IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
NM
Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 34,875
NM
Court of Appeals No. 32,326
Second
Judicial District Court DV-12-234 rel. DM-12-610
BARRIE LEE DERRINGER,
Petitioner-Respondent,
vs.
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,
Respondent-Petitioner,
MOTION OF AMERICAN LIBERTY
LAW FOR LEAVE
TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS
CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT-PETITIONER
DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER
Cipriano
Roybal
Private
Attorney
American
Liberty Law
8732
Shirtz Rd. SW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87121
505-322-1893
COMES
NOW, Cipriano Roybal, Private Attorney General of American Liberty Law pursuant
to New Mexico Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-215, with motion to this Court for
leave to file the accompanying brief of amicus curiae in support of Respondent-Appellant
David Brian Derringer.
Cipriano
Roybal, as Private Attorney General of American Liberty Law in the United
States, is representing the interests of all American citizens as pro-se
persons, who have undeniable access to the United States Judicial System of our
government, just as litigating citizens who are represented by attorneys, and
are subject to the same rights, privileges and immunities under Constitution
and all state and federal laws.
|
It
is the important perspective of the American Liberty Law that pro-se parties
deserve by US Code Title 42 Section 1981 and Constitution the same abilities
and opportunities to properly and meaningfully litigate as do members of the
bar, and are held to the same standards of the Rules of Civil Procedure and
therefore cannot be penalized or discounted in all operations of the courts. 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.” The decisions therefore rendered by this court should be a help in
mandating and ruling in absolute equal protection for the concern of all
Americans, and not tailored to the biases and prejudices against or in
derogation of pro-se parties, giving advantage to parties represented by
attorneys, nor take any legal ability from the same rights to litigate in
preference against a pro-se party. The Rules of Civil Procedure apply to
every litigant, as well as “meaningful opportunity to be heard”. 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)”.;
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).
|
Because
the American Liberty Law represents the interest of the American layman, it
brings an important perspective to the issues that are before the Court in this
case; namely Constitutional and Civil Rights violations; discrimination against
pro-se litigants when opposed by a party represented by attorney; judicial
officers running rough-shod over pro-se litigants; and judicial failure to obey
the mandates of the Rules of Civil Procedure, or forcing violations of such
Rules against a pro-se party so as to bias and prejudice a case involving a
pro-se party, and justices working outside of both jurisdiction and judicial
capacity.
An
amicus curiae brief from American Liberty Law is desirable, see N.M. R. App. P.
12-215, because American Liberty Law brings an important perspective to the
issues that are before the Court in this case. The appellant argues that due
process and equal protection has not been served in many aspects of two
absolutely intertwined cases of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 making both
jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error; which seems very evident
with blatant violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure, discriminatory
performance and bias on the part of the attending judiciary, and very obvious
Constitutional and US Code violations that presume violations of the Supremacy
Clause, making restrictions in a family court document that take away the
exclusive jurisdiction of only our federal government. Such a case with
multiple violations of law, if allowed to become case law undermines the very
principles of a free society and sabotages and defeats our very Constitution and
all law previously set forth, rendering the very doctrine of “stare decisis”
moot and obsolete, which would transform our legal system into absolute chaos.
It
seems blatantly unclear as to how the New Mexico Court of Appeals has seemingly
sought to both violate all laws, and to threaten to deprive pro-se parties in
general and with particular clarity this particular pro-se party, with no
conscience as to the egregious acts that have been sustained in court record in
the trial court.
Therefore,
American Liberty Law has substantial interest and that intertwined with all of
the United States public that the law and Constitution abidance is both
absolute and unswerving in all of the litigation and participation in the
rulemaking process.
American
Liberty Law, as a representation for the American layman, therefore has a
substantial interest in urging this Court to entirely reverse and dismiss both
DV-12-234 and totally intertwined DM-12-610 as a matter of due process and
equal protection violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th
Amendments, and to Order the family court unconstitutional 2nd
Amendment restrictions of both firearms and ammunition clause repealed and
discarded in its entirely as a violation of Constitution 2nd
Amendment exclusivity violating the Supremacy Clause without jurisdiction to do
so. The intertwined violations of the Respondent-Appellant’s 1st
Amendment rights that were not restricted in the family court until disclosure
of the unconstitutional 2nd Amendment rights violations is a most
egregious act of conspiracy against the American public. In the accompanying
brief, the American Liberty Law is well-situated to explain why the Court
should do so, and thus, accordingly American Liberty Law respectfully requests
that the Court grant leave to file the accompanying brief of amicus curiae.
Respectfully
submitted,
______________________________
Cipriano Roybal
Private Attorney
American Liberty Law
8732 Shirtz Rd. SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
87121
505-322-1893
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I
caused 7 true and correct original of the foregoing Motion Of American Liberty
Law For Leave To File Brief As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondent-Petitioner
David Brian Derringer 12-215 to
be sent on the 14TH day of
October, 2014 for filing to:
New
Mexico Supreme Court
Box
848
Santa
Fe, New Mexico 87504
&
Petitioner-Appellant
David
Derringer
Box
7431
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
&
Petitioner’s attorney NOT OF RECORD WITH
THIS NM SUPREME COURT
Alain Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
By:_____________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment