STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO
SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DM-12-610
BARRIE
DERRINGER, APPEAL OF No. DV-12-0234
Petitioner, Judge
Hadfield
v.
DAVID
DERRINGER,
Respondent,
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT DAVID DERRINGER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL OF
THE ILLEGAL
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER OF JUNE
28, 2013 UNDER
NMRA RULES 1-059 & RULE 1-060; NON
JURISDICTIONAL
“ORDER REJECTING PLEADINGS FOR FILING
AND ENTERING PLEADINGS IN RECORD AS EXHIBITS”
COMES
NOW the Appellant/Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se with his motions as stated above. Judge
Hadfield has no jurisdiction or judicial capacity over David Derringer or his
pleadings sought to be filed on June
25, 2013. 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.” Clearly, legal
filings of pleadings are “not exhibits” but court papers to be filed of court
record. Judge Hadfield’s acts encompass criminal federal felonies of
“obstruction of justice”, “conspiracy against rights”, and “deprivation of
rights under color of law”.
Motion
is brought for a “retrial” under Rule 1-059 due to Judge Hadfield refusing to
give the Respondent his legal filings of legal ability to use the United States Court system, and yet ruling on such pleadings
without any jurisdiction since they were not properly filed with the court. Ennis v. Kmart Corp. 131 N.M.
32, 33 P.3d 32 (N.M.App.,2001) Clerks of Courts; Powers and Proceedings in
General; Ministerial Functions and Acts; 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. It is
not necessary for the clerk of court to endorse a pleading upon its receipt to
effect the filing. Customer's complaint in slip and fall action was timely
filed when first presented to clerk of court, even though clerk refused to
accept pleading for filing for a technical violation; clerk lacked authority to
reject the pleading, and trial court was proper authority to determine whether
pleading violated rules. NMRA, Rule 1-005, subd. E. Judge Hadfield has no
judicial authority or jurisdiction to ‘approve’ or review or peruse any filings
of any pleadings with the District Court before filing, as a matter of law,
Judge Hadfield has no jurisdiction over any court paper or pleading “until”
filed and they become of court record. 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 continued the
underlying case DV-12-234 with knowing that it is in jurisdictional and
fundamental error defect without ever service of summons to David Derringer and
has used this case totally intertwined and inseparable to DM-12-610 to deny due
process, deny equal protection, persecute the Respondent in deprivation of 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th 13th
and 14th Amendment rights, and worked in a bias and prejudice that
is now clearly shown with extreme circumstantial evidence that both
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield have been bribed by either
money or political pressure from the multi-million dollar Albuquerque corporation
of NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate in which the Petitioner is their
accountant, and wherein this company has done criminal assault and battery,
conversion, alienation of affection, loss of consortium and interference with a
legal marriage contract between David Derringer and Barrie Derringer ongoing
due to corrupt money laundering activities that caused husband David Derringer
to intently advise wife Barrie Derringer to disavow any relationship with that
company and seek other employment for her own safety and not to involve herself
with criminal activities; instead the Petitioner succumbed to force,
intimidation, and an increase in salary of $2,000.00 per year to be bought
off to divorce husband David Derringer
that already had exposed this corporation to extreme violations of US
Department of Labor laws against wife/employee Barrie Derringer.
The
pleadings to be filed ( and are of court record with a motion as attachments
with the New Mexico Court of Appeals) were to legally mandate that all
pleadings be heard by a disinterested justice in a different venue, without
Judge Hadfield being legally able to entertain such motions for recusal for
cause of bribery and Constitutional deprivations, a change of venue with
affidavit that is mandated under NMSA 38-3-3 to be granted upon motion filed
and two separate timely motions for reconsideration of orders that of
themselves prove insurance fraud with GEICO by
Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain Jackson, Judge Hadfield and other
co-conspirators. Instead of the clerks properly filing the legal pleadings of
David Derringer, all copies of such pleadings were illegally “confiscated” from
David Derringer with illegal orders of Judge Hadfield to the court clerks not
to file any of the six pleadings, and then later refusing to also file a “docketing statement” in order to block any
David Derringer appeals. In the illegal “order” of June 28, 2013 Judge Hadfield distorts and corrupts
the court record to state that “This
matter, having come before the court on the 28th, day of June, 2013..”
is vile and vitrious tainting and corruption of the record, wherein, no matter
of these pleadings was properly within the jurisdiction of the court since
Judge Hadfield barred the filing of such pleadings and thus without such in
proper court record, the Judge was without any jurisdiction to order anything
regarding the substance of such pleadings or even to acknowledge their
existence. 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 tainting and corruption and destruction of
David Derringer’s court records is only superseded by Judge Hadfield continuing
the illegal Order of Protection without any service of summons in fundamental
error and mis-using power to steal David Derringer’s Constitutional 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th
and 14th Amendment rights and to deny due process and equal
protection in a conspiracy with the Petitioner and obviously pay-offs from her
employer NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation. 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. The extreme circumstances here that clearly indicate Judge Hadfield has
been bribed in a bias and prejudice is
to not only violate all Constitution, laws, statutes, and case laws
against David Derringer with attending violations of Oath, Canon and the Code
of Judicial Conduct, but to “stop” legal court pleadings being filed in a US
Court that specifically are a motion to recuse for cause and a motion for
change of venue to escape the dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and imprisonment
by Judge Hadfield to keep these matters before her in court without
jurisdiction or judicial capacity to continually persecute the Respondent and
rule in favor of the Petitioner as pre-planned in the bribery. “STATE LAW” NMSA
38-3-3 mandates Judge Hadfield to allow David Derringer to escape her bias,
prejudice and injustices by proper motion with affidavit to be filed, and
instead upon illegal reading beforehand of what Respondent David Derringer
seeks legally in change of venue, in “obstruction of justice”, Judge Hadfield
simply orders the clerks not to file the
proper motions so as to keep the matters ‘in house” in the tyranny of Judge
Hadfield and not let David Derringer exercise his statutory rights for a change
of venue that is “mandatory upon Judge Hadfield”
to release these cases to another venue with a disinterested justice. Chapter 38. Trials Article 3. Venue; Change of Judge § 38-3-3.
Change of venue in civil and criminal cases The venue in all civil and
criminal cases shall be changed, upon motion, to another county free from
exception:
A. whenever the judge is interested in the result of the
case or is related to or has been counsel for any of the parties; or
B. when the party moving for a change files in the case an
affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes he cannot obtain
a fair trial in the county in which the case is pending because:
(1) the adverse party has undue influence over the minds
of the inhabitants of the county;
(2) the inhabitants of the county are prejudiced against
the party;
(3) of public excitement or local prejudice in the county
in regard to the case or the questions involved in the case, an impartial jury
cannot be obtained in the county to try the case; or
(4) of any other cause stated in the affidavit.
In the matters of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 all issues of 1-4 of the statute apply to mandate
Judge Hadfield not being able to deny a change of venue or to remain on either
case. Deats v. State, 1969,
80 N.M. 77, 451 P.2d 981.When proper uncontroverted motion for change of venue
is presented by defendant and no evidence to support it is presented or
required by trial court, court has no discretion but must grant change of
venue. 1953 Comp. § 21-5-3.
; State v. Lindsey, 1969, 81
N.M. 173, 464 P.2d 903, certiorari denied 81 N.M. 140, 464 P.2d 559, certiorari
denied 90 S.Ct. 1692, 398 U.S. 904, 26 L.Ed.2d 62. If motion for change of
venue in proper form and properly supported is timely filed, trial judge must
either grant motion or conduct hearing thereon. 1953 Comp. §§ 21-5-3, 21-5-4. Clearly, there was no hearing, and Judge Hadfield
acts in abuse of discretion and “coy” to believe that no one will know of this
matter if she simply hides, destroys or alters the court record by not allowing
Respondent David Derringer to file his pleadings bases upon her own ideas that the Respondent is “vexatious” for
exposing Judge Hadfield’s public corruption. Swann v. City of Dallas, 922 F. Supp. 1184 “To be
entitled to qualified immunity from liability for violation of constitutional
right, officials must observe general, well developed legal principles.” State v. House, 1999, 127 N.M.
151, 978 P.2d 967, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 222, 528 U.S. 894, 145 L.Ed.2d
186.In a case in which there have been no preceding changes of venue, right to
a venue change is generally mandatory and must be granted by the trial court,
provided that the moving party has filed an affidavit as prescribed by venue
statute. Const. Art. 2, §§ 14, 18; NMSA 1978, § 38-3-3, subd. A. The corruption
and bias is clearly under the bribery encompassed in the Petitioner and her
employer. State v. Lunn,
1975, 88 N.M. 64, 537 P.2d 672, certiorari denied 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248,
certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 793, 423 U.S. 1058, 46 L.Ed.2d 648.Terms of statute,
which provides in effect that venue in all civil and criminal cases shall be
changed, on motion, to some county free from exception when party moving for
change files affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes “he
cannot obtain a fair trial in the county in which the case is pending because:
* * * (c) because [sic] of public excitement or local prejudice in the county
in regard to the case or the questions involved therein, an impartial jury
cannot be obtained in the county to try the case: * * * ”, are mandatory and
require a change of venue when the prescribed steps have been taken. 1953 Comp.
§ 21-5-3, subd. A(2)(c). ; Lewis v. Samson, 1999, 128 N.M.
269, 992 P.2d 282, certiorari granted 128 N.M. 150, 990 P.2d 824, reversed 131
N.M. 317, 35 P.3d 972. If the record lacks substantial evidence, the trial
court has abused its discretion by denying a motion to change venue. NMSA 1978,
§ 38-3-3.
Neither Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar nor
Judge Hadfield has ever had any jurisdiction or judicial capacity of David
Derringer as a person or the subject matter of DV-12-234 due to a fundament
error of 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, and has now
encompassed this outrageous act with deprivation of all Constitutional rights
and granting illegally without any substance under Rule, a “bifurcated divorce”
to Barrie Derringer in order to comply with the request of the Petitioner to
stop all due process and equal protection of David Derringer just as the
Petitioner and her attorney have requested and been granted by Judge Hadfield
to stop all Respondent David Derringer’s appeals. 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 the 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, and in the totally intertwined
and attached illegal case of DM-12-610. 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 takes both cases of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 that have been on appeal
since May, 2012 in NM Ct. App. No. 32,326 and later No. 32,597, 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.” Judge Hadfield does
this so as not to let the world now of her proven public corruption, and
violates six (6) 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 laws in doing so. 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, now,
in retaliation and a cover-up of public corruption, Judge Hadfield
orders the clerks illegally to simply not file any pleadings of Respondent
David Derringer to entirely stop ‘due process’.
This court cannot
legally find and order the matters of:
1.
The case
legally began with the proven fraudulent filing of Barrie Derringer’s Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage on February
8, 2012, and yet Judge Hadfield in her Order of June 17, 2013 intends to
take jurisdiction on February 4, 2012 when there was no case, in order to
protect the bosses of the Petitioner NAI Maestae and Ward that did criminal
assault and battery and conversion and other illegal torts against husband
David Derringer; acts well outside of this court’s jurisdiction but intended to
allow Barrie Derringer to steal property assets before the legal filing of the
divorce action.
2.
Although
Barrie Derringer and David Derringer were legally married on January 15, 2010, such is immaterial and without jurisdiction
of this court.
3.
On April
10, 2012 Judge
Hadfield worked in conspiracy to deny due process and equal protection and
filed an Order for a “bifurcated divorce” simply in answer to the Petitioner
and her attorney to stop all due process and equal protection by the Respondent
and keep the Respondent from filing any further court pleadings. The “divorce”
is not final as all judicial labor of appeals is not complete and it is now
shown by extreme circumstantial evidence of violations of Constitution,
violations of statutory laws and violations of all case laws and now conspiracy
in insurance fraud with GEICO that Judge Hadfield has been bribed from the
beginning of these actions in a bias and prejudice that mandates a complete
dismissal of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with no divorce granted for Barrie
Derringer. In re Acosta,
200 BR 57 “Order or judgment becomes final when all judicial labor in matter is
complete.”
4.
Respondent David Derringer was not allowed due
process, discovery, or equal protection in an illegal hearing held without
jurisdiction when the entire matter was in the jurisdiction of the New Mexico
Court of Appeals on August 3, 2012 when without jurisdiction Judge Hadfield
held a “trial” in mockery of the judicial system without any discovery afforded
the Respondent. Reichelt v. US Army
Corp of Engineers, 923 F. Supp. 1090 “ for error to be
“prejudicial”, it must affect substantial rights of aggrieved party.”; 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.” Since the
illegal Final Judgment was rendered on November 15, 2012 and well after an
appeal had been taken again on that
illegal judgment, Judge Hadfield again disregards jurisdiction and continues to
modify, hold hearings, take Constitutional rights and do extreme legal damages
without either jurisdiction or judicial capacity to Respondent David Derringer,
including this instant order after the denial of filing and destruction of
David Derringer’s court records. 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.”
5.
Between February 8, 2012 and November 15, 2012 and
ongoing Respondent David Derringer has exercised his rights under US Code Title
42 Section 1981 and Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under
the 4th 5th and 14th Amendments, and has filed
numerous pleadings; all filed in compliance with the rules of civil procedure
and in correct form and encompassing all substantiation of law with
Constitutional rights, statutory provisions and case laws that prohibited all
rulings of Judge Hadfield in all orders and disregard for discovery and other
outrageous acts of a judge in total discharge of duties, Oath and Canon, and
each time the Petitioner has not supported any of her complaints, requests, and
the lack of responses with any authority of case law or statutory provision,
and yet Judge Hadfield has totally disregarded each the every law provided by
the Respondent and disregarded each pleading, ignoring most and despite
multiple motions to recuse for cause, motion for change of venue “mandated”,
Judge Hadfield continues to rule against all laws for the bribery apparent by
Petitioner Barrie Derringer and her multi-million dollar employer of NAI
Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate that makes multiple contributions to
political figures and owns, leases and controls most of the real estate in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
6.
The pleadings filed in jurisdictionally and in
fundamental error without service of summons of DV-12-234 and totally
intertwined DM-12-610 and the other civil suits in which Judge Hadfield has unethical
connection due to bribery of NAI Maestas and Ward, as “employers” of Petitioner
Barrie Derringer of CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 have exposed the public
corruption of both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilarr, Judge Hadfield and Judge
Malott; all of whom have ruled against Constitution, ignored all case laws
appurtenant and rules to insulate and protect Barrie Derringer whom is doing
highly controversial “accounting” work for NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real
Estate and show an uncompromising
“conspiracy” of all involved against the husband David Derringer,
Respondent who already turned in Petitioner’s employer for abuse and neglect
against Barrie Derringer involving violations of the U S Department of Labor
laws and other outrageous abuse of an employee when Barrie Derringer was the
wife of David Derringer; acts that this court wants to hide and corrupt the
court record as the Respondent showing “ugly,
repetitive and vitriolic statements” yet of “truth” under the meaning of
NMRA Rule 1-090 and mandated under NMRA Rule 11-501. Clearly, as a matter of
justice, the included justices of this matter should have recused long ago to protect their ongoing public corruption
exposed in this matter.
7.
The Respondent has been unsuccessful in his
motions before Judge Hadfield and others of the district court due to a proven
violation of case laws and Constitution
by the justices involved with ignoring the authorities placed before them, and
a disregard for any pleadings performed by a pro-se person no matter how well
formed or well pleaded the pleading
might be.
8.
Respondent’s first appeal of DV-12-234 has not
been “dismissed” as indicated in deliberate error by Judge Hadfield but
continues as NM Ct. App. No. 32,, 326. Respondent’s second appeal of DM-12-610
was only dismissed due to non-completion
of case and without wording of an appealable order of NM Ct. App. No. 32, 113,
and the appeal of DM-12-610 is ongoing
in consideration by motion of the New Mexico Supreme Court of NM Court
of Appeals No. 32, 587; thus indicating that Judge Hadfield attempts to corrupt
this court record making believe that all David Derringer’s legal efforts in
any court are to be disregarded as
affirmance of the district court’s illegal decisions. DM-12-610 has not been
summarily affirmed under No. 32, 587 with pending motions still before the New
Mexico Supreme Court.
9.
This trial court has no jurisdiction over the
New Mexico Court of Appeals, but has engaged in mud slinging for purposes of
hiding the public corruption that has been exposed in all courts. In NM Ct.
App. No. 32, 326 exposure of public corruption has produced the statements of filing “vexatious and
frivolous appeals” but with the proof
that No. 32,3026 was an appeal filed regarding DV-12-234 brought without
service of summons and in violation and deprivation of 1st , 2nd,
4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th
Amendment rights in lack of jurisdiction and in fundamental error, hardly makes
this appeal “frivolous”, but in exposure of public corruption that some
justices want to make disappear rather than be prosecuted and removed from the
bench. Clearly, the “illegal order” of No. 32,,326 filed March 10, 2013 was presented for Petition for
Writ of Certiorari, but was denied interlocutory status and thus will be
presented upon completion of the appeal No. 32,326. David Derringer’s status as
“forma pauperis” is legally established, but offensive to the judicial
community that they cannot stop a pro-se litigant exposing public corruption by simply running him out
of money for attorneys.
10. Judge
Hadfield has illegally held additional hearings for enforcement of the Final
Judgment of November 15, 2012 when she did not have any jurisdiction due to the
matter being on appeal in No. 32,587, but disregarded the higher court’s
jurisdiction and proceeded to harass and intimidate the Respondent and grant
new and additional modifications to the Petitioner when without jurisdiction to
do so. 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).
11. Between
November 15, 2012 and ongoing, the Respondent has filed numerous motions to
stop Judge Hadfield from illegal acts outside of jurisdiction, stop illegal
hearings outside of jurisdiction and to stop modifying and changing a Final
Judgment that was already on appeal as of November 21, 2012, and including
several motions to recuse for cause, and affidavit and a motion for change of
venue in which Judge Hadfield destroyed before filing or defied the law to keep
these motions from being filed so as to corrupt the court record and make sure
that Judge Hadfield remained on the case
despite mandate under NMSA 38-3-3 to change the venue upon motion filed with
affidavit; to keep that from happening, Judge Hadfield simply interfered with
the legal filing of the motion so as to keep her obvious bribery bargain to
fining this case in ruling in all ways for Barrie Derringer and to further
insulate and protect NAI Maestas and
Ward. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th
Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is clearly present.” David Derringer has no
legal recourse but to continue to expose these and other unlawful activities
until some element of the Government takes corrective action. Prei,
Inc. v. Columbia
Pictures 508 U.S.
49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).
12. On May 16, 2013 Judge Hadfield issued a
Minute Order in the DV-12-234 case in jurisdictional defect and fundamental
error in outrageous acts of sedition with sustaining deprivation of due
process, equal protection, holding criminal sentencing without a trial, Miranda rights, attorney,
jury and evidence violations to stop
David Derringer from exposing the public corruption by his legal posting of
“public documents” on the Internet in a total violation of 1st Amendment
rights and a total disregard for the higher court rulings of 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. This was done to entrap and
persecute Respondent David Derringer with knowledge that the DV-12-234 never
had service of summons and therefore no jurisdiction over David Derringer at
any time. The illegal Minute order of May 16, 2013 was additionally appealed to the NM Court of Appeals even
though both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 are already on appeal with Judge Hadfield
having no jurisdiction to make any orders at this time. (SEE: NM Ct. App. No.
32,326 and No. 32,587)
13. In the Memorandum Order illegally filed May 16, 2013, Judge
Hadfield ordered Respondent to file all
pleadings in conformity with the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Rules for the Second Judicial District Court, in which all David
Derringer pleadings have been in conformity with all rules including but not
limited to “telling the truth” not matter how ugly that truth is both to the
Petitioner and in exposing the public corruption of Judge Hadfield under the
guidelines of NMRA Rule 1-090 and NMRA Rule 11-501, and wherein under no set of
circumstances does a justice have any
jurisdiction over any pleading to stop, inspect, or ‘approve’ that pleading
until it becomes public record and filed in the court record as a matter of
law. Simply put, if any justice was to affect the corruption of the court
record before it could be filed no justice or due process or equal protection
would be afforded any litigant and clear violations of the 14th
Amendment would be as herein with Judge Hadfield tainting the court record to
only include what she wants it to say. 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.”; US v. Kozminski, US Mich
1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288
“Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by
Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but
prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by
decisions interpreting them.”; US v.
McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct.
1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure,
oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or
enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United
States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.” Simply put, Judge
Hadfield has no jurisdiction to view pleading before they become public
record upon filing.
14. On
June 25, 2013 Respondent
David Derringer came to file proper motions under the Rules of Civil Procedure
and under proper guidelines of the Local Rules of the Second Judicial District
Court of;
a. RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FROM THE INJUSTICE AND PREJUDICEOF THE SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT WITH LEGAL REQUEST FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A
DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION
b. 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
c. 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
d. 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)
e. AFFIDAVIT
OF DAVID DERRINGER MANDATED UNDER NMSA 38-3-3 FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
All Respondent’s legal and conforming motions
were denied filing and obstructed to
become of record in DM-12-610 by the illegal acts of Judge Hadfield ordering
clerks not to file any pleading of David Derringer at any time; acts without
jurisdiction of judicial capacity and clearly because such pleadings exposed
Judge Hadfield involved with Barrie Derringer in insurance fraud against GEICO
and in seeking a change of venue that is mandatory under NMSA 38-3-3 that
ensures that Judge Hadfield would no longer be able to entertain the cases of DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610; criminal acts of obstruction of justice.
15. At no time could Judge Hadfield rule that any
pleading of David Derringer is in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure without
first the pleading being filed of court record and thus then and only then in
the jurisdiction of Judge Hadfield. All pleadings of David Derringer are in
conformity with NMRA 1-010 with a proper caption and names of parties in
conformity with (A) with paragraphs and separate statements limited as far as
practical with information with enough detail as necessary to prove and
indicate “fraud” in conformance with (B) and with case laws and authorities
inserted with adoption with references and exhibits as needed in conformance
with (C); and in total conformity with NMRA Rule 1-011 with all pleadings made
in good faith and with certainty of information under truth of NMRA Rule 1-090
and Rule 11-501 “writings”, and with proper signature, number of copies,
stamped envelopes for mailing of notice of hearing and all presented for proper due process with no intentions of
meant to be interposed for delay, increase in costs of litigation or any other
improper purposes and each pleading was properly signed by the pro-se party
that he had read and composed each pleading and had ample good grounds,
authorities of multiple case laws,
Constitution and statutory law in support, and in all information and belief all motions should be granted with support of an affidavit in connection with the statutory mandate of NMSA 38-3-3 for the court to mandate a change of venue.
Constitution and statutory law in support, and in all information and belief all motions should be granted with support of an affidavit in connection with the statutory mandate of NMSA 38-3-3 for the court to mandate a change of venue.
16. The court has no jurisdiction to prevent
court filings at any time and only has jurisdiction of court pleadings when
they become of court record after filing, and thus cannot deny legal pleadings of David Derringer Respondent
at any time and can only strike such pleadings after filing upon acts that are
not in “abuse of discretion”. As with the motion to recuse for cause and the
motion for change of venue as well as the affidavit and two motions for
reconsideration, the court only has the power to deny the two motions for
reconsideration after proper filing of court record and must recuse for cause
or have the motion heard by a disinterested justice in another venue and is
“mandated” to change the venue upon motion filed with affidavit and without an
hearing held as a matter of NM State Law NMSA 38-3-3. Judge Hadfield cannot and
does not have any jurisdiction to deny legal court filings in any court in the United States of America. The Court pleadings are not “exhibits” but
are legal court pleadings that must be filed as a matter of law. Ennis v. Kmart Corp. 131 N.M.
32, 33 P.3d 32 (N.M.App.,2001) Clerks of Courts; Powers and Proceedings in
General; Ministerial Functions and Acts; 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. It is
not necessary for the clerk of court to endorse a pleading upon its receipt to
effect the filing. Customer's complaint in slip and fall action was timely
filed when first presented to clerk of court, even though clerk refused to
accept pleading for filing for a technical violation; clerk lacked authority to
reject the pleading, and trial court was proper authority to determine whether
pleading violated rules. NMRA, Rule 1-005, subd. E. 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.; 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”
17. The Respondent’s pleadings cannot be
introduced into “exhibits” to cover up the motions to the court for recusal and
change of venue as a matter of fraud against New Mexico State Law. Judge
Hadfield cannot cover up the mandate under statute to change the venue upon
motion filed by concealing and destroying the motion by hiding it as and “exhibit”.
Respondent David Derringer has every right to motion this court for a change of
venue and Judge Hadfield is mandated to grant that motion. State v. Childers, 1967, 78 N.M.
355, 431 P.2d 497.When motion for change of venue is timely filed in form and substance
required by statute, trial court may require hearing thereon, and if no hearing
is held, denial of motion is reversible error. 1953 Comp. §§ 21-5-3, 21-5-4. ; State
v. House, 1999, 127 N.M. 151, 978 P.2d 967, certiorari denied120 S.Ct.
222, 528 U.S.
894, 145 L.Ed.2d 186. Important factor that would prove abuse of discretion in
a venue determination is a showing by the complainant that he or she has been
prejudiced by the trial court's decision; substantial evidence that a trial in
a particular venue was not fair and impartial would require reversal on appeal.
Const. Art. 2, §§ 14, 18; NMSA 1978, § 38-3-3, subd. A. The standard of review
required in assessing whether trial court abused its discretion in ruling on
motion for change of venue is whether the trial court's venue determination is
supported by substantial evidence in the record. ; Deats v. State, 1969, 80 N.M. 77, 451 P.2d 981.When
proper uncontroverted motion for change of venue is presented by defendant and
no evidence to support it is presented or required by trial court, court has no
discretion but must grant change of venue. 1953 Comp. § 21-5-3.
18. The Respondent has motioned the recusal of
both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield over four times for
violations of law, violations of Oath, Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct
and violations of Constitution, statutory laws and a proven bias and prejudice
with regard to extreme circumstantial evidence of personal involvement and
bribery of the justices involved. Each and every time the Respondent views a
bias and prejudice that mandates recusal a motion can be filed to recuse the
justice for cause. Frates v.
Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494 US
1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474 “Recusal motion should be permitted at any time it
becomes apparent that judge is biased or suffers from appearance of bias.” Now
it has become very clear of the bribery of either money or political influence
or pressure involved in these cases from the very beginning that mandates
recusal for cause as well as now over 7 judicial standards complaints regarding both Judge Hadfield and
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar that prohibit Judge Hadfield from making a
decision herself as to recuse or not. 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.” Taking away statutory rights is
a reason for cause for recusal. ; Under the legal sufficiency doctrine
"[when a trial judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify,
accompanied by an affidavit," the state statute or rule limits the judge
to passing upon the timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the
affidavit. If the judge finds the motion timely, the affidavit sufficient, and
that the recusal would be authorized if some or all of the facts set forth in
the affidavit are true, another judge is assigned to hear the motion. Johnson v. District Court, 674
P.2d 952, 956 (Colo. 1984).; Goebel v. Benton, 830 P.2d 995 (Colo.
1992); Wright v. District Court,
731 P.2d 661, 664 (Colo.
1987); Hammons v. Birket, 759
P.2d 783, 784 (Colo. Ct. App.
1988), cert. denied (Colo.
1988). Birt v. State, 350
S.E.2d 241, 242(Ga. 1986). Such violations are cause for recusal. Since
Judge Hadfield has been complained of four separate times in Judicial Standards
as well as a Petition for Superintending Control in the New Mexico Supreme
Court, this motion must be decided by someone other than Judge Hadfield, and
the fox cannot be further in charge of the henhouse. State v. Hunt, 527 A.2d 223, 224 (Vt.
1987). Hunt involved
an action to recuse two justices who had disciplinary charges filed against
them concerning the case in question. The court noted that even though the
decision to grant or deny a recusal motion was discretionary, a judge must
recuse himself or herself where disciplinary charges had been filed concerning the case in question.
1d. See also State v. Forte,
553 A.2d 564, 565 (Vt.
1988). Judge Hadfield simply hides the
motion as claiming an “exhibit” when the motion was mandated to be filed, and
ruled upon by another justice in a different venue.
19. Judge Hadfield denies presumably with this writing “both” of the
motions for reconsideration of both the Minute Order the and separate Order regarding the Motion for Order to Show
Cause, wherein both motions expose the public corruption and being an “accessory”
to criminal insurance fraud of GEICO of
Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain Jackson and Judge Hadfield. Since these
motions are denied, David Derringer has a statutory right to “appeal”.
20. The case has been closed as of the November
21, 2012 notice of
appeal. This Order as well as the prior orders when this court had no
jurisdiction have been done without any legal ability, but under law and the
Rules of Civil Procedure NMRA Rule 1-060 David Derringer has an ability to file
this instant motion for reconsideration.
21. All of David Derringer’s motion at all times
with this court have been brought in total compliance with the Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Second Judicial District Court.
22. The Rules of civil procedure allow a motion
for reconsideration and motions for cause to be in excess of three pages and
the Local Rules of the Second Judicial District Court do not limit motions to
three pages.
23. The Respondent has complied with the Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Second Judicial District Court, and
Judge Hadfield has no possible jurisdiction as does only the New Mexico Supreme
Court to modify or change the
established and printed Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
Second Judicial District Court.
WHEREFORE the ORDER of
June 28, 2013 is made without either jurisdiction of juridical capacity and
must be withdrawn as a matter of statutory laws and the pleadings of David
Derringer must be filed with court record as a matter of law and both cases of
DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 must be dismissed
with prejudice without service of
summons and as such the motions and cases must be moves for such decision to a
different venue from the Second Judicial
District Court in order for justice to be served.
Because this
motion has been also denied filing by the Second Judicial District Court upon
the illegal order to the clerks of Judge Hadfield, this motion has been sent to
the Second Judicial District Court by US Postal Service certified return
receipt mail and a copy of this motion has been placed as exhibit with the NM
Court of Appeals EMERGENCY APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO STOP ILLEGAL
JURISDICITON AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT OF JUDGE ALISA
HADFIELD
Respectfully
submitted by: _______________________________
David
Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE July 8, 2013
Petitioner’s
attorney of record
Alain
Jackson
423
6th St. NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
505-620-6688
On
July 7, 2013 I attempted to hand
delivered a copy of this pleading to:
The
Second Judicial District Court
400,
Lomas NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
I
then sent a copy US Mail certified return receipt to the Second Judicial
District Court
[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