IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
New Mexico
Court of Appeals No. 32,326
Second Judicial District Court No. DV-12-234
Rel. DM-12-0610
BARRIE LEE
DERRINGER,
Appellee/Petitioner,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Appellant/Respondent,
APPELLANT'S TIMELY MOTION FOR REHEARING UNDER NMRA
12-404 OF THE DENIAL OF JULY 15, 2013 OF THE JULY 8, 2013 EMERGENCY APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR ORDER TO STOP ILLEGAL JURISDICITON AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OF THE
TRIAL COURT OF
JUDGE ALISA HADFIELD, AND PROPER NOTICES OF
“FRAUD”
THAT MANDATE REVERSAL OF NO. 32,326 AND NO. 32,587
UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060
COMES NOW the
Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his Motion as stated above.
This matter denied has every bearing on No. 32,326 and
now the new forced appeal of No. 32,982; all over issues in jurisdictionally
defective DV-12-234.[1] Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton
; 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.” In
the United States of America
there can be no greater atrocity performed by a judge, outside of jurisdiction
and judicial capacity, but executing egregious acts on the bench against the
Respondent, of the destruction and concealment of court public records, and
blocking appeals. Anderson v.
Martin, (1964) 375 US 399, 11 L.Ed.2d 430, 84 S Ct 454 “In
determining whether state action violates equal protection clause of 14th
Amendment where private action is also involved, crucial factor is interplay of
governmental and private action.” In this matter trial Judge Alisa Hadfield has
prevented filing of legal court papers of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610, confiscated court pleadings meant for legal
filing of public court record, and concealed and destroyed such papers, including
denial of filing of the “docketing statement” of other outrageous acts of
DV-12-234 before filing with the court to prevent filing, and to
deliberately block appeals to the NM Court of Appeals, and to mis-direct and
corrupt the court record so that any appeal taken would be skewed.[2] 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. The blocking of the court filings of DV-12-234 are
to keep from public court record the egregious acts in April 2013 of violating
and denying the 1st Amendment against David Derringer due to David
Derringer posting the public court records showing blatant public corruption of
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield on the Internet (an entirely
legal act under the 1st Amendment) ; the threats and intimidation to
prevent such exercise of 1st Amendment rights by illegally
sentencing David Derringer to 30 days in jail if he does not stop exposing the
public corruption to the world, and blatant violations in such rulings of the New
Mexico Court of Appeals in cases (NO. 24,101), (NO. 27,959), (NO. 30,380), (NO. 30,591),
(NO. 31,303), and (NO.
32,271).
The apparent motives of Judge
Hadfield are numerous, and this has been
going on since the onset of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 making both cases
defective in “fraud” and each mandated to be dismissed. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge,
403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote
[102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact
laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth
Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the
color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.” This constitutes a
"tort" and a criminal act by Alisa
Hadfield not acting in judicial
capacity as “Judge Hadfield” but mis-using government position to affect
the outcome of a case by subversive acts under the New Mexico's Abuse of Privacy Act. Section 30–12–1(C). Federalist
No. 47 by James
Madison; The
Abuse of Privacy Act, among other things, prohibits
interference with certain types of electronic communications, including
“reading, interrupting, taking or
copying any message, communication or report intended for another by
telegraph or telephone without the consent of a sender or intended recipient
thereof.” The actions involved here are disturbance and tampering with
the court records of BOTH
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 of which these two cases are also inexplicably
intertwined and inseparable, regardless of whether or not they were not
consolidated, as they could not have been being initially in different court
systems. Since both open court orders and written court orders of DM-12-610
verify and use as foundation all orders of DM-12-234, the two cases are
Siamesed and connected at the hip and cannot be separated at any time,
regardless of only some other different issues of DM-12-610. The underlying
DV-12-234, that has been defective without service of summons since the
beginning, has been continuing with the trial court outside of jurisdiction
after the Notice of Appeal [3],
and when the Respondent David Derringer went to file his docketing statement
for other illegal Orders (clearly these could not have been issued with the
jurisdiction in NM Ct. App. No. 32,326), Judge Hadfield kept David Derringer
from filing his docketing statement for further appeal that was docketed as NM
Ct. App. No. 32,982. It is totally irrational that the NM Court of Appeals will
entertain appeal after appeal of outrageous acts of the underlying trial courts,
taking use of public funds and time, rather than force the trial justices to
comply with existing laws, or mandate deviant justices be removed from the
bench under NM Ct. App. justices’ mandates under Canon 3(D)(1). This Judge
Hadfield fraud is directed not only at David Derringer, but against the State
of New Mexico with mis-use of
power of a judge to conduct activities for others outside of the law. "Fraud
upon the court embraces only that species of fraud which does or attempts to
defile the court itself or which is perpetrated by officers of the court
so that the judicial system cannot perform in a usual manner. Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero,
94 N.M. at 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d at 160 n. 1. "Fraud upon the court occurs
where there is a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud
the court". See Hazel–Atlas
Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire Co., 322 U.S.
at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001. It is easily seen here that despite legal actions
taken against Judge Hadfield
to stop the corruption, she ignores both statute and Canon and the Rules of
Civil Procedure to continue. SCRA
1986, 1-088.1(D) “No district judge shall sit in any action in which
his impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the
Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and shall recuse
himself in any such action.” David Derringer has properly motioned Judge
Hadfield 6 times to recuse for cause and she entertains the motions herself,
refuses to obey NMRA Rule 1-088.1 and Title 28 Section 455, and also refuses to
allow such motions to be heard by another disinterested judge.[4] Flagg
Bros., Inc V Brooks, (1978) 436 US 149, 56 L.Ed.2d 185, 98 S. Ct 1729,
23 UCCRS 1105 “Involvement of state official may provide state actions
essential to show direct violation of petitioner’s 14th Amendment
rights, whether or not official’s actions were officially authorized or
lawful.” David Derringer has filed a Motion for Change of Venue under NMSA 38-3-3 mandating the venue be
changed or hearing held, and requested this motion be heard by a different
judge than Judge Hadfield. Instead of obeying the New Mexico State statutes
enacted by Legislature, Judge Hadfield refuses to grant a change of venue,
disregards and denies the mandates of a hearing, and hears the motion herself;
clearly, adamantly and tenaciously holding on to both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610
by the already consummated bribery contracts with whomever who expect their delivery
of service. Judge Hadfield
simply will not allow herself to be disqualified. A. Borrego v. El Guique Community Ditch Assoc., 107 N.M.
594, 762 P.2d 256 (1988) “A judge has no jurisdiction after having been
disqualified.” David Derringer
has rendered 7 Judicial Standards Complaints against Judge Hadfield
showing the violations of Constitution, law and Oath. The acts here by Judge
Hadfield and accomplices under her direction reveals a deliberate scheme to
defraud the court; they committed fraud upon the court. Judge Hadfield’s
actions against all laws seem to stem from a personal corruption, and circumstantial
evidence that is numerous and extreme point directly to the bribery of this
judge by the muti-million dollar international Corporation NAI Maestas and Ward
Commercial Real Estate Corporation, that owns, leases, and controls most of the
real estate in the large city of Albuquerque and surrounding areas. Note that
Petitioner Barrie Derringer is the “accountant” of this corporation and the
CEO’s of this corporation have done criminal assault and battery, conversion,
alienation of affection, loss of consortium, and interference with a legal
marriage contract against David Derringer, with respective suits David Derringer v. NAI Maestas and Ward
et al in consolidated CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816, of which in those
suits the private tort actions against Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer,
Barrie is represented by the Maestas corporate attorney law firm. Many
“contributions” are rendered by this corporation of a judicial and political
nature as well as great pressure and influence with many persons in governmental
service. When this court realizes that all matters of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610
have been decisions made against the Respondent and each of those decisions has
been based on actions against all laws of Constitution, US and New Mexico
statutory laws, defiance of all former case laws, this court under mandates of Canon 3(D)(1) must take action
to stop this mayhem of the judicial system by a judge violating Oath, Canon,
Code of Judicial Conduct and indeed sedition and treason against the United
States of America. This instant court in the past and present berates the
Appellant for telling the truth under NMRA
Rule 1-090 and accuses the Appellant of being “vexatious” when
writing of distasteful but true allegations of public corruption in the
judicial system of New Mexico under mandates and rights under NMRA Rule 11-504. Distasteful as
the truth of what is happening here, this court must deal with the truth and
stop actions that are against justice and against the very integrity of the
judicial system. Canon: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an
independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws
that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of
justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the
precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the
judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence
in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution
of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.” In
this matter of the trial court, Judge Hadfield
without jurisdiction attempts to limit and control the court record by stopping
legal filings. The doctrine of Astare
decisis@ as well
as Oath and Canon mandate Judge Hadfield
to rule according to law. In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97. ; Ennis v. Kmart Corp., 131 N.M.
32, 33 P.3d 32, 2001 -NMCA- 068, N.M.App., June 21, 2001 (NO. 20,977).
In the underlying actions, Judge Hadfield
obstructs justice to conceal public corruption by destruction of court records
and blocking appeals and looking illegally at the pleadings to see what is
written before she has any jurisdiction to do so. In the NM Court of Appeals in
this case the justices conceal the underlying public corruption by blocking
appeals in the same manner of denying filings, and attempting to be able to
look illegally at the pleadings to see what is written before they have any
jurisdiction to do so to force the litigant to have filings “pre-approved”, and
manipulation of the “forma pauperis” status in acts of extortion and ransom for
taking appeal; all in obstruction of justice and denial of due process and
equal protection. US v. Anderson,
798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986 “Word should in Canon..of Judicial Conduct which
states that judge “should” accord to every interested person a full right to be
heard, imposes mandatory standard of conduct upon judges and
requires presence of both prosecuting attorneys and defendant at any proceeding
which bears on outcome of pending..case.” Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3,
Subd. A(4) and C(1)(a). In this case No. 32,326, the unethical justices of the
NM Court of Appeals attempt the same procedure in illegal and unconstitutional
Order in April 2013 to force David Derringer to present pleadings before filing
and before they have jurisdiction so as to do the same outrageous acts of
deprivation of due process against David Derringer, “without jurisdiction”, and
thus also want to “deny” this motion on the underlying court, while they
conduct the same, exact acts of illegal distortion of court records, with a new
twist of also attempting to stop David Derringer’s legal appeals by denying
“forma pauperis” or selectively limiting the forma pauperis so as to stop most
legal appeals; an act of criminal nature of “obstruction of justice” since
David Derringer has been shown to totally qualify for forma pauperis under
public assistance, which means that “all” appeals can be continued without
payment of process fees, not only those appeals that the NM Court of Appeals
will allow to continue, while stopping all other appeals that expose underlying
public corruption. Adamson v. C.I.R.
CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541 “Federal Courts cannot countenance deliberate violations
of basic Constitutional rights; to do so would violate judicial oath to uphold
Constitution of United States.”; Martinez
v. Carmona, 624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535,
95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for
statutory, constitutional, or ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3
Subd. A, Constitution Article 6, Section 18.”
1.
The appeal No. 32,326 arises out of the
jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error case of DV-12-234, of which
there was no summons served and waiver of service, in which the trial court
will not stop actions, Orders, Judgments and hearings, despite the jurisdiction
lacking because of No. 32,326. This has now forced a new appeal of the new
issues of DV-12-234 done after jurisdiction ongoing of No. 32,326,
necessitating new appeal of No. 32,982; all due to the discharge of duties of
this court not stopping the illegal and non-jurisdictional acts of DV-12-234
without any remand yet from this court. These egregious acts of Judge
Hadfield encompass denied filing of the
docketing statement of new violations of DV-12-234 and blocking further appeals
in “obstruction of justice” and fraud to the court. in a complete lack of
jurisdiction to misuse power to effect control of a particular litigant. Mireless v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 116
S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991). The entire “key” here
to the outrageous acts of Judge Hadfield and this court’s former ruling in this
case to attempt to “preview” David Derringer’s legal pleadings is a matter of
“jurisdiction” and justices cannot work outside of jurisdiction; encompassing
no legal ability to “preview pleadings or force a litigant to have his
pleadings “approved” before 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. ; Robinson v. Sawyer, 23 N.M. 688, 170 P. 881, N.M., January 07, 1918 (NO. 2007). 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. David Derringer properly
sought to be able to file his court pleading without interference or
obstruction so as to perfect appeals and have in the court record trial court
the necessary information on issues to preserve them for review of the future appeal pursuant to the "scope of
review" NMRA 12-216(A). Judge Hadfield bullied the court clerks by mis-use
of power to intercede and steal the David Derringer documents prior to filing
so as to invade David Derringer's privacy to see what David Derringer had written
so as to block such information of "truth" under NMRA Rule 1-090 and
"written information" under NMRA Rule 11-504 from the court record,
due to such information disclosing and exposing the Constitutional violations
and public corruption of the judge herself. Smith v. City of Artesia, 108 N.M. 339, 772 P.2d 373,
N.M.App., March 02, 1989
(NO. 10,094) ...invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living
individual whose privacy is invaded. The right protected by the action for
invasion of privacy is a personal right, peculiar to the individual whose
privacy is invaded. In this matter, the information was for the court record only, not the personal
view of Alisa Hadfield, but only for view of Judge Hadfield working in Judicial
capacity once the information became of court public record. This is highly
offensive to the Respondent for the Judge to attack David Derringer's court
pleadings with criminal acts, for a proven corrupt judge that Respondent David
Derringer has sought to recuse for cause 6 times and filed 7 Judicial
Standards complaints about, and who
instead has violated NMRA Rule 1-088.1. refused to step down. and refused to obey NMSA 38-3-3 to refuse to
change the venue and keeps David Derringer "imprisoned" in her court.
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme
Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645.; Lee v. Calhoun, 948 F.2d 1162,
C.A.10 (Okla.), November 06, 1991 (NO. 90-6013)
...invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a
reasonable person. Section 652B liability does not require publication of
private matters. The invasion may
consist of forced entry into a person's home, eavesdropping or spying upon
a person's private affairs, or tampering
with a person's private papers or mail. Jones ET UX v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ET AL, certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 645.
2.
The actions challenged in the motion, as
well stated above entail actions of stopping docketing statements as an ongoing
appeal process, and actions taken in obstruction of justice of both DV-12-234
and totally intertwined DM-12-610; all actions of denying filings with a court
clerk under mis-use of power by Judge Hadfield were meant to stop any further
appeals [5] of
both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with actions that had been taken without
jurisdiction in both cases.
3.
The Respondent David Derringer filed an
appeal of DV-12-610 known as NM Ct. App. No. 32,587 with fifty three (53)
distinct violations of law done in the trial court, in which the NM Court of
Appeals denied entirely as such underlying actions were Constitutional
deprivations, bias, prejudice, bribery and other atrocious acts, making both
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 defective jurisdictionally, and instead covered up the
public corruption by supporting such “known” illegal acts of the lower court
particularly after the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, and acted in
discharge of law in affirmance, and issued mandate; all the while Judge
Hadfield was still working in DM-12-610 without concern. There are not only federal
violations to Constitutional rights and US code, but violations to the
"extra protections" afforded the Respondent/Appellant under the New
Mexico Constitution Article II Bill of Rights 1,4,10,17,18,and 24; in
particular the Article II #6 that has entirely defeated the violation of the 2nd
Amendment contained in the Order of Protection pre-formed County Order of
Protection form of DV-12-234 mandating the dismissal of the case DV-12-234
under Constitutional deprivations, and since in both open court and under
written order the case DM-12-610 affirms DV-12-234, DM-12-610 is in gross
violation of both US and NM Constitutions and must be dismissed as
“jurisdictionally defective”. Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] No law shall
abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes,
but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right
to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986) This
copy is taken from the latest reprint of the New Mexico Constitution as of
2007, in current use and acceptance as a matter of law.
4.
Appellant can challenge of “jurisdiction” actions
taken by a specific Judge that happens to be the same judge in both the
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 totally intertwined cases, because this particular
judge works outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity in both cases, but
more importantly, illegally prevents court filings of pleadings and other court
papers with the district court clerks from David Derringer in both cases of
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 preventing appeals of both cases and disrupting and
tainting the court records in both cases with criminal acts of tort and
obstruction of justice. Furthermore, as discussed previously in this pleading
the “divorce action” is jurisdictionally defective due to Constitutional
deprivations and based in “fraud” and not only must be dismissed on
jurisdictional defect, but in fact without a ruling on pending motions with the
New Mexico Supreme Court of the matters of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
of NM Ct. App. No. 32,587, the matter has not been resolved.
THEREFORE due to
the above, case DV-12-234 is jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental
error by way of lack of service of summons without waiver from Respondent David
Derringer; is defective entirely with multiple Constitutional deprivations of
both the US and NM Constitution; is defective without jurisdiction over David
Derringer as a party or the subject matter due to lack of process, and
deprivation of due process and equal protection; and has a proven basis by both
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield of basic fraud of rendering
decisions in legal error due to bribery and violations of Oath, Canon and the
Code of Judicial Conduct; making both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 mandated to be
dismissed with prejudice without granting any divorce for Barrie Derringer.
Clearly, with Constitutional deprivations and blatant “fraud” these cases must
be dismissed. “The inherent power
of a court to grant equitable relief from a judgment procured by fraud upon the
court is beyond question.” Universal Oil Prods. Co.
v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S.
575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946); Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238,
244, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1000, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944), overruled on other grounds, Standard Oil Co. v. United States,
429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976); Jemez Properties, Inc. v.
Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d 157, 160 n. 1 (Ct.App.1979), cert.
denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980). Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark in
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. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead
v. United States, 277 U.S.
438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the
Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis
added).
David Derringer, Box
7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE July 22, 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
I sent a copy of this pleading to:
Attorney Alain Jackson “not of record with this court”
423, 6th, NW, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
[1] David
Derringer was denied service of summons in
DV-12-234 making it jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error,
mandating entire dismissal. David Derringer came to the hearing of February 21,
2012 due to his own filing of Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation of Barrie
Derringer, not due to Petition for Order of Protection, and instantly notified
the court of no jurisdiction of Petition for Order of Protection in fundamental
error and that hearing could not be held. Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar,
in abuse of law continued with the Petition for Order of Protection and
disregarded and dismissed David Derringer’s
Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation of Barrie Derringer; such does not grant
waiver by David Derringer
for lack of service of summons. Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987). In judicial abuse
of discretion, Judge
Hadfield has upheld this illegal DV-12-234 as the
underlying foundation of DM-12-610; all with blatant Constitutional
deprivations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
6th, 13th and 14th Amendments.
[2] State
v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) “Matters outside the record present no issue for review”.
[3] 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.”
[4] Title 28 Section 455(a) Any justice,
judge, or magistrate of the United States
shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned. (1 Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party
[5] In
both cases of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610, Petitioner’s attorney Alain Jackson
violated all provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct NMRA Rule 16-804 by
requesting in pleadings and open court for deprivation of due process and equal
protection against David Derringer and after several open court dialogs of
asking Judge Hadfield to violate her Oath and “stop any further appeals of
David Derringer”, Judge Hadfield has complied with that request by not
filing orders of oral hearings, and denying David Derringer legal filings
in the court including actions of “docketing statements” so as to block appeals
in obstruction of justice. State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 74 NM 178, 392 P.2d 12 (1964) Decision
without entry of order. No appeal can be taken from announcement of district
court where no order carrying court's
decision into effect was entered. Actions herein mandate Canon
3(D)(1)(2).
