STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No.
CV-12-1307 consolidated CV-12-10816
v.
DEBBIE HARMS, IRWIN HARMS, BARRIE
CROWE AKA
BARRIE DERRINGER AKA BARRIE
BEVERLEY, ALAIN JACKSON,
GERALDINE (JERRY) CROWE, AND
WARREN
CROWE; ALL AS INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FROM THE INJUSTICE AND PREJUDICE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A DISINTERESTED
JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, with his motion as
stated above, with a request for this motion to be heard in a different
district with an impartial justice.
The Plaintiff in these consolidated cases is
involved in other litigation in the Second Judicial District Court, in which to
note all Constitution and law violations occur to David Derringer well outside
of law, and under the meaning of federal “crimes” of “obstruction of justice”,
“conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”.
Some justices of the Second Judicial District Court believe that in DV-12-234
David Derringer can be singled out for persecution, having never even been
served a legal summons in this case, and yet this case continued against David
Derringer ordering deprivation of David Derringer’s 1st, 2nd,
4th, 5th, 6th 13th and 14th
Amendment rights, denying due process by both “muzzling” and illegal control of
what David Derringer can or can not file in pleadings, and such other
outrageous tyranny and oppression. The justices now compare what is being done
illegally against David Derringer in one court to make their own rulings
against him in another court, working outside of the record and disregarding
that rulings in the court plagiarized are highly illegal and unconstitutional. Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct
or Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97 “Judge in adversarial
judicial proceeding...who reaches outside of record to decide case defiles
process.”; State v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082,
1086 (Ct. App. 1990) “Matters outside the record present no issue for review”.
Judge Malott has entered into a system of
injustice wherein he compares what is happening in DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 in a
“divorce” involving Barrie Derringer in which obviously Judge Malott is not the
finder of facts, and uses such information in his own rulings in a court meant
to address the torts inflicted against David Derringer by underlying parties
that exploit Barrie Derringer and caused the loss of consortium, alienation of
affection and interference of the legal marriage of David and Barrie Derringer
causing the demise of that marriage. It is proven that bipolar, suicidal and
emotionally unstable “Barrie” has been used and abused by these third parties
with defeat and obstruction against David Derringer to ever save or protect his
wife. However, David Derringer has persisted in just and legal litigation to
protect his own Constitutional rights, which has exposed the public corruption
and possible underlying political influence of a controlling situation of a
multi-million dollar corporation being sued by the husband of an employee.
During the marriage to wife Barrie Derringer, Barrie Derringer was very afraid
of taking another job in the Albuquerque area due to the extreme control and
influence of NAI Maestas and Ward Corporation, such power and influence
obviously in much of the Albuquerque society. Clearly, it is time for a
disinterested justice, that rules by
law, in a different venue of a different district that would not be known or
influenced by a multi-million dollar NAI Maestas and Ward Corporation with
political influence during elections, would be a prudent move for any justice
to be served. It is more than interesting that the “corporation” attorneys
representing the multi-million dollar corporation NAI Maestas and Ward
Commercial Real Estate, also represent the private party “Maestas accountant”
Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer with obvious questions as to whom is paying
these attorneys for an “employee”, and for what return and why Barrie Derringer
aka Barrie Crowe remains not only in the employ, but still in “financial
matters” of the corporation under suits involving David Derringer. Delgado
v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App. 1978) “There is
sufficient particularity..if the facts alleged are facts from which fraud will
be necessarily implied.” All persons privy to these facts, such as “loss of
consortium”, even laymen reading such public record on the Internet, recognize
the “indiscretions” indicated to keep an “employee” Barrie Derringer, as
accountant with financial matters, when the husband sued the company for
assault and battery and all torts included in the outrageous interference with
the legal marriage of the employee, and the egregious acts of criminal attack
on the husband by the CEO’s on their assistance in breaking into the private
storage of the employee on a weekend.
There has been what is seen as indiscretions
in the actions of Judge Malott, notably last the legal attempt to peremptory
excuse this judge upon “reassignment” under NMRA Rule 1-088.1(B)(C) and under
NMSA 38-3-9 defeated by a manipulation of illegal acts of the court clerks,
coupled with no notice to the Plaintiff, and then claims that the Plaintiff was
“late” in his proper attempts to excuse Judge Malott under available actual
statutory law, when in fact the “reassignment”
was deemed “invalid” at the time by the illegal motion by the Defendants
to excuse Judge Brickhouse under mis use of NMRA Rule 1-088.1 by attorneys for
Defendants. The end result is that David Derringer has shown definite
violations of law by Judge Malott in one case CV-12-1307 , now intertwined/consolidated
with another CV-12-10816 of identical substance in many regards, and Judge
Malott will not step down and forces David Derringer to stand before this
biased justice and the comradery underlying justices that abhor the idea that a
pro-se person can actually perform up against attorneys and will not be intimidated
by the corruption of the courts by teaming up against David Derringer to use
collectively all past and present court litigation in degradation against David
Derringer regardless that such other litigation has no bearing on the instant
cases. It becomes clear that as attorneys recklessly inform each court of other
past litigation by David Derringer, so as to corrupt and bias the court. David
Derringer is being persecuted and slandered for any previous use of the
American system of justice. Each judge and attorney admonishes and demeans the
Plaintiff and states in legal error that David Derringer is “insane” as
Derringer continues to properly attempt to use the court system as the only
available means of redress in the US against such illegal attack. They quote
“Einstein” of “insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a
different result”. This is done to
attempt to show each court that as David Derringer comes properly to address
torts, the courts defeat him each time by the corruption and violations of the
very laws Derringer seeks to enforce. The more a pro-se litigant seeks redress
for justice, the more his attempts are held against him by the “judicial
industry” since they are making no money from a pro-se individual. They
conveniently ignore David Derringer in NM Supreme Court No. 27,127 Derringer
v. Turney et al. that set water case laws of New Mexico. The past
corruption of Catron County was so severe that the Plaintiff was forced to
change the venue to Valencia County over issues underlying connected to the
import and distribution of cocaine, and was unfortunately placed with Judge
John Pope, in rehab multiple times before his final removal from the bench, but
doing severe damage to Derringer in the interim by stealing the $400,000.00 Derringer
ranch with three documented attempts on Derringer’s life so as to stop the
exposure of the corruption of some of the courts. US v. Barrera-Moreno,
951 F.2d 1089; Kunkel v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121
L.Ed.2d 340; Ruis v. US, 113 S. Ct. 985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d
137 “Government’s failure to be aware of and stop use and distribution of
cocaine”.
Jurisdiction can be in any New Mexico
district court. In this matter, if a venue continues to persecute a party for
previous legal use of the courts, the venue must be changed. Dugie v.
Cameron, 971 P.2d 390, 126 N.M. 433, 1999-NMSC-002 “Venue is not to be
equated with jurisdiction, as jurisdiction goes to the power of a court to
entertain the cause, while venue simply goes to the convenience and proper
forum.” Time has come obviously, for failure of justices to abide by law to
move the venue of this action from the Second Judicial District Court to
another venue “for justice to be served”, and Plaintiff David Derringer motions
this court for such equitable relief. Blake v. Cavins, 185 P.
374, 25 N.M. 574 “Changing of venue mandatory upon motion filed. A change of
venue is provided when it appears that either party cannot have justice in the
county of the venue laid, the venue may be changed upon oral motion. When it
appears that either party cannot have justice in the county of the venue laid,
no affidavit showing is required.” It will clearly be shown that the Defendants
have their control by “corporation” influence and known bias of the courts of this
Second Judicial District as they will undeniably oppose this move of venue. Kalosha
v. Novick, 505 P.2d 845, 84 N.M. 502 “Venue is merely a privilege
allowed for the convenience of the parties.” Due to the obvious persecution of
the Plaintiff, the venue needs to be in a county wherein NAI Maestas and Ward
does not own, list and control most of the real estate in Albuquerque area with
attending power and influence. Matter of Ruther’s Estate, 631
P.2d 1330, 96 N.M. 462 “Venue was properly transferred where party objecting to
transfer never objected that transfer was in the interest of justice.” ; Team
Bank v. Meridian Oil Inc.,879 P.2d 779, 118 N.M. 147 “N.M. 1994 Venue
relates to convenience of litigants, and reflects equity or expediency in
resolving disparate interests of parties to law suit in place of trial.”
David Derringer motions this court for
“justice” to be served, wherein for same it is apparently mandatory to move the
venue to a different jurisdiction and away from the justices and influence in
the current jurisdiction. Blake v. Cavins 185 P. 374, 25 N.M. 574
“Section 5571, Code 1915 provides that the venue of a case either civil or
criminal, may be changed when it shall appear that either party cannot have
justice done him at a trial in the county in which such case is then pending.
Section 5573, Code 1915 makes the changing of venue mandatory upon motion
filed.” The Plaintiff has lawfully informed the court of the indiscretions and
violations of the law, but to no avail. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
states a judge "should" [shall] disqualify himself or herself
"in a proceeding which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be
questioned .... * Judge Malott works in
teamwork with Judge Hadfield; Judge Hadfield ruling against law and
Constitution against the “Respondent” even continuing cases DV-12-234 where the
“Respondent” was never served any summons in “fundamental error” and compares
those ruling against David Derringer to sustain other rulings against David
Derringer in his own court.
In the original case CV-12-1307, Barrie Crowe
aka Barrie Derringer was not a party, but was the controlled and exploited employee
of the parties, exhibiting submission to all requests and manipulation of such
parties, including, but not limited to the destruction of the Derringer
marriage with the illegal alienation of affection, loss of consortium and
intervention by the parties into the Derringer marriage creating its demise. In
the consolidated cases of CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 in true under cult
control, Barrie Crowe comes in the consolidated cases with a “solidarity” with
her abusive bosses, and in protection of her parents and others so as to show
her submission and opposes the attempts of David Derringer, that has tried
always to protect this woman against what has happened to her in the control
and outrageous acts performed by a company against the personal life of an
employee, including destruction of her marriage that served the best interest
of the company to “remove” a husband that sought proper labor law relief for
his own wife’s protection, under the
mandates of the US Labor Laws.
THEREFORE, the collateral attack on
this venue is for just cause and justice must be afforded to the Plaintiff in
this consolidated matter.
Respectfully submitted by:
______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
June 14, 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 Defendant Jackson at:
423 6th St. NW.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
And to the attorney Floyd Wilson
for Defendant Barrie Crowe:
Floyd Wilson
12480 Hwy. 14 North. Ste. 105
Cedar Crest, NM 87008
And to the attorney for Geraldine and Warren Crowe:
Alicia
Santos of O’Brien & Padilla P.C.
6000
Indian School Road NE Suite 200
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87110
No comments:
Post a Comment