IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
New Mexico
Court of Appeals No. 32,326
Second Judicial District Court No. DM-12-0610
Rel. DV-12-234
BARRIE LEE
DERRINGER,
Appellee/Petitioner,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Appellant/Respondent,
EXTREME EMERGENCY APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO
COMPEL ALL COURT
CLERK FILING, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND JURISDICTION
COMES NOW the
Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his Motion as stated above.
The issues of this motion
encompass the following violations of law, Constitution, jurisdiction and acts
involving obstruction, intimidation, and mis-use of judicial power to control
and taint court records and deny and obstruct appeals.
Jurisdiction over pleadings filed and right to unimpeded
filings. The Second Judicial District Court in general and the
family court inclusive deny due process and equal protection with requiring any
litigant to “present a pleading for ‘approval’ before filing” taking away
rights of due process and equal protection wherein neither the court nor any particular justice has any
“jurisdiction” of the pleading before filing with the court, and the litigant
cannot be legally required to jump through hoops of attempting to file a
pleading with the clerk of the court, only to be “refused” filing until after a
justice pre-reviews the pleading. 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 vague. This obviously
entails abuse of the litigant having to leave the pleading deprived of instant
proper filing with the duties of the court
clerk to then use additional time and gas to return to the court to see
if the court will then file the legal pleading. The gist of the conspiracy here
is to deny due process and equal protection and for each justice involved to be
a dictator in their own right to totally control the issues and subject matter
content before any appeal can be tendered. 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.” Both the judge and the Respondent know that if an issue
cannot be preserved in the trial court, it cannot be entertained upon appeal,
so the acts of sabotaging the record are extreme. A judge attempting to view
pleadings of litigant before filing is outside of jurisdiction and abuse of
discretion to order or email court clerks to not file pleadings until prior
review of a judge as has been done by Judge Hadfield. 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” Neither the court, nor any justice has any right under law to
“obstruct justice” and delay or obstruct the filing of any court document. Judge
Hadfield and the Second Judicial District Court is in violation of Constitution
to deny filings or misuse power to effect control of a particular litigant. Molina v. Gonzales, 994
F.2d 1121 rehearing denied 1F.3d 304 on remand 1993 WL 534, 163 “Judge has no
immunity for acts taken outside of his judicial capacity, or for actions that
are judicial in nature, but occur in complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” It is the duty of the
clerk and the court to immediately file the pleading upon delivery to the court
clerk. No judge has jurisdiction to see
and read a pleading before filing, and no judge has the jurisdiction to prevent
a filing with the court of a pleading. Ennis
v. Kmart Corp., 131 N.M. 32, 33 P.3d 32, 2001 -NMCA- 068, N.M.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.” 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.
Judge Hadfield has directed the
Second Judicial District Court Clerks not to accept or file any pleadings of
David Derringer until “approved” and perused by Judge Hadfield; an act disturbing the duties and ministerial
mandates of the court clerks as decided by “due process and equal protection”. 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.” In effect, by Judge Hadfield keeping the clerk
from filing the pleadings of David Derringer, she willfully corrupts and
disturbs the court record in acts of obstruction of justice, effectively
“destroying” a document that should be filed in an instant manner. 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.” A judge that prohibits filing so as to establish a court record
knows what they are doing to sabotage the integrity of the judicial system. Silva v. Town of Springer,
912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M.
375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996 “Public official have
qualified immunity from suit under 1983 as long as (1) at time of
alleged conduct there was not clearly established statutory or constitutional
right that was claimed to have been violated, and (2) a reasonable
person would not have known that his or her conduct was violating that clearly
established right.” David Derringer has been singled out for persecution and
intimidation. 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.” This entails singling out David Derringer for
persecution and for unequal protection in violations of law that enable any
citizen to file a complaint or court pleadings with the court clerk in any
court of law in the United States under the provisions of US Code Title 42
Section 1981 and the 4th, 5th and 14th
Amendments. 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.” What is
happening here is Judge Hadfield controlling the court record just as she does
the testimony of witnesses that are pro-se, asking them only her questions that
she wants in the court record and denying the pro-se party to have opportunity
to be heard to testify over all issues
on his own behalf. Civil Rights
13.4(2) “is accountable via 1983 action..in a position of
responsibility, knew or should have known of misconduct and yet failed to
prevent future harm.” Judge Hadfield now controls the court record to
pre-filing peruse documents and court pleadings to decide if and when they can
be filed and to deny filing of any documents that are not to her pleasing in
content or intent; as example a notice of appeal, motions for reconsideration, a
motion for change of venue, a motion to recuse for cause and other pleadings
that expose or state facts of which are not to the judge’s liking for the
preferred outcome of the case; thus tainting the corrupting the court record
well outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity by preventing legal filings
upon instant presentation to the court clerk as demanded
by law. 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.” Controlling
the court record before filing is obstruction of justice. US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997 Acts that distort
evidence to be presented or otherwise impeded administration of justice are
violations of statute prohibiting obstruction of justice, and act of altering
or fabricating documents used or to be used in judicial proceeding would fall
within statute if intent is to deceive court.” 18 USCA 1503.” In doing acts of
forceful “approval before filing” the Second Judicial District Court impedes
due process and uses extortion and vexatious methods to manipulate and tailor
each case to meet their own requirements, expectations, and desired results. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US
731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not
tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics
of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.”
Absolutely controlling court papers before filing and controlling what can or
cannot be filed or dictating the content of the litigant’s filing in
substantive matters of facts, opinions or legal conclusions entails tampering
with court documents and evidence, a criminal act by a justice of “fraud”. 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., 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.”
On
June 25, 2013, the court clerk's office was open during at least normal hours
and Respondent David Derringer went to the second floor family court clerk to
properly file “sensitive pleadings to Judge Hadfield” including an Affidavit, a
Motion to Recuse for Cause, a Motion for Change of Venue, two separate Motions
for Reconsideration of Orders of June 17, 2013 (a time sensitive 10 day
mandatory filing with pleading taken to the court on June 25, 2013 and with a
deadline of June 27, 2013) and was “refused” filing of all pleadings. Mapp
V. Ohio, 367 U.S.
643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961),
as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to
observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of
its own existence.” David Derringer then went to the first floor of the
District Court for normal civil filings and the court clerk refused to file a
DM case of the family court. David Derringer then went to the Administrative
Office of the Courts, wherein the Respondent was summarily denied with statements
that it would be necessary to take this matter up with the judge and the court
clerk. David Derringer then went to the office of the Chief Judge Ted Baca and
was told by the secretary to immediately go to Judge Whitehouse, the head
justice of the family court division, upon which the secretary denied David
Derringer’s filings. David Derringer then went back to the office of Chief
Justice Ted Baca and was told by the secretary that the Judge would have to
look at the pleadings and decide about filing, and David Derringer was
illegally forced to leave all pleadings with that office, denying all rights to
immediate and proper filing and date stamping with the court for record, even
though the Judge’s office has legal ability itself to file the David Derringer
pleadings immediately itself. David
Derringer had an absolute right to have his pleadings filed immediately upon
presentation to the court clerk of the family court division without “approval”
or discrimination, and that date and time presented to the clerk was mandated
to be stamped upon such pleadings and copies for the Respondent’s records and
other parties. 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.” Order to permanently compel any and all court clerks of
the Second Judicial District Court including, but not limited to the family
court division to file immediately upon presentation all court papers, without
obstruction by underlying illegal orders by any justice to “approve” or
“disapprove” or delay such filings. As of this writing, it is unknown as to
whether the Respondent’s pleading will be filed by the Second Judicial District
Court blocking further appeals, just as Judge Hadfield blocks appeals by
refusal to make and file timely written orders. Order should include wording
that no judge has any jurisdiction to see, peruse or view any court pleading
until such justice has jurisdiction of that pleading after a proper filing of
court record.
Jurisdiction of higher courts after appeal. DV-12-234
New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 32,326 has never had jurisdiction due to a
fundament error no summons served. Trujillo v. Goodwin, 2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839
“service of summons-the District Court has no jurisdiction to issue binding judgment against a party not
served summons in accordance with the rule who does not waive the defects
of service.”; Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987) Service of process
of summons is procedural and Supreme Court rule on service of process
controls.” Summons was never served and the trial court cannot continue
to persecute the Respondent as has now been going on for 1 ½ years. Clark
v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P..2d 1075 (1979) “Two functions are served
by service by personal delivery of the
papers within the state: (1) it shows that defendant has an appropriate relationship
to the state and is within the power of the court generally; and (2) it
gives the defendant notice of the
proceeding against him.” Toumajian
v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 “In action before federal court, the
necessary and constitutional predicate for any decision is determination that
court has jurisdiction, that is, the power, to adjudicate dispute; foundational
support for all of court’s rulings flows from that power, and if that power is
missing, court is not in position to act and its decisions cannot generally be
enforced.” ; W.G. v. Senatore,
18 F.3d 60 “Neither court by exercising its inherent equitable discretion, nor
parties by entering into stipulation, can confer jurisdiction where none has
been authorized.”; Repeatedly, both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge
Hadfield in both DV-12-234 and related DM-12-610 exercise changing prior
orders, holding hearings, making new orders and judgments and ignoring the
jurisdiction of the New Mexico Court of Appeals and New Mexico Supreme Court.
In this instant matter, of DV-12-234 it has been jurisdictionally defective and
in fundamental error since the illegal hearing on February 21, 2012, in which
the Respondent noted to the court that he had never been served any summons,
and did not waive his right to be served summons, making the entire case void,
unenforceable and mandatory to be dismissed in its entirety. Instead of
succumbing to the lack of jurisdiction, both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar
continue to make illegal rulings in this case. Chavez
v. County of Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 521 P.2d 1154 (1974) “Attack
on subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any time in the proceedings. It
may be made by a collateral attack in the same or other proceedings long after
the judgment has been entered.” Judge Hadfield take this case that has been on
appeal since May, 2012 in NM Ct. App. No. 32,326 and ram through Constitutional
deprivations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
6th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights. Wisdom v. Kopel, 95 N.M.
513, 623, P.2d 1027 (Ct. App. 1981) “Jurisdictional issue may be raised in
collateral attack after the judgment has been entered.” Both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield then contrive
an Order that instantly converts the civil matter to a ‘criminal’ conviction of
30 days in jail deferred with illegal claims that David Derringer cannot post
legal public record court pleadings on the Internet, and does so without
fundamental jurisdiction of no service of summons of the civil matter, but
outrageous acts of no criminal complaint, no Miranda rights, no rights to an
attorney or jury, and yet claims a sentence of record with not criminal trial,
and absolute violations of the evidence even in the civil hearing, sustaining
thus illegal claims of “criminal harassment” under the NMSA criminal code of Section
30, acts so severe in violation that it should shock the conscience of any
judiciary. 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.” ; 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.” In related and also jurisdictionally defective DM-12-610 due to extreme
Constitutional deprivations, and underlying graft and public corruption Judge
Hadfield has held hearings, issued new orders contradicting the Final Judgment
of November 15, 2012 and issued orders intimidating the Respondent to stop due
process or be “incarcerated”. 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.” All the while
Judge Hadfield blocks appeals by not properly and timely filing written orders
at the open hearing requests of the Petitioner and attorney Alain Jackson[1],
and defeating appeals by not allowing the filing court pleadings and yet
changing the substance of the Final Judgment already on appeal. This leaves the
Respondent fighting the public corruption of the trial court in each illegal
process, needing yet new appeals for the egregious acts, and yet being blocked
and controlled in both court testimony and pleadings to be able to gain all
issues before a trial court before a proper appeal can be taken. All the while
the New Mexico Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of both case of DV-12-234
under No. 32,326 and DM-12-610 under No. 32,587. Although the law by statutory,
Constitution, and case law is continually presented to the court verbally in
hearings, in pleadings and in motions for reconsideration of the outlandish
acts, Judge Hadfield simply ignores the law, Oath and Canon. . 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.” The
time frames for written orders are ignored and appeals are blocked 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. 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.” ; Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021
(Ct. App. 1974 aff’d in part reversed in part 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975)
“Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken-although this rule applies to
the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as
the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by
reason of the appeal.”; Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d
762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgment, the
trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step in regard to the
motion to alter or amend judgment.” Clearly,
an Order for Mandamus should issue to force Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and
Judge Hadfield to comply with the “jurisdictional issues” of the higher courts,
and stop outrageous acts of the trial court continuing without jurisdiction in
any regard and simply ignoring the jurisdiction has been “removed” from them
despite their arrogance.
Jurisdiction is lacking for time
frames before action was filed The illegal Order of Protection was filed on February 6, 2012 without
ever service of summons, making it void and without control of David Derringer,
as legally David Derringer is not a party. 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.” Yet the illegal DV-12-234 is still held
against the Respondent for over 1 ½ years so far in DV-12-234 NM Ct. App. No.
32,326. 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”.; Reichelt v. US Army Corp of Engineers,
923 F. Supp. 1090 “ for error to be “prejudicial”, it must affect substantial
rights of aggrieved party.” The related
and intertwined illegal Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed on February
8, 2012 and is
jurisdictionally defective for multiple reasons including the foundation of
illegal DV-12-234 and extreme Constitutional deprivations. Bank of Nova Scotia v. US,
108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F.
Supp. 789 “Even a sensible and efficient use of supervisory power by federal
court is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.”
Judge Hadfield makes Orders that are legally void, on Minute Order of June 17, 2013, but with mandates and
judgments encompassing February 4, 2012,
a time in history all issues were only between husband and wife without any
jurisdiction of that time frame by Judge Hadfield until a Petition had actually
been filed only later on February 8,
2012. 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.” ; 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.” The outrageous acts
encompass the ignoring of jurisdiction, Oath, Canon and other laws. Canon 3(D)(1) mandates this
court to Order Judge Hadfield removed from the bench as well as a complete
dismissal of DM-12-610 without any divorce granted for the Petitioner as
entirely jurisdictionally defective. Collins
v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117
L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992 First Amendment, equal protection and due process
clauses of Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of Federal Constitution
afford protection to those who serve government as well as those who are served
by them, and 1983 provides cause of action for all citizens injured by
abridgement of those protections. USCA Const. Amends. 1, 14; 42 USCA 1983.”
Order should issue to ensure proper jurisdiction and to dismiss the entire
action of DM-12-610 without any available divorce for Barrie Derringer
Petitioner. Salmeron v. Highland Sports Sales, Inc., 248 F. Supp.2d 1035, 1037 (DNM 2003), (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
Intimidation and illegal orders threatening unlawful
incarceration Both
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield have “convicted and sentenced”
David Derringer in the Order of April
15, 2013, DV-12-234, illegally held while this court has
jurisdiction under No. 32,326. In such written order David Derringer was
claimed to have been convicted without trial, Miranda rights, attorney, jury of
criminal harassment, for claims of illegally placing court record public record
pleadings on the Internet by way of Google blogs, and “sentenced” to 30 days in
jail deferred if David Derringer does not exercise his legal Constitutional 1st
Amendment rights again. U.S. v.
Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp.
238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848 “Statute
proscribing harassment (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1512) is not limited to conduct
that actually dissuades testimony, and the success of an attempt to do so or
the possibility thereof is irrelevant.” This is in total known defiance of this
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) as well as outrageous acts of sedition and treason
of the Constitution 1st Amendment. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) “intent to
deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities....The
conspiracy, in other words must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of
rights secured by the law to all.”; Archuleta v. Lacuesta,
988 P.2d 883, 128 N.M. 13, 1999-NMCA-113 cert denied 990 P.2d 822, 128 N.M. 148
cert denied 120 S. Ct. 937, 528 US 1117, 145 L.Ed.2d 815 “Person acting
under color of state law who violates the rights of a plaintiff established by
the United States Constitution or federal statutes may be held personally
liable under federal civil rights statute.” On April 3, 2013,
Judge Hadfield changed the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012 while without jurisdiction of No. 32,587 and
stole the David Derringer 2005 Chevy Silverado by Order to give possession of
the tangible asset to only Barrie Derringer without mandating Barrie refinance
the truck and wherein David Derringer is primary on a loan that makes the truck
not community property until paid and title received. NMSA 45-2-804
the statute itself “demands” to pay the bills with the community funds as
mandated under law. Matter of
Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215,
93 NM 172 cert denied Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM
172. “Intent of statute, subjecting
entire community proper to payment of community debts, was to protect third
parties who had dealt in good faith with community during its existence against
dissipation of estate by survivor before outstanding debts were taken care of” This encompassed stealing over $12,000.00 of
the equity of that truck of sole and separate property of David Derringer.
Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d
1121, 110 NM 749 “Where separate character of property is established, it
maintains that character until contrary has been made to appear by direct and
positive evidence.” David Derringer
delivered such vehicle on April 3, 2013 by relinquishing possession to Barrie
Derringer and Barrie Derringer testified on illegal hearing on June 4,
2013 to having taken
possession on April 8, 2013, that also encompassed criminal insurance
fraud to GEICO in which Judge Hadfield and attorney Alain Jackson are party to
fraudulent claims of “vandalism” of
$8,542.01. In a cover-up and criminal intimidation of David Derringer
meant to stop due process, equal protection and to stop David Derringer
testifying to GEICO of the criminal insurance fraud, Judge Hadfield, with court
record knowledge that the damages to the truck were long ago prior damages and
not vandalism and that Barrie Derringer had possession of the truck on April 8,
2013 long before June 17, 2013 created on Minute Order on June 17, 2013 describing
that the truck was not in possession of the Petitioner, there would only be a
ten day period to find the truck and if David Derringer did not produce the
truck within 20 days, he would be incarcerated. U.S. v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590 “It is
endeavor to bring about forbidden result, and not success in actually achieving
result that is forbidden; however, whether threat had reasonable tendency to
influence witness is relevant in determining accused state of mind.” It is clear by court record that this Minute
Order could not be written by Judge Hadfield in fraud and falsification of the
court record, meant to not only intimidate David Derringer to stop all
litigation, but also to intimidate David Derringer to not further expose the
extreme public corruption and criminal facilitation and being an accessory to
insurance fraud by Judge Hadfield herself. US
v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479
US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1512, which prohibits any party from
intimidating or harassing another party in order to influence testimony at
official proceeding, does not require that party harassed or intimidated be
witness at proceeding.” It is firmly believed at this time, that Judge Hadfield
is corruptly working with the Petitioner’s multi-million dollar corporation NAI
Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate, and has personal and likely bribery
connections to that company in also her Minute Order of June 17, 2013 encompassing
February 4, 2012 wherein on that day a cover-up
started by the CEO’s of that company in which the Petitioner is the accountant,
for the assault and battery, conversion and other multiple torts done against
David Derringer; this court taking judicial notice that Judge Hadfield did not
have any jurisdiction of DM-12-610 until February 8, 2012. 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.” It
is also believed that since David Derringer is pro-se and entirely representing
himself, in which without the Respondent all litigation would stop instantly
against both the Defendants of CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 and DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610, releasing all from liability and also releasing all claims of
insurance fraud without David Derringer to testify, that a direct possibility
is probable that Judge Hadfield seeks to illegally incarcerate David Derringer
so that David Derringer is killed in jail. U.S.
v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S.
Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62
L.Ed.2d 377 “with conspiracy to obstruct justice, one aspect of the conspiracy
charged was a plan to murder a person who was providing information, so long as
the evidence showed that the prospective murder victim was a source of the
information.” Certainly, intimidating David Derringer with fraudulent claims in
a Minute Order of June 17, 2013
that the truck must be produced that the Petitioner now already has and has
testified to same in court record on June
4, 2013 are illegal and a willful plan of some very bad intent
against David Derringer. Clearly, the Respondent is under duress, emotional
distress and anxiety over the possibility of extreme measures to stop the
litigation by force, since Judge Hadfield and Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar
have now been implicated in insurance fraud with GEICO, done extreme
Constitutional and law deprivations and violations against David Derringer,
taken David Derringer’s firearms illegally under an Order of Protection that
defeats self defense, and continue actions without service of summons, with all
acts in violation of all laws. Whistleblowing
Act of 1989. “Exposure of these and other unlawful activities is done 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). On June 25, 2013, David
Derringer has talked at length to the APD about these activities and each
officer indicated that Judge Hadfield could not have changed a civil matter
into an Order of criminal harassment and sentencing without a criminal
complaint, trial, Miranda rights, attorney and jury, and that with court proof
of the vehicle being in possession of the Petitioner, Judge Hadfield could not
have written a fraudulent order indicating that David Derringer would be
incarcerated if he did not produce the vehicle that is known that he no longer
has. State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) “substantial evidence
is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support
a conclusion.”; Phelps v.
Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). “manifest
error of law is clearly present.” Criminal intent was indicated is coming from
the justices directed at David Derringer and the insurance fraud is proven by
court records and witnesses in which Judge Hadfield is involved with
“knowledge” as an accessory. Order should issue to somehow make justices
“accountable” and stop the threats, intimidation and possible murder plans
against David Derringer, even though David Derringer has exposed public
corruption of the officials.
On June 27, 2013, I went to the
Second Judicial District Court to get my filed papers and found that Judge Ted
Baca had refused to file them and had given them to Judge Hadfield and when I
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 me
any document or tangible evidence that they would not file my pleadings and
would not date stamp that I had delivered them to the court on June 25, 2013.
Today is the last day for filing on June 17, 2013 the Respondent’s two motions
brought under Rule 60 for reconsideration, and thus the proper motion has been
illegally blocked without jurisdiction and the Respondent had properly brought
these motions to be filed prior to the deadline. The Respondents motions thus
had to be reprinted without any available copies and the Affidavit re-notarized as of today, even
though the original was notarized on June
25, 2013 to be able to attach herewith all copies with this motion
to the court. The titles of the 5 items are as follows:
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)
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
No. DM-12-610 rel. DV-12-234
BARRIE
LEE DERRINGER
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER
Respondent,
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID
DERRINGER
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )
True and correct copies of
all pleadings are attached that the Second Judicial District Court refused to
properly file.
David Derringer, Box
7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE June 27, 2013
I hereby certify that I sent
a copy of this pleading to:
New Mexico Court of Appeals
clerk
P.O.
Box 2008
Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87504
[1] Asking a
judge directly to stop the Respondent from further appeals is sedition,
treason, request of a judge to deliberately violate oath and an vile act of the
Code of Professional Conduct under NMRA 16,804 mandating disbarment. Canon
3(D)(2) against attorney Alain Jackson.
No comments:
Post a Comment