IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Second Judicial District Court No. DV-12-234
Rel. DM-12-0610
Petitioner /Appellee,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent/Appellant,
APPELLANT DAVID DERRINGER RESPONDENT/APPELLANT’S TIMELY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ILLEGAL AFFIRMANCE APRIL 8, 2014; UNDER BOTH NMRA RULE 12-404 AND UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060 UNDER (B)(1)”MISTAKE”(3)”FRAUD”(4)”THE JUDGMENT IS VOID”(6)”OTHER REASONS OF VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION AND ALL LAWS” EXPOSING ALSO THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND VOID ENTIRE MATTER OF BOTH DV-12-234 AND ENTERTWINED DM-12-610 WITH COPY OF THIS PLEADING AND NOTICE TO READ ENTIRE COURT CORRUPTION OF DV-12-234; DM-12-610; CV-12-1307; DV-12-10816 AND ALL APPEALS SENT TO THE FBI IN WASHINGTON DC PUBLIC CORRUPTION CRIMINAL DIVISION; AND MOTION FOR PANEL OF JUDGES TO HEAR THIS MATTER
COMES NOW the Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his Motion for Rehearing as stated above. State v. Suskiewich, September 12, 2013 (NO. 34,187). The court by “judicial notice”[1] and the FBI and DOJ reading this matter, should take notice of in all appeals of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 in all higher courts, David Derringer is “unopposed” with no litigation participation by the Petitioner as “Appellee is absent” in all matters in the higher courts; however, with the New Mexico Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court acting not legally as “finders of facts” with conclusion only under law, but acting without jurisdiction or judicial capacity as “advocates, defenders, and litigants for Barrie Derringer, missing Appellee; and persecutors, obstructers and violators of all law against David Derringer. In cases wherein David Derringer was not served legal summons, and gave up no rights to service by no waivers of service, it is actually properly titled David Derringer, Appellant v. New Mexico Court of Appeals, advocate/defender/litigant for missing Appellee. Legal service of summons in the Civil matter of DV-12-234 was never accomplished by the Petitioner Barrie
On February 21, 2012 David Derringer had only attended the date and time of hearing due to his own filed Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation of Barrie Derringer, filed by David Derringer on February 6, 2012 and set for hearing on February 21, 2012 . After the denial of the David Derringer Petition, illegally Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar started the case filed by Barrie Derringer assigned as DV-12-234. David Derringer immediately, on court record, objected and stated definitively that David Derringer was never served a legal summons for DV-12-234 and therefore the court has neither jurisdiction of David Derringer in personam or the subject matter, or judicial capacity to move forward with the hearing. This is a clear statement on court record that there was never any waiver of the mandated service of summons rendering forever after DV-12-234 without jurisdiction or judicial capacity of the courts and in fundamental error. This case has thereafter been used as criminal extortion against David Derringer for taking illegally all Constitutional rights of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th 13th and 14th Amendments. Therefore, Barrie Derringer had no legal standing to bring action DV-12-234, which in fact was done in perjury and fraud, but without legal authority of either Barrie Derringer or the Court of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar. The standing of a party to bring a claim is a question of law subject to de novo review, and not available without proper summons notice under NMRA Rule 1-004. N.M. Gamefowl Ass'n, Inc. v. State ex rel. King, 2009–NMCA–088, 12, 146 N.M. 758, 215 P.3d 67. The Tenth Circuit has indicated that a motion for reconsideration may preserve an issue for appeal. David Derringer notified the initial trial court of lack of jurisdiction and all sequential courts. The NM Court of Appeals refuses to rule in congruence with law on this issue and properly dismiss the case. In Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Meraj Intern. Inv. Corp., 315 F.3d 1271, 1278 (l O" Cir. 2003), the court noted that "[t]o preserve an issue for appeal, a party must alert the district court to the issue and seek a ruling. In any event, David Derringer can continue to raise and support his contention that DV-12-234 is jurisdictionally defective and state the laws that prove legal error of the NM Ct. App. and their motives against David Derringer for ruling against the laws. Failure of service of summons is a jurisdictional question and its challenge implicates the First Amendment, and the other Constitutional deprivations of the 1st Amendment with this case proceeding. Rule 12-216(B) NMRA ("[t]his rule shall not preclude the appellate court from considering jurisdictional questions"); see also, State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 312,183 P.2d 845,845 (N.M. 1947) ("Lack of jurisdiction at any stage of a proceeding is a controlling consideration to be resolved before going further.").
The record should be clear in this matter that David Derringer constantly presents the “law” for legal dismissal of this case due to summons deficiency, and the corruption of the judges disregard the law to keep persecuting David Derringer with Constitutional deprivations by vehicle of this case in jurisdictional defect. “service of summons-the District Court has no jurisdiction to issue binding judgment against a party not served summons in accordance with the rule who does not waive the defects of service.” Once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the relevant jurisdictional requirements are met. This appellate court cannot cover and litigate for Barrie Derringer over jurisdictional issues, which is exactly what is being illegally done by this court. There are no Appellees in this matter to prove service of summons and thus “Jurisdiction” and jurisdictional issues are to be controlling dismissing DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 intertwined mandatory as a matter of law.
1. Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners
2. Trujillo
3. Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987)
4. Holguin
5. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. V. Raton Natural Gas Co., 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 (1974)
6. Jones v. Suntrust Service Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 256834, 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 772, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,796, N.D.Ga., October 12, 1990 (NO. CIV.A.1:89CV2903RHH)
7. Hunkler v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 593995, 111 A.F.T.R.2d 2013-764, 2013-1 USTC P 50,190, N.D.Ohio, February 15, 2013 (NO. 1:13-CV-0157)
8. FN10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) mandates that a “summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c).
9. Once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the relevant jurisdictional requirements are met. See Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992); Gehling v. St. George's Dec. 22, 1997 ). Where the complaint and affidavits are relied upon to satisfy its burden, the plaintiff succeeds by making a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. See Friedman v. Israel Id.
10. Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297, 60 USLW 2052, 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1406, C.A.7 (Ill. July 03, 1991 (NO. 89-3571) ...service may be had.’ United States
11. Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail Stages, 43 N.M. 453, 95 P.2d 204, 1939 -NMSC- 050, N.M., October 16, 1939 (NO. 4448)
12. Hammond v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. of New Mexico, 30 N.M. 130, 228 P. 758, 39 A.L.R. 1490, 1924 -NMSC- 060, N.M., August 06, 1924 (NO. 2974)
13. Omni Capital Intern., Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2d 415, 56 USLW 4031, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 691, U.S.La., December 08, 1987 (NO. 86-740) ...jurisdiction. [2] [3] Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. “[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”
14. Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946) . Thus, before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the forum. There also must be a basis for the defendant's amenability to service of summons. Absent consent, this means there must be authorization for service of summons on the defendant.
This lack of jurisdiction of DV-12-234 mandates that the New Mexico Court of Appeals remand Order to dismiss DV-12-234 in its entirety, voiding and mooting any Orders, Constitutional deprivations, Judgments, stipulations, Sanctions, injunctions, orders of protection, orders of no-contact, remove copies of any injunction/no-contact/criminal allegations/sentencing from any law enforcement records, and any and all other matters involving this illegal case due to fundamental error and total jurisdiction defect without service of summons. State v. Martinez January 31, 2013 (NO. 32,271). Additionally, both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield denied David Derringer his exhibits, witnesses, and distorted and stopped testimony, and denied legal argument; all designed to corrupt the court record and defeat due process and equal protection; then to cement the corruption, Judge Hadfield destroyed court records and personal property of pleadings of David Derringer and blocked appeals; mandating dismissal. With a lack of summons making the suit invalid is abuse of discretion for the appellate court to continue that enforcement, and a provable abuse of the court's process or otherwise improper DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 must be dismissed. Pargin Realty ERA v. Schmidt, P.3d, 2013 WL 4515964, N.M.App., February 08, 2013 (NO. 31,689) NMSA 44–7A23, unless a party appealing from the award shows that the award was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other undue means; a party was prejudiced by arbitrator corruption, misconduct, or partiality; the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers; and the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced. 44–7A–24(a).This “abuse of discretion” of all aspects of DV-12-234 must as a matter of law be overturned and remanded for dismissal by the NM Ct. App. Clark v. Clark, P.3d, 2013 WL 4499346, N.M.App., August 12, 2013 (NO. 31,547) ; Meiboom v. Watson, 2000–NMSC–004, 29,128 N.M.536, 994 P2D 1154. This is Constitutionally mandated for the New Mexico Court of Appeals to perform this dismissal of all aspects of DV-12-234 by the Constitution 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments and US Code Title 42 Section 1981.
The NM Ct. App. selectively ignores PARAGRAPH B and attempts to rule on this appeal matter of No. 32,982 prior to the proper ruling on the former appeal of No. 32,326 wherein David Derringer’s “gun rights” under the 2nd Amendment have been taken illegally for a period of two years and without cause with the same jurisdictionally defective DV-12-234 without service of summons. This is a deliberate action wherein the NM Ct. App. hopes to set the “Jurisdictional’ issue to rest so that they can continue to deprive David Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights in No. 32,326 afterward of this appeal. For a period of two years without any felonies of legal ability to order David Derringer non-use of firearms, jurisdictionally defective DV-12-234 deprived David Derringer his 2nd Amendment rights and thus also deprivation of income as a NM Professional Outfitter #32 mandating the use of firearms to make a living as a professional hunter. Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 ;Owen v. City of Independence , US S. Ct. 1282, 479 US 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 140 reversed 108 S. Ct. 538, 484 US 219, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 on remand 846 F.2d 29. The “title” of the blogs was the “title” and heading of the public records of the law suits, highly applicable as merely placing “public record” documents for the world public to see. This entails also the New Mexico Statutory laws of “Inspection of Public Records” of which DV-12-234 and the NM Ct. App. “obstructs” by stating in legal error and without jurisdiction that public records cannot be placed on the Internet; that David Derringer cannot exercise his 1st Amendment rights by placing public court records on Google Blogs with the name inclusive of Barrie Derringer/Crowe. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 421 U.S. 132, 136 (1975) “virtually every record by an agency must be made available to the public in one form or another, unless it is specifically exempted from disclosure” Internet disclosure is merely another form of access to public court records. What has really happened here, is that David Derringer has posted public documents on the Internet of court records that are distasteful both to exposure of the fraud and malicious prosecution of David Derringer by Barrie Derringer and also the public corruption and judicial fraud of the New Mexico courts, and attempts are made to persecute David Derringer without jurisdiction by the courts to stop this exposure. State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 90 N.M. at 797. Where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.” The criminal persecution of David Derringer is being covered up by judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott, destruction of court records by Judge Alisa Hadfield, and obstruction of justice by the higher NM Ct. App. blocking David Derringer from appeals so as to keep as much of the public corruption and cocaine interactions occurring with the NM judiciary out of the general knowledge of the public, so the public cannot keep a “watchful eye” on what is really happening in our government. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978) “Access to public records is one of the fundamental rights afforded people in a democracy. Even where there is no statute, a common law right to inspect and copy public records affords members of the public the opportunity to keep a watchful eye on government.” Just as the Albuquerque Police Department murders by shooting in the back those it does not like or want in the APD city of Albuquerque, the NM Judiciary accepts bribes, destroys court records and blocks appeals to keep from public court records the actual facts of corruption and judicial indiscretions, and keeps the NM Judicial Standards in “protection” of such justices rather the protect the integrity of the judicial system of our government. Instead of lack of knowledge about certain cases, wherein the citizen has to know what is happening and retrieve public court records to find corruption, David Derringer has simplified knowledge of the corruption in DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 by posting public records only a click away from any computer on the Internet; a totally justifiable and legal means of the public accessing “public records” under 1st Amendment rights without the “secrecy” desired by both Barrie Derringer and the State NM judiciary. New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 20 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2011), and that David Derringer’s Internet Google publication of the public court records conforms to information accessible by the public. State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 90 N.M. at 797 “A citizen has a fundamental right to have access to public records. The citizen’s right to know is the rule and secrecy is the exception. Where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.” IPRA provides that “[e]very person has a right to inspect public records of this state.” Section 14-2-1(A).Rule LR1-2 208(A) NMRA (noting that the policy of the First Judicial District is to allow free public access to official court files for each case docketed and filed); see also Rule 4 LR1-208(B) (“No court file, except those matters required by law to remain confidential, shall be ordered sealed from public inspection, except in extraordinary cases to be determined by the court[.]”); Rule 1-079(A) NMRA (“Court records are subject to public access unless sealed by order of the court or otherwise protected from disclosure under the provisions of this rule.”). Since Judge Hadfield proceeded to illegally confiscate and destroy all tendered copies of court pleadings to be filed, which before filing constituted the “personal property” of David Derringer, constituting “larceny”, and attempted to stop any further appeals, by Ordering the court clerks not to file any pleadings or other court papers by David Derringer in criminal acts of “obstruction of justice” by Judge Hadfield’s “lack of jurisdiction”, so as to block appeals in a United States court; these are illegal acts that the public has to be aware and are disclosed in the court pleading filed of court record. Wilson & Co. v. Banque Francaise du Mexique, 124 Misc. 690, 208 N.Y.S. 213, N.Y.Supp., June 11, 192 . Since the NM Ct. App. and the NM Supreme Court have denied and covered up the David Derringer multiple Petitions for Superintending Control and Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed to gain “justice to be served” and the NM Judicial Standards Commission and the NM Disciplinary Board has denied and covered up all of the multiple sustained complaints by David Derringer, whereas now blocking appeals, destruction of court records and other criminal acts of deprivation of “forma pauperis” (proved valid by public assistance) are only some of the ways the courts are covering up and attempting to stop the world wide exposure of the public corruption of the NM judiciary, the INTERNET is the only means of allowing the public to know the truth. NMRA Rule 1-090. 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 U.S.
In “Paragraph C” of the Appellant’s Memorandum [MIO9] the NM Ct. App. tries desperately to cover up the criminal acts of both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield’s “criminal conviction and sentencing” of David Derringer without due process of law in a civil court not prosecuted by the State of New Mexico and not afforded a “criminal complaint”. This NM Court of Appeals ties in legal manipulation to quote case laws involving “contempt” and the lack of need of Miranda rights for “civil contempt” when trying also to corrupt the court record that DV-12-234 actually meant to hold David Derringer in “contempt” as though to second guess and distort the actual writings of the Order of the trial court that explicitly uses the word “harassment” only found in the criminal statutes of the State of New Mexico. Then, the NM Ct. App. tries to tailor this deprivation of trial incident as “sanctions”. In all actual trial documents, at no time is there used either the words contempt or sanctions but instead the “criminal” wording of “harassment”. Thus, there was a “criminal conviction and sentencing” done here absolutely illegal under due process and equal protection and all done without jurisdiction without original service of summons in the original civil matter. This was done for persecution, threats, intimidation and “conspiracy against rights”, “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the inherent hatred and animosity against individual David Derringer by courts dedicated to pursuing, targeting and hunting down and ruining the life of David Derringer for contesting and exposure now and in the past of the public judicial corruption of New Mexico involved in cocaine racketeering with the Mexico drug cartels. The original Petition for Order to Show Cause filed by Petitioner Barrie Derringer contained no accusations of “criminal harassment” but entailed in legal error of idea that David Derringer had violated the non-jurisdictional “no-contact” order by placing blogs on the Internet of public court documents. This entailed as supposition only at the most that David Derringer was in “contempt” of a civil order. During the hearing, the Petitioner failed to introduce evidence of compliance with the Rules of Evidence of the NMRA, whereas all of her claims of evidence of copies of papers claimed to be downloaded Internet blogs were incomplete, jumbled and incoherent. Upon legal “objection” to this hodge-podge of evidence not in compliance with “completeness” mandated by the Rules of evidence, the David Derringer “objection was sustained” of court record by the Commissioner. Then, only in chambers with the collusion of the criminal minds of both Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield did a Petition for Order to Show Cause entailing at the most “contempt” be formed into a “criminal charge of harassment” and without trial commence into a conviction and sentencing of “harassment” against David Derringer. This entails criminal “complaint”, necessary grand jury hearing and indictment, trial, jury, conviction and sentencing by only a metro or district court, necessitating Miranda rights upon arrest or criminal complaint, ability to retain public defender and jury and rights to appeal any sentencing, none of which occurred or was able to occur in jurisdictionally defective “civil matter” of DV-12-234. The term “harassment” used selectively and in persecution of David Derringer by the courts entails accusations and allegations of “criminal conduct” as “harassment” is only contained in the criminal code of New Mexico under NMSA Section 30, and any such “allegations” have to be pursued by criminal complaint, prosecution by the district attorney or attorney general of the state of New Mexico against David Derringer. Such a criminal complaint for “harassment” cannot be heard or prosecuted by family court Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar or Judge Alisa Hadfield, nor can it be prosecuted by a divorce attorney Alain Jackson under a “Petition for Order of Protection”. Harassment and contempt and sanctions are not synonymous terms and the NM Ct. App. has no jurisdiction to entertain this issue with DV-12-234 without jurisdiction, but also cannot rule on an Order of “harassment” as though it was an order of “contempt or sanctions” which is was written not. All criminal complaints have to be prosecuted by the complaint State New Mexico
Additionally, the “criminal ruling Order, conviction and sentencing in total violation of any aspects of due process and equal protection is a “vagueness” Order that cannot be enforced. Pursuant to Rule 12-216(B) NMRA, New Mexico Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. Albuquerque Id. Id. U.S.
DV-12-234 is explicitly intertwined with DM-12-610 including the destruction of court records, deprival of due process and other egregious criminal acts by Judge Hadfield against David Derringer and thus DM-12-610 must be dismissed entirely as well. Phelps v. Hamilton New Mexico June 01, 2005 (NO. 24,225) “every indication that [a] strong pattern of public corruption existed.” No. 32,982 is not an appeal from a criminal trial of “harassment” and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain any such concept. State v. Reynolds, 111 NM 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) “Matters outside the record present no issue for review”. Such statements can easily be construed as “public corruption” and attempt at “entrapment. Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dept. P.3d, 2013 WL 4499132 N.M.App.,2013 August 19, 2013 “.. had a legal and moral duty, pursuant to statutory authority and his oath”. Benevidez v. Benevidez, 99 N.M. 535, 660 P.2d 1017 (1983). These matters all have an underlying basis of drug trafficking/racketeering cocaine and other controlled substances, and the Mexico New Mexico S. Ct. 417, 506 US S. Ct. 985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d 137. In a cover-up by the New Mexico judicial system against David Derringer, Constitution, statutory laws and due process have been violated in order to stop the exposure of the public corruption involving destruction of court records, blocking appeals, illegally denying “forma pauperis” so as to stop use of the United States court system, illegal sentencing to incarceration without criminal complaint, trial and all aspects therein of “due process”, and intended physical harm or murder of David Derringer and other atrocities done by Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, Judge Malott and other attending justices in the higher courts. This, of course is the basis for attempting to “muzzle” David Derringer with orders not to exercise 1st Amendment rights of putting public court records, David Derringer’s “opinions and poetic and self expression rhetorical questions and other viewpoints on Google blogs. Throughout these illegal proceedings forced upon the Appellant, time and again the Appellant referenced and delineated all law mandating this court to dismiss. Instead, this court willfully and maliciously chose to continue to harass, persecute and mis-use DV-12-234 to take Constitutional rights unlawfully from the Appellant David Derringer without legality or cause, criminally accuse, convict, sentence and persecute David Derringer for “harassment” without due process or equal protection of criminal complaint, trial, Miranda, attorney, jury, and all other mandates of any criminal proceeding. The court after the fact, then maliciously attempts to cover up this by “re-writing” the trial court record by conjecture that they place illegal synonymy of “criminal harassment with civil contempt or sanctions” which are not at all the same. This is done to protect underling justices doing criminal acts of “conspiracy against rights”, “deprivation of rights under color of law” and “criminal “obstruction of justice”. When the court constructs their ruling based on “the statement can be construed as an attempt to communicate” is purely conjecture, interpretation and not fact, and conjecture or opinion “construed” cannot be used to form a “criminal conviction without trial”, nor can 1st Amendments be denied by one or even several justices personal opinion. If any judge can deprive 1st Amendment rights by simply their personal opinion, which varies from person to person; there are no Constitutional rights of 1st Amendment nor any other. Clearly, if the Appellant is free to express his opinions of the corrupt judiciary, as agreed by the court, the Appellant is also free to express his opinions of his wife and marriage, and the effect of her perjury and fraud done to the courts in mis-using the family courts to subjugate a man. When the blog title is the title of the court action brought against the Appellant and is court record, and the content therein is public documents filed with the court referencing that same tile with the Petitioner’s name, there is no violation of either the 1st Amendment or the “freedom of information act”. Clearly, if the citizen would look up the public court record of either DV-12-234 or DM-12-610 they would use the name Barrie Derringer as filing Petitioner Barrie Lee Derringer v. David Brian Derringer to access that information just as the title of the blog references the same. Without use of the name Barrie Derringer, no one could find the legal filing of Petitioner in the public record. There is not even the faint residual aromatic freedom odor of “due process or equal protection” here, but only the reek of the rancid stench of “judicial fraud and public judicial corruption”. Fraud upon the court embraces only that species of fraud which does or attempts to defile the court itself or which is perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial system cannot perform in a usual manner. Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero, 94 N.M. at 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d at 160 n. 1. Fraud upon the court occurs where there is a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud the court, not simply a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness whose perjury is revealed by after-discovered evidence. See Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire Co., 322 U.S. at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001.; Moya v. Catholic Archdiocese of New Mexico 107 N.M. 245, 247, 755 P.2d 583, 585 (N.M.,1988). Notwithstanding the arguments raised on appeal by each party, we believe that it is the record of this case that demands our attention. The inherent power of a court to grant equitable relief from a judgment procured by fraud upon the court is beyond question. Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S.
CONCLUSION
This NM Court of Appeals vehemently violates law by ‘FORC ING DAVID DER RINGE R IN TYRANNY AND CRIMINAL OPPRESSI ON’ to submit to DV-12-234 without service of summons by Barrie Derringer. This “sedition and treason” is outrageous acts by justices that “swore to God” by Oath to obey the Constitution (14th Amendment due process and equal protection) and all appurtenant laws. In re Williamson, 43 BR 813; Silva v. City of Madison, 69 F.3d 1368, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 994, C.A.7 (Wis. November 16, 1995 (NO. 93-2211) ...service of process. It simply is not reasonable for us to conclude that it was intended that such a major exception to the clear mandates of Rules 4 and 12 be undertaken without any express mention of such a consequence. It is one thing to require removal before proper service is effected; it is quite another to require a party to file a responsive pleading. Requiring a responsive pleading before service is effected is at odds with a fundamental principle of federal procedure—that a responsive pleading is required only after service has been effected and the party has been made subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A) ( “[A] defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint . ” ). See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf... It is entirely appurtenant here to notice the reading FBI and the court with past and present judicial fraud perpetrated upon David Derringer by this court and indications that at no time under any set of appeal or litigation will David Derringer ever receive either justice or attendance to law within this court.
1. NM Ct. App. No. 27,127 Appeal presided over by NM Ct. App. Judge Cynthia Fry, while Judge Fry was a current defendant to David Derringer in US Federal District Court 10th Circuit Civil Rights litigation and #CIV-03-0804 wherein she stole the David Derringer $400,000.00 ranch in “retaliation” without the mandated statutory foreclosure trial, without compliance to NMSA 39-5-5, and gave the Derringer ranch to the cocaine importer Mick Chapel of Quemado, New Mexico along with $5.5 million dollars of David Derringer’s exclusive personal property including historical pre-1907 ground water rights, timber, and mineral rights of recorded deed with Catron County as “personal property” of only David Derringer.
2. The NM Court of Appeals sustained and did nothing about proven murder attempts against David Derringer by cocaine druggie Judge Thomas Fitch in January, 2002; and again by the illegal order of cocaine druggie Judge John Pope on January 11, 2006 stealing the Derringer property by the gunpoint of automatic weapons, driving David Derringer from his home without being able to take any of his personal property (then stolen and vandalized by Mick Chapel).
3. The NM Ct. of Appeals has done nothing but illegally block and subjugate David Derringer’s legal appeals of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with underlying public corruption, bribery, destruction of court records, the illegal Order by Judge Hadfield to the Second Judicial District Court clerk not to file any legal pleading of David Derringer and attempts to block appeal by denial of filing of “notice of appeal” and “docketing statements”; (acts of criminal obstruction of justice).
4. This court has illegally mandated ability without jurisdiction before any legal docketing or filing, to read appeal papers and then deny same for legal filing and refusal of assigning a docket number when they expose the underlying judicial corruption and judicial bribery, and has illegally refused to grant “forma pauperis” as mandated for David Derringer with underlying court orders granting forma pauperis and proof of indigency and public assistance within Bernalillo County, State of New Mexico; an illegal act to cover up bribery and public corruption by denying appeal and due process and equal protection so as to taint and control the public court records.
5. The NM Ct. App. has illegally denied appeal in forma pauperis and obstructed assigning a docket number for a legal appeal, by illegally refusing to grant “forma pauperis” as mandated for David Derringer with underlying court orders granting forma pauperis and proof of indigency and public assistance within Bernalillo County, State of New Mexico; an illegal act to cover up bribery and public corruption by denying appeal and due process and equal protection so as to taint and control the public court records, and refused to mandate a change of venue for justice to be served in underlying intertwined CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 so as to cover up the totally proven bribery of Judge Alan Malott of the Second Judicial District Court by the multimillion dollar NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation that is laundering Mexico drug cartel monies into New Mexico real estate with the illegal assistance of the Petitioner Barrie Derringer/Crowe of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 totally intertwined with the corruption of this court; and MUCH MORE illegal acts without jurisdiction and judicial capacity perpetrated against David Derringer for exposing NM judicial corruption.
6. Therefore, the Appellant motions this court as a part of this pleading for a “panel of judges” to gain aspect of whether the past and proven current corruption is only several justices or the entire judicial system.
DV-12-234 has illegally been perpetuated without service of original summons, making it from the onset jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error. In this illegal abuse of process and malicious process against David Derringer, Constitutional 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 10th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights have been taken from David Derringer for over two (2) years and ongoing, and Respondent’s income as professional outfitter/hunter #32 has been denied due to all Constitutional and Civil Rights deprivations. Pepper v. Alezander, 599 Supp. 523. The damages come directly from the court litigating against the Appellant for the benefit of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner (Appellee) has never been present in any of the higher courts beyond the trial court, whereas it is the courts themselves that litigate against David Derringer to force agendas not in compliance with any laws. In violations of laws, it seems that a motive other than “justice” prevails with the conspiracy of the courts working in tandem with Barrie Derringer, aka Barrie Crowe, aka Barrie Beverley, Alain Jackson, Alicia Santos, Floyd Wilson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield, Judge Malott, and several other New Mexico justices that have been instrumental in the criminal “conspiracy against rights”, “deprivation of rights under color of law”, “obstruction of justice” and other criminal and civil rights deprivations against David Derringer for over 2 ½ years ongoing. Clearly, the courts indicate that David Derringer “can” voice his opinion under the 1st Amendment over some things, and therefore their muzzling of his opinion over other things is simply picking and choosing the “content” of the opinion, all of which violates the 1st Amendment. Since these justices all are working outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity in a case without jurisdiction without service of summons, all acts are subversive and accountable as personal liability and inflicting direct liability against the State of New Mexico
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
This “judicial terrorism” must be exposed and stopped with criminal prosecution of all involved as well as FBI “frequent and random drug testing of NM justices and attorneys”. In Kelly v. St. Vincent Hospital, 102 N.M. 201, 207, 692 P.2d 1350, 1356 (Ct.App.1984), this Court noted that the tort could be accomplished by either of two methods: improper motive solely to harm the plaintiff or improper means. If proven, either basis standing alone will support liability. Id. Washington
The courts are mandated to Order restitution and compensation for such Constitutional deprivations. Civil Rights 13.4(2). 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 New Mexico Anderson US U.S. U.S.
MOTION FOR A PANEL OF JUDGES OF THE NM COURT
OF APPEALS TO HEAR THIS MATTER
This matter entails a cover up of illegal acts done in the intertwined trial courts of DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 that involve Constitutional deprivations, criminal convictions without due process and equal protection, judicial bribery, continuance of cases without service of summons without any jurisdiction or judicial capacity, destruction of court records, blocking appeals, and other criminal acts involving “conspiracy against rights”, “deprivation of rights under color of law”, “obstruction of justice” and other egregious and outrageous acts performed by judges well outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity, meant to cover up public corruption of other judges and wherein the court itself litigates against David Derringer in place of the missing Appellee, instead of being a fair and impartial “finder of facts” with compliance with law. It should be disclosed whether these outrageous acts without jurisdiction are only a few justices or the entire system of corruption.
David Derringer, Box 7431 , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April 22, 2014
I hereby certify that I sent a copy of this pleading to:
New Mexico Court of Appeals clerk
I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Attorney Alain Jackson “not of record with this court”
423, 6th, NW, Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102
I sent a copy of this pleading to:
FBI Headquarters
No comments:
Post a Comment