Barrie Derringer Petitioner v. David Derringer Respondent: bribery of justice

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

No. DM-12-610

Rel DV-12-234

BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,

Petitioner,

DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Respondent,

DOCKETING STATEMENT

COMES NOW the Respondent, representing himself Pro-Se and hereby submits his docketing statement in support of his August 6, 2013 appeal to the NM Court of Appeals of the deprivation of Constitutional 1^st , 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights and illegal “obstruction of justice” of destruction and concealment of pleadings meant to be filed and public corruption of Judge Hadfield ordering court clerks not to file any pleadings of singling out David Derringer in a “conspiracy against rights” and a “deprivation of rights under color or law” in violation of oath and sedition and treason against America without any jurisdiction to do so. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 No. 645 (1968) The initial Notice of Appeal August 6, 2013 was initially blocked for filing, necessitating the Respondent to file the Notice of Appeals copy with the NM Court of Appeals with “explanation” of the corruption of Judge Hadfield blocking appeal as had been done recently prior of an appeal of DV-12-234. Respondent has guine issues of facts of corruption in this entire matter, voiding DM-12-610 entirely. Goradia v. Hahn Co., 111 N.M. 779, 810 P.2d 798 (1991); Gardner- Zemke Co. v. State, 109 N.M. 729, 790, P.2d 1010 (1990). (“Plaintiff has genuine issues which are but not limited to:) However, after filing the Notice of Appeal with the NM Court of Appeals and also sending a copy of this Notice of Appeal for fling to the Second Judicial District Court by certified mail to insure compliance with the rules for appeal, the trial court finally actually then filed a copy of the Notice of Appeal and the Respondent then filed that copy also with the NM Court of Appeals. "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. Many “hoops” were required to be jumped through by David Derringer due to the persecution of the trial court that now is being done also by the NM Court of Appeals in order to stop exposure of the outrageous corrupt acts of the court trying to keep persecuting David Derringer by deprivation of Constitutional rights, blocking appeals and blocking lawful use of the US Court system of our government. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1. The NM Court of Appeals now attempts to block David Derringer appeals by violations of oath against “poor people” denying forma pauperis when David Derringer fully qualifies for forma pauperis due to being on public assistance from the State of New Mexico in Bernalillo County. This “obstruction” and violations of law and rules is meant to cover up and stop any further exposure of the public corruption of the court system by the Respondent wherein the most egregious acts of any justice is to destroy and conceal court records so as to taint the records of a US Court of law and protect justice in violation of all laws doing criminal acts against a litigant. 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).

The Respondent has placed legal public record court pleadings on the Internet by way of Google blogs to allow the entire world to see the corruption of the Petitioner and the courts that are supporting violations against all laws and Constitution, and the courts continue to attempt to cover up all of these outrageous acts by unlawful orders and violate their own case laws 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).

I Statement of the Nature of the Proceedings.

Time after time, the trial court of Judge Hadfield disregarded that the jurisdiction of this matter past was already in NM Court of Appeals No. 32,113 and then No. 32,587, and worked outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity both in violations of jurisdiction and Constitution, but also in violation of NM statues and appurtenant case laws. Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 1998). As Respondent David Derringer then continued to appeal the manifest errors of law, violent and criminal acts became worse from Judge Hadfield and then the NM Court of Appeals to stop David Derringer’s appeal in any matter necessary, including but not limited to illegal orders that David Derringer could not use the court without prior inspection of pleadings before filing, when the court had no jurisdiction until filing, and then blocking pleadings by unlawful orders to the court clerks not to file anything specifically singling out David Derringer for persecution and prejudice, and then since David Derringer circumvented such illegal acts by sending the pleadings to the court by certified mail, the courts then destroyed, concealed and caused order to prevent filings; all in sedition and treason to America and violent violations to oath and Constitution. “Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.”
― Maya Angelou. Battling the public corruption of the judiciary in New Mexico is an extreme and uphill battle, for the justices act in violation of all law, and the “checks” upon such criminal acts by NM Judicial Standards and the law enforcement and court administration simply allow criminal acts in the court without redress and entire protection; making all justices “above all laws”. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) 326; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928). There is some common knowledge that justices in NM don’t follow the law; this needs to be addressed by both Legislature and the FBI. http://thedailyrecord.com/2013/09/02/legislators-in-new-mexico-suing-to-stop-same-sex-marriages/

In this matter, while the NM Court of Appeals still had jurisdiction of the case without yet remand, Judge Hadfield disregarded jurisdiction and continued with a fraudulent Petition for Order to Show Cause to enforce a MSA that was both in appeal and not binding in any regard as not signed or agreed upon by both parties. W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60; Chavez v. County of Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 521 P.2d 1154 (1974); Since the statute of fraud applies to a MSA, all settlement agreements are contracts and therefore are subject to contract law, including the statute of frauds and the mandate for both party signatures which are lacking in the Derringer case. SEE Nicholson v, Barab, 233 Cal. App.3d 1671, 285 Cal. Rptr. 33441, 447 (1991). The Final Judgment of November 15, 2012 is void and not binding due to lack of signatures and in violation of all laws, and because there was never a summons served upon the original DV-12-234 entirely intertwined with DM-12-610 making it outside of jurisdiction and in fundamental error and mandated for DM-12-610 to be both dismissed with prejudice without any divorce granted for Barrie Derringer. 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.” ; 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.” Judge Hadfield simply will not quit keeping on with defective hearings, orders and persecution of the Respondent in both defective DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with appeals already taken despite that the entire matter has to be dismissed with prejudice and extreme restitution for David Derringer was never served any summons in DV-12-234. Trujillo v. Goodwin, 2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839; Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987) ; Clark v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P..2d 1075 (1979).

Jurisdictional issues here are paramount, that includes no jurisdiction of any justice doing criminal acts against a particular litigant. Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648; W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60. ^{^[1]}

The original Petition has been shown to be in perjury and fraud by Barrie Derringer and brought for improper purposes with also improper circumstances. The courts continue to persecute David Derringer for 1 ½ years taking all 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights, and each time give no authorities as to how they can act in such illegal oppression and tyranny. Simply put, Judge Hadfield, in serious Aabuse of discretion and violations of Oath and Canon, denied and blocked the legal appeals in obstruction of justice, without any due process, and without any decisions or legal support of the many issues and corruption underlying, that also included known and proven in court record criminal perjury and fraud by Petitioner Barrie Derringer.

Judge Hadfield rules in arrogant disregard for all Constitution and law, making orders well outside of jurisdiction in both time history and without jurisdiction due to appeals, and they totally disregard due process as well as violating NMRA 11-501(D). “Privileges recognized only as provided. Except as otherwise required by constitution, and except as provided in these rules or in other rules adopted by the supreme court, no person has a privilege to: D. prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.” Salazare v. St. Vincent Hospital, 96 NM 409, 631 P.2d 315 (Ct. App.) affimed in part reversed in part 95 NM 147, 619 P.2d 823 (1980). “No one has a privilege unless provided by the Constitution, the Rules of Evidence or the Supreme Court Rules to refuse to be a witness or to disclose any matter.” Judge Hadfield prevents David Derringer from producing “objects of writing” being normal and legal court pleadings of Motions for Reconsideration under NMRA Rule 1-060 and Motions for Recusal for Cause and Motions for Change of Venue; all legal pleadings that Judge Hadfield keeps from the court record by not allowing by her order to the clerks a legal filing of same to prevent them from the record; acts without jurisdiction as there is no jurisdiction to take any act regarding pleadings until filed properly of record with the court. In effect, Judge Hadfield “destroys” court documents, a criminal act of felony. Judge Hadfield cannot legally be stopped despite oral and written case laws and statutory and Constitutional laws presented to them time after time, and the NM Judicial Standards has been proven worthless in supporting law and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Petitioner and her attorney unethical Alain Jackson ask and receive a “bifurcated divorce” in illegal DM-12-610 based on fundamental errors of no service in related DV-12-234 and in a direct response to asking Judge Hadfield to stop all pleadings, court papers and legal responses from Respondent David Derringer; asking and receiving an order essentially to stop all due process and equal protection of David Derringer. Properly requesting by motion Judge Hadfield to recuse for cause or using legal redress supposedly available of Judicial Standard and Petition for Writ of Superintending Control with the New Mexico Supreme Court finds no relief to the public corruption involved here. Now, when David Derringer files two separate motions for “reconsideration” under NMRA Rule 1-060 and a motion to recuse for cause and a motion for change of venue for justice to be served; all with legal request to be heard in a different district with an unbiased justice, Judge Hadfield orders the court clerks not to file such pleadings, illegally confiscates all copies of David Derringer’s pleadings to either keep or destroy them but certainly to keep them from the court record so as to block movement of the case, block appeal, and block any court record; all criminal acts of obstruction of justice.

It is also presumed that the Second Judicial District Court and Judge Hadfield will also refuse to file this docketing statement to block this appeal and prevent the court record from reaching the NM Court of Appeals. David Derringer will attempt to hand deliver for filing this docketing statement on September 3, 2013, and if it is not accepted, will mail it to the Second Judicial District Court by certified mail return receipt and will file the proper copy with the NM Court of Appeals on September 3, 2013. If the Second Judicial District Court does not properly file this docketing statement and does not properly send the court record to the NM Court of Appeals, the public corruption will be further exposed. It is mandatory that the persons of public service of Judges involved in this matter of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, Judge Ted Baca, and Judge Whitehouse be investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice and Constitutional deprivations.

II Date of Judgements and Orders and Notice of Appeal

The final orders of Judge Hadfield and illegal order rejecting pleadings and considering the matter closed occurred on July 11, 2013. All illegal orders and actions of Judge Hadfield are contained in the exhibits/attachments of the Notice of Appeal of August 6, 2013. No proper judicial officer has stopped any of Judge Hadfield who continues to judicially terrorize the Respondent with further hearings, trials, and orders. With the entire judicial system failing to grant “justice” over matters, and forming Constitutional deprivations of US citizens without law, David Derringer started placing legal public records documents of court pleadings already filed on the Internet in Google blogs for the entire world to see the judicial corruption of New Mexico, and more particularly the Commissioner, Judge Hadfield, and the perjury and fraud of Petitioner Barrie Derringer. Latelly this includes the corruption of the NM Court of Appeals attempting also t cover up this matter by illegal denial of forma pauperis authorized in order to stop this appeal. This is a fundamental right under the 1^st Amendment of documents, opinions, and freedom of expression guaranteed to David Derringer under Constitution. However, since Judge Hadfield and others do not enjoy being exposed in public corruption, illegal Order issued by the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield in DV-12-234 was to attempt to stop public knowledge of their corruption. Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar formed an illegal Order of April 15, 2013 with Constitutional deprivations of 1^st Amendment rights for placing legal public court documents on the Internet by David Derringer exposing the public corruption of this entire matter, and without any legal “complaint” of a criminal nature against David Derringer.

In criminal intimidation sentencing” of 30 days in jail for “criminal harassment” was issued in an order from Judge Hadfield despite the matter being “civil”. The illegal confirmation of that Order by Judge Hadfield was on April 30, 2013 and then the illegal denial of the Motion for Reconsideration that properly noticed Judge Hadfield of Constitutional and higher court case law violations was on May 16, 2013 all held without any hearing for due process for the Respondent, and without any reasons for the Orders or denials not sustained in any case law or authority, but in a total disregard for authorities already in bias and prejudice without substance. This was done to cover up public corruption and to terrorize the Respondent.

III Statement of the Case

Case DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 are totally intertwined, making them inseparable in matters of “law” with both without foundation without proper service of summons, with extreme Constitutional deprivations and violations of all law in each, making both cases entirely jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error; mandating both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 to be dismissed with prejudice without granting any divorce for Barrie Derringer. DV-12-234 was brought by perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer, proven in court record, and yet without service of summons granted an Order of Protection held illegally against David Derringer for a period thus far of 1 ½ years, encompassing violations of all law and deprivations by illegal Order of 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights spilling over of the same actions in DM-12-610, as well as harassment, persecution, discrimination and other egregious acts of torts performed against David Derringer by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, attorney Alain Jackson and Barrie Derringer; acts that would shock the conscience of any equitable justice. 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.”; Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 1998).

Despite the NM Court of Appeals already having total jurisdiction over DM-12-610 as of appeal No. 32,587 of the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012, Judge Hadfield continued to harass the Respondent disregarding orders against Barrie Derringer to pay all debt pre-marriage and yet stealing the 2005 Chevy Silverado and all separate inheritance monies from the Respondent for Barrie Derringer in “judicial fraud”. 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 ; Judge Hadfield simply moved forward in judicial abuse simply ignoring the jurisdiction of the appellate courts and to move forward to do more and extensive additional damages to David Derringer, singled out as a “targeted individual” with the New Mexico Court system. This encompassed $8,541.00 of fraud to GEICO insurance of conspiracy of Judge Hadfield with Barrie Derringer and stealing all of David Derringer’s sole and separate inheritance funds. Without jurisdiction, the trial courts simply use public funds and tyranny to terrorize David Derringer by mis-use of perceived judicial power when this citizen is not in their jurisdiction to do so in any realm. Freeman on Judgements 709 at 1496-1497 (1925) This matter is so outrageous that David Derringer has been denied the very citizenship of the United States and taken illegally from him every right under the Constitution and US Code including, but no limited to the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th and 14^th Amendments; the latest is to steal truck transportation in an effort to make it impossible to litigate. In the judicial circles, no one will stop these acts, although it is well known at this time in both the NM Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme Court and Judicial Standards. The violations of Oath and Canon are simply “ignored”.

Due to placing legal court filed public documents of pleadings on the Internet under Google blogs, there was an instant attack again against David Derringer to muzzle him and prevent the world from knowledge of the extreme judicial public corruption in the State of New Mexico. This was accelerated by Judge Hadfield ordering the court clerks not to file any pleadings of David Derringer. All courts now attend to cover up this corruption by violations of Constitution 4^th, 5^th and 114^th Amendments and US Code Title 42 Section 1981 against David Derringer’s legal use of the court for “due process” and attempt to peruse and deny filing illegally based in “Rule 11” when the justice don’t even have jurisdiction over the pleadings until properly filed with the court. Flagg Bros., Inc V Brooks, (1978) 436 US 149, 56 L.Ed.2d 185, 98 S. Ct 1729, 23 UCCRS 1105; 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.

IV Statement of the Issues

Issue 1: Whether Judge Hadfield abused her discretion by continuing in the trial court while the case was in the jurisdiction of the NM Court of Appeals?

Preservation of Issue 1. New Mexico statutory laws, case laws of New Mexico and everywhere in the United States defeat DV-12-234 and totally intertwined DM-12-610 entirely as violations of due process, equal protection and violations of “jurisdiction” of both parties and subject matter.

List of authorities for Issue 1:

US Constitution 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 13^th, and 14^th Amendments

NM State Constitution

NM State criminal code Section 30

New Mexico Statutes:

NMSA 21-6-6

NMSA 30-16-6

NMSA 30-16-18

NMSA 30-18-1

NMSA 30-25-1

NMSA 30-28-1

NMSA 30-28-2

NMSA 40-3-8

NMSA 45-2-804

NMSA 57-2-6

NMSA 57-3-4

NMSA 57-3-6

NMSA 57-3-9

US Code Title 28 Section 455

United States Code Title 28 Section 1655

US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242

US Code Title 18 Section 1503

14^th Amendment Section 3

US Code Title 28 Section 455

Declaration of Independence

US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239

U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied

Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991)

Molina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121 rehearing denied 1F.3d 304 on remand 1993 WL 534, 163

Ennis v. Kmart Corp., 131 N.M. 32, 33 P.3d 32, 2001 -NMCA- 068, N.M.App., June 21, 2001 (NO. 20,977)

Wilson & Co. v. Banque Francaise du Mexique, 124 Misc. 690, 208 N.Y.S. 213, N.Y.Sup.,

Hamilton v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 56 Wis.2d 673, 203 N.W.2d 7, Wis., January 03, 1973 (NO. 249)

Robinson v. Sawyer, 23 N.M. 688, 170 P. 881, N.M., January 07, 1918 (NO. 2007)

US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1

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

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)

Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 929 N.E.2d 1044, 2010 -Ohio- 2218, Ohio, May 26, 2010 (NO. 2009-1282)

Civil Rights 13.4(2)

Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Department Of Indus. Relations, Cal.Rptr.3d, 2010 WL 969628, Cal.App. 5 Dist., March 18, 2010 (NO. F057574)

US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981)

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)

L.P. v. El Paso Production Co., 132 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083, 2002 -NMCA- 041, N.M.App., February 19, 2002 (NO. 22,130, 22,131, 22,132)

Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)

Castillo v. Northwest Transport Service, 113 N.M. 119, 823 P.2d 919, N.M.App., June 20, 1991 (NO. 12,911)

Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572 (1943)

Trujillo v. Goodwin, 2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839

Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987)

Clark v. LeBlanc, 92 NM 672, 593 P..2d 1075 (1979)

Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648

W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60

Chavez v. County of Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 521 P.2d 1154 (1974)

Wisdom v. Kopel, 95 N.M. 513, 623, P.2d 1027 (Ct. App. 1981)

Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 1998)

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

Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1990, 922 F.2d 60, on remand 771 F. Supp. 580

Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 NM 501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993).

US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986

Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 92 NM 412, 589 P.2d 196 (1979)

Chavez v. Village of Cimmaron, 65 NM 141, 333 P,2d 882 (1958)

State ex rel Bell v. Hansen Lumber Co., 86 NM 312, 523 P>2d 810 (1974)

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)

Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969)

Sangre de Cristo Development Corporation, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, No. 9441 Supreme Court of New Mexico 503 P.2d 323, 84 N.M. 343 November 24, 1972

Freeman on Judgements 709 at 1496-1497 (1925)

Reichelt v. US Army Corp of Engineers, 923 F. Supp. 1090

Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand

US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789

Allen v. McClellan, 77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967)

Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683

Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992

Salmeron v. Highland Sports Sales, Inc., 248 F. Supp.2d 1035, 1037 (DNM 2003)

U.S. v. Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848

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)

Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971)

Archuleta v. Lacuesta, 988 P.2d 883, 128 N.M. 13, 1999-NMCA-113 cert denied 990 P.2d 822, 128 N.M. 148 cert denied 120 S. Ct. 937, 528 US 1117, 145 L.Ed.2d 815

Matter of Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172.

U.S. v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590

US v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 cert denied107 Supreme Court 329, 479 US 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 “18USCA 1

Delgado v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App. 1978)

U.S. v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S. Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377

Whistleblowing Act of 1989

Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10^th Cir. 1997)

Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)

Bayer v. Bayer, 800 P.2d 216, 110 NM 782, cert denied 799 P.2d 1121, 110 NM 749

Bustos v. Bustos, 673 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556

Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990)

Douglas v. Douglas, 686 P.2d 260, 101 NM 570

Eaves v. US, 433 F.2d 1296

Farmers Gin Company et al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.

Federalist No. 47 by James Madison

Flores v. Flores, 506 P.2d 345, 84 NM 601, cert denied 506 P.2d 336, 84 NM 592

In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245

Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342, 121 NM 266, 1996

Lauderdale v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 555 Pl2d 700, 89 NM 579.

Lucas v. Lucas, 621 P.2d 1289, 100 NM 556

Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)

Martinez v. Block, 858 P.2d 429, 115 NM 762

Martinez v. Lucero, 1 NM 208, 1 Gild, 208

Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated

Matter of Morrow’s Estate, 570 P.2d 912, 91 NM 81

Matter of Shadden’s Estate, 599 P.2d 1071, 93 NM 274, cert denied 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172 cert denied

New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion No. 1998-NMSC-031 No. 18,296 consolidated with: No. 19,118 (Sept 8^th, 1998)

McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 921 F. Supp. 1473 ADSC 1996

Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

Owen v. City of Independence, United States Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779.

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 New Mexico Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981)

Portillo v. Shappie 636 P.2D 878, 97 NM 59

Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).

Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967

Shadden v. Shadden, 598 P.2d 215, 93 NM 172.

State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964)

State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940)

State v. Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 AN.M. 1929

Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230

United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)

United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744.

US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998

U.S. v. Bowman, 173 F.3d 595 ACA6 (Ohio) 1999

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

US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 ACA6 (Ky.) 1997

US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1

US v. Miller, 161 F.3d 977 cert denied Byrnes v. US 119 Supreme Court 1275, 143 L.Ed.2d 369 ACA6 (Mich.)

Issue 2: Whether judge Hadfield can violate Constitution, case laws and New Mexico statutes in rulings?

Preservation of Issue 2: The Constitution defeat any case that denies due process and equal protection and service of summons is fundamental to obtaining jurisdiction of parties and subject matter in fundamental error in DV-12-234 and thus in additional fundamental error of DM-12-610 based entirely upon DV-12-234.

List of authorities of Issue 2: