STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No. CV-12-1307
consolidated with CV-2012-10816
v.
DEBBIE HARMS, IRWIN HARMS, BARRIE
CROWE AKA
BARRIE
DERRINGER AKA BARRIE BEVERLEY,
ALAIN JACKSON,
GERALDINE (JERRY) CROWE, AND
WARREN
CROWE; ALL AS INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEBBIE
HARMS, IRWIN HARMS AND BARRIE
CROWE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NMRA 1-011; AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR THIS MOTION TO BE HEARD BY A DISINTERESTED JUDGE FROM A DIFFERENT DIVISION
AND VENUE; AND REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL
COMES NOW the Plaintiff
with his legal response as stated above.
RULE 11 STANDARDS NMRA 0-11 provides: The signature of (a)... party constitutes
a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or
other paper: that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief
there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay....
In the instant illegal Motion for Sanctions by the Defendants, that indeed
violate Rule 11 by the Defendants, the Plaintiff will prove that the actions
involve fraud to the court, and seeking to "expedite" the destruction
and dismissal of all two cases so that justice
cannot be served, the cases
cannot be heard before a different judge and cannot be heard in a different fair and equitable venue and
before Judge Malott is ordered to remove the venue and/or is taken off the
bench. In essence, the Defendants and their attorneys "in criminal
fraud" in themselves violation of Rule 11, race against the clock before
the David Derringer Judicial
Standards Complaint against Judge Malott of July, 2013 can be heard or any ruling come
down from the New Mexico Supreme Court of the "Petition for Writ of
Superintending Control" against Judge Malott filed on July 16, 2013. The
Attorney Floyd Wilson in violation of NMRA Rule 11, comes to this court with
his clients of Debbie Harms, Irwin Harms and Barrie Crowe, knowingly with
"unclean hands" [1]
wherein with this illegal and fraudulent Motion for Sanctions by Defendants as
the latest filings proving circumstantial evidence so severe as to prove
without much doubt the likely bribery and coercion or extreme motives well
outside of "judicial ability" of the Defendant's "own judge"
that there can be no doubt that all acts are taken to keep Plaintiff David
Derringer "imprisoned" in the court with the Defendant's Judge
Malott, unable to escape despite the NM law for recusal, Rules for recusal and
statutory law to change the venue for justice to be served; all denied and law
violated by Judge Malott for the
protection of the Defendants; with no "available justice in the system" able to withstand
the violent actions by this court to deny due process and equal protection
against the Plaintiff. United States
v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US
88 (1971) ; Federalist No. 78 by
Alexander Hamilton ; Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 457 US
731, 763 (1981). Simply put, all Defendants are "terrified"
that this matter might be moved to a court of equity without "their
judge" as mandated under NMSA 38-3-3. [2] Before
all judicial remedies and law enforcement remedies can be perfected by the
Plaintiff, the Defendants seek the abuse of process to defeat the law suits in
the short remaining interim by coercing Judge Malott to issue
"sanctions" to dismiss the cases, which with a proper
"Motion" for reconsideration that complies with all laws, Rules of
Civil Procedure and facts sustained in such motion by the Plaintiff, the
"abuse" of the Defendants to Motion the court for sanctions is proven
invalid and seeks only to deny due process to gain issuance by "their own
judge" to somehow stop the cases entirely; a motion by the Defendants
itself meant to abuse the system, delay procedures or instantly stop the cases
before law enforcement and higher courts move the venue or remove "their
judge". In abuse of process a perversion of court processes is used to
accomplish some end which the process was never intended to accomplish, or
which compels the party against whom it has been used to do some collateral
thing which he could not do legally and regularly be compelled to do, or to
keep the party against whom it has been used to stop doing some collateral
thing in which he has rights to do. Geier v. Jordan
DC Mun. App. 107 A.2d 440.
1. On July 9, 2013 the Plaintiff filed a
proper Motion under NMRA Rule 1-060 for reconsideration of the proven
violations of law NMSA 38-3-3 by Judge Malottt so as to reinforce the court
record of the blatant violations against NM statutes and the proven existence
of a conspiracy to imprison the Plaintiff in the corruption of this particular
court for protection of all Defendants. Jones
ET UX v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ET AL, certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 645. The Defendants have "lied"
to the court that the Plaintiff's "Motion"
is without merit either as a matter of fact or law. US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119
Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 “CA6 (Mich.). This perjury is exemplified
with the law itself, for Judge Malott was mandated to provide a hearing for the
initial "Motion for Change of Venue" or immediately grant the change
of venue. 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. Judge Malott specifically both denied the change
of venue and denied the mandated hearing by Order. State v. Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 “N.M.
1929 Statutes, though imperfect in form, should be upheld and sustained by the
courts, if they can be construed as to give sensible effect and to render them
of binding force.” Only after a motion for reconsideration of the violations of
NM statutory laws already performed, did Judge Malott then institute a hearing
scheduled for September, 2013 to attempt to cover up the already performed
violations of state law against David Derringer. Clearly, the "facts"
are supported by court record in this matter for the Plaintiff, and the
"law" is supported entirely, making the "Motion for
Sanctions" of the Defendants blatant "fraud", and their own
Motion for sanctions should be extremely issued against themselves and there
are no legal sanctions available against David Derringer for a pleading that is
entirely supported by fact, law and the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff's motion is entirely supported
by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that mandated performance and
duties denied by Judge Malottt;
actions in violation of Oath and all
other mandates preferenced to sitting in
a position of power as "justice". Sanctions are to be mandated
accessed against every attorney and every Defendant in this matter for $18,000.00
for Plaintiff David Derringer and mandated law enforcement actions instituted
against all members of the "conspiracy" against David Derringer. Rivera v.Brazos Lodge Corp.,
111 N.M. 670, (1991). ; Tyus v. Martinez,
106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US
1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230. Defendants come to this court in
"fraud" with their motion for sanctions which is shows with no
sustaining facts and no "good faith" in pleading, forcing this court
to "sanction the Defendants". McKay v. Farmers & Stockmans Bank,
92 NM 181, 585 P.2d325 (Ct. App.) Cert denied 92 N.M. 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978)
“Good faith is usually a question of fact.” There clearly has been no violation
of Rule 11 by the Plaintiff at any time, but the uncover of
"distasteful" public corruption is called "vile and
vexatious" by the Judge and the Defendants. Undeniably, if both have a
distaste for exposure of their acts in violation of laws, both the judge and
the attorneys and the Defendants should have obeyed all laws of the United
States and those of New
Mexico.
2. In the Plaintiff's Motion, circumstantial evidence
is so strong with Constitutional, statutory and case law violations that entail
all rulings against the law and for the protection of the Defendants that no
other belief could be sustained that Judge Malott has been bribed and bought
out by the Defendants, and such conspiracy and knowledge is well in the hands
of all Defendants and all attorneys involved with all Defendants. Hedrick v. Perry, 102
F.2d 802 “Evidence is sufficient to establish a conspiracy to cheat and defraud
if the facts and circumstances pieced together and considered as a whole
convince the judicial mind that the parties united in an understanding way to
accomplish the fraudulent scheme.” There is clearly not only
"implication" but clear and convincing evidence both of court record
judicial abuse of discretion, violations of all laws and defiance to NOT allow this matter to go to a venue where
"justice can be served" that no other rational explanation
could be perceived by any individual except that there is "fraud in the
court" with both attorneys and the judge involved. State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d
435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) “substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.” The
"facts" and the court record and the ongoing deprivation of due
process, equal protection and "refusal" to recuse for cause and
"refusal" to change the venue upon legal motion are extreme evidence
that all intentions are for the Defendants to use "their judge" to
win this case and never have to face David Derringer in a trial on the merits,
wherein the Plaintiff has an iron-clad case against all Defendants. Discovery
has been violated and covered up by the Judge, the other 10 parties in the assault
and battery have been protected by the
court to preclude prosecution and identity discovery by the Plaintiff and all
instances point directly to "public corruption". The Defendants are
terrified with fear of the upcoming hearings in September, 2013 of the
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse for Cause and Change of Venue against Judge
Malott, wherein Judge Malott already has violated the NM Statute of 38-3-9 and
NMSA 38-3-3 to deny a change of venue, proven actually in court record
documents, and already denied a hearing by recorded Order, and then "after
the fact" of statutory violation comes
through with a hearing on the Motion for Change of Venue in September,
2013, obviously attempting to cover up the already proven statutory violation,
which does not remove the liability of same in "fraud to the court",
and denied all case laws and Constitution, and wherein Plaintiff David
Derringer has both legal documents and plenty of circumstantial evidence to present at such hearings, with also his
own testimony under oath. Cruz v. U.S.
106 F.2d 828. "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 Malott to stop the corruption, he ignores both statute and
Canon and the Rules of Civil Procedure to continue, and now coming to Judge
Malott's aid are the Defendants and their attorneys seeking to "dismiss
the cases under sanctions" so as to
stop any further disclosure of corruption. 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.”; 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.”
3. The Plaintiff's "Motion" is not
unhinged from "reality" but based in provable "facts" and
"law" that indeed are "vicious" as should be any discovery
of "public corruption" and sedition against our beloved United States
of America, designed by Defendants, attorneys and justices that are persons
meant to destroy the very foundation of justice in the United States of
America. 14th Amendment Section 3“US Constitution 14th
Amendment Section 3-No person shall be an...elector..or hold any office, under
the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath,... as a judicial
officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof.” 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.”; State ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough,
75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966) “Requiring petitioner to stand trial before
biased or prejudiced judge does not conform to adequate remedy.” The
Plaintiff has already established the existence of a "conspiracy
against rights" and "deprivation of rights under color of law"
including "obstruction of justice" and the Defendants further impale
Judge Malott into this with their pleadings in desperation; fully solidifying
the conspiracy existence and members involved. Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802; U.S. v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428 “Once conspiracy is
established, only slight evidence is required to connect co-conspirator, and
acts attributable to any member of conspiracy are attributable to all members.”
Judge Malott "swore to God" to uphold all law, and every single
action by Judge Malott in both of these cases defy all law, violate
Constitution, violate state statutory law, and are intended to keep David
Derringer imprisoned before him; all for the protection of Maestas and Ward
multimillion dollar corporation and all intertwined. Purpura v. Purpura, 847 P.2d 314, 115 N.M.80 cert
denied 847 P.2d 313, 115 N.M. 79 “N.M. Ct. of Appeals 1993 “If judge becomes so
embroiled in controversy that he or she is unable to make fair and objective
decision, judge must recuse himself or herself. SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986,
Canons 21-300 Subd. A(3) 21-400"; In
re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194. Since all "judicial duties,
mandates, Oath, Canon, and Code of Judicial Conduct, and in fact both federal
and state criminal statutes are against the actions of Judge Malott, there is
proven circumstantially that some "non-judicial source" is
blatantly exposed as to why Judge Malott constantly seeks to rule for the
Defendants outside of all laws. U.S. v. Austin,
614 F. Supp. 1208. All the Defendants do now is suck Judge Malott into this
deeper and deeper, asking to defeat the entire matter by "sanctions"
against a Plaintiff that has a iron-clad case against all Defendants. US
v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 US 941
130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied Defendants involved, while also protecting the
other 10 criminals involved without mandated identification. All the Defendants
really do with this illegal Motion for Sanctions in the attack on the Plaintiff
for sanctions is to confirm and sustain all of the corruption and conspiracy
claimed by the Plaintiff, by Defendants
knowing that actions have been taken in judicial standards, the New Mexico
Supreme Court and requests for involvement of law enforcement to stem and stop
the actions illegally in violent detriment to all laws by Judge Malott
including violation of NM statutory laws against David Derringer, and the
Defendants seek frantically to use "their judge" before any legal
redress of change of venue and other remedy can be had legally by the
Plaintiff. Bendorf v. Wolkswagenwerd
Aktiengeselischaft, 88 N.M. 355, 540P.2d 835 (Ct. App.1977); Anderson
v. Martin, (1964) 375 US
399, 11 L.Ed.2d 430, 84 S Ct 454.
4. Plaintiff
David Derringer came to the court in "good faith", with provable
"law" by quoting both NMSA 38-3-3
and multiple case laws in support and with the availability of the Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 1-060 in support of said motion in provable
"fraud". Absolutely, the Plaintiff David Derringer signed this
pleading, supported entirely that discloses provable "public
corruption" that is neither "scandalous or indecent" but
"facts" and sustainable evidence in court record as to "public
corruption" not of which is prohibited by NMRA Rule 1-011 but in fact
"mandated" to provide to the court under both NMRA Rule 1-090 and
Rule 11-504 in "writing". The "disciplinary actions"
contemplated by Rule 11 apply directly to the illegal pleading for sanctions by
the Defendants, the "fraud" conducted by the Defendants' attorneys
under NMRA Rule 16-401(A)(B) and 16-403 and 16-804, and the constant violations
of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Code or Professional Conduct. This
court is mandated to take action against the Defendants and against their
attorneys under Canon 3(D)(2). As Judge Malott entertains this Defendant's Motion
for Sanctions, seeking sanctions to dismiss the entire actions, the Judge
condemns himself to further proof of his conspiracy involvement without denying
the Defendants or changing the venue for "justice to be served", and without
any severe sanctioning the Defendants themselves and their attorneys for this
violation of Rule 11, Judge Malott will cement himself in the circumstances
just further proving the conspiracy "ongoing". Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard
587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297. Conspiracy is an ongoing crime, and as this
situation gets more exposed, the hysterical acts by the Defendants and the
Judge become more accentuating in the motives and involvement of the
deprivation of due process against the Plaintiff with additional laws being
broken. State v. Clark 3 P.3d 689, 129 N.M. 194 2000-NMCA-052 cert
denied 4 P.3d 35, 129 N.M. 207. The
court record can prove that the "Defendants" never sought to stop the
change of venue by any statements that
"justice would not be served", in their original response to the
original motion, and did not contradict the proof of the Plaintiff's
circumstantial evidence so convincing that a "bribery" or other
motives had occurred to cause this judge
to violate his Oath so severely in violation of all laws against the Plaintiff.
Adamson v. C.I.R. CA9 1984,
745 F.2d 541. Now, in only the latest "Motion for Reconsideration" by
the Plaintiff do the Defendants recklessly respond by an unlawful "Motion
for Sanctions" to seek some immediate action as this entire matter is
already exposed implicating all Defendants, all of the Defendants' attorneys
and the Judge in this conspiracy. This matter screams out for law
enforcement intervention. This action seeking instant further deprivation
of due process, penalization for the Plaintiff "telling the truth"
under NMRA Rule 1-090, just exemplifies and emphasizes the Defendants
conspiracy connection with Judge Malott. Simply put, the Motion for Sanctions
is rendered to cover up the proven violations of state law under NMSA 38-3-3
where Judge Malott refused to grant a change of venue mandated without hearing
held and refusal to grant a hearing until "after the fact of statutory
violation". Defendants think they can "bully" the Plaintiff to
back down and not further show the abuse of process of then seeking
"sanctions" to attempt to dismiss the entire intertwined and
consolidated cases. In point of fact, this just implicates and reinforces the
Plaintiff's former statements and filings with the Judicial Standards and New
Mexico Supreme Court as to the "public
corruption" that the Plaintiff is fighting, with further and
extreme "fraud" upon the court system of our government, and further
goading and request that Judge Malott continue to conspire with the Defendants
until the case is dismissed or Judge Malott removed from the bench. In
re Williamson, 43 BR 813. What has happened here is that
"public corruption" has been exposed, and while the Defendants still
have "their" judge, they are desperately scrambling to use
"their" judge to render all of the cases dismissed against all
Defendants, to include, but not limited to the criminal underlying acts of
"assault and battery" and conversion. U.S. v. Brenson, 104 F.3d
1267, rehearing denied 113 F.3d 1253, cert. denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139
L.Ed.2d 148. In effect, by this instant illegal "Motion for
Sanctions" is an irrational response of the Defendants and their instant
seeking "sanctions" of violations of Rule 11 for dismissal of the entire matter, in which they
are doing additional "assault and battery" this time instead of the physical actions taken on
February 4, 2012 to hurt and violate David Derringer, they are mis-using
corruption and the power of money of Maestas and Ward to assault and batter the
Plaintiff with illegal filings in violation themselves of Rule 11, and trying
desperately to use "their judge" that clearly will rule for them no
matter what the circumstances to alleviate these law suits by the unscrupulous
seeking of further violations of Oath and Constitution to gain dismissal of all
claims so they do not have to face the Plaintiff and his witnesses and
documents in an open court trial on the merits of the cases involved. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F.
Supp.2d 1. This "fraud" and use of a
judge well outside of the justice's jurisdiction and judicial capacity
comes desperately before any ruling can be made on the "judicial standards
complaint" or any ruling on the Petition for Writ of Superintending
Control filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court in a hope that Judge Malott will continue to
mis-use his position to end the lawsuit before some action is taken by the
high court or law enforcement to remove
the "Defendant's judge" from the bench or change the venue for
justice to be served as mandated under NMSA 38-3-3. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991).
5. Sanctions
are only appropriate here against all Defendants and against all of the
attorneys of the Defendants. Rivera
v. Brazos Lodge Corp. 111 N.M. at 959.(goals of Rule 11 are
deterrence and punishment of offenders and compensation of their opponents for
expenditure of time and resources responding to ill-founded pleading and other
papers). “The primary purpose of Rule
1-011 NMRA 2000 is to deter baseless filings in the district court by testing
the conduct of counsel”. Rivera v.
Brazos Lodge Corp. 111
N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991). “An objective of Rule 1-011 is to
promote good faith and honesty in pleading.” Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp. 111 N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991).
“A violation depends on what the attorney or litigant knew and believed at the
relevant time, and involves the question of whether the litigant or attorney
was aware that a particular pleading should not have been brought.” Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp. 111 N.M. 670, 674, 808 P.2d 955, 959 (1991).
Clearly, the law suits are valid, the Plaintiff's pleadings are valid and with
facts and law and there is no legal opportunity for the Defendants to cover up
their corruption with attaining any dismissal by way of sanctions under
"Rule 11" without absolute proof of the conspiracy and remand upon
appeal. The corruption of this court and the Defendants is hereby set in
stone for the desperate attempts by the Defendants and their attorneys proving
without any shadow of doubt that their
greatest fear is for this case to be heard by a disinterested and fair
judiciary in a different venue for justice to be served. The "terror"
in the Defendants and their attorneys has "unbalanced" them wherein
they make legal mistake after mistake in clear frantic desperation to stop this
litigation that the entire world is now aware of.
WHEREFORE, with case law support of Lowe v. Bloom, 112 NM 203, 813
P.2d 480 (1991), the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to NMRA Rule 1-011 in conceived in violations
of law, instituted in criminal fraud, meant to stop the judicial process, and
to expedite the destruction of a legal law suit by the Plaintiff before justice
can be served, and to mis-use a judge clearly in bribery and coercion to affect
an illegal dismissal of a valid suit under facts and law so as to corrupt the
court record and never have to face Plaintiff David Derringer in a
"fair" court of law. For these provable reasons, the Motion for
Sanctions of the Defendants must be denied and sanctions of the amount of
$18,000.00 be accessed against each and every Defendant, and each and every
representing attorney for Defendants. New York State National Org. for Women v. Terry,
732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990. The cases of CV-12-1307 and CV-10816 Consolidated
cannot be dismissed, but mandated to be
moved to a venue for justice to be served, beyond the control of Judge Malott
and the bribery and political influences of all Defendants, and specifically
beyond the scope of influence by the multi-million dollar international NAI
Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation that owns, leases and
controls almost every square inch of the real estate in the city of
Albuquerque, New Mexico and all that that implies.
Respectfully submitted by
___________________________________________
Plaintiff David Derringer Box 7431 Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194 no phone
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE August 1, 2013
I hereby certify that I hand
delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
I further certify that I sent a
copy of this pleading to:
Defendant Jackson
at:
423 6th
St. NW. Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
Attorney Floyd Wilson for Debbie
and Irwin Harms and Barrie Crowe
Defendants at:
Floyd Wilson
12480 Hwy. 14 North. Ste.
105
Cedar Crest,
NM 87008
and:
Attorney for Geraldine and Warren Crowe:
Alicia
Santos of O’Brien & Padilla P.C.
6000
Indian School Road NE Suite 200
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87110
[1] Romero
v. Sanchez, 83 N.M. 358,492 P.2d 140 (1971)
[2] N. M. S. A. 1978, § 38-3-3
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment