IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NM Supreme Court No. ___________________
NM Ct. App. No. Order of August 27, 2013
Second Judicial Dist. Ct. Case DM-12-610 rel. DV-12-234
Petitioner-Appellee, Respondent,
vs.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE NEW MEXICO
Submitted by:
David Derringer
(1) Questions presented for review
[1.] Whether the trial court can destroy court records and order court pleadings not available to be filed by the court clerks in order to obstruct justice and block any appeal?
[2.] Whether the trial court can enforce any marital settlement agreement that was not signed or agreed to by either party of Petitioner or Respondent? Whether state Court of Appeal Judges can act outside of any jurisdiction or judicial capacity to order only David Derringer to be forced to present “future” “request” to use his rights under US Code Title 42 Section 1981 and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment contrary to other US Citizens and without jurisdiction of taking the case, being assigned the case or having any jurisdiction over the case, can deny David Derringer proper and legal filing with the court, even when the underlying matter contains lack of jurisdiction and fundamental error and the attending perjury, distortion, falsification, misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, public corruption, deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under statutory federal and state laws, of both citizens and New Mexico State employees working in conspiracy as justices, and be in compliance with the US Constitution Article VI ASupremacy Clause and Oath and Canon as Ajustices and yet remain on the bench?
[3.] Whether the trial court can block appeals by not forming Order within 60 days of judgment and refusal to file notice of appeal and docketing statements in order to block appeals?
[4.] Whether the NM Court of Appeals can deprive David Derringer due process and equal protection of the laws by denying forma pauperis when David Derringer is on proven public assistance "mandating" Order accepting forma pauperis, and do so in a conspiracy to block appeal of underlying public corruption of destruction of court records and the trial court refusing to file legal court papers so as to block further appeal, and wherein the NM Court of Appeals refused to grant forma pauperis as a way to further block appeal of the merits of the case when filing of forma pauperis which has nothing to do with the underlying merits of the case but only of financial status of the Appellant?
[5.] Whether the NM Court of Appeals has any jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal until taking jurisdiction after being filed of court record, necessitating assigning a docket case number, and whether the NM Court of Appeals can deliberately refuse to assign a docket case number, when denying forma pauperis in order to further block any ability to appeal to a higher court?
[6.] Whether the NM Court of Appeals can manipulate the law and rules to deny forma pauperis and refuse to assign a case docket number as a way to block appeals over subject matter they don't wish to entertain as a way to "obstruct justice" and inhibit the Appellant from reaching the New Mexico Supreme Court and filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari?
[7.] Whether denial of forma pauperis to a US United States Court
[8.] Whether malicious denial of forma pauperis mandated to be approved by the New Mexico Court of Appeals can be used as a means of ransom and extortion against a “poor” US Citizens’ rights to use the court system under “forma pauperis” and Pro-Se as an Appellant in order to stop due process and equal protection of rights to appeal illegal actions and orders of the trial court?
[9.] Whether the New Mexico Court of Appeals can attempt to force a Pro-Se U.S. Citizen to have to hire an attorney, that the court knows the Pro-Se Appellant cannot afford due to proven public assistance as a way to deny and block any appeal and use denial of forma pauperis as a way to use that force to deprive due process and equal protection as a way to stop any appeals?
[10.] Whether the New Mexico Court of Appeals' malicious denial of forma pauperis in the face of mandated affirmance due to proven public assistance, in order to block appeals and ignore underlying issues of destruction of court records and trial court's blocking appeal, constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" for exercising Constitutional and statutory rights to appeal judgments in violation of the 13th Amendment?
(2) HISTORY AND FACTS with supporting authorities:
The trial court of DM-12-610 is directly related to DV-12-234 wherein no summons was served to David Derringer in DV-12-234 and wherein such has denied and deprived Constitutional rights of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments and rights under US Code Title 42 Section 1981, and has been used repeatedly to violate all rights and due process and equal protection in DM-12-610. The trial court of DM-12-610 illegally issued a Final Judgment on November 15, 2012 that was contradictory and legally unenforceable and which was not signed by either the Petitioner or the Resondent making it not a binding contract between the parties for voidable effect of any enforcement. Such "Final Judgment" was further appealed to the higher courts ongoing. In the interim, the Petitioner, without legal standing filed an Order to Show Cause against the Respondent claiming in fraud that the Respondent had not conformed to the Final Judgment despite no binding contract signed by both parties that included fraud, that was legally "unenforceable". Judge Hadfield conducted a hearing wherein the Judge disregarded portions of the Final Judgment of November 15, 2012 mandating certain performances of the Petitioner, ie. payment of all "pre-marriage debt", so as to allow the Petitioner to steal the Respondent's sole and separate inheritance monies spent on the Petitioner's pre-marriage IRS debt and investment in the 2005 Chevy Silverado, and instead allowed the Petitioner to escape provisions of the Final Judgment, but stole the entire equity of the 2005 Chevy Silverado and the Respondent's inheritance with fraud for the Petitioner. Judge Hadfield then "refused" to sign and file a formal written order for over 60 days despite the Rules of Civil Procedure in order to block the Respondent from any appeal. As the Respondent filed notification of this breach of rules and proven judicial fraud, Judge Hadfield destroyed, concealed the Petitioner's court record filings and blocked the legal court papers of the Respondent to be properly filed by first telling the court clerks not to file any court papers of Respondent David Derringer, and then making a illegal "order" that the Respondent's court papers and motions would not be filed of court record, because they exposed the deprivation of due process, equal protection and obstruction of justice of Judge Hadfield that encompassed "public corruption of a judge", likely having been "bribed" by Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe. This destruction of court records and hiding and obstruction of legal filing encompassed the Notice of Appeal, and the Docketing Statement, so as to attempt to block any further appeals of this atrocious acts to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. As the Respondent continued to exercise his Constitutional due process and equal protection to perfect his appeal by NMRA Rule 12-201 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT, the New Mexico Court of Appeals obstructed and denied legal filing of a Pro-Se party, without taking legal jurisdiction "after" an appeal by trying to block the David Derringer appeal "pro-se" and illegally denied "forma pauperis" despite the Appellant David Derringer being on proven public assistance and filing the required forms of notarized affidavits if indigency. The New Mexico Court of Appeals was obviously holding "forma pauperis" mandated to be granted to David Derringer as a form of criminal ransom and extortion to attempt to "force" David Derringer to hire an attorney, or have the proven effect of obstruction of justice to block the appeal by forcing an indigent US citizen to pay filing fees that legally are waived by proven public assistance as a way of extortion to block an appeal of subject matter that the court does not want exposed or to entertain of "public corruption" of a trial court's destruction of court records, denial of due process, equal protection and judicial fraud and the trial court's own blocking of further appeal. US v. Kozminski , US Mich S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288. Because David Derringer properly uses the courts pro-se, and will appeal all unjust decisions without any basis in laws to higher courts, the NM Courts and others have decided to stop all due process and equal protection against David Derringer by unlawful orders not to use the courts, illegal “injunctions” to limit and persecute and deny legal court filings by David Derringer and illegal and prejudiced Orders designed to single out and “target” David Derringer to produce petitions, memorandums and other “hoops” to be jumped through unlike any other citizen and totally “unconstitutional”, and illegal deprivation of mandated granting of "forma pauperis" as an extortion "tool" to stop any appeals by David Derringer. 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). ; ”Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647 . ; 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.; Williams v. U.S. C.A.5 (Fla) 1950, 179 F.2d 644 cert. granted 71 S. Ct. 77, 340 U.S. 849, 95 L.Ed 622 affirmed 71 S.Ct. 581, 341 U.S. 70, 95 L.Ed 758.; US v. Ellis WDSC 1942, 43 F.Supp. 321.; Anderson v. U.S. U.S. S. Ct. 1155, 429 US 1120, 51 Led.2d 570 “Title 18 Section 241. This "cruel and unusual punishment" of deprivation of Constitutional rights to represent oneself in the courts both pro-se and as a "poor" citizen violated all Judicial Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct and Constitutional 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments and violated the provisions of the US Code Title 42 Section 1981. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645.; US v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089; Kunkel v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121 L.Ed.2d 340; Ruis v. US, 113 S. Ct. 985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d 137; Tucker v. Outwater, 118 F.3d 930 cert denied 118 S. Ct. 562, 522 US 997, 139 L.Ed.2d 402. The New Mexico Court of Appeals denied forma pauperis and obstructs due process and equal protection for legal representation pro-se without any legal authorities and against the "Supremacy Clause of the Constitution Article VI, in a means of sedition and treason in violation of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. United States United States Taylor S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. The NM Court of Appeals then "refused" to assign a case number and docket number to this illegal deprivation of forma pauperis and pro-se representation in order to block the instant appeal and all further appeals. Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985 ). ;Telman v. US 67 F.2d 716 cert denied 54 US Supreme Court 860, 292 U.S. 650, 78 L.Ed 1500 Aconspiracy.
(3) CONSTITUTION; AND APPURTENANT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE NEW MEXICO
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. S. Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (June 19, 1961 )
Olmstead v. United States U.S.
United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin US US
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
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. New Mexico
Advance Opinions, New Mexico October 29, 1998 .
Farmers Gin Company et al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.
(4) Argument to allow Writ of Certiorari:
Pursuant to SCRA Rule 12-502(A) this Petition is both timely and legally filed for Writ or Certiorari despite the obstruction if the NM Court of Appeals to refuse to assign a proper case and docketing number for further appeal in order to block the appeal and the Petitioner-Respondent David Derringer, representing himself Pro-Se, respectfully asks this Court to grant this Petition for Writ of Certiorari in DM-12-610 NM Ct. App. Order of deprivation of forma pauperis and deprivation of pro-se representation Order of August 27, 2013; 30 days have expired of Appellant's proper “Motion for Reconsideration” of Sept. 3, 2013 deemed "denied" by ignoring such Motion after 30 days of filing thereof; such "non-action" of the NM Court of Appeals designed also to stop due process and equal protection and deny and obstruct further appeal. Federalist No. 47 by James Madison. ; Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 ; United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA; 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).; Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S.49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993).
(5) Prayer for Relief:
Derringer is entitled to use of any and all United States Courts in forma pauperis when entitled to same under necessity of public assistance status; has a right to represent himself in any United States Court “pro-se” without an attorney; and cannot be denied filing of suits under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a), cannot be denied filing of legal appeals, and cannot be denied filing of any and all court papers to include, but not limited to pleadings, motions, responses, complaints, notices of appeals, appeals or any other court related papers, and cannot be the subject of any injunction to prevent, control, or orchestrate any “future” litigation or filings of which any particular justice or any particular court has no “jurisdiction” or use of Rule 11 without taking jurisdiction upon legal filing; wherein obviously any “future” litigation has no jurisdiction of any justice in the United States. these matters are "ripe" for determination by the NM Supreme Court. Owen v. City of Independence
David Derringer, Box 7431 , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct original of the forgoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari first class prepaid mail to the following:
I hereby certify that I caused seven (7) true and correct originals of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari of the NM Court of Appeals Order of August 27, 2013 to be sent on October 23, 2013 for filing to:
By:__________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se, Box 7431 , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87194
No comments:
Post a Comment