STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff, consolidated
No.
CV-12-1307 and No. CV-12-10816
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
TIMELY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL UNDER NMRA RULE 1-059 AND
1-060(B)(1)(3)94)(6) VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS, OF THE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBSEQUENT TO HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER NMRA RULE 1-011 WHEREIN
SUCH "ALLEGED HEARING" NEVER TOOK PLACE; REQUEST FOR ORDER DIRECTIVE
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE BRIBERY OF JUDGE ALAN MALOTT BY
DEFENDANTS NAI MAESTAS AND WARD AND BARRIE DERRINGER; AND REQUEST FOR THIS
MOTION TO BE HEARD BY AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE
OTHER THAN JUDGE ALAN MALOTT
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, representing
himself Pro-Se with his motion as stated above. The Plaintiff preserves all
issues herein for further appeal as well as issues of abuse of power, and abuse
of discretion. 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.”; State v. Suskiewich, September 12, 2013 (NO. 34,187) “motions to reconsider should
be encouraged in order to further judicial economy. ‘Motions to reconsider’ are
a traditional and virtually unquestioned practice and serve judicial economy by
permitting lower courts to correct possible errors and thus avoid
time-consuming and potentially unnecessary appeals.” This Court, and future
appeals and law enforcement should take
judicial notice of the Certificate of Service herein that this pleading
is attached to a letter [Exhibit A] to various law enforcement
agencies, Senators, Governor Martinez, as well as the news media and posted on
the Internet as a public document under the 1st Amendment. Somehow, some agency
must stop the judicial corruption of New Mexico, or at the least God help us all for the
public democratic process might work to immediately vote Judge Malott
permanently out of office at the next election. This "hearing" stated
in the Order of September 20, 2013 concerning order to show cause and for
sanctions "never took place". In point of fact as the court
record shows on September 17, 2013 Defendants asked for sanction matters to be
heard and Judge Malott specifically stated he would reserve that issue for
another separate hearing which never took place, proving again that Judge
Malott lies to corrupt the court record as "fraud to the courts".
This "non-hearing" Order was done to stop any further due process and
to stop the Plaintiff from his day in
court to expose that the Defendants and Judge Malott work in
"collusion" to attempt to "sanction" the Plaintiff by
dismissal of all of his cases by illegal claims that the Plaintiff could not
file a "Motion for Change of Venue" with quoting both statutory law
NMSA 38-3-3 and attending case laws, which was deemed "frivolous" and
"vexatious" by Judge Malott because he illegally denied the Change of
Venue and denied a hearing on same that is mandated under statutory law, so as
to keep all Defendant's cases before him due to the bribery of NAI Maestas and
Ward and Barrie Derringer to defeat all valid tort claims of the Plaintiff and
to keep the 10 other persons involved in the assault and battery and
conversion/larceny from being prosecuted. In the process also, Judge Malott does
"reckless endangerment" to the public welfare, as one tort of the
suits was fraudulent negligence, wherein Barrie Derringer infected David
Derringer with a permanent incurable venereal disease of HSV-2
"HERPES" virus, of which she will also transmit to every person that
she has intimate contact. Judge Malott disregards the public welfare. The
"numbered" exhibits referred to herein are from the hearing of September
17, 2013.
The
hearing on this matter of “motion for recusal for cause”, was held on September 17, 2013, and the intertwined Motion for
Change of Venue was simply ignored and disregarded, after Judge Malott’s
already violating the NMSA 38-3-9 mandated peremptory excusal legally exercised
by the Plaintiff upon “reassignment” on May 30, 2013, and Judge Malott’s
violation of NMSA 38-3-3 to change the venue upon Plaintiff’s motion filed,
with Judge Malott denying the Plaintiff legal presentation of his own testimony
under oath, denial of presentation of case laws and authorities substantiation
mandatory recusal for cause, and refused to allow the Plaintiff legal argument,
explanation of exhibits, or closing
statements; in short the Plaintiff was denied “due process and equal
protection” of law. US v. Guest, US
Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US
745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239. All of these actions by Judge Malott were done due to the
bribery of the Defendants NAI Maestas and Ward and Barrie Derringer as the
court record shows that all decisions by Judge Malott in both CV-112-1307 and
CV-12-10816 were against Oath, Canon,
and the Code of Judicial Conduct and against all “LAW”. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, .3d, 2013 WL 4478229, 2013 -NMSC- 040,
N.M., August 22, 2013 (NO. 33,687) 92
Constitutional Law 92XX Separation of Powers 92XX(C) Judicial Powers and
Functions 92XX(C)2 Encroachment on Legislature 92k 2499. Beal v Reidy, 80 N.M.
444. 457 P.2d 376 (1969). At no time did
Plaintiff David Derringer do any "sanction able acts" under the
meaning of NMRA Rule 1-011 wherein exercising statutory rights to change the venue
under NMSA 38-3-3 is not a "sanction able act".
In
this matter Plaintiff's allegations are made under NNRA Rule 1-090, and the
court record itself sustains that each and every decision and Order from this
judge was meant to block and obstruct justice, protect and insulate from
prosecution the Defendants and to stop due process and equal protection against
the Plaintiff. SCRA 1986, 1-088.1(D. There is more than a “reasonable
questions” to partiality here, but definite proof by violations of all laws. US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d
820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996. There
has been no sanction able acts by the Plaintiff asking under law NMSA 38-3-3
for a change in venue, and the Defendants are in gross legal error to make
claim. Judge Malott has been bought by
the Defendants under the meaning “bribery”
to rule against the laws as necessary to protect the Defendants until
all claims against them are won or the cases against them “dismissed” by Judge
Malott, which has been the tactic of unlawfulness taken by Judge Malott on
September 20, 2013. Clark v. Clark, P.3d, 2013 WL 4499346, N.M.App., August
12, 2013 (NO.
31,547). There were no violations of pleadings also in the lawful
peremptory excusal filed on May 30,
2013 by the Plaintiff with availability to get rid of Judge Malott
due to reassignment of CV-12-10816. The entire
hearing of September 17, 2013 was pre-determined. Unknown apparently to
the attorneys Alain Jackson, Floyd Wilson, and Alicia Santos, just after the
hearing of September 17, 2013 as they were standing outside of the courtroom,
they were recorded as laughing at the Plaintiff David Derringer and stating
that; "he's (meaning Plaintiff David Derringer) appealing
that one too"; "Judges are sick of him"; "he
is going from one Judge to the next but he is not going to win";
indicating, since Judge Malott would not make a decision of the hearing until
September 20, 2013, that they knew their “bribery” was successful, and they had
already won “dismissal” of all claims and that David Derringer would have to
further appeal. before the hearing Judge
Malott decided that he will not recuse, Judge Malott will not allow this matter
to be heard by a fair and impartial judge, Judge Malott will not change the
venue for justice to be served, and Judge Malott will retaliate and maliciously
dismiss both of these consolidated cases under the fraud of issuing “sanctions”
against the Plaintiff. Judge Malott was bribed to prevent prosecution of all Defendants
and their attorneys to ensure that David Derringer cannot prosecute any of them
for the assault and battery, conversion and other torts, and Judge Malott has
done everything to block the Plaintiff from finding and prosecuting the other
10 persons involved in this matter by refusing to make order for identity of
the 10 person, blocking the Plaintiff under NMRA Rule 1-019, and blocking the
Plaintiff's discovery process. Las
Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d
444, 92 NM 297. 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.”
Judge Malott has not been just
corrupt in these cases with the Plaintiff, but nation-wide news now is in
turmoil over the illegal decisions by Judge Malott making changes in out laws
single handedly over issues of gay marriages. It is not the issue of the
marriage that is called to the attention here, but the fact that Judge Malott
defies the laws mandated by him to uphold, and instead makes rulings based
entirely on his own opinions or whomever paid him off in some form of bribe to
rule in their behalf. State v.
Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 “N.M. 1929. ; State ex rel. Rodriquez v. American
Lefion Post No. 99, 106 N.M. 784, 788, 750 P.2d 1110, 1114 (Ct.
App. ). cert denied, 106 N.M. 588, 746 P.2d 1120 (1987) and 107 N.M. 16,
751 P.2d 700 (1988). What we
have here is a man that took a government position as judge to then mis-use
that power and position for personal gain, exploitation of the position to
change the laws as he sees fit, and to be above the law and unaccountable under
existing laws to protect not only himself, but to use the position to protect
others that he chooses. State
ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 90 N.M. 568 P.2d 790, 794, 1236, 1240
(1977). (quoting also) Sims v. Sims, 17, 21, 122 N.M.
618, 930 P.2d 153 (1996-NMSC-078). Judge
Malott makes decisions willfully against the current law, and then expects
these manifest errors in law to be upheld with his own hand. “The Law of the Case should not be used to
accomplish an obvious injustice, or applied where a previous decision clearly,
palpably or manifestly was erroneous or unjust.” “Where there is manifest
injustice to one party, with an erroneous decision, it should be disregarded
and set aside.” New Mexico
Supreme Court Opinion No. 1998-NMSC-031 No. 18,296 consolidated with: No.
19,118 (Sept 8th, 1998).; “law
of the case won’t be used to uphold a clearly erroneous decision”. Advance
Opinions, New Mexico
Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October
29, 1998.
Obviously,
no-one other than the parties to the conspiracy were present in an exchange of
money, statements for favors, or political pressure or whatever means the
agreements were to entirely rule for the Defendants in this matter in some sort
of bribery that makes this case happen the way it is, and the Plaintiff
certainly was not present and does not have photographs or recordings of same.
But the proof is in the circumstantial evidence that all points to the same
end, and has been shown to be emphatic and not inadvertent error or
mis-judgment of the law; the law mandated to be known by Judge Malott anyway. Morris v. Dodge Country Inc. 513 P.2d 1273, 85 N.M. 491 Cert. Denied 513
P.2d 1265, 85 N.M. 483 “N.M. App. 1973. The
key to understanding this entire matter rests with the “voluntary involvement”
of Judge Malott. 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. The proof of
the circumstantial evidence that shows the bias, prejudice and bribery that is
occurring here, one must go to the foundation of being a justice in the United States. On March 2, 2009 Judge Alan Malott swore an oath of office:
“I,
Alan Malott, having been appointed to the office of District Court Judge
Division 15 in the County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, do solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and
laws of the State of New Mexico and faithfully and impartially discharge the
duties of said office to the best of my ability, so help me God.”
That was [Exhibit 1] Oath of
office of Judge Malott. This entails making of a solid commitment and defines
“impartiality”, that goes far beyond the needs of the moment the whim of
personal attitude or the desires of another, and itself prevents “bias”, but is
designed to commit without reservation to the underlying consistent pattern of
moral and social values. Society reposed a trust in Judge Malott when he made
this oath, and he has betrayed that trust.
Hannah Arendt- “The
remedy...for the chaotic uncertainty of the future is contained in the faculty
to keep and maintain promises.” In re Williamson, 43 BR
813. This mandates that Judge Malott is
to give equal protection and justice to the rich and to the poor and to uphold
the law as written and not change of interpret the laws for his own opinion or
others that pay him off to do so. The
Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon give mandates to Judge Malott to enforce the
law as written, and to render decisions also according to case laws established
before his rulings. Canon 3 (B)(2). In this matter every time Judge
Malott has made rulings, they are contrary to all law, Statutory,
Constitutional and case law. This is
proven in the court records as “willful” and not inadvertent errors in law as
exposed with the Plaintiff's [Exhibit
2] The docket itself explains by its own existence the “conspiracy” to
rule for the Defendants each time and to prevent the Plaintiff from ever being
able to prosecute the other 10 persons involved in the criminal assault and
battery and conversion against the Plaintiff. Telman v. US 67 F.2d 716 cert denied 54 Supreme Court 860,
292 U.S. 650,
78 L.Ed 1500. At the outset of this
matter, Motion by the Plaintiff was filed under NMRA Rule 1-019 to achieve “all
parties necessary before the court”. Judge Malott denied this motion with
explanation that such finding of the other 10 parties to prosecute for the
assault and battery and conversion would have to be attained by “discovery”. each
time the Plaintiff detailed the discovery to accomplish the goal of
identification of the other 10 persons, and requested Order for same, the
Plaintiff was willfully blocked by Judge Malott. Sanctions requested by the
Plaintiff upon a motion to compel were fully ignored by Judge Malott with his
bribery protection of the Defendants. Discovery enables a Plaintiff to attain
information from the Defendants by sources known to them, even if they do not
have the information, and since Barrie Derringer was their own employee, they
could have easily and legally were mandated to attain the identity of the other
10 persons and Barrie Derringer also herself violated discovery. The “control”
issue here mandated Defendants in CV-12-1307 to give up the identity of the
other 10 persons, and discovery in CV-12-10816 was to be forced compliance by
Barrie Derringer herself, all defied by Judge Malott rendering a mockery of
discovery and justice against the due process of the Plaintiff. Judge Malott
diverted from a finder of facts to an advocate for the Defendants, and
protected them not to have to divulge the information identity of the 10
persons so as to block the Plaintiff from due process and prosecution. This is
not only abuse of discretion but "obstruction of justice”, just as the denial
of Judge Malott of the Motion for a TRO on 2-7-2012. The denial of the Motion to gain identities
under NMRA Rule 1-019, and to block the Plaintiff from the proper discovery of
same proves bribery. Judge Malott emphatically does not want the Plaintiff to
be able to prosecute the other 10 persons involved. In CV-12-1307 the Plaintiff
was forced to amend his complaint to drop and insulate the Corporation of NAI
Maestas and Ward and owner Steve Maestas well outside of law, deliberately
preventing “due process and equal protection” of torts that are prosecute able
but not allowed by the corruption of Judge Malott by personal views and
protection of the Defendants.
In the hearing of 5-1-2012 and later
Order of 8-20-2012, Judge Malott defies all New Mexico case laws defeating
claims of torts of loss of consortium, alienation of affection, emotional
injury, and interference with a legal marriage, in violations against all laws
over such torts; Judge Malott claiming by his own hand that such torts do not
exist in New Mexico, when they emphatically do according to the New Mexico
Supreme Court. [Exhibit 3] Judge
Malott violated discovery against David Derringer of accessories to the assault
and battery and conversion on February
4, 2012 and blocked any ability to obtain medical records needed
for trial on the HSV venereal disease transmitted by Barrie Derringer. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic
Co. 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231 (1980) appeal dismissed 451 US
901, 101 Supreme Court 1966, 68 L.Ed 2d 289 (1981). Judge Malott defeated all attempts by the
Plaintiff to achieve discovery, and then made rude and vicious comments in
orders and open court about the Plaintiff showing prejudice and persecution of
the Plaintiff.
The beginning of this matter was
only Case CV-12-1307 where the Plaintiff had sued the corporation of NAI
Maestas and Ward and all bosses, and the ten other persons that were involved
in the assault and battery and conversion. This case involved the cult control
and interference with the Derringer marriage by Bosses of Barrie Derringer of
Steve Maestas, Debbie Harms and Irwin Harms, and the New
Mexico torts of loss of consortium, alienation of
affection, interference with a legal marriage, and the attending emotional
injury. Judge Malott ruled against all case laws, making a decision not based
in law that those torts do not exist in New Mexico
in that particular case. This decision was contrary to case law Judge Malott
had to support, but could at the outset be seen as “ignorance of the law” by
Judge Malott or “inadvertent” legal error. Presented time after time, the case
laws were "known" by Judge Malott emphasize that these claims of
torts by the Plaintiff “are” torts in New Mexico,
and proves that Judge Malott violated his Oath and Canon to defy these laws. The
“willfulness” of Judge Malott was not simply ignorant, but Judge Malott realized
that he made legal error and instead, Judge Malott maligns the Plaintiff in
open court time after time, in what is now perceived as both intimidation and
obstruction of justice to lay the blame on the Plaintiff with the statements setting
the stage to falsely claim the Plaintiff is "vexatious". “You just
don’t like my rulings”. Clearly, it is not a matter of like or dislike or any
perceived sour grapes attitude; it is about Judge Malott not ruling with the
law of the land, which he does not. On November 26, 2012 the Plaintiff files
another law suit against separate parties that are also involved in the loss of
consortium, alienation of affection, interference with a legal marriage, and
the attending emotional injury and other
torts not included in CV-12-1307, knows as CV-12-10816; and it was assigned to
Judge Brickhouse, with no power or control at that time by Judge Malott,
although Judge Malott was aware of this law suit in the Second Judicial
District Court. [Exhibit 4] After
the initiation of CV-12-10816, with yet other torts committed by Barrie
Derringer that were separate and distinct, the Plaintiff sought to file another
suit against only Barrie Derringer.
COMPLAINT
FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, ABUSE OF PROCESS, DEPRIVATION OF 1ST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, FRAUD, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MENTAL ANGUISH, PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
AND PRIMA FACIE TORT. [Exhibit
5]
U.S. Federal law
enabled David Derringer to file the suit whether or not at any later time it
might be consolidated with either CV-12-1307 or CV-12-10816.
United States Code Title 42 Section
1981(a)-Equal rights under the
law (a)”Statement of equal rights- All persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make
and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and
property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and
to no other.”
On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filled out the proper
petition for filing without fees in forma pauperis and included proof of public
assistance mandating Judge Malott to approve filing. Seen as a new suit to his
Defendants in the bribery, Judge Malott blocked and denied David Derringer's
legal access to the US Courts on December
21, 2013. [Exhibit 6] United States Code Title 28 Section 453 "..
I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the
poor and the rich.." [Exhibit 7]
Judge Malott violated the Constitution Amendments 4th, 5th and 14th and violations
of federal law Title 42 Section 1981(a). US
v. Guest,
US Ga.
1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239. ; 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. Judge Malott’s actions in defeating this new suit is
directly traceable to obstruction of justice and denial of any more litigation
against the Defendants, under a bribery motive and such defeated the Supremacy
Clause of the United States Constitution Article VI. Stoneking v. Bank of
America,
132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. ; Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d
372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff
David Derringer of CV-12-10816 was able to “amend suit CV-12-10816 before any
Defendants answered or filed any dispositive motion so as to incorporate torts
of the illegally defeated suit by Judge Malott, and at that time the new torts
in the amended Complaint of CV-12-10816 were under the jurisdiction of Judge
Brickhouse. Judge Malott continued to block discovery of Defendants needed as
parties of the other 10 Defendants in the assault and battery and conversion of
February 4, 2012. Hickman v. Taylor,
(1947) 329 US
495, 91 L.Ed 451, 67 S. Ct. 385, 34 Ohio
Ops 395.
In the case of CV-12-10816 the
Defendants willfully attempted to peremptory excuse Judge Brickhouse illegally
after they had already sought her actions under motion. Plaintiff David
Derringer immediately sought relief by Motion to Strike filed only with Judge
Brickhouse on April 22, 2013.
On April 22, 2013 David
Derringer filed a Request for Hearing with Judge Brickhouse, shown in the Case
Docket of CV-12-10816 on April 22,
2013, with the specific matters to be heard of:
PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT, MOTION TO DENY UNTIMELY
PEREMPTORY RECUSAL OF JUDGE UNDER MIS-USE OF RULE 1-088.1(B0, AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS. [Exhibit 8]
This document and
the court record of the court docket entry of April 22, 2013, proves that at no time did Plaintiff David
Derringer ever seek any motions or request any hearings of CV-12-10816 from
Judge Malott. There was already a hearing scheduled before Judge Brickhouse on
April 24, 2013, as indicated on the court docket of CV-12-10816. [Exhibit 9]. At no time did the
court ever advise the Plaintiff David Derringer that in legal error, the clerks
had assigned the case CV-12-10816 on April
12, 2013 to Judge Malott,
and the proper venue of the Plaintiff’s Motions were to be heard by Judge
Brickhouse. The Plaintiff appeared for the hearing before Judge Brickhouse at 1:00PM as scheduled on April 24, 2013 only then to be notified that the
hearing had been cancelled with Judge Malott being newly assigned in legal error
by the clerks to the Case CV-12-1307. By his own hand “sua sponte”, Judge
Malott wanted the control and power to protect all Defendants, so Judge Malott sua
sponte Ordered a “Case Management and Notice of Hearing” Order and notice of
hearing that was stamped e-filed on April 20, 2013 and Dated on the back page
of April 26, 2013. Judge Malott used the consolidation of the two cases with
Rule 1-042 with the hearing to come before the court on May 30, 2013 at 9:00AM
in room 710, and Judge Malott had decided
to hear the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Peremptory Challenge of the Defendants
at that time even though the Plaintiff had requested this hearing properly with
Judge Brickhouse. Judge Malott used the Case CV-12-1307 having jurisdictional
precedent by time over CV-12-10816. This Order is not contained in the court
docket of CV-12-1307 as required in legal and clerical error. [Exhibit 10]. This idea was to take entire control and power
over any suits involving any of the Defendants by only Judge Malott. However,
hearing was held on the Motion to strike the Defendant’s peremptory excusal in
CV-12-10816 on May 30, 2013, in which it was ruled by Judge Malott in open
court that indeed the Defendants’ peremptory excusal of Judge Brickhouse was in
legal error. As a matter of law, at that instant, the Case CV-12-10816 was
still proven to be in the jurisdiction of Judge Brickhouse. Therefore as a
matter of New Mexico Statutory law NMSA 38-3-9 the Plaintiff was legally
enabled to excuse Judge Malott from CV-12-10816 where in the same open court of
May 30, 2013 Judge Malott ruled that he would consolidate the cases of
CV-12-1307 with CV-12-10816, making the cases “reassigned” only to Judge
Malott, enabling the state law to peremptory excuse Judge Malott in both cases
due to “reassignment”. NMRA 1-088.1C(2) and NMSA 38-3-9. Plaintiff David
Derringer legally and properly filed his peremptory excusal of Judge Malott on May 30, 2013. [Exhibit 11] Judge Malott then lies to the court record in
"fraud" that David Derringer sought relief from him by motion filed
on April 22, 2013 in
CV-12-10816 so as to defeat the peremptory excusal and violated rights under
NMSA 38-3-9, when the motion was filed with "Judge Brickhouse". [Exhibit 12] Judge Malott lies to
the court record in "fraud" “Given
Plaintiff’s prosecution of his own Motion to Strike directed to Defendant
Crowe’s peremptory challenge, good cause exists to find Plaintiff’s May 30,
2013 filing was without good grounds, was not in good faith and is vexatious”.
In the same order, Judge Malott slanders the Plaintiff and sets the stage to
illegally claim that Plaintiff David Derringer is "vexatious" to
later claim to dismiss all cases in "sanctions". “Plaintiff has vociferously, voluminously, and repeatedly requested
discretionary relief from both these consolidated matters including, most
ironically, his Motion to Strike Defendants’ Crowe’s Notice of Peremptory
Challenge filed in CV-12-10816 which motion was granted after the hearing.”
Judge Malott lies in criminal perjury and fraud to the court record to
alleviate his mandate to step down from both cases under New Mexico state law
in NMSA 38-3-9 so as to maintain control and power over protection of the
Defendants in performance of the bribery that is obvious in regards to the illegal
actions taken in behalf of all Defendants. The Plaintiff made no motion under
Judge Malott in CV-12-10816 which entirely and legally allowed the statutory
right of peremptory excusal of Judge Malott upon “reassignment” of CV-12-10816
within the time frame of 10 days. The exercise of Plaintiff David Derringer’s
statutory rights for peremptory excusal of Judge Malott under NMSA 38-3-9 was
done the very day of May 30, 2013
that the case CV-12-10816 was reassigned legally and consolidated with
CV-12-1307. In the Order of May 31,
2013, Judge Malott willfully does “fraud” to the court record to
ensure that he remains on the cases involving all Defendants, when by law he
was legally removed by the Plaintiff peremtory excusal under NMSA 38-3-9 by
rights of law. Jemez Properties, Inc.
v. Lucero, 94 N.M. at 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d at 160 n. 1. ; Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire
Co., 322 U.S.
at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001. Judge Malott is making a mockery of the judicial
system with criminal acts done by a justice due to his power and position. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S.,
at 184. ; Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S.
643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961); Olmstead v. United States,
277 U.S. 438,
485 (1928). Judge Malott’s actions against law to promote destruction of the
judicial process is the very meaning of corruption. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1. Plaintiff David Derringer has been singled out
for persecution, prejudice and his legal use of the US Courts have been blocked
by Judge Malott for the bribery performance required of him by the Defendants,
of which the circumstantial evidence is overpowering, and of which Judge Malott
knows exactly what he is doing, as does also the Plaintiff. Civil
Rights 13.4(2). Judge Malott then blocks any furtherance of discovery
in CV-12-10816, emphatically blocking the discovery identity of the other 10
persons involved as Defendants of the criminal assault and battery and
conversion of February 4, 2013.
Plaintiff David Derringer has also filed
his motion for reinstatement of the original torts of CV-12-1307 that by laws
of peremptory excusal of Judge Malott were to be properly held before another
justice, requested due to violations of laws by Judge Malott, and to make it
abundantly clear that Judge Malott defied the laws not by ignorance or
inadvertency, but maliciously, the Motion was denied on 5-13-2013. This clearly
established that Judge Malott will defy the law at all cost for the Defendants
under circumstances of "bribery". 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. It became clear that the only way to get rid of
the corruption of Judge Malott was to motion the court under NMSA 38-3-3 for
the legal ability of a change of venue to finally strip Judge Malott of the
power and control to protect the Defendants by their bribery of this judge, so
justice could be served by a different judge in a different venue. Plaintiff
David Derringer properly and legally filed his Motion for Change of Venue on 6-17-2013. This Motion for a Change
of Venue was legally filed under NMSA 38-3-3 and mandated to be approved by
Judge Malott, or immediate hearing held. On July 2, 2013, Judge Malott violated New Mexico State Statutory
law NMSA 38-3-3 by denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue and
Ordered also a denial of any hearing for this mandatory Motion. Weightman v. The Corporation of Washington,
1 Black 39, 50-52 (1862). This undeniably confirmed that Judge Malott had been
bribed by the Defendants, and that under no set of circumstances would Judge
Malott give up the power and control over the Plaintiff’s cases CV-12-1307 and
CV-12-10816 so as to protect all Defendants in
performance of his duties under the bribery contract and defeat the
Plaintiff’s legal causes of action no matter what the law and statutory
mandates. On 6-17-2013
Plaintiff David Derringer had motioned Judge Malott to recuse for cause due to
proven case law, NM Statutory law and Constitutional deprivations and
violations against the Plaintiff as well as filed NM Judicial Standards
Complaints against Judge Malott which denied Judge Malott the right to hear the
Motion to Recuse for Cause himself. The Motion by the Plaintiff also requested
that the Motion be heard by a disinterested Judge in a different venue. Instead
of honoring law and duties for the recusal motion to be heard by a different
judge, Judge Malott scheduled the hearing to be heard by himself, the same
corrupt judge of the complaint on September
17, 2013 and denied mandated recusal for cause. The Defendants
acted in accomplice and conspiracy with the corruption of Judge Malott, with
their bribed justice, and filed a Motion for sanctions under NMRA Rule 1-011
for fraudulent claims that the Plaintiff had filed a pleading not allowed to
Motion for a Change of Venue under the New Mexico Statutory laws of right under
NMSA 38-3-3. This illegal motion of Defendants of 7-16-2013 is clearly to use the bribed Judge Malott to
sanction the Plaintiff illegally to simply dismiss all claims and both cases of
CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 where there are no violations of Rule 11 by the
Plaintiff exercising New Mexico Statutory rights for a change of venue under
NMSA 438-3-3. On September 20, 2013 without any hearing, although fraudulently
claiming in the order that hearing was held, Judge Malott consummated his
bribery and dismissed both Plaintiff's cases with prejudice. A bribed judge,
working outside of the law, does not constitute "jurisdiction" as
legally erroneous in Order #1. Plaintiff David Derringer has made sustained
allegations of fraud, bribery, and public corruption sustained in the
"pattern of conduct" and court record including criminal matters of
"conspiracy against rights", "deprivation of rights under color
of law", and "obstruction of justice" that have been performed
by Judge Malott under Order #2 that are
"provable". Judge Malott
brings up other court litigation that either David Derringer is currently or
past involvement, of which Judge Malott knows no facts, was not the fact finder
of such litigation and simply attempt to use prior or current court litigation
against the Plaintiff, when not able to look to other cases to decide this one.
Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct or Disability,
39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97 “Judge in adversarial judicial proceeding...who
reaches outside of record to decide case defiles process.” What is really happening here in Order #3 is Judge Malott defaming and slandering the
Plaintiff, and attempted use of criminal
“intimidation” simply because the Plaintiff has had to use the court system
prior and thus is not a “newbe” in recognition of judges acting against the
laws in “public corruption”, wherein all of the cases quoted in Order #3 have no bearing on the instant case and
cannot also be used illegally to stop due process and dump the Plaintiff simply
because he was lawfully exercised his rights under US Code Title 42 Section
1981(a) “to sue and to be parties to suits”. What is really happening here is vicious
acts by Judge Malott to punish and persecute the Plaintiff for past and present
legal use of the United States Court System of our government in “cruel and
unusual punishment” in violations of the 13th Amendment. Jones
ET UX v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ET AL, certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 645. Judge Malott simply
sets the stage to claim "vexatious" litigation when none has
occurred, but telling the truth under NMRA Rule 1-090 that has exposed the
public corruption and fraud of Judge Malott totally contrary to claims in Order #4. In Order #5, Judge Malott
attempts to mis use Derringer v. Baxter CV-0706606, so the comparison must be
dissected and inspected. In Derringer
v. Baxter CV-0706606, the cause of action was torts of the NM Livestock
Board Inspector Buddy Eby acting in criminal conversion/larceny with F.E.
Baxter to steal $47,000.00 of David Derringer's legal pack llamas and pack
goats; all of which were also pets and breeding livestock, and of which David
Derringer was the only and sole owner of such livestock with an
"agistor" agreement of temporary pasturage with SW LLama Rescue until
David Derringer could find another pasture for his livestock; all attended by a
written and verbal contract wherein F.E Baxter would never "own" the
Derringer registered animals used for his professional outfitting. Judge Clay
Campbell was advised of the criminal grand larceny and immediately covered up
the acts by the Livestock Board commonly known as "livestock rustling";
wherein in the 1800's and 1900's people were shot or lynched for such larceny
of livestock in New Mexico. After
immediately dismissing the Defendant NM Livestock Board, Defendant F.E. Baxter
and her fraudulent attorneys attempted to present evidence that vet bills were
owed by David Derringer to claim an illegal lien upon the livestock they had
already "rustled" and sold without ownership contrary to all laws
under NMSA Section 77. Many documents were "fraudulent", but the most
revealing was a vet bill for some llama that was a "spayed female",
when both two Derringer breeding females were "intact". This fraud
was placed before Judge Clay Campbell
with allegations of "fraud to the courts" as criminal acts occurring
in the courtroom of which Judge Campbell had full knowledge. Instead of taking
mandatory action to stem the corruption and criminal acts proven of the
Defendants (Tyus v. Martinez,
106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230)
Judge Campbell forced the Plaintiff Derringer to stand before the court and
attempted to intimidate and punish David Derringer for disclosing the truth of
corruption of which the court knowingly was an "accessory" and
"facilitator", and Ordered David Derringer to "apologize"
to the Defendants, their attorneys and the court for allegations of
"fraud" that had already been proven. When David Derringer stood his
ground with proper evidence of the "fraud", Judge Campbell retaliated
by "sanctions" of dismissal of the case, allowing criminal larceny of
$47,000.00 of David Derringer's livestock by the State of New Mexico and F.E.
Baxter. To cover up the criminal acts by the NM State Livestock Board and the
Judge Campbell, the NM Court of Appeals "confirmed" the public
corruption, even allowing Judge Campbell to access "sanctions" of
attorney fees against David Derringer for the Defendants' attorneys, which were
"pro-bono" with no fees charged.
In Order #5, the means and
corruption are entirely similar with CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816, wherein
criminal torts were performed against David Derringer by NAI Maestas and Ward
bosses Steve Maestas, Debbie and Irwin Harms, and their employee Barrie
Derringer with 10 other protected and undisclosed persons doing criminal
assault and battery and conversion/larceny of $55,000.00 of David Derringer's
personal property, as well as ruining the Derringer marriage with a cult
control of wife, and Barrie Derringer herself doing negligent fraud to infect
David Derringer with a permanent venereal disease of HSV "Herpes"-2 genital.
The same scenario occurred here as in "Baxter" wherein Judge Malott
entered into a bribery agreement with Defendants to protect them against all
prosecution, and has blocked due
process, equal protection and discovery and dismissed valid tort claims
and some Defendants, and set up the scenario to claim that David Derringer is a
"vexatious" litigant so as to later on September 20, 2013 dismiss all
claims with prejudice claiming "sanctions" illegally against
Derringer so as to consummate the bribery contract with the Defendants,
allowing all to escape without prosecution of violent acts of assault and
battery, larceny, venereal disease infection that will affect the public in
general and anyone in intimate contact with Barrie Derringer, and other related
torts of destruction of a "marriage" by "forced" coercion.
Judge Malott is right; the fraud, bribery and public corruption of CV-07-6606
and CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 are entirely similar. In Order #6,
Plaintiff David Derringer was to stand before Judge Malott and present evidence
of bribery and corruption which occurred
with sustained documents of 1-12, and Judge Malott prevented David Derringer's
testimony under Oath, discussion and case laws and authorities to confirm
allegations and exhibits, and prevented due process of legal argument or
closing statements so as not to allow the court record to show the proven
substance that Judge Malott has been bribed and uses all means to stop the
litigation and protect the Defendants, including lying to the court record. US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6
(Ky.) 1997. The Order #7 skews the court record as the
"only thing" occurring on September
17, 2013 was the Motion to Recuse for Cause, with Judge Malott ignoring the violations of
change of venue, and prevented much of David Derringer's "evidence"
and prevented David Derringer as his own "witness". In Order #8,
David Derringer did get to enter into evidence "exhibits 1-12" which
by themselves show the violations of all laws, deprivation of Constitutional
and statutory rights, violations of statutes by Judge Malott deliberately to
circumstantially prove the bribery of the Defendants and then "dismissal
of the cases" further proves the bribery intent. The evidence presented
does prove "criminal conduct" of bribery, perjury under Oath of
office, and criminal federal acts of "conspiracy against rights",
"deprivation of rights under color of law", "obstruction of
justice" deprivation of Constitutional rights including due process and
equal protection and "bribery". In Order #9,
David Derringer did much more than "dissatisfaction of prior rulings"
but presented evidence that Judge Malott had deliberately violated all prior
case laws, violated NMSA 38-3-3 and NMSA 38-3-9 meant to stay on the cases
tenaciously so as to defeat the Plaintiff's cause of action to insulate and
protect the Defendants "against all law and Oath". Defendant's
counsel, Defendants and Judge Malott are all intertwined in this
"conspiracy against rights". In Order #10, the Plaintiff proved
beyond any shadow of doubt that the "law" was broken by Judge Malott,
and the allegations were not "personal" as the Plaintiff does not
know the man Alan Malott, but does see him perform in public corruption having
taken an Oath and then violated all laws for the benefit of the Defendants due
to bribery. Only "conjecture" which was not offered in the hearing of
September 17, 2013 would
lead one to believe Judge Malott of low moral fiber due to his criminal perjury
under oath and defiance of the very laws he swore to God to protect, acts
against the 14th Amendment 3. The court intentionally set up the stage to make
false claims of "vexatious" litigation by the Plaintiff in Order #11, and attempts to mis-use that since
David Derringer has previously used the courts in matters of "self
defense" of filing suits against those that wrong him in torts, that David
Derringer should be punished and persecuted for exercising his "rights to
sue" under US. Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and inflicted with "cruel
and unusual punishment" under the meaning of the 13th Amendment. Since
David Derringer has "exposed" the fraud and public corruption of the
NM court system and Judge Malott in particular, David Derringer should not be
able to use the court system so that the public corruption cannot be widely
known to the US
public. Judge Malott is simply a "dictator" mis using his power to
stop due process and equal protection of any that find out his fraud, with was
never the intent of Congress to allow any judge to stop use of the United States
Court system of our government, the entire definition of "due
process". Order #12 falsely intends to malign and
slander the Plaintiff when all one has to do is look at the docket to see the
falsification of the record and perjury and fraud by Judge Malott himself and
repeated violations of all law, and the allowed defiance of discovery by
Defendants to see the "pattern" of circumstantial evidence that all
points to bribery of Judge Malott by NAI Maestas and Ward and Barrie Derringer
meant to excuse extreme torts and make them and their 10 accomplices immune
from any prosecution. In short, the bribery made both Judge Malott, the Defense
attorneys and Defendants "above all law" by mis use of power of a
public official in the capacity to do so, and used criminal
"extortion" to do these acts. Nixon
v. Fitzgerald, 457 US
731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not
tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics
of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.”.
In Order #13 there is no cause, let alone "good
cause" to muzzle the Plaintiff and defeat due process to allow the
criminals of Defendants to get away with all torts and to stop legal use of the
courts by the aggrieved party of David Derringer, just due to the corruption of
a justice. Judge Malott simply believes that he can use Rule 11 in Order #14 to deprive Constitutional rights and equal
protection of the law for his bribery commitments that are very provable. There
is nothing "severe" about the Derringer cases brought properly before
a court of law for torts of extreme nature, but the corruption exposed by doing
so "offends" Judge Malott as he is totally intertwined with such
corruption. 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 “Even a sensible and efficient use of supervisory power by federal court is
invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.”; Owen v. City of Independence,
US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “A municipality has no immunity
from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may
not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.” Pp.
635-658.; Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 US 232, 241
(1974) “the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws for
the protection of the public.”; Dennis
v. Sparks, 101 S. Ct. 183, 449 US 24, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 “US Tex.
1980 State Judge may be found criminally liable for violation of civil rights
even though judge may be immune from damages under Civil Rights statute Title
18 U.S.C. 242, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983" Judge Malott has acted
without "jurisdiction" due to criminal acts and Constitutional
violations, and "sanctions" and dismissal of the Derringer cases is
in manifest errors of law. Phelps v. Hamilton,
122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is
clearly present.”
Clearly, the last human being on
this earth that should entertain this motion for any fairness or objectivity is
Judge Alan Malott, who will instantly deny this motion in rage, retaliation,
and revenge to persecute and punish the Plaintiff for exercising his due
process rights and "telling the truth" under NMRA Rule 1-090. Judge
Malott will deny this motion and further defy recusal, whether it is done sua
sponte or by hearing due to his bribery and public corruption. Undeniably, this
motion is mandated to be heard by an impartial judge in a different venue.
It is mandated
for the law enforcement to investigate this matter for the integrity of the
judicial system as the NM Judicial Standards fails and refuses to act as
already aware of this corruption and takes no action other than to protect all
justices no matter what atrocities they perpetrate against the public and
against Legislated law.
The Legislature of the State of New Mexico, The United
States Congress and the judicial system have given the Plaintiff several avenues to get rid of Judge Malott
presiding in oppression, corruption and tyranny over my cases in this court;
Rules of Civil Procedure NMRA Rule 1-088.1, Federal law Title 28, Section 453,
and 455, New Mexico law NMSA 38-3-3, and NMSA 38-3-9, New Mexico Judicial
Standards, the New Mexico Supreme Court Petition for Superintending Control,
and the Plaintiff has properly exercised all of these Rules, statutes and
agencies, and Judge Malott still will not allow me to get a fair and impartial
justice in a different venue and imprisons me still in this court room for the
benefit of defendant the Defendants and preventing proper prosecution of my
cases in tyrannical bribery to defeat all law where "justice can never be served".
REQUEST
FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff request that
Judge Malott recuse himself for cause under NMRA Rule 1-088.1 and change the
venue of these cases both being
reinstated for prosecution under the parameters of the original complaints in
CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 with full discovery available de novo as due process
and equal protection of the US Congress intended from the judiciary. The
Plaintiff requests the immediate recusal of Judge Malott and these matters
immediately be removed to a different venue for prosecution.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE September
30, 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 hereby further certify that I delivered a copy of this
pleading to:
Defendant Jackson
at:
423 6th
St. NW. Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
Attorney Floyd Wilson for Barrie
Crowe Defendant at:
Floyd Wilson
12480 Hwy. 14 North. Ste.
105
Cedar Crest,
NM 87008
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
I
further certify that I sent a copy of this pleading to the following agencies:
INTERNAL AFFAIRS/white
collar crime:
FBI Headquarters
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000
Public
Integrity Section
Criminal
Division
Department of Justice
10th
& Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington,
DC 20530
Governor Susanna Martinez
State Capitol
Room 400
Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87501
New Mexico Secretary of State
325 Don Gaspar Ave #300
Santa Fe, NM
87501
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
New Mexico Attorney General
408
Galisteo Street
Villagra Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Villagra Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501
US Congressman Steve Pierce
2432 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, DC
20515
KOAT-TV
State News
3801 Carlisle Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, N.M., 87107
3801 Carlisle Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, N.M., 87107
No comments:
Post a Comment