motion to stop obstruction of justice

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 32,326

Second Judicial District Court No. DM-12-0610

Rel. DV-12-234

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,                                                              

            Appellee/Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

            Appellant/Respondent,

EMERGENCY APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO STOP ILLEGAL JURISDICITON AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT OF JUDGE ALISA HADFIELD

COMES NOW the Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his Motion as stated above.

The Appellant has already filed a motion to compel filings with a trial district court as a matter of law and has already quoted numerous case laws that mandate filings be accepted by the court clerks, as well as that no judge has jurisdiction of any  issues until such legal proper filing becomes of court record. The Appellant has already noticed this court that Judge Hadfield is corrupt and has violated all law and is proven of very severe circumstantial evidence of violations of Constitution and all law, refusal to recuse for cause, refusal to change the venue upon motion filed, destruction and deprivation of filing of public court record documents by proper use  of a court of law, and serious other illegal and criminal acts. Six different pleadings of the Respondent were attempted to be filed on June 25, 2013 that involved a properly notarized affidavit, two motions for reconsideration timely filed, and a motion to recuse for cause to be heard in a different venue, and a motion for change of venue to be also heard in a different venue by a disinterested judge; all of which Judge Hadfield denied filing of court record, either destroyed all copies of the Respondent’s filings or other, but took illegal jurisdiction that was not possible to rule against all and without the pleadings being of court record for her perusal, and violated NMSA 38-3-3 and refuses to change the venue upon proper motion, upon affidavit, and without a hearing as mandated for any denial of change of venue. Clearly, with extreme circumstantial evidence, Judge Hadfield has been bribed by NAI Maestas and Ward and employee accountant Petitioner Barrie Derringer to keep this case under any set of circumstances and to rule in favor of Petitioner Barrie Derringer despite the Constitution and law and to deny any due process or equal protection  against the rights of Respondent David Derringer. That now includes denial of legal court filings of pleadings or other court papers so as to taint the court record before appeal and to exercise  a dictatorship to use and abuse power to see, read and defy filing of pleadings so as to corrupt and destroy court records to defeat justice. Now, in the interim also, Judge Hadfield had also denied and refused to file the Appellant’s “docketing statement” in order to block appeals; true ‘criminal obstruction of justice’ that must be investigated by the FBI and Department of Justice. 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).

Now, without any jurisdiction over the persons or the subject matter, since the jurisdiction of all is in this court of appeals, and without filing of the court pleadings, Judge Hadfield files an Order “rejecting pleadings for filing” [Exhibit 1]without any ability under law, and then rules against state statutes of venue change mandatory (NMSA 33-3-3) and refuses to allow these motions to be heard by a disinterested justice of another venue, so as to keep David Derringer “imprisoned” in the courts of Judge Hadfield without release mandated under law so as to “perform” her duties of bribery intended by the Petitioner and her employer NAI Maestas and Ward multi-million dollar corporation.  Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981).

This court of jurisdiction must take judicial “superintending control” of this situation and under Canon 3(D)(1) has to inform  law enforcement and other judicial standards authorities of criminal obstruction of justice, ruling against Constitution, ruling well outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity. This court has jurisdiction to exercise its power of superintending control to “...prevent irreparable mischief...” State ex rel. Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 706, 410 p.2d 732 (1966). This court has an undeniable duty to somehow enable David Derringer to gain a new venue, when in fact the underlying DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 were without service of summons and in jurisdictional defect and in fundamental error that mandate this court to dismiss both actions as a matter of law without any divorce being granted to Barrie Derringer and extreme restitution for David Derringer deprivation of 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th sand 14^th Amendment rights for ongoing a period of 1 1//2 years. The acts of Judge Hadfield are outrageous acts of sedition and treason to the American justice system, and in no way compliant with Constitution, Canon or the Code of Judicial Conduct.  “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”, and then make an order regarding such “non-filed” pleadings; all without any jurisdiction since these matters are on appeal. Robinson v. Sawyer, 23 N.M. 688, 170 P. 881, N.M., January 07, 1918 (NO. 2007) Papers only become a part of the record by being filed in the office of the clerk of the district court.” In effect, by Judge Hadfield keeping the clerk from filing the pleadings of David Derringer, she willfully corrupts and disturbs the court record in acts of obstruction of justice, effectively “destroying” a document that should be filed in an instant manner. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1 “Statute defining “corruptly”, as “acting with an improper purpose, personally influencing another, including making a false, misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” Judge Hadfield also refused to file the legal Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Rejecting Pleadings for Filing and Entering Pleadings in Record as Exhibits; a legal pleading by the Respondent over an illegal Order by the judge without jurisdiction but clearly to taint and corrupt the court record and to cover up the egregious acts of “public corruption”. A judge that prohibits filing so as to establish a court record knows what they are doing to sabotage the integrity of the judicial system. Silva v. Town of Springer, 912, P.2d 304, 121 N.M. 428 1996 NMCA O22 cert denied 911 P.2D 883, 121 N.M. 375 cert denied 913 P.2d 251, 121 N.M. 444 N.M. App. 1996 “Public official have qualified immunity from suit under 1983 as long as (1) at time of alleged conduct there was not clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was claimed to have been violated, and (2) a reasonable person would not have known that his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.” David Derringer has been singled out for persecution and intimidation. State v. Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied 112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991) “To satisfy a case for violations of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “Defendant was singled out for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.” This entails singling out David Derringer for persecution and for unequal protection in violations of law that enable any citizen to file a complaint or court pleadings with the court clerk in any court of law in the United States under the provisions of US Code Title 42 Section 1981 and the 4^th, 5^th and 14^th Amendments. Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 929 N.E.2d 1044, 2010 -Ohio- 2218, Ohio, May 26, 2010 (NO. 2009-1282) “Until a  pleading is filed in a case, the trial court has not obtained jurisdiction over it.” What is happening here is Judge Hadfield controlling the court record just as she does the testimony of witnesses that are pro-se, asking them only her questions that she wants in the court record and denying the pro-se party to have opportunity to be heard to testify  over all issues on his own behalf. Civil Rights 13.4(2) “is accountable via 1983 action..in a position of responsibility, knew or should have known of misconduct and yet failed to prevent future harm.”

            Judge Hadfield has now shown that she will not give up this case, will not comply with any Constitution, will not allow the venue to be changed for justice to be served and continues cases in jurisdictional and fundamental errors of no service of summons to rule for the Petitioner due to extreme circumstantial evidence that Judge Hadfield has been bought in bribes of money or political pressure and now has to “perform” these indiscretions and knows she cannot do so by proper recusal for cause or in a change of venue. Controlling the court record before filing is obstruction of justice. US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997 Acts that distort evidence to be presented or otherwise impeded administration of justice are violations of statute prohibiting obstruction of justice, and act of altering or fabricating documents used or to be used in judicial proceeding would fall within statute if intent is to deceive court.” 18 USCA 1503.” In doing acts of forceful “approval before filing” the Second Judicial District Court impedes due process and uses extortion and vexatious methods to manipulate and tailor each case to meet their own requirements, expectations, and desired results. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.” Absolutely controlling court papers before filing and controlling what can or cannot be filed or dictating the content of the litigant’s filing in substantive matters of facts, opinions or legal conclusions entails tampering with court documents and evidence, a criminal act by a justice of “fraud”. Jemez Properties Inc. v . Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 608 P.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1979) cert denied 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980) “Tampering with evidence constitutes exceptional circumstances. Tampering with evidence in the case and with public records in the clerk’s office went beyond the common fraud contemplated in paragraph B(3) of this rule, and constituted exceptional circumstances to allow a reopening of judgment more than a year after its entry, under paragraph B(6) of this rule [Rule 1-060] San Juan 1990-A.

            Judge Hadfield has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain these cases of DV-12-234 or DM-12-610 any moment longer. NMSA 38-3-3. 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.”

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

1.      Order both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 dismissed with prejudice due to non service of summons in jurisdictional defect and fundamental error with no divorce granted for Barrie Derringer, with extreme showing also of bias, prejudice, Constitution deprivations and lack of any due process and equal protection in both cases that are totally  inexplicably intertwined and cannot be separated.

2.      Order instant recusal of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield from all cases of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 due to violations of Constitution, violations of statutory and case laws and bias and prejudice with violations of Canon and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

3.      Act responsibly under the Canon 3(D)(1) and Order Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield removed from the bench.

4.      Order a change of venue of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to another venue with a judge that is independent and not influenced by NAI Maestas and Ward employer or the Petitioner accountant of this multi-million dollar corporation pursuant to NMSA 33-3-3.

5.      Order restitution for David Derringer in extreme amounts of deprivation of 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights, and a directive to law enforcement to not only  investigate the public corruption of the underlying justices but their connection to the proven insurance fraud  of GEICO  by the Orders and actions of the Petitioner and her attorney Alain Jackson and the trial courts themselves with knowledge.

6.      Any other and further relief as indicated for justice to be served.

Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________

David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE            July 8, 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, 6^th, NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102