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 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
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 with also pending motions for a
change of venue and recusal for cause of Judge Hadfield. This court must take
judicial notice of the David Derringer Affidavit filed with this court.
1.
The
court does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, as
this court incorporates issues of DV-12-234 in DM-12-610 wherein DV-12-234 was
never served summons on David Derringer making the entire matter of DV-12-234
both jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error with no possible
jurisdiction over David Derringer as a non-legal party and with no subject
matter jurisdiction over any matters of property involved in DV-12-234 in which
are under the legal possession or control of David Derringer as entitled under
the US Code Title 42 Section 1982 “private property rights”. Additionally, this
court does not have any subject matter or personal jurisdiction over any acts,
property or ideas of Barrie Derringer or David Derringer legal husband and wife without any litigation prior to February
8, 2012, that date
of filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage by Barrie Derringer.
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”. Judge Hadfield and this court does not have
any subject matter or personal jurisdiction over any parties of DM-12-610 after
November 21, 2012, that date that the Notice of Appeal was filed to appeal the
entire Final Judgment of DM-12-610 to the New Mexico Court of Appeals under No.
32,587, wherein jurisdiction was removed from the trial court to the NM Court
of Appeals, wherein all issues, property, and parties were not in the
jurisdiction of this court upon any hearings after November 21, 2012 including,
but not limited to the hearing of April 2, 2013, June 4, 2013 and thus the
Minute Order of June 17, 2013 is entirely void and unenforceable under the
meaning of NMRA Rule 1-060(4). 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.” The
court and Judge Hadfield have no jurisdiction or judicial capacity to entertain
discussion, listen to evidence, or make decisions or judgments of any actions,
claims, interactions between husband and wife or any personal “opinions”
regarding anything that happened on February 4, 2012 as this court did not have
any jurisdiction over any matter until a legal filing of action on the Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage only as of February 8, 2012. Accordingly, the Minute Order of June 17,
2013 is both void and fraudulent on its face, and totally unenforceable under
Constitutional deprivations of due process and equal protection, and well
outside of any jurisdiction or judicial capacity to enforce, and thus must be
dismissed in its entirety. No. 1 of the Minute Order is in gross
violation of law and must be dismissed under NMRA Rule 1-060(1)(3)(4)(6).
2.
The
matter of claims of Birth Certificate and Passport and safety deposit box were
matters, if at all between a husband and a wife before any legal action was
filed with this court of DM-12-610 with the safety deposit box closed before
the filing on February 8, 2012 of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage,
giving no possible jurisdiction over the issue or the parties at the time of
history in which it is to have been alleged by Barrie Derringer. Wascura v. Carver, 169
F.3d 683 “If court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, that claim
cannot provide a basis for imposing liability.” Since neither Barrie Derringer or David Derringer were “parties” to any
court action at the time of the allegations of Barrie Derringer, Barrie
Derringer has no legal viable claims in this court and this court has to
disregard the issue without any jurisdiction in history without a case before
it at the time regardless of the comradery of Judge Hadfield for Barrie
Derringer, there is no ability of this Judge to attempt to correct issues of a
marriage before any Petition was filed. Concisely, Barrie Derringer chose not
to talk to or resolve claimed issues that she perceived after she deserted and
abandoned the marriage on December 27, 2011 until she filed for a divorce on
February 8, 2012 as errors in her judgment or simply now an attempt to
persecute further the husband that had done nothing wrong to her. Regardless,
this court cannot entertain either the issue of the documents or the safety
deposit box, both being either in error of Barrie Derringer or error not to
talk to her husband beforehand but in any event Judge Hadfield has no
jurisdiction no matter how bad she seeks to help Barrie. 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.”The court’s
ruling on acceptance of testimony of one witness over another witness regarding
a safe deposit box is both arbitrary and capricious in abuse of discretion with a proven history in this
court of a bias and prejudice that is well documented and seeks to gain and
control issues between a time frame of which this court did not have
jurisdiction over the parties as they were without court filing or intervention
as husband and wife. No matter how biased this Judge is, the rulings cannot
control what happened in a marriage before any court action was initiated. 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 “Law of the Case doctrine is binding only on those
persons who were parties to that particular action.” Seeking to discredit
Respondent David Derringer to admonish, while claiming credibility of Barrie
Derringer without any tangible evidence or witnesses violates the duty of proof
of evidence under Rules of evidence and makes the decisions of this court based
only in preferential treatment and conjecture. Clearly, there are no witnesses
to prove that David Derringer took the Birth Certificate or Passports of Barrie
Derringer from the safety deposit box, and there are no witnesses to prove that
Barrie Derringer took her own Birth Certificate and Passport and lies to the
court (as has been proven has
happened) to falsely accuse the Respondent. There is only evidence that both
parties had access to the safety deposit box and indeed both parties did access
that box before a divorce was filed.
This court has no jurisdiction of judicial capacity to rule credibility of
either party based on no evidence and no other witnesses, and although this
court has no possible jurisdiction over this matter of actions in a time frame
of a marriage before any legal action was filed to make either Barrie Derringer
or David Derringer a “party”, it cannot taint the court record into a prejudice
that David Derringer is in any way responsible for the claimed missing
documents, and there is no proof before this court that these claimed documents
ever existed at any time or were at any particular time in the safety deposit
box. Simply put, Judge Hadfield has no jurisdiction and no evidence to support
a time frame outside of the court before she took jurisdiction after February
8, 2012 and wherein the acts complained of there is no proof of allegations by
Barrie Derringer and in a time frame that David Derringer was a legal husband
with clear authority to access a joint safety deposit box just as could his
wife Barrie Derringer. This court simply corrupts the court record against David
Derringer with no standard of proof
whatsoever except the bias and animosity of this court.
Violations
of NMRA 11-103. Rulings on evidence are extreme, wherein Judge
Hadfield has
no evidence whatsoever and yet rules that David Derringer is responsible
for items that have not even ever been proven to exist. Barrie Derringer never proved to any court in
a time frame that any court had jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter
that any items existed or were taken by herself with blame shifting on David
Derringer and certainly has no proof that David Derringer took any items. The
court in a clear bias and prejudice simply rules in favor of Barrie Derringer
and taints the court record to insinuate if not outrightly accuse without any
standard of proof that David Derringer is to blame. This involves the other
motions before this court that David Derringer seeks to have this entire case
of DM-12-610 dismissed with prejudice due to fundamental error of a bias and
prejudice so severe as to discriminate against the Respondent no matter what
the issues, to use past history of issues claimed and time frames well outside
of the jurisdiction of this court well before any court action of Petition for
Dissolution of Marriage was even filed and it traces easily to public
corruption believed in actions and rulings in violation of law and all rulings
against David Derringer in every regard despite the law presented each time
mandating ruling for legal issues in favor of David Derringer and undeniable
Constitutional violations rammed through continually in DV-12-234 despite that
case being void and in fundamental error with lack of service of summons,
indicating the circumstantial very provable belief that Oath controls the
ability of Judge Hadfield to rule under law, and therefore since Judge Hadfield
does not rule under any laws presented, the personal favoritism and prejudice
is believed to be traced to a “purchase” of Judge Hadfield by the multi-million
dollar NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation, wherein some
rulings of Judge Hadfield are meant to support and interface with illegal
rulings of Judge Malott in insulating, protecting and defeating the Plaintiff
David Derringer in extreme torts against Maestas in CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 that
involve the destruction of the Derringer marriage by underlying cult control of
Barrie Derringer in subservient service as accountant for Maestas in likely
secretive money laundering schemes wherein there is a great deal of power,
political influence and “judicial contributions” occurring all years and
particularly during elections.
The
ruling in No.2 is simply to malign David
Derringer with no standard of proof to
corrupt the court record in prejudice against the Respondent by Judge
Hadfield. There is definitely a violation of
law and a violation of the rules of evidence here that is provable. Phelps v. Hamilton,
122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is
clearly present.”
A. Preserving
a claim of error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or
exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party
and
(1) if the ruling admits
evidence, the party, on the record
(a) timely
objects or moves to strike, and
(b) states the
specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context, or
(2) if the ruling
excludes evidence, the party informs the court of its substance by an offer of
proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.
B. Not
needing to renew an objection or offer of proof. Once the court rules
definitively on the record – either before or at trial – a party need not renew
an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
C. Court’s statement about the ruling;
directing an offer of proof. The
court may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the
objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of
proof be made in question-and-answer form.
D. Preventing
the jury from hearing inadmissible evidence. To the extent
practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence
is not suggested to the jury by any means.
E. Taking
notice of plain error. A court may take notice of a plain error
affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly
preserved.
There is “plain error” of violations of evidence, lack of evidence, lack
of jurisdiction, wherein David Derringer cannot be accused and attacked by
Judge Hadfield and made to face prosecution for items claimed missing before
any divorce was filed and with no evidence to make David Derringer accountable
for liable for any claims of such loss. State v.
Quintana, 87 N.M. 414, 534 P.2d 1126 (Ct. App.),
cert. denied, 88 N.M. 28, 536 P.2d 1084, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832, 96 S. Ct. 54, 46 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1975). No. 2 of the
Minute Order is in gross violation of law and must be dismissed under NMRA Rule
1-060(1)(3)(4)(6).
3.
This
court has no jurisdiction or judicial capacity based on No. 2 above to
insinuate, allege, slander or defame David Derringer with the statement that “It is
unlikely that the Respondent will ever produce the Birth Certificate and
Passports.” 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 matters happened
before any filing for divorce where this court has no jurisdiction and
certainly cannot voice an opinion that is for a court record simply to slander
the Respondent. Cresswell v.
Sullivan & Cromwell, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1990, 922 F.2d 60, on
remand 771 F. Supp. 580 “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide in dependent
ground for subject matter jurisdiction over action for which there is no other
basis for jurisdiction.” When there is
no evidence to support any bad actions on the part of the Respondent except the
extreme bias, animosity and hatred of Judge Hadfield for David Derringer as
could easily be seen possible by realization that David Derringer has filed
four motions to recuse Judge Hadfield for ‘cause’ and four legal complaints to
the Judicial Standard Commission and filed a Petition for Writ of Superintending
Control with the New Mexico Supreme Court, as to “why” Judge Hadfield is
tainting the court record in a bias and corruption against David Derringer with
false and fraudulent accusations that are not supported by any facts, witnesses
or proof of any kind, with likelihood as stated in the supporting motions to
recuse and for a change of venue that Judge Hadfield is under the control and bribery
of NAI Maestas and Ward multi-million dollar corporation that all rulings are
outside of law and yet are in support entirely of Barrie Derringer (accountant
for Maestas and Ward) and in court ordered corruption to allege indiscretions
against David Derringer and to support contentions of Maestas in CV-12-1307 and
CV-12-10816 so as to attempt to taint the court record and ruin any credibility
of David Derringer, a Plaintiff against the egregious acts of multiple torts
done against David Derringer and his marriage to Barrie Derringer so as to keep
Barrie Derringer under coercion and cult control in their accounting to cover
up any acts of money laundering and “contributions” to public officials for
“favors needed”. Clearly, since such actions claimed of a missing Birth
Certificate and Passport happened before any court action in DM-12-610 when a
marriage between David Derringer and Barrie Derringer legally existed, it was
the duty of Barrie Derringer simply to talk to or ask her husband if he had
seen the documents or remembered Barrie’s own lack of memory placement, where
the documents could possibly be or that Barrie would simply have to reapply,
but in any way this incident was before the jurisdiction of this court well
before February 8, 2012 and therefore not any of the business of any other than
the husband and wife. 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.” This court can have no “opinion” as to marital matters before this
court had either spouse as a party. Baker
v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d 592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by
virtue of its inclusion in trial court’s opinion.”As this court believes that it has the jurisdiction to rule on acts of
history before any filing on February 8, 2012, in gross arrogance and legal
attrocity, it should also believe in corruption and error that it should have
an “opinion” as to whether or not Barrie Derringer and David Derringer should
have or not been married on January 15, 2010. Allen v. McClellan,77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967)
“No court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party; it cannot
lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.
If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen.” No. 3 of
the Minute Order is in gross violation of law and must be dismissed under NMRA
Rule 1-060(1)(3)(4)(6).
4.
The
court is without jurisdiction to conspire with the Petitioner regarding
unsubstantiated claims that the Petitioner could not take everything on February
4, 2012. This court
did not have any jurisdiction over any matter until a case was filed of
Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on February 8, 2012, rendering anything that happened on February
4, 2012 well outside
of the jurisdiction of Judge Hadfield. On February 4, 2012 neither David Derringer nor Barrie Derringer
were “parties” to any litigation involving each other. Allen v. McClellan,77
N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967). As a brief history, Barrie Derringer left David
Derringer in a PTSD depression and emotional
instability on December 27, 2011
just after the Derringer home burned down on December 23, 2011 killing 5 of the Derringer dogs. Barrie’s
controlling bosses, parents and other third parties from her past life with
twice married biker Charles Beverlely preyed upon the irrational thoughts of
Barrie, likely the possibility of getting Barrie back into cocaine, marijuana
and other controlled substances as her life had been before David Derringer and
coupled with either taking or not taken her prescribed medication for bipolar
of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, sedatives, tranquilizers and other codeine
drugs, Barrie was not rational to come back to or stay with the husband in her
life that would absolutely love and protect her, but was acting more
irrational, depressed and suicidal in the month of January, 2012, so husband
David Derringer locked the storage/shop at 101 Florida SE Unit C in late
January, 2012, to keep Barrie away from David Derringer’s loaded firearms so as
to protect his wife from any death or bodily harm. Barrie was then badly
advised, by attorney Alain Jackson, possibly Judge Hadfield, the CEO’s at NAI
Maestas and Ward and others not acting in Barrie’s best interest to break into
the storage and take all of the Derringer property before any divorce was filed
so as to gain “possession” of all property long before any settlement agreement
could be reached in any divorce proceedings, with the idea that “possession is
9/10 of the law” and with Barrie having possession, David could not ever get
back any community property, his own personal property and Barrie would succeed
in ownership of all assets. Barrie
had already transferred her direct deposit community income to another account,
had stolen the bank account community money, and had closed the safety deposit
box. Maestas and Ward had already set Barrie
up in a house that was for sale through their company with location unknown to David
Derringer as the husband was allowing Barrie
to have her space without restrictions or pressure with care under Barrie’s
PTSD irrational acts so as not to precipitate any suicide. Barrie with 12
persons including two CEO’s of NAI Maestas and Ward, with all of the Maestas
trucks and trailers of co-company Sun Vista Inc. attacked the Derringer storage
unit on February 4, 2012 thinking that David Derringer would be out of town
that weekend. David Derringer came by the storage to get a horse bridle and
found the storage unit open in burglary, with trucks loading all property, and
much property in the parking lot to be loaded, and called 911. David Derringer
then ordered all persons, 10 of whom he had never seen before off of the
property leased by David Derringer and to stop taking Derringer property which
included much community property, all of Barrie Derringer’s property and a
great deal of David Derringer’s personal property. In either a pre-planned
attack if needed, or a spontaneous act of violence, all 12 persons with Barrie
Derringer attacked her husband David throwing David
Derringer to the ground, holding him down
against his will in criminal assault and battery, with Maestas
CEO Debbie Harms
screaming and cussing David Derringer.
As APD sirens were heard arriving, all parties released David Derringer, and
APD stated succinctl to Barrie Derringer that she could not simply break into
the storage and take all property, but had to file for divorce with the court,
wait for a court settlement of equity and only then would be allowed to have
her personal property and her share of the community property and APD properly
ordered Barrie Derringer and her criminal accomplices to leave the premises
immediately. Barrie Derringer and 12 persons however had already loaded much of
the Derringer storage, including taking several of David
Derringer’s exclusively owned loaded
firearms. The incident was formulated by irrational acts of Barrie Derringer
not properly talking and working with her own husband, and extreme third party
interference with the marriage, alienation of affections, and causing loss of
consortium, with then criminal attack on husband Barrie Derringer, but wherein
either Judge Hadfield had already been contacted on a personal level and
possibly advised this break-in to confiscate all property before a filing of
divorce, or there was a likely connection with the multi-million dollar NAI
Maestas and Ward with Judge Hadfield, as to how to proceed that would be
supported later by a corrupt justice over the matter. Proof exists that Judge
Hadfield has no jurisdiction of what transpired between only husband and wife
on February 4, 2012 no matter how badly she wants Barrie to keep all community
income and claim losses of likely properly that they already took as a matter
of “fraud”. Romero v. Sanchez, 83 N.M. 358,492 P.2d 140 (1971)
“It is unnecessary even to use words such as “fraud” or “fraudulent” provided
that the facts alleged are such as constitute fraud in themselves, or are facts
from which fraud will be necessarily implied.” The “conspiracy” of February 4, 2012 was designed to take
all Derringer property from storage, while husband David
Derringer was thought out of town, to gain
all possession of all property before any divorce would be later filed on February 8, 2012, so as to have the
legal advantage in any divorce proceedings. The circumstances surrounding the
entire violence and actions of February 4, 2012 were well orchestrated with
Maestas and Ward CEO’s participating on a weekend with company trucks and
equipment, and a well planned attempt to take “all” property with enough
assistance of 12 persons to accomplish taking all property in a very short
period of time. The plan only failed due to the fortuitous arrival of husband David
Derringer in a timely manner to stop the
illegal acquisition of Barrie
obtaining all property before filing a divorce action. 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 “Elements of conspiracy are
agreement with another person to violate law, knowledge of essential objectives
of conspiracy, knowing and voluntary involvement, and interdependence among
alleged co-conspirators.” Since the filing, the court record exclusively shows
that Judge Hadfield has given Barrie Derringer anything and everything she has
asked for in court, despite all laws forbidding same, and Judge Hadfield has
granted Barrie Derringer a divorce in direct response to Petitioner’s request
to stop due process and equal protection against David Derringer and Judge
Hadfield has attempted to both block David Derringer’s legal appeals and has
manipulated her power to attempt to block all filings in the court by requiring
the court clerks not to file any court papers of Respondent David Derringer;
thus circumstances prove that Judge Hadfield was always a “co-conspirator” in
the actions prior to filing of divorce with the court, as clearly indicated now
in this Order wherein without any jurisdiction over February 4, 2012 actions
since divorce was not filed until February 8, 2012, Judge Hadfield attempts to
rectify Barrie Derringer not attaining all of the Derringer property in the
criminal acts of February 4, 2012 with punishment against the husband of that
time with later “judgment” without necessary evidence or lawfulness. Judge
Hadfield has allowed contrary to all law Barrie Derringer to obtain different
residence without cause with use of community funds, allowed taking of all community
income and bank account monies, taking vehicles, disregarding community debt,
perjury and fraud to the courts, disregarding vehicle registration and
insurance, animal abuse and abandonment of mandates to feed living creatures,
deprivation of David Derringer’s Constitutional rights, and numerous act of a
“judge” outside of jurisdiction of Oath and Canon. Morris v. Dodge Country Inc. 513 P.2d 1273, 85 N.M. 491 Cert. Denied 513
P.2d 1265, 85 N.M. 483 “N.M. App. 1973 Conspiracy may be established by circumstantial
evidence; generally, the agreement is a matter of inference from the facts and
circumstances, including acts of persons alleged to be conspirators.” Records
show that all orders, judgments and persecution by Judge Hadfield
has been against David Derringer
from the onset of the litigation against all laws, and with no legal support
tendered from either the Petitioner or her attorney or the court under Judge
Hadfield. Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d
802 “Evidence is sufficient to establish a conspiracy to cheat and defraud if
the facts and circumstances pieced together and considered as a whole convince
the judicial mind that the parties united in an understanding way to accomplish
the fraudulent scheme. The existence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of
inference deduced from acts and declarations of parties.” This matter has been
biased and prejudiced from the start with a Judge purchases in private by a
multimillion dollar corporation, making rulings now in retrospect without
jurisdiction of a time frame to also protect Maestas and Ward of assault and
battery, conversion, alienation of affection, loss of consortium, interference
with a legal marriage and other torts in CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816, legal tort
suits brought by David Derringer of which Judge Hadfield is not the finder of
facts, but uses her power in defective DV-12-234 without summons and in
DM-12-610 to muzzle David Derringer and prevent David Derringer from legal
exposure of the public record court pleadings placed by David Derringer on
Google.com under his 1st Amendment rights to expose this public
corruption. U.S. v. Austin,
614 F. Supp. 1208 “Conspiracy conviction may be sustained upon sufficient
showing essential nature of plan and defendants’ connection with it.” Now, Judge
Hadfield also facilitates with Order
attempting to cover up the recent Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer criminal
insurance fraud against GEICO. Monroe
v. Pape, 365 U.S.,
at 184 “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” Since Judge Hadfield
had no case before her on February 4,
2012, no matter how it transpired that Barrie
did not achieve stealing all Derringer property, the matter at that time in
history was between husband and wife and no other. Barrie
took very bad advice to not talk to and work with her own husband regarding any
perceived matters after December, 2011 and instead chose to be advised by
criminals that had money to attain judicial support and corruption. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991) “were performed in the complete lack
of jurisdiction” ; Mann v. Conlin,
22 F.3d 100, 1994 Fed App. 122P cert denied 115 S. Ct. 193, 513 US 870, 130
L.Ed.2d 126 “When Plaintiff alleges that judge acted in non-judicial capacity
court relies on functional analysis to determine whether acts are protected,
meaning that one must determine whether actions are truly judicial acts, or
acts that simply happen to have been done by Judges.” The record clearly shows with violations of
Constitution, all law and taking all property and money from Respondent David
Derringer that Judge Hadfield
has used her power to obtain bribes meant to use her as a vehicle to destroy
the life of David Derringer.
In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520
Mich. 1991 “To use power of public office as judge to ruin another for personal
gain plainly violates several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canons
1, 2, 3, 5; Such conduct may also constitute crime Canons 1-3, 5.”; 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.” This matter of No. 4 is
unenforceable under NMRA Rule 1-060(1)(3)(4)(6) without parties before the
court’s jurisdiction at that time in history and with the undeniable corruption
that has been presented.
5.
In No. 5, Judge Hadfield
does extreme fraud and corruption meant to taint the court record. This “Minute
Order” was written and filed on June 17, 2013, with Judge Hadfield’s full
knowledge that on April 3, 2013 in open court, Judge Hadfield ordered David
Derringer to give full control and possession of the Derringer’s 2005 Chevy
Silverado to Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe, and David Derringer immediately
complied in open court divulging the location of the vehicle in Springerville,
Arizona at a Safeway parking lot, and it was established and admitted by Barrie
Derringer that she had her own key to the vehicle. Telman v. US 67 F.2d 716 cert denied 54 Supreme Court 860,
292 U.S. 650, 78 L.Ed 1500 “Conspiracy may be established by showing that minds
of the parties met in an understanding way so as to bring about intelligent and
deliberate agreement to do acts charged, although such agreement is not
manifested by formal words.”Hence, as of April
3, 2013 the Respondent had relinquished any control or possession of the
vehicle being stolen from him by Barrie Derringer and the court upon “court
order”. Judge Hadfield blocked any appeal of this act by not putting in writing
the order of the court, and David
Derringer filed his “Notice of Completion of Hearing” on April 17, 2013 to
exemplify to the court record on the federally criminal “obstruction of
justice” and “conspiracy against rights” of Judge Hadfield blocking appeals,
just as had been requested of her by Petitioner and attorney Alain Jackson in
several prior hearings. On June 4, 2013, hearing was finally held regarding a
“presentment” of the order that was to be filed and Judge Hadfield took
testimony of Barrie Derringer properly finding the truck as of April 8, 2013
and doing what is proven as “criminal insurance fraud” against GEICO to claim
that the truck was “vandalized” which testimony proved it was not. The fact
remains of court record however that the 2005 Chevy was produced and delivered
by David Derringer
on April 3, 2013 upon court
demand, so to state “Within ten days,
Petitioner shall attempt to locate the Chevy Silverado in Arizona where Respondent indicated he left the
vehicle.” by the court is purely
for distortion of the court record in criminal fraud to leave doubt and taint
the record in corruption as to whether or not the vehicle had ever been
delivered by the Respondent, when the court record and testimony already prove
that Respondent delivered the vehicle 2 ½ months prior upon demand of the
court. Judge Hadfield uses this order to attempt to give doubt as to the
whereabouts or possession of the vehicle as criminal insurance fraud can be
definitely proven by GEICO with the irrational acts by bad advice given to
Barrie Derringer, but more importantly, Judge Hadfield is well aware of the
fraud in testimony, so after the fact of the exposure of the fraud of June 4,
2013, Judge Hadfield is implicated in the insurance fraud, so places doubt with
a reckless disregard of the truth into court record by her power as a judge to
distort and corrupt the record to insulate Barrie Derringer in the act. Ramsey v. Zeigner, 79
N.M. 457, 444 P.2d 968 (1968) “Does not require specific pleading in terms of
the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.” The court record
already proves that David Derringer
delivered the truck on April 3, 2013
upon order, and testimony of June 4,
2013 already proves that Barrie Derringer took possession of the
truck on April 8, 2013. No.
5 is placed in the court record in criminal fraud against David
Derringer.
6.
Judge Hadfield
continues the criminal fraud in No. 6 still corrupting the record to leave
doubt as to whether or not the 2005 Chevy Silverado was delivered to Barrie
Derringer so as to attempt to keep herself from criminal prosecution by GEICO
as Judge Hadfield is a proven
“accomplice” to the insurance fraud of the Derringer vehicle. In deliberate
fraud and falsification of the court record in corruption Judge Hadfield states:
“Upon locating the Chevy Silverado,
Petitioner shall make arrangements...” ; the wording “upon and shall”
leading one to believe that those would be future acts upon which would be
consummated at some later time in a willful atrocity of the truth. On June 4,
2013 in DM-12-610, the Respondent testified to doing accidental damages to the
2005 Chevy Silverado in a year and a ½ past, of one battery being removed as
bad and the other remaining battery in need of normal replacement, and of front
bumper plastic damage with plastic fog light damages and right plastic rear
fender damages after hitting a snow bank and tree in January, 2012, and further
damages to the same fender after being also kicked by a horse a few months
later, and David Derringer testified to letting all of the air from the tires
of the vehicle when having to have left it in Springerville, Arizona unattended
due to mechanical failure of a clogged diesel fuel filter for the owner David
Derringer’s own protection of his legal truck from theft of the possibility of
a criminal rolling it onto a trailer for transport to Mexico as the vehicle
being the most stolen type of vehicle in the United States. David Derringer
gave exclusive evidence, coupled with Barrie Derringer’s own testimony that she
has not physically seen the truck since December 2011, which proved to the
court that on April 3, 2013, when David Derringer was ordered to give legal
possession and control to Barrie Derringer and at all times past there was not
“vandalism” of the 2005 Chevy Silverado, but a normal wear and tear of a “work
truck” one ton dually, and that there was no legal admission of any evidence by
Barrie Derringer of claim to any $8,500.00 bill for restoration of the 2005
Chevy Silverado upon taking legal possession and that such claim was clearly
“criminal insurance fraud”. At that time Barrie Derringer admitted to having
possession of the truck and giving her authorization to some shop for claimed
repairs, admitting thus to “knowledge” and possession of the vehicle. David
Derringer had the ability and knowledge to have replaced all bumper, fender,
batteries and other damages and normal wear and tear on the 2005 Chevy
Silverado with parts and labor not to exceed $800.00 and has knowledge that the
claim to the insurance company of GEICO was irrational since the repairs could
be made for an amount of less than the deductible of the insurance policy. David
Derringer never claimed or burdened GEICO
insurance with the damages to the vehicle for those reasons. David Derringer
was the legal owner, the party in possession and the party with exclusive
knowledge as to the condition and driveablity of the 2005 Chevy Silverado 4X4
until stolen from him by the court and Barrie Derringer as of April 3, 2013,
and knows with certainty that the truck would have been running properly again
with the purchase and installation of one diesel fuel filter of cost of
approximately $8.00, and that the other damages to the truck were “previous
damages” well before the truck was left by David Derringer in Springerville,
Arizona a week or two before April 3, 2013. David
Derringer knows with certainty that all
acts, replacements and any purchases of new tires or batteries by Barrie
Derringer or others after April 3, 2013
were not valid under any claims of “vandalism” and David
Derringer did no vandalism to the vehicle at
any time. David Derringer knows with certainty that Judge Hadfield has
knowledge with the testimony of David Derringer and Barrie Derringer’s
testimony that she did not see the vehicle since December, 2011 and did not
ever see the vehicle before some shop performed over $8,500.00 worth of
“repairs” to the vehicle after April 3, 2013, that all claims against GEICO
insurance and false claims of inadmissible evidence of a bill of over $8,500.00
constitutes criminal insurance fraud in which with such knowledge and
assistance by attorney Alain Jackson and Judge Hadfield makes both parties to
such criminal insurance fraud. Judge Hadfield
placed the $8,500.00 bill without legal introduction into evidence into the
court record in the Order of June 17,
2013 knowingly to insulate Barrie Derringer, Alain
Jackson and Judge Hadfield
from provable GEICO insurance fraud. David
Derringer is the primary regarding the loan
of the 2005 Chevy Silverado with Wells Fargo Dealer Services. Acct #9070040276
with Judge Hadfield illegally taking the truck, leaving David Derringer liable
and accountable for the entire loan without the possession of the asset, and
yet Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe had no authority to make any claim for
vandalism with GEICO insurance without the consultation of the primary loan
holder David Derringer, co-owner of the vehicle in question. Clearly, David
Derringer has knowledge that any rational adult person would not authorize over
$8,500.00 worth of repairs without seeing the vehicle and despite a no-contact
order by Barrie Derringer against David Derringer it was the duty of
representing attorney Alain Jackson to contact David Derringer to ascertain the
actual condition of the vehicle before any repairs were made, and it is
believed with certainty that Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain
Jackson and Judge Hadfield directly attempted to set up David Derringer to be
falsely accused of “vandalism” so as to reap monetary rewards at the expense of
the GEICO insurance company. Both David Derringer, and Barrie Derringer
properly had the 2005 Chevy Silverado VIN: 1GCJK33235F926944, insured by David
Derringer’s actions with GEICO under policy number 4229771045 with both Barrie
Derringer and David Derringer covered as drivers of the vehicle until May,
2013, but without knowledge of the Respondent or consultation on or about
January 5-9th, 2013, Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer, defrauded
GEICO insurance to cancel the Derringer policy number 4229771045 taking David
Derringer from such policy as a legal driver unknown to David Derringer even
though David Derringer had possession and control of the vehicle until verbal
court Order of April 3, 2013, and is primary on the loan. By direct knowledge
from Wells Fargo Dealer Services, upon which David Derringer is primary in
loan, Barrie Crowe in fraud applied for and received a new GEICO policy number
4292370568 under the name of Barrie Lee Derringer, while claiming to be legally
Barrie Lee Crowe, and fraudulently claimed the address of the vehicle to be Box
11373 in Denver, Colorado, clearly a post office box attended by her sister
Michele living 30 miles outside of Denver, Colorado, but of when the 2005 Chevy
vehicle was at all times located and under license No. LMA-003 of New
Mexico, and maintains such false identity and address
also with Wells Fargo Dealer Services, and that all of this knowledge is in the
possession of attorney Alain Jackson.
David Derringer gave Barrie Derringer total possession and control of the 2005
Chevy vehicle on hearing of April 3, 2013 wherein also without any ability of
the primary loan holder’s authorization Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer was
given the right to sell the 2005 Chevy and keep David Derringer from having his
$12,000.00 in sole and separate inheritance funds in the vehicle and was also
given the right to sell the vehicle for any amount Barrie deemed prudent and to
keep ½ of the equity over payoff with also subjecting David Derringer to
illegal judgments granting Barrie even more of the proceeds of the sale, and it
is firmly believed that Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer used that means and
motive to put the 2005 Chevy Silverado in “showroom condition” so as to obtain
as much money as possible upon such sale, and used the criminal means of fraud
of claims of “vandalism” for that end result in defrauding GEICO insurance with
a claim in April/May, 2013 after Barrie Derringer took possession of the
vehicle; betting on the come of paying only $1,000.00 deductible for obtaining
over $8,500.00 improvements on the vehicle that were previous damages and
maintenance, none having to do with the fraudulent claims of “vandalism”, but
which would likely increase the sale value by over $10,000.00. It is believed
that Barrie purposefully failed and refused to view the vehicle for such
repairs beforehand so as to attempt to insulate herself from any future claims
of such fraud, or intends to take the vehicle to Colorado or elsewhere and
disappear with leaving David Derringer accountable for the loan, as heard in
Barrie’s testimony under Oath on June 4, 2013 that Barrie has not seen the 2005
Chevy Silverado to know any of its condition since December, 2011; such bad
advice believed to have come from attorney Alain Jackson. Judge Hadfield has
personal knowledge by testimony of all parties on June 4, 2013 in hearing and
thus is party to any act to validate or use the Order of a court to sustain any
repairs or claims of $8,500.00 or now to use the court record to attempt to cause
doubt as to where the vehicle is or in whose possession, wherein Judge Hadfield
is totally involved with the GEICO fraud, the judge being thus a party to the
insurance fraud. No. 6 is simply a falsification of the court record meant to
redirect the possession of the vehicle due to provable insurance fraud.
7.
Judge
Hadfield continues this attempt to redirect the possession of the vehicle due
to her personal involvement with the insurance fraud to GEICO by “If the
Petitioner finds that the vehicle is not where Respondent testified he left it,
Petitioner shall notice Respondent of said fact” to lay the foundation for more
fraud or attempts to then place the GEICO insurance fraud upon David Derringer
instead of Judge Hadfield, Alain Jackson and Barrie Crowe where it is already
proven that the vehicle was in legal and physical possession of Barrie
Derringer on April 8, 2013, Barrie herself authorized the bogus “repairs”
claiming “vandalism” and testified under oath to having the 2005 Chevy
Silverado delivered to her after repairs one week before the hearing of June 4,
2013. Judge Hadfield is buried in complicity of the GEICO
insurance fraud.
8.
The
Judge Hadfield fraud continues with clear proof that a conspiracy exists and
has existed since before the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage
with bribes and payments by NAI Maestas and Ward to Judge Hadfield to be able
to use a judge to oversee, give bad advice and count on the facts that a
“judge” would be able to cover all aspects of criminal activity against David
Derringer. The “no-contact order was also placed illegally against David
Derringer and continued without service of summons to ensure that David
Derringer could offer no protection for his wife Barrie Derringer as she knows
way too much of the underlying corruption of NAI Maestas and Ward and this
court, so that she can be disposed of if necessary, and any blame of her demise
alleged to be bad blood from David Derringer. The case DM-12-610 is entirely
defective due to fraud and must be dismissed with prejudice without any divorce
for Barrie Derringer, and it is also proven that Barrie Derringer has always
needed the mental care and counseling that David Derringer sought to provide as
her loving husband, defied by the courts. In fraud, Judge Hadfield attempts to
insulate all parties from the insurance fraud by misleading and false
statements on June 17, 2013 “Within
twenty days of notice from Petitioner to Respondent that the Chevy Silverado
was not where he testified the vehicle would be located, Respondent has 20 days
to produce the vehicle at Petitioner’s counsel’s office. If the vehicle is not
produced as required by the terms of this paragraph, Petitioner shall file and
affidavit and a hearing will be set as to why Respondent should not be held in
contempt and subject to incarceration
for said contempt.” With
full knowledge by Judge Hadfield that Barrie Derringer has possession and
control of the vehicle, the stage is now being set for Barrie Derringer to be
coerced to lie on an affidavit that she never got the vehicle and that the
insurance fraud was not of her doing, and the vehicle will now be set to
“disappear” with a bogus Colorado address, with claims that David Derringer did
not have the vehicle where claimed and then David Derringer will be “jailed” in
contempt to cover up the criminal acts of all involved, likely a hit then
placed upon David Derringer by Judge Hadfield while in jail so that David
Derringer never survives so that it can be explained that David Derringer
simply got murdered in jail by another inmate; the exact plan of Judge Fitch of
CV-94-10 exposed then to the FBI in 2002 that dealt with underlying cocaine
importation and involvement of Judge Fitch and Judge Pope. The judiciary has
the right to take judicial notice of all pleadings of CV-94-10, CV-12-19 and
the federal suit David Derringer v. Judge Thomas Fitch et al CIV-02-0974 In that matter Judge Fitch was to have David
Derringer arrested for contempt of non-compliance with a fraudulent order over
water issues and then to have David Derringer killed in the Catron County jail
due to “contempt” charges to cover up cocaine importation; in that incident the
plan was for David Derringer to be burned alive in a cell with allegations of a
bed fire due to smoking in bed and falling asleep. All of these parties have
preyed upon Barrie Derringer without reasonableness and taken advantage of a
person highly without assertiveness and in a state of irrational mental
instability in PTSD and has been exploited for highly criminal and very
lucrative operations hidden by the blanket of NAI Maestas and Ward, Attorney
Alain Jackson and Judge Hadfield to do criminal acts with bad advice and
coecion, meant to keep Barrie Derringer working as accountant with Maestas and
Ward in cover up of illegal acts involving money laundering. It is imperative
that Barrie Derringer be denied any divorce, placed in the legal custody and
protection of husband David Derringer to insure that she does not get murdered
because she knows too much, and that she receives medical attention for mental
disorders and PTSD and that the persons involved from January, 2012 be
prosecuted for multiple criminal acts. Just as Barrie Derringer ran to her
husband to console him after the criminal attack of assault and battery of February
4, 2012, she has
been drawn into a realm of involvement and is way over her head and rescue of
her safety is paramount. 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, this pleading needs to be
heard by a disinterested judge for justice to be served, and the pleading will
be placed with other agencies and parties of record in case David Derringer or
Barrie Derringer are hurt, killed or further terrorized by the participants.
Respectfully submitted by:
______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box
7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
June 25, 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