IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Court of Appeals 32,326
Second Judicial District Court No. DV-12-234
Rel. DM-12-610
BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,
Appellee/Petitioner,
v.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Appellant/Respondent,
APPELLANT DAVID
DERRINGER’S TIMELY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER RULE 12-404, ENCOMPASSING
NMRA RULE 1-060, (fraud) OF THE ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND JUDICIAL FRAUD
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF JULY 14, 2014 WHEREIN THE NM COURTS DEFY CONSTITUTION AND
ALL LAWS MANDATING THIS MATTER DISMISSED WITH A TOTAL LACK OF JURISDICTION
WITHOUT EVER LEGAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS, AND TAKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY
JUDICIAL CORRUPTIVE FORCE WITHOUT LEGAL REASON OR ABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI
COMES NOW the Appellant/Respondent Pro-Se with his timely motion for
reconsideration as stated above. 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.” In this matter, the NM judiciary corruption “absolutely
refuses” to obey any law, defying Constitution to take rights without cause or
legal ability, but worse, continuing a jurisdictionally defective case against
all laws and rules without legal service of summons, to persecute, defame, ruin
the life and punish a civilian citizen that Pro-Se continually exposes the
public corruption of the NM judiciary and makes an example of how they mis-use
power with decisions not at all based on law, but sadistic arbitrary and
capricious anarchist rulings with mis-use of power ability to defy Oath and
betray citizens’ trust reposed in them, meant to stop and protect other
justices doing illegal acts and the unconstitutional wording shoehorned into
the Second Judicial District family court’s “civil” “order of protection” to
summarily take 2nd Amendment rights from each and every person
before them without any felonies or legal reasoning to defy Constitutional
ability simply because the justices might personally have an agenda against
firearms and can do Constitutional damages to citizens without accountability. Stoneking
v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. “Under Article VI of the
Constitution, the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the
land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding”. In these illegal acts regarding No. 32,326, the NM Ct. App.
illegally selectively pick and choose issues, and defy consideration of issues
included that expose judicial fraud and judicial bribery underlying, with a
lack of summons service and Petitioner perjury and fraud exposed. The NM Ct.
App. feels that they can unlawfully deny “forma pauperis” to a person on public
assistance for select issues to cover up the judicial fraud and limit the
public record exposure of the corruption contained. In doing these illegal
acts, the judiciary is well aware that they are “unaccountable” with comradery
of all NM justices protecting one
another, just as in the Judge Brennan “cocaine” matter past, and know that the
proper agency of “judicial standards” is immaterial to actually stem this
corruption, making all NM justices able to override Constitution, disregard
former case laws, disregard mandates of the 14th Amendment, and take
Constitutional rights by whim, without any accountability defeating all other
branches of our government with absolutism, encroaching on both Congress and NM
Legislature making “real law” mute. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock,
P.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. Clearly, this is why a mandate in this public
record stands as testament to why “term limits” of justices of only a lifetime
ability of only one 4 year term is necessary to somehow limit and
remove the corruptive chaff with more minimum ability of damages to citizens, which
is not done by the “Democratic voting process” wherein the public corruption
prevails with power corrupting and absolute power corrupting “absolutely” with
lifetime careers of public corruption currently available. As in this matter of
No. 32, 326 it is easily seen, wherein it simply does not matter that this
court has no jurisdiction due to no service of summons and has no ability to deny
and steal Constitutional rights, and when “public record” is posted on the
Internet of these violent rulings for persecution, additional Order is then
formed to stop exposure of corruption to the world public by taking
additionally all due process and muzzle the American citizen to stop all 1st
Amendment rights of speech, writing and freedom of expression, by additional
“threats and intimidation” of jail or murder. Clark v. Clark, P.3d,
2013 WL 4499346, N.M.App., August 12, 2013 (NO. 31,547) ...abuse of discretion,
“it must be shown that the court's ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason or
that the judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Meiboom
v. Watson, 2000–NMSC–004, 29,
128 N.M. 536, 994 P2D 1154. This court also disregards that an appeal under
“Petition for Writ of Certiorari” of the illegal Orders of No. 32,326 was filed
by David Derringer on April 16, 2013, and is still pending regarding the
illegal selective deprivation of appeal of all issues with limiting unlawfully
this appeal under denial of some “forma pauperis”. The NM Ct. App. cannot make
any ruling in No. 32,326 limiting illegally the issues until a ruling about
such unlawful behavior from the NM Supreme Court.
Repeatedly, the LAW to regurgitated to
the NM Ct. App. of which they are not ignorant that DV-12-234 is “illegal and
without jurisdiction” due to no legal service of summons and Constitutional and
statutory deprivations. It is of court record and “Undisputed FACTS” that: Legal
service of summons in the Civil matter of DV-12-234 was never accomplished by
the Petitioner Barrie Derringer as well established in the court record docket. David Derringer only appeared at the time and
place of the hearing due to his own Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation of
Barrie Derringer, and upon such denial of David Derringer’s own Petition, David
Derringer stated for court record that Barrie Derringer’s Petition for Order of
Protection was without “jurisdiction or judicial capacity” to proceed with no
legal service of summons and must be dismissed as a matter of law in
fundamental error. “Jurisdictional defect is absolute” and cannot be denied or
circumvented by any New Mexico court (Constitution 14th
Amendment.) The jurisdictionally
defective DV-12-234 is inexplicably intertwined with DM-12-610 and CV-12-1307
and CV-12-10816. All trial courts, NM
Ct. of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court have since February 21, 2012,
had only one legal option in Case DV-12-234 and rel DM-12-610 entirely based
and intertwined with DV-12-234”; and that is to Order dismissal with prejudice
due to law of lack of service of summons. Time after time, the NM Ct. App.
simply disregards law and rules to perpetuate a case that is jurisdictionally
defective and in fundamental error in order to persecute selectively targeted
Pro-Se citizen “David Derringer”. This is both malicious and deliberate and
“sedition and treason” as defined by the 14th Amendment section 3,
with perjury of Oath and blasphemy of both God and the Legislated laws of
Congress and the NM Legislature. The ruling here clearly show perjury to the
citizens to gain position as justice only to betray and rule in tyranny outside
of law. In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194 “Presumption exists that a
judge will put personal beliefs aside and rule according to the laws as
enacted, as required by his or her Oath. 28 USCA 455(a)”. The LAW regarding
this matter of summons is “absolute” that DV-12-234 must be dismissed. 14th
Amendment and State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 312,183 P.2d 845,845
(N.M. 1947); Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 NM
501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993); Trujillo v. Goodwin,
2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839; Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM
25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987); Holguin
v. Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P.2d 88 (1977);
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. V. Raton Natural Gas Co., 86
N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 (1974); 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);
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); FN10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) mandates that a
“summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint.”; Mellon
Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992); Gehling
v. St. George's Sch. of Medicine, Ltd., 773 F.2d 539, 542 (3d
Cir.1985).; North Penn Gas Co. v. Corning Natural Gas Corp., 897
F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 847 (1990) (citations omitted);
Royal Gist-Brocades N.V. v. Sierra Prods. Ltd., No. 97-1147, 1997
WL 792905, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 22, 1997); Friedman v. Israel Labour Party,
957 F.Supp. 701, 706 (E.D.Pa.1997); Carterat Savings Bank v. Shushan,
954 F.2d 141, 142 n. 1 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U .S. 817 (1992); 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); United
States v. Mollenhauer Laboratories, Inc., 267 F.2d 260, 262 (7th
Cir.1959); Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail Stages, 43 N.M. 453, 95
P.2d 204, 1939 -NMSC- 050, N.M., October 16, 1939 (NO. 4448); 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); 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); Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree,
326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946). This Motion for Reconsideration makes it clear
that the NM Ct. App. sees these laws they have to rule in accordance.
“FIREARMS” have never been in any issue
of these matters, and at no time has any court had the right to deny David
Derringer his 2nd Amendment rights for two years as in DV-12-234, as
no claim has been brought forth that firearms were used to intimidate anyone,
no firearms was discharged, no criminal action was ever against David Derringer
for illegal use of firearms and David Derringer has no criminal record of any
kind, specifically having no criminal misdemeanors or felonies regarding
“firearms” giving thus no court any ‘jurisdiction’ whatsoever to use a
jurisdictionally defective case without summons of DV-12-234 to persecute David
Derringer against his 2nd Amendment rights of use, possession and his
actually making a living with “firearms” as has been illegally done by the
corruption of the NM courts, making the STATE of NEW MEXICO and all involved
liable to David Derringer of civil and Constitutional deprivations. The NM
Judiciary knows they have illegally deprived income of David Derringer for a
period unlawfully of two years from February 21, 2012 until February 21, 2014
by illegal Order of Protection without jurisdiction, by depriving use,
ownership and possession of “firearms” used as David Derringer Professional
Hunter/Outfitter NO. 32 in New Mexico against Constitutional rights of David
Derringer as vicious acts of sedition and treason against Constitution meant to
hurt the life of David Derringer by “judicial fraud”. Muckleroy v.
Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 “Right to engage in a
licensed profession is a protected property right.”. The NM judiciary does
these acts deliberately to David Derringer with full knowledge as vicious acts
to undermine the American judicial system of our government; acts that
irreparable mischief and do irreparable damages; lies of their very Oath. “When
an alleged constitutional rights is involved, most courts hold that no further
showing of irreparable injury is necessary” (citing 11A Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure
2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) see also Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523,
533 (1998). “...the loss of Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of
time constitutes irreparable injury”.
The NM Ct. Appeals fraudulently tempers their dialog
with “Respondent David Brian Derringer, appeals the memorandum order
of the district court affirming the order of protection granted to Petitioner,
Barrie Lee Derringer, because of domestic abuse.” Just because
this court states “because” of domestic
abuse” does not make it fact. Baker v. Horn, 201 Supp.2d
592 “Fact cannot become of record solely by virtue of its inclusion in trial
court’s opinion.” This court simply includes such “slander” against David
Derringer to taint the court record to make the record believe that David
Derringer did “domestic abuse” to wife Barrie Derringer and thus deserves all
of the persecution and illegal actions of the NM judiciary. In point of
provable fact, David Derringer loved wife Barrie Derringer and never hurt her
physically and never used derogatory or abusive verbal language or other means
to “abuse” her; there was never any “abuse of Barrie Derringer by David
Derringer”. Clearly, there were “witnesses” that the DV-12-234 refused to
allow, (Bruce Davis) itself rendering the case jurisdictionally defective, but
who later testified in DM-12-610 regarding the same matters to prove Barrie
Derringer a liar and in fraud to file DV-12-234 wherein her very dialog claims
of the “Petition for Order of Protection” were perjury and fraud. (again
criminal acts by Barrie Derringer the courts refused to address or prosecute).
Moreover, under Oath, in DM-12-610, Barrie Derringer testified to physically
hitting David Derringer in the face at least ten times during the marriage as a
“felony of domestic violence” wherein the court simply excused
and disregarded Barrie Derringer’s admission of guilt in oath confession of a
criminal act, and continued to persecute instead David Derringer that never did
any “domestic abuse” even when being violently hit by Barrie Derringer did not
retaliate in either physical or verbal violence. “Bias” of Barrie Derringer criminally
physically beating David Derringer is endorsed by the courts, without arrest
and prosecution of Barrie Derringer, and wherein “slander” against David
Derringer who did no such acts, is perfected in “judicial fraud” to frame David
Derringer for illegally then taking firearms, in fraud portraying David
Derringer as the violent person. Tainting the court record in such a manner by
justices is termed “judicial fraud”. 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. The April 1986
deposition testimony of defendant and his wife reveals not mere perjury but a
deliberate scheme to defraud the court; they committed fraud upon the court. 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. FRAUD has happened in DV-12-234 by Barrie
Derringer, her attorney Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge
Hadfield and justices in the NM Ct. App. regarding these matters. DV-12-234 had
no summons served and inherent “FRAUD” mandates dismissal of this entire
matter. 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. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed.
1447 (1946); Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire Co., 322
U.S. 238, 244, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1000, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944), overruled on other
grounds, Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct.
31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976); Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero, 94
N.M. 181, 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d 157, 160 n. 1 (Ct.App.1979), cert. denied, 94 N.M.
628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980). The NM Ct. App. is party to all of this fraud.
BACKGROUND OF PROVABLE FACT CONTRARY
TO THE “OPINION” OF THE NM CT. APP.
Without cause or reasoning, Barrie Derringer left
David Derringer on December 27, 2011 four days after a house fire that killed 5
of the Derringer’s dogs and destroyed Derringers’ personal property. To cover
Barrie Derringer’s illegal and malicious acts with her NAI Maestas and Ward
Corporation bosses Debbie and Irwin Harms and 10 other unknown thugs, on
Saturday, February 4, 2012, criminal breaking and entering with destruction of
property and “criminal assault and battery with conversion (larceny) against David
Derringer, in retaliation, retribution and revenge, of the APD police stopping
criminal actions against David Derringer by her mercenaries and thugs, on February
6, 2012, Barrie Derringer lied in perjury and fraud in a “Petition for Order of
Protection” that despite witnesses to the contrary, alleged that on February 4,
2012 David Derringer has knocked her down, hurt her hip, and kept her from
leaving, all contrary to witnesses and the APD police report of the incident. (APD
ordered Barrie Derringer and her thugs to leave) In point of fact Barrie
Derringer’s bosses Debbie and Irwin Harms and 10 thugs hired by Barrie
Derringer to assist her breaking and entering in the shop/storage of 101
Florida SE Unit C, knocked down David Derringer and held him against his will
in “criminal assault and battery” until APD showed up due to the previous 911 call of record of David Derringer
to stop the burglary of Barrie Derringer and “thugs”. Upset by not attaining
her own way with stealing all of the community assets, Barrie Derringer
retaliated in fraud by falsely accusing David Derringer of domestic abuse so as to gain an unlawful
court assistance to steal the rest of community property and some personal
separate property of David Derringer. David Derringer at the time believed that
his wife Barrie Derringer with current and then abuse of 5 different
prescription doctor shopping medications of “codeine” and past history of cocaine,
marijuana and alcohol, was suffering from a possible PTSD (post traumatic
stress disorder) also brought on by Barrie Derringer having been diagnosed and
treated for bi-polar disorder, depression, and suicidal tendencies (as
testified being suicidal under Oath in DM-12-610) and filed separately asking the court for the legal guardianship
of Barrie Derringer for seeking help for her medically and psychologically with
“counseling” for the benefit of seeking proper help for his own wife. David
Derringer’s motions were date set at the same time that the Barrie Derringer’s
Petition for Order of Protection was to be heard as the only reason David
Derringer appeared in the court at that time and date. Without service of
summons on Barrie Derringer’s Petition for Order of Protection, the court had
no jurisdiction to continue with any case DV-12-234 as a matter of “law”. Instead,
in judicial fraud Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar abused her position as later
did Judge Hadfield to force deprivation of due process against David Derringer
despite David Derringer never waiving any mandated service of summons and
rammed down the throat of David Derringer DV-12-234 without jurisdiction in
fundamental error and without any jurisdiction, despite David Derringer noticing
the court of these violations at the onset and continually throughout all
proceedings including this NM Court of Appeals. Lack of service of summons is a
legally controlling issue of court “jurisdiction”, and without waiver as there
was no waiver in DV-12-234 by David Derringer it is mandated to be dismissed.
Ramming DV-12-234 continually against David Derringer and mis-using it to take
Constitutional rights is as illegal and corrupt as any court can operate. To
persecute David Derringer the court illegally placed a two year Order of
Protection against David Derringer by Barrie Derringer and the court’s own
judicial fraud, illegally taking Constitutional rights without legal ability.
Consistently, David Derringer was “forced”
to represent himself, being in “forma pauperis” and constantly opposed the
fraud and illegal acts of Barrie Derringer and the NM judiciary doing criminal
acts against David Derringer including Judge Hadfield ordering David
Derringer’s pleadings destroyed and that the clerks could not file them,
obstructing appeals and lying to the court record while also extorting all
money, tangible personal property and community property for the “unjust
enrichment” of Petitioner Barrie Derringer including larceny/conversion of
$32,000.00 of David Derringer’s inheritance monies after the death of his
mother, as “sole and separate personal property” stolen by the cohorts of
Barrie Derringer and Judge Hadfield. Despite the preponderance of evidence to
support the perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer and her attorney Alain
Jackson and the “judicial fraud” proven in court record by Commissioner
Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Hadfield with “federal obstruction of justice” of
Judge Hadfield blocking appeals and destroying court records, the courts
covered up the judicial corruption and disallowed any redress to order an FBI
or DOJ investigation of the judicial fraud and judicial bribery obviously
involved by extreme circumstantial evidence. The Order of Protection had no
preponderance of evidence, in fact no evidence whatsoever, and all evidence,
testimony and witnesses of David Derringer were blocked, denied and
disregarded. David Derringer was continually forced to appeal all
jurisdictionally defective DV-12-234 and the “judicial fraud” was constantly
upheld by Judge Hadfield and the corruption of the NM Court of Appeals. Both
the trial court and the NM Court of Appeals tried all avenues to block David
Derringer’s pleadings, docketing statements and appeals, and the NM Court of
Appeals then decided to selectively block portions of issues of David
Derringer’s appeal by denying “forma pauperis” over issues of judicial fraud,
judicial bribery, judicial corruption, criminal acts by Judge Hadfield and
other “sensitive issues” of public corruption as a means to hide these in
public record to taint and corrupt the record of this case to continually
portray Barrie Derringer as the “poor hurt puppy victim” and to erroneously
portray David Derringer as the aggressor and problem, when in point of fact all
criminal and fraudulent acts were done by Barrie Derringer, her attorney Alain
Jackson and the NM judiciary to cover up their own public corruption and
violations of Oath and Constitution. Instead of choosing properly to adhere to
law, the courts chose to persecute David Derringer against the law, and the
more David Derringer opposed the corruption, the more severe and violent the
court justices became, inevitably Judge Hadfield doing criminal acts against
David Derringer of obstruction of justice, larceny of personal property,
larceny of sole and separate tens of thousands of dollars in monies, stealing
the 2005 Chevy Silverado, and other extortion, ransom and conversion, as well
as deprivation of use of the US courts by ordering illegally court clerks to
block and not file legal pleadings and other court papers of David Derringer
including trying to block all appeals of the corruption and destruction of the
court record.
The Second Amendment Challenge was
definite projections of all Constitutional, US Code, NM Constitution and NM
Statutory and all US and state case laws the absolutely prohibited the NM
Courts from taking David Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights by
unconstitutional wording in an Order of Protection typed form mis-used in fraud
by the Second Judicial District Court family court, wherein simply wording
against all that come before the court in “family matters” cannot be
unilaterally denied the 2nd Amendment without cause and without any
convictions, misdemeanors , felonies, and in this case not even a claim or
allegation that firearms were of any issue between Barrie Derringer and David
Derringer. In short, the fraud of the NM Courts intends to support an
unconstitutional writing of the family court, that is illegal and cannot be enforced by the
mandates of the US Constitution “Supremacy Clause” of Article VI. Respondent
cannot be legally barred from any Constitutional right by the family court
simply having an “opinion” that no one under any order of protection should
have any access or ownership of “firearms or ammunition”. In doing these acts
against David Derringer, the NM Courts violated not only the Constitution, but
violated the most recent prior case law form the US Supreme Court, particularly
spelled out for the NM Court of Appeals in the very detailed and descriptive
David Derringer’s Appellants “Brief in Chief” which was never contested in any
way by the Petitioner Barrie Derringer, who never entered the NM Court of
Appeals. Instead, in judicial fraud, the NM Court of Appeals became the
litigator and adversary against David Derringer for the missing Appellee, and
defied all Constitution and law to enforce an illegal and unconstitutional
Order of Protection without ever service of summons in jurisdictional defect.
Not only is this judicial fraud, sedition and treason against Oath and
Constitution, but renders the judicial system mute, destroys the US Congress,
Constitution and claims to override the US Supreme Court that specifically
ruled against what the NM Court of Appeals does in the Memorandum Opinion of July
14, 2014. Clearly, there is no law in NM but the whims and egos and public
corruption of the justices in power, wherein it is superfluous to quote
Constitution, statutes, US code and case laws controlling all aspects of
DV-12-234 only to be ignored by the NM judiciary intent on harming David
Derringer by mis-use of a case illegal without service of summons in
jurisdictional defect and in fundamental error. In the process, the courts
tried all means to stop the litigation of David Derringer defending himself,
with pleadings, because each pleading spelled out the laws that must be upheld,
so the tactic was of Judge Hadfield to destroy court records of David
Derringer, stop the filing of the pleading that are both well written and
legally correct, and the NM Court of Appeals covered up the public corruption
by refusing to consider issues, deny forma pauperis, force David Derringer
illegally to allow the justices to see pleading before they had any
jurisdiction, so as to stop such pleadings and refuse to file them to taint and
corrupt the court record, and then time and time again provably rule ‘AGAINST
THE LAW AND AGAINST THE CONTITUTION”. At all times, David Derringer preserved
all of his Constitutional rights, despite the obstruction of justice by the NM
judiciary, and the judicial fraud of the NM Court of Appeals to claim no
preservation of issues is blatant in the court record. In trial courts all, and
continually, David Derringer legally screamed about deprivation of 2nd
Amendment, made it clear from the onset of Commissioner that his actual
livelihood was deprived by deprivation of firearms, and that there was no legal
way to deny Constitutional rights; all expressly claiming at all times the
truth that DV-12-234 has always been jurisdictionally defective and unable to
continue in jurisdictional defect. Clearly, the judicial fraud here is made to
deny Constitutional rights by liars under Oath. The NM Court of Appeals lies
time and time again that such arguments over 2nd Amendment are not
in the court record, when they are saturated in the court record, and wherein
“jurisdiction” to steal Constitutional rights as a “jurisdictional issue” can
also in fact be brought before the court for the first time upon appeal.
THERE WAS NEVER LEGAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND THERE WAS
NEVER ANY WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
The record does not contain any dialog by any supporting documents or
affidavits that David Derringer was served, and there is nothing in the court
record about attempts at service that failed. It is not the responsibility or
duty of David Derringer as “Respondent” to “seek service of summons”. It is the
duty of the Petitioner to serve the Respondent/Defendant in any manner that is
legal, and “hearsay” is not effective for claims of service. Service must be
provided by personal service, legal advertisement, registered return receipt
mail and other methods of legal service and this court cannot blame shift the
service responsibility on the “Respondent” to cover the inadequacies of the
Petitioner. If the Petitioner claims, which she has not legally pleaded, that
the Sheriff could not serve the summons, it is her legal duty to gain a private
server, legally advertise or use other means for proper service. Unequivocally,
it is the burden of the Petitioner to prove service which has not been
accomplished. The court cannot place the burden for service on the Respondent
to either prove he was served or make claim that the Respondent did not “seek
service” to gain its accomplishment. What is blatantly clear here is the dialog
of this NM Ct. App. over this matter: “Effecting service on Respondent
without his cooperation was complicated because he did not work regularly and
lived in a travel trailer on a mesa without a street address.” What is
solid is that none of this information stated is in the court record proper as
the only means legally this court has to address this issue, making it very
clear that “ex-parte” communication has been gained by this court with direct
dialog contact between the NM Ct. App. justices with Petitioner Barrie
Derringer (Crowe) and her attorney Alain Jackson, both of which are not party
to this litigation without any entry of appearance by the attorney, and no
pro-se participation by Barrie Derringer as “Appellee”. “Personal contact” had
to have been made with one or more of the NM Ct. App. justices directly with
the Petitioner to learn this information of where David Derringer lived, his
time schedule, working conditions, and that David Derringer lived in a
“trailer”. This court had no other way of knowing that David Derringer lived in
a “trailer on the mesa”. Obviously, before this Memorandum Opinion was
constructed, a “protective plan” was contrived by the court to protect and
defeat claims of no service of summons with the Petitioner; the court acting in
private to conspire to defeat the Appellant and override the lack of legal
service so as to protect the underlying illegal case without any jurisdiction, so
as to also protect all of the violations and criminal acts perpetrated by the
underlying justices Commissioner and Judge Hadfield. “Ex-parte” communication
with the Petitioner not represented without privy of the Appellant, for a means
of defeating laws and the Rules of Civil Procedure is atrocious. As point of
legal fact this NM Court of Appeals cannot accept that service of summons was
made, which it was not legally, and no other attempt at service was made by the
Petitioner, including but not limited to serving David Derringer when he
appeared at the hearing of February 21, 2014 at which time service could have
been absolutely accomplished just prior to the hearing, and no attempt was made
by the Petitioner. In this matter “law” controls the case DV-12-234 as being
jurisdictionally defective for lack of legal service and no waiver of service
by David Derringer, and judicial fraud to protect and cover such lack of
service cannot be used by the court to continue to persecute the Respondent. The
court record, as the only means this court has to render decisions, makes it
clear in the docket that there was no legal effective service of summons
“period” for DV-12-234. The court cannot order that service was
accomplished when the record shows that service was not perfected by any means.
The NM Ct. App. again protects and litigates for the missing Appellant. The law
demands that DV-12-234 be dismissed for lack of proper service, and illegal force
has been used against David Derringer to require participation in pure
“defense” of the illegal acts of the corrupt judiciary without jurisdiction. LAW: 14th
Amendment and State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 312,183 P.2d 845,845
(N.M. 1947); Deerman v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 NM
501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993); Trujillo v. Goodwin,
2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839; Abarca v. Hanson, 106 NM
25, 738 P.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1987); Holguin
v. Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P.2d 88 (1977);
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. V. Raton Natural Gas Co., 86
N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 (1974); 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);
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); FN10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) mandates that a
“summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint.”; Mellon
Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992); Gehling
v. St. George's Sch. of Medicine, Ltd., 773 F.2d 539, 542 (3d
Cir.1985).; North Penn Gas Co. v. Corning Natural Gas Corp., 897
F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 847 (1990) (citations omitted);
Royal Gist-Brocades N.V. v. Sierra Prods. Ltd., No. 97-1147, 1997
WL 792905, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 22, 1997); Friedman v. Israel Labour Party,
957 F.Supp. 701, 706 (E.D.Pa.1997); Carterat Savings Bank v. Shushan,
954 F.2d 141, 142 n. 1 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U .S. 817 (1992); 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); United
States v. Mollenhauer Laboratories, Inc., 267 F.2d 260, 262 (7th
Cir.1959); Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail Stages, 43 N.M. 453, 95
P.2d 204, 1939 -NMSC- 050, N.M., October 16, 1939 (NO. 4448); 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); 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); Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree,
326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946). For the NM Court of Appeals to hold illegally
that service was accomplished when it wasn’t just because “Effecting
service on Respondent without his cooperation was complicated because he did
not work regularly, and lived in a trailer on a mesa without a street address”,
does not affectively attain service for the Petitioner. Many Respondents may be
“complicated” to serve, and the court has no ability to waive service for the
Respondent. The law mandated the Rules of Civil Procedure be upheld by the
directive to the Petitioner and the court cannot assist the Petitioner’s
failings of service by their own hand.
The perjury and fraud by Petitioner and her attorney
Alain Jackson was proven beyond doubt by Barrie Derringer’s own testimony
“David would never hurt me physically” as well as the testimony of David
Derringer and his witness of Bruce Davis in DM-12-610 regarding the perjury of
Barrie Derringer’s statements for filing the Order of Protection by actions
claimed falsely to have happened on February 4, 2012 when Barrie Derringer and
mercenary thugs broke into the David Derringer storage and did criminal assault
and battery against David Derringer. (SEE David Derringer v. Maestas et
al CV-12-1307, and David Derringer v. Barrie Crowe et al
CV-12-10816 of which this same NM Court of Appeals is trying desperately to
cover up the underlying Judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott, by Barrie Crowe
aka Barrie Derringer and Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate, by
obstructing and denying David Derringer’s legal ability to appeal these cases
denying forma pauperis when mandated to be approved as it was in each trial Order
of the separate cases and wherein David Derringer is on “public assistance”)
The “new proof” of the perjury and fraud by Barrie Derringer (Crowe) and
Attorney Alain Jackson lies in the testimony under Oath by Barrie Derringer in
DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307, CV-12-10816, and the perjury and fraud of
Alain Jackson in CV-12-1307, CV-12-10816 both on the witness stands and in the
discovery process, that they had no possession of any personal property of
David Derringer. Now, David Derringer has the witness of the secretary of the
law building in which Alain Jackson practiced, that indeed 2 ½ years later,
Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer delivered three boxes and other items of
David Derringer personal property to the offices of Alain Jackson, Alain
Jackson refused to give David Derringer an inventory of items and first
abandoned David Derringer’s personal property, and then after moving his office
took again adverse possession of David Derringer’s personal property and still
refuses to give back David Derringer’s personal property, in acts of criminal
larceny/embezzlement, as defined in an APD police report of record, with
investigation of criminal acts by Barrie Derringer (Crowe) and Alain Jackson
pending at this time. Alain Jackson has been complicit in the perjury and fraud
by Barrie Derringer and the illegal concealment of personal property, and
indeed instigated the perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer filing the initial
Petition for Order of Protection on February 6, 2012, in order to speed up the
divorce and antagonize David Derringer hopefully to precipitate David Derringer
in some sort of hatred for Barrie Derringer, all of which they did not
accomplish. Since the Petitioner did meet with David Derringer many times
before the filing in the dark, alone, and after the separation, and the “abuse
of discretion” of ruling for an order of protection based on perjury and fraud
of “false fears” is arbitrary and capricious and must be reweighed and
considered by the NM Court of Appeals as a trial court “abuse of discretion”
therein the evidence does not support the erroneous ruling. The lack of evidence,
and the statements by the Petitioner in fact impeaching her own former
accusations are easily seen in the court record pleadings and testimony of all
parties and must be considered by this court in “abuse of discretion”.
The bias and prejudice against the Respondent is very
evident by both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield wherein the Commissioner
“refused” to take testimony of witness Bruce Davis on February 21, 2012 when
she knew he was there for the Respondent, was waiting outside to testify and wherein
she addressed in open court that she knew David Derringer had witness Bruce
Davis. Later, Judge Hadfield did allow Bruce Davis to testify over all matters
including the perjury and fraud by Barrie Derringer in the Petition for Order
of Protection on February 6, 2012, wherein Bruce Davis was there and a witness
to all actions and non-actions on February 4, 2012 at 101 Florida SE Unit C
wherein Barrie Derringer has “lied” in the Petition that on that date and time
David Derringer had knocked her down, hurt her hip and kept her from leaving,
thus impeaching Barrie Derringer, as does the APD police report of February 4,
2012; the same date and time that Barrie Derringer later claimed that David
Derringer had hurt her as to fraud to gain an order of protection, but wherein
Barrie Derringer never claimed to APD on that same date that David Derringer
had hurt her, when in fact there were over 40 persons present that knew that
never happened. “Abuse of
discretion” in the rulings of both the Commissioner and Judge
Hadfield in frivolous, arbitrary and capricious decisions without substance of
facts, evidence mandate the NM Court of Appeals review the court records in
this matter. The district court has wide discretion, and its decision will only
be set aside if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Martinez v.
Martinez, 1997–NMCA–125, 10, 124 N.M. 313, 950 P.2d 286; Ellsworth,
1981–NMSC–132, 2, 97 N.M. 133, 637 P.2d 564. “An abuse of discretion occurs
when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the
facts and circumstances of the case.” Sims v. Sims,
1996–NMSC–078, 65, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153. Further, to establish an abuse
of discretion, “it must be shown that the court's ruling exceeds the bounds of
all reason or that the judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable.” Meiboom v. Watson, 2000–NMSC–004, ¶ 29, 128 N.M.
536, 994 P.2d 1154Then Judge Hadfield does criminal acts against David
Derringer to destroy court records, block appeals and obstruction of justice so
as to attempt to cover up her acts in bias for and criminal assistance and
facilitation of criminal acts for Barrie Derringer, and to cover up illegal
acts by attorney Alain Jackson, all in conspiracy and coercion against all
rights, immunities and privileges of David Derringer. Additionally, the
Commissioner later accepted incomplete claims of evidence by Barrie Derringer
when she sustained the objection by David Derringer that it could not be
admitted by violations of the rules of evidence and then changed all issues in
“chambers” in collusion with Judge Hadfield in attempts to criminally harass
and intimidate David Derringer by threats of jail for “harassment”, a criminal
allegation without a criminal complaint, without an attorney present, without Miranda
rights, without a trial, without a jury or any other right under the 4th,
5th and 14th Amendment, clearly in attempt to “scare” and
“intimidate” David Derringer to abandon his opposition to the judicial fraud by
Barrie Derringer, Alain Jackson, Commissioner, and Judge Hadfield. When that
failed, Judge Hadfield started destruction of the court record, blocking
appeals, stealing in larceny David Derringer’s pleadings and blocking filing
and trying to stop all appeals. This court is party to all of this judicial
fraud as well as contributing their own sections of same, all attempting to
stop David Derringer from due process and equal protection. Simply the
prevention of a witness, prevention of cross examination, and refusal to take
exhibits renders a court “biased” and wherein the matter must be dismissed. In
re Doe, 519 P.2d 133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear
one party’s evidence, when offered, establishes a presumption of prejudice.” In
all of DV-12-234 without service of summons and without any ability of this
court to waive service of summons claiming it was “difficult” and without
acceptance of witnesses and exhibits or proper court procedure, David Derringer
was denied “due process and equal protection” making the case of DV-12-234 defective
in jurisdiction and must be dismissed as a matter of law. Beal v. Reidy,
80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive
party of due process of law.” David Derringer legally requested both recusal
for cause and under law NMSA 38-3-3 requested a change of venue for justice to
be served, and without the mandated hearings for same under statutory
requirements, both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield refused to release their
tyranny control over either of DV-12-234 or DM-12-610 so as to render abuse of
process and deprivation of Constitutional rights of due process and equal
protection. Violations of statutory laws and Constitution has been ongoing in
the NM Judiciary over this whole matter including the extreme violations against
David Derringer against all laws by the MM Court of Appeals. “BIAS” is very
well proven in all court records; the NM judiciary hates David Derringer for
suing four justices in the Federal 10th circuit US District Court
past and in fighting the public corruption of the courts and in intent on the
destruction of the life of David Derringer every time litigation is attempted;
wherein the judiciary refused to follow the laws futilely presented by Pro-Se
David Derringer. Destruction of court records, blocking appeals, stealing court
papers to prevent filing and other egregious and outrageous acts of “judicial
fraud” have all been done and attempted against David Derringer in DV-12-234,
DM-12-610 and all ongoing appeals of same. Then refusal to allow an appeal of
CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 that are inexplicitly intertwined with DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610 which prove Judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott and likely Judge
Hadfield and the Commissioner shows an unprecedented judicial and public
corruption that warps the mind of any rational American that believes in the US
Constitution and judiciary and laws enacted by Congress and Legislature.
FIRST:
The NM Court of Appeals “lies” that the Commissioner did not prevent Bruce
Davis from testifying, which the court record shows she did. David Derringer
asked several times on court record to allow his witness and the Commissioner
kept putting David Derringer off while allowing Barrie Derringer to control the
case. McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 921 F. Supp. 1473
“DSC 1996 When any court discerns what it considers to be improper activity
during litigation, it is court’s sworn duty to eliminate that conduct for the
prompt and fair administration of justice.” At no time did the Commissioner
allow Bruce Davis to testify and then adjourned the hearing, still without the
testimony of David Derringer’s witness, who was there standing by at all times
to testify. Bruce Davis was physically present to testify both in the morning
and in the afternoon and was denied. SECOND: Due process is not controlled by
whether or not the Respondent is represented by counsel or Pro-Se and the
rights or due process and equal protection are afforded a pro-se litigant just
as they are afforded a litigant represented by counsel. Denial of opportunity
for cross examination for a pro-se party is both prejudiced and biased toward a
self represented litigant and a direct deprivation of due process and equal
protection and obviously taints the court record, disallowing information and
impeachment that would destroy the testimony of the Petitioner. Varney v. Taylor, 79 NM 652, 448 P.2d 164
(1968) “This appears to be the total effect of deciding a case in which
jurisdiction is lacking but overlooked on appeal.” It is for that reason also
that Bruce Davis was denied as a witness, wherein the Commissioner knew that
with Barrie Derringer having no witnesses save herself, and without any direct
evidence in support of her false accusations of “domestic violence” ie. no
doctors reports, no witnesses, no expert witnesses, no photographs, and no
documents, the Commissioner knew that the “preponderance of evidence” would be
on the side of the Respondent with both his testimony, his documents, his
witness Bruce Davis and his physical police report, and thus the Commissioner
denied all forms of David Derringer’s “due process” so as to sustain the
perjury and fraud of Barrie Derringer in “abuse of discretion”. Chilton
v. 85 Mining Co. 23 N.M.
451, 168 P. 1066 1918F L.R.A. 243 (1917) “Such denial evidence of any matters
tending to show that Plaintiff was not vested with the title or right of
possession at the time of the commencement of the action is admissible.”; “At
a minimum, the district court must listen to a party’s arguments and give
reasons for its decision.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d
125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985).In any litigation, the pro-se party has
every right to an opening statement, testimony, introduction of exhibits and witnesses,
and cross examination of the opposing party, their witnesses, a legal argument,
and a closing statement; all of which were denied David Derringer at all times
in DV-12-234, particularly on February 21, 2014 wherein the Commissioner
tainted the record to enable the fraud and perjury of Barrie Derringer to
unlawfully gain an order of protection without credibility by deprivation of
due process and equal protection against the Respondent and forced illegally an
order of protection that deprived Constitutional rights for two years,
depriving the income of David Derringer without his firearms and allowed
criminal acts to occur in all courtrooms; since of course the court itself has
done multiple criminal acts against David Derringer to stop the litigation and
cover up the former illegal acts by the Petitioner, her attorney and the
justices themselves. Stated in this Memorandum, the Commissioner had “severe
concerns” about the cross examination available legally by David Derringer in
that it would undoubtedly prove the fraud of Barrie Derringer, so without legal
due process, the Commissioner simply muzzled the Respondent with Constitutional
deprivations and afforded the fraud. 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. 575, 580,
66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946). The statement “The special
commissioner stated that the court does not permit cross-examination “of pro-se
plaintiffs in most situations” and that given the motions filed by Respondent
the special commissioner had “severe concerns” about the content on the
cross-examination” is written proof by this court that “due process and
equal protection” was denied by the Commissioner in illegal and
unconstitutional discrimination against a litigant, as it is also by the NM
Court of Appeals. Canon 3
(B)(7): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest
in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to
law.” ; United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin
v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787
(1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote
[103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to
interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not
state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in
the conspiracy.” Clearly, David Derringer received “discrimination” and
deprivation of due process and equal protection because he was a pro-se
litigant. US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986
“Word should in Canon..of Judicial Conduct which states that judge “should”
accord to every interested person a full right to be heard, imposes mandatory
standard of conduct upon judges and requires presence of both prosecuting
attorneys and defendant at any proceeding which bears on outcome of
pending..case.” Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3, Subd. A(4) and C(1)(a) ; 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) “To satisfy a case for violations
of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “Defendant was
singled out for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This
was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.”; Udall v.
Townsend, 1998-NMCA-162, 9, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 “Pro-Se
litigants are held to the same standard of compliance with court rules and
procedures as members of the bar.” Because the court doesn’t want to hear the truth or what the
litigant has to say is no legal ability to deny due process to be able to rule
then for the Petitioner without “oppositions” that has been denied; due process
means “opportunity to be heard”. Due process was denied in DV-12-234 making it
jurisdictionally defective and mandated to be entirely dismissed. State
ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966)
“Requiring petitioner to stand trial before biased or prejudiced judge does not
conform to adequate remedy.”; 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.”; Phelps
v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). “manifest
error of law is clearly present.” THIRD: The Commissioner in DV-12-234 had no
ability to intertwine Civil tort cases filed against Barrie Derringer and other
bosses that did criminal assault and battery, not did she have an jurisdiction
to render decisions in DV-12-234 based in any or all part of the filing of
other litigation beyond her jurisdiction, in a bias and prejudice in attempts
to protect Barrie Derringer from other litigation. 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.” The Respondent David Derringer had every right
legally to file other actions, which are civil in nature of torts and are not
to be able to be construed by the illegal “meddling” of the Commissioner as
“harassment” which term is only contained in the criminal code of NM. If those
litigations were to be considered “abuse of process” or “malicious
prosecution”, Barrie Derringer and other Defendants would have filed a counterclaim
to such litigation which was not done. W.G. v. Senatore,
18 F.3d 60 “Neither court by exercising its inherent equitable discretion, nor
parties by entering into stipulation, can confer jurisdiction where none has
been authorized.” The Commissioner could at no time base any decisions in any
matter of DV-12-234 on any other cases
that she was not the finder of fact and could not as she did reach outside of
the court record to make decisions based on hearsay, conjecture and opinion. Beverly
Health and Rehabilitation Services Inc. v. Feinstein, 103 F.3d
151, 322 US App DC 245 Rehearing denied 118 S. Ct. 65, 139 L.Ed.2d 27 “Courts
decide cases within their jurisdiction rather than asserting jurisdiction
because they believe that substantive claim ought to be considered.” In the
hearing the unscrupulous attorney Alain Jackson attempted and succeeded in
tainting the opinion of the Commissioner against David Derringer by stating
that David Derringer was involved in other litigation of other matters not at
all related to the current matters with Barrie Derringer; an act of coercion of
a judge against a litigant that the Commissioner eagerly entered into. FOURTH: The Respondent does indicate which exhibits
were rejected by the Commissioner as all Defendants exhibits, and the witness
Bruce Davis was rejected by the Commissioner. Notwithstanding, it only takes
the rejection of one witness or one exhibit to prove a bias of the court, that
renders the case jurisdictionally defective on grounds of lack and deprivation
of due process and equal protection. Vigil v. State Auditor's Office,
138 N.M. 63, 116 P.3d 854, 2005 -NMCA- 096, N.M.App., June 01, 2005 (NO.
24,225) “every indication that [a] strong pattern of public corruption
existed.” The Commissioner was
substantively “rigging the case” by allowing anything from the Petitioner and
denying the Respondent. Citimortgage, Inc. v. Giron P.3d, 2010 WL 3997939 N.M.App.,2010 February
18, 2010 “an attempt to “rig” the case outcome and as an abrogation of his
substantive due process rights. The Commissioner and Judge Hadfield rigged the
case to deprive David Derringer and tailor the outcome for Barrie Derringer. Aguilera
v. Board of Educ. 137 N.M. 642, 114 P.3d 322 N.M.App.,2005 April 06,
2005 “where the decision was procured by corruption, fraud, deception or
collusion”. When certain actions of the judicial fraud failed and David
Derringer unexpectedly continued to litigate and appeal rather than accepting
the fraud of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, the actions turned criminal
and violent in corruption of the judges in order to stop David Derringer from
eventually achieving “justice”. Zarr v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC,
2009–NMCA–050, 146 N.M. 274, 208 P.3d 919, we set out the correct standard for a
finding of improper means. What may qualify as ‘improper means' depends to some
degree on context and can include, but is not limited to predatory behavior,
violence, threats or intimidation, deceit or misrepresentation, bribery,
economic pressure, unfounded litigation, defamation, unlawful conduct, and
perhaps violation of business ethics and customs. there is suggestion of
“bribery of judges, employment of counsel to ‘influence’ the court : bribery,
contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3(A)(3) (1997). Undeniably, the case laws
do not define any particular number of documents or witnesses that it takes to
define “bias” as any deprivation of rights to “opportunity to be heard and
present evidence” constitutes “bias”. In re Doe, 519 P.2d
133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear one party’s evidence, when
offered, establishes a presumption of prejudice.” 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.” Every
aspect of the hearing before the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield sustain
deprivation of due process and equal protection and a bias and prejudice and
then destruction of court records, blocking appeals, Orders to the clerks to
stop and prevent all legal filings by David Derringer; undeniably when a judge
acts without jurisdiction to stop legal filings in a court of law by a
litigant, this court cannot impossibly conceive that these acts are not a
“bias”; such suggestion to condone these federal criminal acts by judges is
asinine. It is mandated for numerous reasons to overturn and dismiss the order
of protection, which has undeniably expired, and dismiss DV-12-234 as
unconstitutional and illegal without jurisdiction on multiple grounds.
VIOLATIONS OF US CODE TITLE 42 SECTION 1981 AND US CODE TITLE 42
SECTION 1982.
Both the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield violated all
aspects of “due process and equal protection” (Section 1981). As before
mentioned, all it takes is depriving one witness, one item of exhibits and
evidence, allowing the Petitioner’s incomplete evidence in violation of the
rules of evidence, not allowing opportunity to be heard or disallowing cross
examination of the Petitioner yet allowing the Petitioner’s attorney to cross
examine the Respondent in “unequal” due process to violate the rights of “equal
protection” as defined by 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.” When you add to that the attempted criminal conviction of
“harassment” without any due process, intimidation, destruction of court
records, Order to clerks not to file any legal court pleading of David
Derringer and blocking appeals, preventing witnesses and all other outrageous
illegal acts by the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, it is the duty of this
court to Order FBI and DOJ investigation and criminal prosecution, but instead,
this NM Court of Appeals attempts to taint the court record in corruption, stop
David Derringer’s or limit appeals, see pleadings before having legal
jurisdiction, stop legal forma pauperis and condone and hide all actions by the
trial courts and Barrie Derringer so as to permeate the fraud and destroy David
Derringer despite all law. The more law David Derringer presents, and the more
testimony, witnesses, and documents are available to prove the fraud and
violations of law, the court justices stoop lower and lower to do criminal acts
against David Derringer to stop by any means
“due process” and appeals, and when David Derringer places “public
record” on the Internet exposing the judicial fraud, the justices Order,
intimidate and threaten David Derringer to stop all posting, lest be arrested,
jailed or killed; so did Adolph Hitler. There have been multiple
violations of Constitution, case laws, NM statutes, US Code, threats,
intimidation, deprivation of due process, deprivation of equal protection and
violent actions by criminal nature to stop “justice” for David Derringer at the
expense of the judicial system integrity. The acts by the Commissioner to allow
Barrie Derringer selectively, without the presence of David Derringer to steal,
rummage, destroy, vandalize and take all community property before any final
divorce or property settlement agreement or litigation for property equity, can
only be construed as the most severe sexual bias and prejudice against a man
for the “unjust enrichment” of the woman in the divorce. Succeeding the
“terrorism” by Barrie Derringer and mercenaries criminally attacking David
Derringer in assault and battery and conversion/larceny on February 4, 2012,
the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield were party to the embezzlement, destruction
and vandalism of personal property of David Derringer ever since. The “proof”
is now apparent with the APD police report of actual physical possession of
David Derringer’s personal property 2 ½ years after the “supposed divorce” by
Barrie Derringer wherein prior in all courts both Barrie Derringer and attorney
Alain Jackson “swore to God” under Oath that they had nothing of the personal
property of David Derringer. The acts of court assisted larceny and
embezzlement cannot be condoned in a free society, and are to be only construed
as “judicial fraud”. The Court, and/or the trial court “lies” that the parties
were about to “lose their lease” on the shop/storage, as that was not about to
happen. In point of fact David Derringer continued to rent that unit for 7 more
months. What did transpire, is that while still being married to David
Derringer in February, 2012, illegally under the statutory scheme of NMSA
Section 40 that defines “community debt”, Barrie Derringer went behind
David Derringer’s back to the landlord and fraudulently convinced him that only
David Derringer was responsible for the rent, and thus illegally diverged
herself from Community debt and illegally placed such burden on only the legal
husband, while at the same time stole all money from all bank accounts, took
all community tangible property with use of illegal larceny facilitation of
DV-12-234, and ordered and purchased new community property behind David
Derringer’s back to illegally move into a new residence with unlawfully
precluding the occupation by the legal husband David Derringer, contrary to NMSA
Title 40. The Commissioner and Judge Hadfield were party to larceny,
embezzlement, larceny of sole and separate inheritance funds, larceny of
vehicles, destruction of locks and property of the landlord of which David
Derringer had to replace, destruction of electrical wiring and doors of the
storage and other “vandalism” of both David Derringer’s personal property and
that of third parties. The NM Court of Appeals “condones” this behavior in
direct violation of US Code of Title 42 Section 1982 concerning “personal
property” as well as court judicial fraud facilitation of all of the illegal
and criminal acts by Barrie Derringer and “thugs”. The Commissioner knew of all
of these actions by the pleadings of David Derringer and continued to allow
criminal acts against David Derringer and property, as well as Judge Hadfield
allowed approximately $100,000.00 of “unjust enrichment” by Barrie Derringer
against David Derringer on top of the illegal Order of Protection that
prevented David Derringer from working as a professional outfitter by illegally
denying 2nd Amendment rights for two years; all actions here
prohibited by any judicial official under “Oath”. Clearly, allowing only the
Petitioner to take community property and some of David Derringer’s personal
property, vandalize some of David Derringer’s personal property, all under the
illegal protection of a court without jurisdiction due to lack of service of
summons and other Constitutional violations is a violation of the US Code Title
42 Section 1982 Private property act; there is no legal doubt.
The NM Court of Appeals attempts to dupe the
Appellant as “ignorant” by stating that both 1981 and 1982 were enacted
after the Civil War intended to prevent racial discrimination as though David
Derringer is stupid, and does not understand his rights under the US Codes, so
David Derringer will quote case laws that make it clear that David Derringer is
neither stupid nor ignorant when it comes to his rights under law and that
inexplicitly David Derringer was violated under 1981 and 1982 by both the
Petitioner and the corrupt judiciary of the State of New Mexico. Barbier
v. Connolly, (1885) 113 US 27, 28 L.Ed 923, 5 S Ct 357 “14th
Amendment undoubtedly intended not only that there should be no arbitrary
deprivation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given
to all under like circumstances in enjoyment of their personal and civil
rights; and all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness
and acquire and enjoy property.”; City of Memphis v. Greene,
Tenn. 1981 101 S. Court 1584, 451 US 100, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 rehearing denied 101
S. Ct. 3100, 452 US 955, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 “Private Individuals-This section
[Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982] guaranteeing all citizens of the US the same
right as is enjoyed by white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold,
and convey real and personal property is directly applicable to private
parties.”; Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S.
409 (1968) No. 645 “All citizens of the United States shall have the same
right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
Congress provided that the right to real and personal property was to be
enjoyed equally throughout the United States, and that right was to be secured
against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or
private.”; Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.,
(Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523 “Private actors may be liable directly
under statute providing “all citizens of the US the same right as is enjoyed by
white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property is directly applicable to private parties” Title 42 Section
1982, as that statute applies to private parties and does not require state
action.” ; Anderson v. Martin, (1964) 375 US 399, 11 L.Ed.2d 430,
84 S Ct 454 “ In determining whether state action violates equal protection
clause of 14th Amendment where private action is also involved,
crucial factor is interplay of governmental and private action.”; Griffin
v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) “intent to deprive of equal
protection, or equal privileges and immunities....The conspiracy, in other
words must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the
law to all.” Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787
(1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote
[103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to
interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not
state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in
the conspiracy.”
CONCLUSION
The law makes it undisputed that
Barrie Derringer and attorney Alain Jackson worked in collusion with the public
corruption of the Commissioner, Judge Hadfield and other third parties to do
criminal acts of larceny, embezzlement, deprivation of rights under all laws
Constitution and US Code, and the judicial fraud and corruption of the Court
attended this conspiracy with then attempting at all times to “imprison” David
Derringer within their corruption, denying a change of venue to keep David
Derringer under the corruption where “justice would never be served” in
violation of NMSA 38-3-3, by lies by judges, destruction of court records,
blocking appeals, ordering clerks to not file legal pleadings and other papers
and other criminal methods to stop David Derringer and keep him from “justice”.
As David Derringer would not stop his demand for justice to be served, the NM
judiciary then stooped to more criminal acts against David Derringer blocking
him from legal “forma pauperis” disregarding all law, disregarding issues on
appeal, disregarding and lying that Constitutional rights were not “preserved”
and other judicial fraud to allow the Petitioner to win all litigation while
the Petitioner was never present in any higher court beyond the trial court, so
the justices themselves took upon the task to represent Barrie Derringer
against David Derringer as litigant, adversary and protector. All Constitution
was violated, David Derringer was denied firearms and all Constitutional rights
and illegally threatened, intimidated, persecuted with cruel and unusual
punishment as he continued to expose the public corruption of New Mexico
judiciary. Clearly, DV-12-234 is without jurisdiction an multiple grounds of
Constitutional violations, lack of summons service, bias, prejudice, criminal
acts, facilitation of conspiracy and many other violations of law including but
not limited to deprivation of “justice to be served” by denial of a change of
venue under statutory law NMSA 38-3-3 by both the Commissioner and Judge
Hadfield, and then the criminal cover up by the NM Court of Appeals denying
appeal, denying forma pauperis and ignoring any issue that exposes the
underlying corruption. All are intertwined in the violations of numerous US
Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 with no one “preventing”
the damages to David Derringer even though many had the power as justices to do
such prevention. The most extreme violations are under the criminal US Code
Title 18 Sections 241, 242, 1503 and other acts meant to deprive all
Constitutional rights and persecute under the 13th Amendment. Absolutely, as a matter of law DV-12-234 must
be dismissed, DM-12-610 is fraud intertwined, and the cases of CV-12-1307 and
CV-12-10816 that show the judicial bribery of Judge Malott, which likely is
combined with bribery of the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield are “ripe” for
federal criminal investigation as being hidden and stopped in appeal by the
corruption of the NM Court of Appeals.
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
- Order DV-12-234 dismissed in its entirety.
- Order a DOJ and FBI investigation of criminal acts of US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242. “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”. Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..”
- Order restitution and compensation for David Derringer being violated in all issues of DV-12-234 and the cruel and unusual punishment of spending two years (and ongoing) deprived of Constitutional rights, statutory rights, violations of case laws, and US Code enacted by Congress; of payment of $100,000,000.00 (one hundred $million) against each of Barrie Derringer aka Barrie Crowe, Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Alisa Hadfield, other co-conspirators, and from the STATE of NEW MEXICO.
4.
Order by
mandate that the “standardized” form of the domestic violence courts delete the
actions of taking 2nd Amendment rights without due process or equal
protection.
5.
Any and
all other relief as is deemed just and proper.
Respectfully submitted
by:________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 7431
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE July 29, 2014
I hereby certify that I sent by first
class mail a copy of this pleading to:
NM Court of Appeals New Mexico Court of Appeals clerk
P.O. Box 2008
Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87504
I further certify that I sent by mail a
copy of this pleading to:
Petitioner’s attorney not of record with
this court and never having entered any appearance of record
Alain
Jackson, 423 6th St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
No comments:
Post a Comment