, David Derringer has persisted in just and legal litigation to
protect his own Constitutional rights, which has exposed the public corruption
and possible underlying political influence of a controlling situation of a multi-million
dollar corporation influence and proven underlying interference of the
Derringer marriage with cult control and subversion of Barrie Derringer and
effect on the courts of NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation,
having obvious influence on the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield as also in much
of the Albuquerque society; since the laws and Constitution are broken, there
has to be an underlying influence and effect since all happening is against
law, Oath, Canon, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Clearly, it is time for a disinterested
justice, that rules by law, in a
different venue of a different district that would not be known or influenced
by a multi-million dollar NAI Maestas and Ward Corporation with political
influence during elections, would be a prudent move for any justice to be
served. Delgado v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App.
1978) “There is sufficient particularity..if the facts alleged are facts from
which fraud will be necessarily implied.” All persons privy to these facts that
Barrie Derringer became a totally different person, since leaving David
Derringer doing destruction to her own marriage, her own life and future and
doing criminal acts that never occurred while married to David Derringer
suggest that the court should have acted with the pleading of husband David
Derringer to get proper counseling for Barrie Derringer instead of simply
forcing an irrational divorce; for the best interests of the actual American
citizen.
There have been what is seen as indiscretions
in the actions of Judge Hadfield and Commissioner while Respondent has
repeatedly motioned both to recuse numerous times and filed numerous actions
with the Judicial Standards Commission as well as a Petition for Writ or
Superintending Control against Judge Hadfield with the New Mexico Supreme
Court. In abuse of discretion neither will recuse and blatantly takes away all
Constitutional rights from the Respondent against even all New Mexico higher court case laws. Clearly, there are
“personal reasons” or monetary reasons that these egregious acts are performed
against David Derringer with the Petitioner working as accountant for a
multi-million dollar corporation that is politically active and highly involved
in the destruction of the Derringer marriage. David Derringer is repeatedly
forced to stand before these biased justices even when they are working outside
of jurisdiction and judicial capacity when the higher courts have these matters
on appeal. Both justices abhor the idea that a pro-se person can actually
perform up against attorneys and will not be intimidated by the corruption of
the courts by teaming up against David Derringer to use collectively all past
and present court litigation in degradation against David Derringer regardless
that such other litigation has no bearing on the instant cases. It becomes
clear that as attorneys recklessly inform each court of other past litigation
by David Derringer, so as to corrupt and bias the court. David Derringer is
being persecuted and slandered for any previous use of the American system of
justice and persecuted form standing by his marriage and having tried to keep
his own wife from the destruction she has done to all involved, including
sabotage of herself and her own future. Each judge and attorney admonishes and
demeans the Plaintiff and Alain Jackson states in legal error that David
Derringer is “insane” as Derringer continues to properly attempt to use the
court system as the only available means of redress in the US against such illegal attack. Alain Jackson quotes
“Einstein” of “insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
different result”. This is done to
attempt to show each court that as David Derringer comes properly to address outrageous
acts against him and his marraige, the courts defeat him each time by the
corruption and violations of the very laws Derringer seeks to enforce. The more
a pro-se litigant seeks redress for justice, the more his attempts are held
against him by the “judicial industry” since they are making no money from a
pro-se individual. They conveniently ignore that pro-se David Derringer in NM
Supreme Court No. 27,127 Derringer v. Turney et al. set water
case laws for many issues of New Mexico.
Jurisdiction can be in any New Mexico district court. In this matter, if a venue
continues to persecute a party for previous legal use of the courts, continues
to violate the Constitution and statutes and case laws against a litigant, the
venue must be changed. Dugie v. Cameron, 971 P.2d 390, 126 N.M. 433,
1999-NMSC-002 “Venue is not to be equated with jurisdiction, as jurisdiction
goes to the power of a court to entertain the cause, while venue simply goes to
the convenience and proper forum.” Time has come obviously, for failure of
justices to abide by law to move the venue of this action from the Second
Judicial District Court to another venue “for justice to be served”, and Respondent
David Derringer motions this court for such equitable relief. Blake v.
Cavins, 185 P. 374, 25 N.M. 574 “Changing of venue mandatory upon
motion filed. A change of venue is provided when it appears that either party
cannot have justice in the county of the venue laid, the venue may be changed
upon oral motion. When it appears that either party cannot have justice in the
county of the venue laid, no affidavit showing is required.” Since the New Mexico judiciary, even with total knowledge of the
illegal acts of these justices, will not properly remove Commissioner
Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield from the bench despite Constitutional
deprivations and violations of Oath and Canon, and since each will not recuse
for cause, in order to keep persecuting David Derringer, a change of venue is mandated.
It will clearly be shown that the Petitioner has her employers political control
by “corporation” influence and such corporation cult control has underlyingly
destroyed the Derringer marriage to also the demise and subjugation of Barrie
Derringer; Barrie Derringer in unintelligent submission of her bosses and
others sabotaged her own marriage and life for solidarity to the cult control,
and will likely undeniably oppose this move of venue. Kalosha v. Novick,
505 P.2d 845, 84 N.M. 502 “Venue is merely a privilege allowed for the
convenience of the parties.” Due to the obvious persecution of the Respondent,
the venue needs to be in a county wherein NAI Maestas and Ward does not own,
list and control most of the real estate in Albuquerque area with attending power and influence,
since they are highly responsible for the destruction of the Derringer marriage.
Matter of Ruther’s Estate, 631 P.2d 1330, 96 N.M. 462 “Venue was
properly transferred where party objecting to transfer never objected that
transfer was in the interest of justice.” ; Team Bank v. Meridian Oil Inc.,879
P.2d 779, 118 N.M. 147 “N.M. 1994 Venue relates to convenience of litigants,
and reflects equity or expediency in resolving disparate interests of parties
to law suit in place of trial.”
David Derringer motions this court for
“justice” to be served, wherein for same it is apparently mandatory to move the
venue to a different jurisdiction and away from the justices and influence in
the current jurisdiction. Blake v. Cavins 185 P. 374, 25 N.M. 574
“Section 5571, Code 1915 provides that the venue of a case either civil or criminal,
may be changed when it shall appear that either party cannot have justice done
him at a trial in the county in which such case is then pending. Section 5573,
Code 1915 makes the changing of venue mandatory upon motion filed.” The Respondent
has lawfully informed the court of the indiscretions and violations of the law,
but to no avail. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states a judge
"should" [shall] disqualify himself or herself "in a proceeding
which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned . Judge Hadfield
works in illegal teamwork with the Commissioner, all against all laws and
Constitution against David Derringer; Judge Hadfield ruling against law and
Constitution against the “Respondent” even continuing cases DV-12-234 where the
“Respondent” was never served any summons in “fundamental error” and compares
those ruling against David Derringer to sustain other rulings against David
Derringer in DM-12-610.
Barrie Derringer has taken some very bad
advice with other third parties, since she left husband David Derringer that
now has her involved in criminal perjury, fraud and insurance fraud; all acts
she never would have done when married to David Derringer showing a very
non-assertive attitude that keeps her in the clutches of very unsavory persons
in her current life, without any love
and protection that was afforded her in her marriage with David Derringer.
Barrie Derringer is still the controlled and exploited employee of NAI Maestas
and Ward employers, exhibiting submission to all requests and manipulation of
such parties, including, but not limited to the destruction of the Derringer
marriage and Barrie’s fraudulent filing without service of summons of the
“Order of Protection”. Barrie, still under a cult control, opposes the attempts
of David Derringer to have tried to gain counseling and other methods that were
for the best interest of Barrie at all times, where husband David Derringer
always tried to protect this woman against what has
happened to her in the control and outrageous acts performed by a company and
other outsider third parties against the personal life, including destruction
of her marriage that served the best interest of the Maestas company to
“remove” a husband that sought proper labor law relief for his own wife’s
protection, under the mandates of the US
Labor Laws.
THEREFORE, the collateral attack on
this venue is for just cause and justice must be afforded to the Respondent in removal
of both DV-12-234 and related DM-12-610 from the venue of the Second Judicial
District Court and away entirely from Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge
Alisa Hadfield.
Respectfully submitted by:
______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box
7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
June 24, 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 Alain Jackson at:
423 6th
St. NW. Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
No comments:
Post a Comment