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
BARRIE LEE
DERRINGER,
Petitioner-Respondent,
vs.
DAVID BRIAN
DERRINGER,
Respondent-Petitioner,
PETITIONER'S TIMELY MOTION FOR
REHEARING UNDER
NMRA 12-309(C) and
12-404 OF THE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF
CONSTITUTION, CASE LAWS OF THE US SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE
US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI
COMES
NOW the Petitioner, representing himself Pro-Se with his motion as stated above
regarding the denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari of September 24, 2014; denial of
which denies all due process and equal protection against David Derringer ([1])
in both intertwined cases DV-12-234 and
DM-12-610; both of which are jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental
error, and in “judicial fraud”.
The
New Mexico Supreme Court sustains disclosed fraud criminal actions by NM
judiciary against David Derringer by judges in particular actions by
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Alisa Hadfield, ([2])
but also encompassing all judiciary involved with knowledge of these cases
DV-12-234 totally intertwined with DM-12-610 in “judicial fraud” encompassing
destruction of the court records, tampering with court records and evidence,
federal criminal acts of obstruction of justice, illegal “Order” of Judge
Hadfield for the Second Judicial District Court clerks not to accept any legal
court filings of David Derringer stopping a United States citizen’s legal
access to the United States court system of our government, including, but not
limited to blocking appeals of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610, illegal
“sentencing” criminally made against David Derringer for “intimidation” and
violent threats to stop 1st Amendment rights disclosure on the
Internet of the public judicial fraud ([3])
and corruption by posting public court records, and acts constituting sedition
and treason of Constitution, violations of Oath, and criminal acts of US Code
Title 18 Sections 241 and 242.([4])
Printz v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 27, 1997 521 U.S. 898 117 S.Ct. 2365 The combined effect of the proposed Supremacy
Clause, U.S.
Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, and state officers' oath requirement, U.S.
Const., Art. VI, cl. 3, and he states that “the Legislatures, Courts and
Magistrates of the respective members will be incorporated into the operations
of the national government, as far as its just and constitutional authority
extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.” ... Alden v. Maine Supreme Court of the United States June 23,
1999 527 U.S. 706 119 S.Ct. 2240 ... The Supremacy
Clause, furthermore, provides: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ․,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.” ...
These outrageous acts are known and
endorsed against David Derringer by the New Mexico Supreme Court, “accessory
after the fact”, making the NM court system a “sham” on our American society
and scavengers on the federal funding given to the state of New Mexico, while
denying and destroying all Constitutional rights against David Derringer under
the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
8TH ,13th and 14th Amendments as well as
unconscionable violations against US Code, and all case laws, both state and
federal. New
York
v. U.S.
Supreme Court of the United States June 19, 1992 505 U.S. 144 Nuclear
Reg. Rep. P 20,553 The
Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary positions of
state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus
presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply...The Government
regulates state-operated railroads, state school systems, state prisons, state
elections, and a host of other state functions....
The
New Mexico Supreme Court absolutely refuses to obey any law of the United
States, ([5])
including previous ruling by this own court, encompassing
decisions that directly oppose and over-rule decisions of the same issues prior
by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
making the New Mexico Supreme Court above all laws, and in a total violation of
the Constitution Supremacy Clause Article VI. Screws v. U.S.
Supreme Court of the United States May 07, 1945 325 U.S. 91 65 S.Ct.
1031
.. were
convicted of violating, and of a conspiracy to violate, Criminal Code, s 20, 18
U.S.C.A. s 52, penalizing willful deprivation under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation or custom of any rights, privileges or immunities secured
or protected by the Constitution and laws of the....* * * Whoever, by virtue of
public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life,
or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal
protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts
in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act
is that of the State....If it is valid to assure the rights ‘plainly and
directly’ secured by other provisions, it is equally valid to protect those
‘plainly and directly’ secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, including the
expressly guaranteed rights not to be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law....
In this Motion for Rehearing, the
Petitioner will not only quote various case laws, Constitution and US Code
MANDATORY for this court to obey, but will exclusively reference almost all contentions
and mandatory rulings with UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
cases ([6])
that is the highest court of the United States, of which the New Mexico Supreme
Court is subservient to. ([7])
It
also must be noted in the “judicial corruption” that the “Appellee” Barrie Lee
Derringer has never been represented by any attorney in any court beyond the
trial court, and thus would be considered “pro-se” in the NM Court of Appeals
and the New Mexico Supreme Court, both of which she has not entered pro-se and
has not addressed any issues, nor has any attorney, including, but not limited
to Alain Jackson, filed any entry of appearance or any opposition to any of the
litigation of the Petitioner-Appellant David Derringer. Despite the “facts”
regarding this failure of Appellee to represent, the New Mexico Court of
Appeals, and the New Mexico Supreme Court has lied in fraud that Alain Jackson
represents Barrie Lee Derringer, but instead, the higher courts simply are the
advocates for Barrie Lee Derringer, making the realism of “New Mexico Supreme Court & New Mexico
Court of Appeals vs. Petitioner-Appellant David Derringer”, wherein the Court
cannot litigate for a party, and David Derringer is unlawfully forced to fight
against the court system itself who are protecting both the Appellee and the
judicial underlying corruption. Birdo
v. Rodriquez, 84 NM 207, 501 P.2d 195 (1972). ; Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy District, 89 NM 516, 554
P.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1976). ; Holmes v.
Faycus, 85 NM 740, 516 P.2d 1123 (Ct. App. 1973). United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305, 311 (10th Cir.1977) (
“He who proceeds pro se with full knowledge and understanding of the risks does
so with no greater rights than a litigant represented by a lawyer, and the
trial court is under no obligation to become an ‘advocate’ for or to assist and
guide the pro se layman through the trial thicket.”).
The cases DV-12-234 (and DM-12-610)
are “jurisdictionally defective and in fundamental error” without legal
mandatory service of summons with attached complaint, ([8])
and without any David Derringer’s waiver of legal service, which was never
given. Lynch v. Household Finance
Corp. Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 1972 405 U.S. 538 92 S.Ct. 1113 ...Of course, the requisite personal
service upon a defendant is necessary to obtain in personam jurisdiction.. The Court
record will absolutely show no effected legal service, and no further attempt
of alternative service when the first
attempt by the Bernalillo County Sheriff “failed” (R.P. 2-17-2012 unable
to serve.). ([9])
It is mandatory under case law US Supreme Court that DV-12-234 be entirely
dismissed in legal error of failure to have in personam jurisdiction over David
Derringer. Formal service was never accomplished. Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board Supreme Court of the United States. June 08, 1925 268 U.S. 619 45 S.Ct.
621 Defendant in civil suit can
be subjected to jurisdiction in personam only by service within district.
190... And a defendant in a civil suit can be subjected to its jurisdiction in
personam only by service within the district....Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. Supreme
Court of the United States April 05, 1999 526 U.S. 344 119 S.Ct. 1322 ...Held: A named defendant's …is
triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of
the complaint, “through service or otherwise,” after and apart from service of
the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any
formal service.... Accordingly, we hold that ..after and apart from service
of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any
formal service.... Without the formal process of service of summons with
recorded service in person, and without any further attempt by Petitioner
Barrie Lee Derringer to legally serve David Derringer the Petition for Order of
Protection of DV-12-234, the case has failed, ([10])
and must be dismissed as it violated the due process and equal protection laws
of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Lindsey v. Normet Supreme
Court of the United States February 23, 1972 405 U.S. 56 92 S.Ct. 862 declaratory judgment …was
unconstitutional on its face and an injunction against its continued
enforcement. A three-judge District Court for the District of Oregon, 341
F.Supp. 638, granted defendants' motion to dismiss after concluding that...But
the requirements of due process apply and due process entails the right ‘to sue
and defend in the courts,’ a right we have described as ‘the alternative of
force’ in an organized society...The Supreme Court .. held that.. is invalid on
its face under the Due Process Clause....The courts instead have forced David
Derringer to litigate and defend in DV-12-234 without due process without
service, and without due process in and of
the proceedings. Boddie v.
Connecticut Supreme Court of the United
States March 02, 1971 401 U.S. 371 91 S.Ct. 780
...The question that the Court treats exclusively as one of due
process inevitably implicates considerations of both due process and equal
protection....Both the trial courts of Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge
Hadfield as well as the New Mexico Court of Appeals have admitted to shunning
David Derringer’s legal ability to litigate and defend in a bias and prejudice
against due process and equal protection mandating the case to be dismissed for
Constitutional reasons with
statements of “discrimination” against pro-se David Derringer: “the special commissioner
(Cosgrove/Aguilar) stated that the court does not permit cross-examination ‘of pro se plaintiffs in most
situations’”. David Derringer was at all times not afforded
proper “opportunity to be heard” ([11])
and to enter in and participate fully in the judicial process as “cross examination” is mandatory for due process. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v.
McGrath Supreme Court of the United
States April 30, 1951 341 U.S. 123 71 S.Ct. 624 ...Perhaps they would
insist not only on notice that an investigation is to be had but on an
opportunity to be present and to have counsel, to cross-examine, to
object to the introduction of evidence, to argue and to have judicial
review.... Thus, in the initial illegal hearing of February 21, 2012, when
David Derringer was denied “due process” and the Commissioner disallowed the legal ability to “cross examine”, the
already jurisdictionally defective DV-12-234 was mandated to be dismissed for
Constitutional 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment
violations. Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee v. McGrath Supreme
Court of the United States April 30, 1951 341 U.S. 123 71 S.Ct. 624 ...I would reverse the decisions for
lack of due process in denying a hearing at any stage....The Commissioner then
went on to both deny David Derringer’s witness, Bruce Davis and denied David
Derringer’s evidence and documents, further defeating “due process” without any
jurisdiction of DV-12-234. Griffin v.
Griffin Supreme Court of the United
States February 25, 1946 327 U.S. 220 66 S.Ct. 556 ...Moreover, due process requires
that no other jurisdiction shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a
judgment elsewhere acquired without due process...; Barry v. Barchi Supreme Court
of the United States June 25, 1979 443 U.S. 55 99 S.Ct. 2642 The
fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ...At all times the Commissioner delayed,
destroyed, defeated, and denied all efforts by David Derringer to gainfully
represent himself in a meaningful manner, by denying critical aspects of the
litigation process against David Derringer pro-se, while affording Petitioner
Barrie Lee Derringer full access to the court system of litigation by way of
her attorney Alain Jackson, severely prejudicing David Derringer at all times. Tennessee v. Lane
Supreme Court of the United States May 17, 2004 541 U.S. 509 124 S.Ct. 1978 CIVIL RIGHTS - as applied to access
to courts was valid exercise of 14th Amendment enforcement power. ... The Due
Process Clause also requires the States to afford certain civil litigants a
“meaningful opportunity to be heard” by removing obstacles to their full
participation in judicial proceedings....This duty to accommodate is perfectly
consistent with the well-established due process principle that, “within the
limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals
a meaningful opportunity to be heard” in its courts....The Commissioner had
gone on to undermine David Derringer’s due process by stating that she denied
“cross examination” due to “suspect” of what David Derringer might ask
Barrie Lee Derringer, so as to keep David Derringer’s side of the litigation
both under bias control and to delete any unwanted disclosures of Barrie Lee
Derringer’s fraud and perjury bringing illegally the Petition for Order of
Protection claiming “abuse” that never occurred, and wherein Barrie Derringer
admitted under oath that “David would not hurt me physically” (R.P. DV-12-234 Feb 21, 2012
hearing). effectively sabotaging and defeating her own Petition by
“impeachment” of herself. Shapiro v.
Thompson Supreme Court of the United States April 21, 1969 394 U.S. 618 89 S.Ct. 1322 they are ‘so injustifiable as to be
violative of due process.’...In upholding the equal protection argument, the
Court has applied an equal protection doctrine of relatively recent vintage:
the rule that statutory classifications which either are based upon certain
‘suspect’ criteria or affect ‘fundamental rights' will be held to deny equal
protection....
Despite no allegations to illegal or
other actions involving “firearms”, the
illegal process continued with the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield illegally
taking the 2nd Amendment rights of David Derringer including
knowingly depriving a “profession” of David Derringer professional
hunter/outfitter #32 of NM Game and Fish to deny income by depriving David
Derringer his firearms and “personal property” which violated the “right to a
profession” as a property right under Title 42 Section 1982. Robbins v.
Wilkie, 433 F.3d 755 C.A.10.Wyo.,2006; Roberts v. State Bd. of
Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 ; Muckleroy
v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 ; Adamson v. C.I.R.
CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541. Barela v.
Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966). The deprivation of 2nd Amendment was
illegally accomplished by the unconstitutional phrasing in the
pre-formed “Order of Protection” ([12])
which illegally takes 2nd Amendment rights without proven felonies
or criminal actions with no ability to enforce under mis-use of the intent of
federal criminal codes USC Title 18 Sections 922(g)(8)(B) with no criminal
complaint, indictment, trial, jury, Miranda rights, attorney or any other “due
process” where there was no “criminal violation” of any kind, to deny 2nd
Amendment rights against any party for a period of two (2) years. ([13])
Clearly, the civil form Second Judicial District Court Order of
Protection deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights violated the rulings
of the US Supreme Court in US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 that held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the
Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to
keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court held self defense as a right is fundamental to the
nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right
recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the
central component" of the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, the “Order
of Protection” illegally forced against David Derringer is unconstitutional and
mute in violation of the Supremacy Clause as in violation of the 14th
Amendment. Examining Bd. of
Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero Supreme Court of the
United States June 17, 1976 426 U.S. 572 96 S.Ct. 2264 ...If the Fourteenth Amendment
applies, the Equal Protection Clause nullifies.. exclusion; whereas, if the
Fifth Amendment and its Due Process Clause apply, the.. discrimination is so
egregious as to violate due process...It is clear..that the protections accorded
by either the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to residents…; Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 1992 505 U.S. 504 112 S.Ct. 2608 ...[1] Article VI of the Constitution provides
that 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.” ...
Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, our job is to
interpret Congress's decrees of pre-emption neither narrowly nor broadly, but
in accordance with their apparent meaning....The Order of Protection against
David Derringer in illegal DV-12-234 is depriving firearms and ammunition and absolutely
violates Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment as well as
defying US Supreme Court rulings and thus is unenforceable and mandated to be
stricken from any form in the State of New Mexico, and the justices working
outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity as well as the Petitioner and her
attorney and the “STATE of NEW MEXICO” are all liable civilly and criminally to
David Derringer for damages. PLIVA,
Inc. v. Mensing Supreme Court of the
United States June 23, 2011 131 S.Ct. 2567 2011 WL 2472790 ...Federal law impliedly pre-empts
state law when state and federal law “conflict”—i.e., when “it is impossible
for a private party to comply with both state and federal law” or when state
law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress.” ...It is only federal law under
Constitution 2nd Amendment, US Code Title 42 Sections 1981 and
1982, and rendered case law 10-1521 of
the US Supreme Court that dictates ownership, use, possession and lawful
acquisition of “firearms” that cannot be denied or infringed without any
criminal conviction or felony involving firearms by David Derringer, A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, wherein this is a field
of law that federal law occupies exclusively, making the DV-12-234 Order of
Protection unconstitutional and illegal against David Derringer and all
involved in the deprivation subject to damages. Mutual harmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett Supreme Court of the
United States June 24, 2013 133 S.Ct. 2466 2013 WL 3155230 Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that
require a private party to violate federal law are pre-empted and, thus, are
“without effect.” ... Courts may find that state laws that incentivize what
federal law discourages or forbid what federal law authorizes are pre-empted
for reasons apart from impossibility: The state laws may fall within the scope
of an express pre-emption provision, pose an obstacle to federal purposes and
objectives, or intrude upon a field that Congress intended for federal law to
occupy exclusively....; District of
Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 2008 554 U.S.
570 128 S.Ct. 2783 CIVIL RIGHTS
- Right to Bear Arms. District of Columbia gun restrictions were
unconstitutional given individual rights conferred by Second Amendment. ...But
the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly
narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth
Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the
Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding,
responsible citizens,” ante, at 2821....Although the abstract definition of the
phrase “the people” could carry the same meaning in the Second Amendment as in
the Fourth Amendment, the preamble of the Second Amendment suggests that the
uses of the phrase in the First and Second Amendments are the same in referring
to a collective activity....The Second Judicial District Court could only
attempt to deprive David Derringer his ownership and use and possession of
“firearms and ammunition” if David Derringer were a “convicted felon” which
David Derringer is not, and thus there was no ability to violate the Supremacy
Clause with an illegal and unconstitutional Order of Protection against David
Derringer with any firearm or ammunition restrictions, as was illegally done
against David Derringer for a period of two years. Lewis v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United
States February 27, 1980 445 U.S. 55 100 S.Ct. 915 ... On certiorari, the Supreme Court, Mr.
Justice Blackmun, held that: (1) federal firearms statute prohibits a felon
from possessing a firearm despite fact that predicate felony may be subject
to collateral attack on constitutional grounds, and (2) federal firearm statute
which prohibits felon from possessing a firearm even if predicate felony may be
subject of collateral attack on constitutional grounds does not violate due
process clause of Fifth Amendment....The illegal and unconstitutional and
jurisdictionally defective Order of Protection against David Derringer violated
David Derringer’s 4th Amendment rights of illegal “seizure” of
firearms and ammunition by “judicial fraud” in persecution of David Derringer
under the meaning of the 8th and 13th Amendments. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill.
Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 2010 561 U.S. 742 130 S.Ct. 3020 CIVIL RIGHTS - Right to Bear Arms.
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the States
by virtue of Fourteenth Amendment. ... Unlike the First Amendment's religious
protections, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' insistence upon fair criminal
procedure, and the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual
punishments, the private self-defense right does not significantly seek to
protect individuals who might otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at
the hands of a majority.... Hence, the incorporation of the Second Amendment
cannot be based on the militia-related aspect of what Heller found to be more
extensive Second Amendment rights....
As the atrocities against David
Derringer progressed illegally in DV-12-234, David Derringer screamed out his
Constitutional and statutory rights and deprivations and persecution against
him in various motions for reconsideration and re-hearings under Rule 60 to
stop the violations, and rulings that were legally “void”, and was persecuted
and denied more due process and equal protection. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Supreme Court of the United States March 23,
2010 559 U.S. 260 130 S.Ct. 1367 Rule
60(b)(4) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that “is void,”
but only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain
type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a
party of notice or the opportunity to be heard....The criminal acts by the Commissioner and Judge Hadfield were
extreme against David Derringer as well as the Constitutional violations,
wherein David Derringer had every right by the 1st Amendment to post
the judicial fraud to “public interest” on the Internet to expose the NM public
corruption to the entire world, and David Derringer posted “Google blogs” with
actual public record court documents, and also had a right to post his own opinions. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States April 18, 1978 435 U.S. 589 98 S.Ct.
1306 It is clear that the courts
of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents....In such documents,
David Derringer exposed not only the “judicial fraud” and Constitutional
violations of the Commissioner and Judge Alisa Hadfield, but also the perjury
and fraud by Barrie Lee Derringer Petitioner, having also the effect to attempt
to defeat the re-election of the corrupt Judge Hadfield with facts and proof of
violations of Oath and sedition and treason against the Constitution. McCutcheon v. Federal Election
Com'n Supreme Court of the United States
April 02, 2014 134 S.Ct. 1434 2014 WL 1301866
...
Accordingly, the First Amendment advances not only the individual's right to
engage in political speech, but also the public's interest in preserving a
democratic order in which collective speech matters.... “operate in an area of
the most fundamental First Amendment activities” and “implicate fundamental
First Amendment interests.”...This “exposure” of public corruption precipitated
criminal wrath from the NM judiciary against David Derringer with illegal
distortion of Barrie Derringer’s evidence as a means to illegally change the
civil Order of Protection into a “criminal harassment” claim of violation in
chambers of Judge Hadfield to intimidate and threaten David Derringer to stop
and remove adverse public corruption exposure from the world wide Internet, and
mis-used power in judicial corruption to threaten, intimidate, and persecute a
pro-se litigant by illegally “sentencing” a citizen to jail for criminal acts
of harassment that never occurred, without criminal complaint, indictment,
grand jury, Miranda rights, trial, attorney, jury, without evidence, and other
deprivations of “due process”. Muniz
v. Hoffman Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1975 422 U.S. 454 95 S.Ct. 2178 ...It would .. require that prior to
imposition of criminal punishment for violation of a court order the necessary
facts must be found by an impartial jury, rather than by the judge whose order
has been violated....As David Derringer posted egregious judiciary acts ([14])
of this 8th and 13th Amendment “imprisonment”, “harassment”
and criminal acts by the judiciary, the violence by Judge Hadfield became
obsessive with Order to deny any legal court filings by David Derringer, so as
to stop David Derringer’s litigation and deny entire use of the courts. In
criminal actions of “larceny”/”robbery”, Judge Hadfield caused all copies of
David Derringer’s legal personal property of pleadings “to be filed” by taking
all copies and destroying the personal property without jurisdiction before
filing, and denied filings. Robbery is in the criminal code of NM Section 30
that is a felony and a crime of moral turpitude. "Robbery is the taking of
something against someone's will by force or fear," "You don't have
to have a gun. You don't have to have a knife, you don't have to beat someone
up, and you don't even have to intend to keep it forever. It could just be
trying to take what does not belong to you. "The criminal law allows
people to be held responsible for the acts of other people if they asked them
to do or they conspired with them to do it," "That is also a felony for that if there
was acts that aided and abetted in some way, encouraged it to happen, and told
others how to do it, one can face the same charge: robbery." The criminal
acts of Judge Hadfield were meant to intimidate and infringe on the legal
rights of David Derringer as well as to stop any further disclosure of her
judicial fraud. First Nat. Bank of
Boston v. Bellotti Supreme Court of the
United States April 26, 1978 435 U.S. 765 98 S.Ct. 1407 impermissibly infringed their First
Amendment right to adhere to their own beliefs and to refuse to defer to or
support the beliefs of others....David Derringer was persecuted relentlessly
for disclosure of public corruption in the Google blogs as well as illegally
“muzzled” and threatened when he made statements concerning his own marriage
and the illegal divorce proceedings. Near
v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson Supreme Court of the United States. June 01, 1931 283 U.S. 697 51 S.Ct.
625 ...It is plain, then, that
the language of this (1st) amendment imports no more than that every
man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject
whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always that he does not injure any
other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always that
he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the
government....
As David Derringer attempted to
perfect his appeals of DV-12-234, the New Mexico Court of Appeals illegally
perused the docketing statements and notices of appeals before they had any
jurisdiction before filing and illegally denied issues that encompassed the
violations of 1st and 2nd Amendments and the extreme
judicial fraud and criminal acts perpetrated by the Commissioner and Judge
Hadfield, distorting and tampering thus
with the court record and further attempting to mitigate the public knowledge
of the judicial fraud ([15])
underlying in order to “protect” fellow justices that had broken
the criminal code of both state and federal. Brown v. Hartlage Supreme Court of the United States April 05, 1982 456 U.S. 45 102 S.Ct. 1523 In barring certain public
statements.. runs directly contrary to the fundamental premises underlying the
First Amendment as the guardian of our democracy...the court in its opinion
impermissibly limits freedom of speech… in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.... During this process, David Derringer filed actions with the
New Mexico Supreme Court with Petitions
for Writ of Superintending Control and Writs of Mandamus to stop the egregious
criminal acts by justices against him and the violations of Oath and illegal
Constitutional violations without jurisdiction or judicial capacity, and was
“ignored” by the NM Supreme Court in a concerted effort to stem and destroy any
credibility, but with knowledge of what illegal acts had transpired by the
corrupt judiciary, as well as knowing of the Internet blogs of world exposure. Similarly,
the Commission on Judicial Standards ignored the criminal acts of the
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield, allowing acting criminals to remain on the bench,
despite the Code of Judicial Conduct. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1)
Disciplinary responsibilities: “A judge who receives information indicating a
substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this
Code should take appropriate action. A Judge having “knowledge” that another
judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question
as to the other judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate
authority. U.S. v. International Union United Auto.,
Aircraft and Agr. Implement orkers of America (UAW-CIO) Supreme Court of the
United States March 11, 1957 352 U.S. 567 77 S.Ct. 529 ...When the exercise of First
Amendment rights is tangled with conduct which government may regulate, we
refuse to allow the First Amendment rights to be sacrificed merely because some
evil may result....One has a right to freedom of speech not only when he talks
to his friends but also when he talks to the public....The NM Court of Appeals
continued to deny issues revolving around judicial corruption and lied and
distorted the court record by illegally denying “forma pauperis” despite the
mandates for such with “public assistance”, after pre-reading the docketing
statements before they had any jurisdiction to stop public knowledge of the
criminal acts by justices. American
Communications Ass'n, C.I.O., v. Douds
Supreme Court of the United States May 08, 1950 339 U.S. 382 70 S.Ct. 674 the rational connection between the
prohibitions.. the limited scope of the abridgment of First Amendment rights,
and the large public interest in the efficiency of government service…The right
to speak out, or to publish, also is protected when it does not clearly and
presently threaten some injury to society which the Government has a right to
protect....The NM and world public had a right to know the corruption of New
Mexico and despite threats, obstruction and intimidation by the courts, David
Derringer informed the public by his 1st Amendment rights, while the
NM Court of Appeals ruled against their own former case laws affirming 1st
Amendment rights, while denying David
Derringer’s same 1st Amendment rights, and proceeded to condon the
illegal “criminal convictions” without due process or trial against David
Derringer by the trial court by covering up the issues claiming that the trial
court “meant” contempt of court and sanctions, thus illegally re-writing and distorting the trial court records by
their own hand without any jurisdiction for such on appeal. New York Times Co. v. U.S. Supreme
Court of the United States June 30, 1971 403 U.S. 713 91 S.Ct. 2140 ...a derivative claim under the First
Amendment; … this right as the public ‘right to know’; by implication. Clearly,
David Derringer had the right under the 1st Amendment without
intimidation, incarceration, threats, or destruction of his court records to
“tell the truth” under NMRA Rule 1-090 including to the public on the Internet,
about the egregious judicial fraud that had illegally taken 1st and
2nd Amendments in Constitutional violation and to overturn the
illegal writings of the “family court’s” Order of Protection in
unconstitutional defect. Emspak v. U.S.
Supreme Court of the United States May 23, 1955 349 U.S. 190 75 S.Ct.
687 I think it is my duty to
endeavor to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, primarily the
first amendment, supplemented by the fifth....The purpose of this…is to expose ; Scales v. U.S. Supreme Court
of the United States June 05, 1961 367 U.S. 203 81 S.Ct. 1469 the purpose being ..to expose, and
protect the public against, certain acts which are declared unlawful.
The law, evidence, and legal
arguments were overpowering to reverse and dismiss the DV-12-234 in the Motion
for Reconsideration to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, and the Motion was
denied without explanation as a way to both stop further disclosures of
cover-ups of judicial fraud, and to deny the Appellant without legal cause. Gravel v. U. S. Supreme Court of the United States June 29,
1972 408 U.S. 606 92 S.Ct. 2614 ...Corrupt
and deceitful officers of government do not often post for public examination
the evidence of their own misdeeds....; “This Court previously has
recognized–even with respect to another statute the legislative history of
which indicated that courts were to have “wide discretion exercising their
equitable powers,” 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper
Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)–that “discretionary choices are
not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its
judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ ” Id.,
at 416, quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No.
14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, a decision calling for the
exercise of judicial discretion “hardly means that it is unfettered by
meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review.” Albemarle
Paper Co., 422 U.S., at 416.”” United
States v. Taylor,
487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56
U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added). “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). The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the violations of
Constitution, the persecution of David Derringer forced to litigate and defend
against a suit without jurisdiction, deprivation of 2nd Amendments
without legal cause, and extreme persecution and intimidation for exposure of
the judicial fraud on the Internet to persecute David Derringer for exercising
1st Amendment rights. Elrod
v. Burns Supreme Court of the United
States June 28, 1976 427 U.S. 347 96 S.Ct. 2673
...“(T)he purpose of the First Amendment includes the need . . .
‘to protect parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to
secure their right to a free discussion of public events and public measures,
and to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government and any person
in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their
conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon
them,’ ” Id., at 392, 82 S.Ct., at 1374 (quoting 2 T. Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations 885 (8th ed. 1927))...; Borough
of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri Supreme
Court of the United States June 20, 2011 131 S.Ct. 2488 2011 WL 2437008 ... The public-concern limitation makes
sense in the context of the Speech Clause, because it is speech on matters of
public concern that lies “within the core of First Amendment protection.” ...
The NM judiciary protected the fraud
of the Petitioner Barrie Derringer without representation in the high courts,
as well as covered up the judicial fraud and criminal acts of the Commissioner
and Judge Hadfield, all to conspire against the United States public in a
comradery of protection of other judicial officers in discharge of Oath and in
sedition and treason against America. Now, the New Mexico Supreme Court makes
the attempt at a final discharge of the David Derringer cases DV-12-234 and
intertwined DM-12-610 in order to consummate the cover up and protect all that
have violated criminal laws and are liable to David Derringer. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Supreme Court of the United States March 27, 1990 494 U.S. 652 110 S.Ct. 1391 ... Allowing
government to… rights to stifle the speech of private.. undermines the First
Amendment...In Part V of its opinion, the Court accurately sets forth our
longstanding First Amendment law as follows: “Because the right to engage in
political expression is fundamental to our constitutional system, statutory
classifications impinging upon that right must be narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling governmental interest.”
CONCLUSION
Everything about both DV-12-234 and
intertwined DM-12-610 has been in discharge of due process and equal
protection, making both mandatory to be dismissed, and voiding all claims and
actions depriving David Derringer of his Constitutional rights, as well as voiding
the “divorce” of Barrie Lee Derringer by jurisdictional defects and fundamental
errors. What has transpired in these matters is the most egregious acts by
government officials of the judiciary to deny Constitution and distort and
destroy court records, keep a litigant from proper use of the courts, and to
cover up criminal acts by judicial fraud so as to persecute any members of
society that expose the corruption. David Derringer has stood at all times
under undeniable law, and has been denied all justice by the New Mexico Supreme
Court defiling rulings of Constitution and US Supreme Court without conscience.
Clearly we have judges that have lied under Oath and done sedition and treason
against America, in order to stop court use of a citizen defending his inherent
rights, privileges and immunities under Constitution, US Code and NM law. A reversal of all of these illegal acts is
mandated with extreme damages.
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
David
Derringer has no alternative but to continue to expose public corruption of New
Mexico until some governmental action stops this atrocity. Prei, Inc. v.
Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611
(1993).
The
Appellant/Petitioner for this Petition for Writ of Certiorari requests the
following relief:
- Order DV-12-234 dismissed in its entirety, and as DM-12-610 encompasses similar and additional judicial fraud, dismissal of DM-12-610 with making void any divorce of Barrie Lee Derringer; Ordering restoration of all Constitutional rights for the Appellant David Derringer. .
- Order a DOJ and FBI investigation of criminal acts of US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242 in these matters.
- 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 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights, “intimidated” against his 1st Amendment rights, deprived 4th, 5th , and 14th Amendments, and persecuted in violation of the 8th and 13th Amendments, deprived US Code and NM statutory rights, violations of case laws, and US Code criminal acts against David Derringer 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; all of which are liable without either public or judicial immunity due to working well outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity.
- Order investigation as to how the State of New Mexico can accept federal funding and assistance when violating the Constitutional rights and US Code against New Mexico citizens against the US Constitution Article VI.
5.
Order by
mandate that the “standardized” form of the civil domestic violence courts
delete the actions of the unconstitutional taking 2nd Amendment
rights without due process or equal protection.
6.
Any and
all other relief as is deemed just and proper.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87194
I hereby certify that I caused a true
and correct original of the foregoing Petitioner's Timely Motion For Rehearing Under NMRA 12-309(C) And 12-404 Of The
Order Of September 24, 2014 to be sent on the 7TH day of October, 2014 for filing
to:
New Mexico Supreme Court
Box 848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
&
Petitioner’s
attorney NOT OF RECORD WITH THIS NM SUPREME COURT
Alain
Jackson, 423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87102
By:_____________________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se, Box
7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
[1] Boddie v.
Connecticut Supreme Court of the United
States March 02, 1971 401 U.S. 371 91 S.Ct. 780
...The Equal Protection Clause
is no more appropriate a vehicle for the ‘shock the conscience’ test than is
the Due Process Clause....
[2] Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero,
94 N.M. at 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d at 160 n. 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.
[3] 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. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176,
1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946)
[4] Monroe v.
Pape Supreme Court of the United States
February 20, 1961 365 U.S. 167 81 S.Ct. 473
...Section
2 of the Ku Klux Act attached civil and criminal liability to conspiracy ‘for
the purpose, either directly or indirectly, of depriving any person or any
class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or
immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the
constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons
within such State the equal protection of the laws * * *.... The form of the
second section as it was finally enacted is, in relevant part, substantially
that of R.S. s 1980, 42 U.S.C. s 1985, 42 U.S.C.A. s 1985: ‘If two or more
persons in any State * * * conspire * * * for the purpose of depriving, either
directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection
of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the
purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State * *
* from giving or securing to all persons within such State * * * the equal
protection of the laws; (and) if one or more persons engaged therein do, or
cause to...
[5] 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.”
[6] Dunn v. McFeeley, 984
P.2d 760, 127 NM 513, 1999-NMCA-084 cert. denied “A legal point is clearly
established, .. when it has been decided by either the highest court where the
cause of action arose, by a United States Court of Appeals, or by the United
States Supreme Court 42 USCA 1983"
[7] Pargin
Realty ERA v. Schmidt, Not
Reported in 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).
[8] Stafford
v. Briggs Supreme Court of the United States February 20, 1980 444 U.S. 527 100
S.Ct. 774 as a general rule,
service of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction
over a defendant, the petitioners have… demonstrate that there was .. defect in
the means by which service of process was effected.... Reasoning by analogy..
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice inherent in the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ..
[9] Settlemier
v. Sullivan Supreme Court of the United
States October 01, 1878 97 U.S. 444 7 Otto 444 ...‘The statute,’ said the court, ‘in providing how
service shall be made, evidently implies that when a summons is placed in the
hands of an officer for service, that he will use ordinary diligence, at least,
to find the party against whom the summons is issued, in order that he may make
personal service upon him; but after using ordinary diligence, if he should
fail to find such party, constructive service may be made; and when such
service is made, the certificate should contain the fact that the party could
not be found.’... Held, 1. That the court, by such service, acquired no
jurisdiction over the person of A., and its judgment was void. 2. That such
substituted service, if ever sufficient for the purposes of jurisdiction, can
only be made where the condition upon which it is permissible is shown to
exist. 3. That the inability of the sheriff to find A. was not to be inferred,
but to be affirmatively stated in his return. 4. That the said recital is not
evidence of due service, but must be read in connection with that part of the
record which sets forth, as prescribed by statute, the proof of service...
[10] Rice v.
Rice Supreme Court of the United States
April 18, 1949 336 U.S. 674 69 S.Ct. 751
...This Court, while
acknowledging that personal service of process on the defendant ordinarily is
necessary to a valid judgment in a personal action, ...My dissenting views..
was always and in all places invalid on due process grounds for want of
jurisdiction of the defendant....
[11]
Frontiero
v. Richardson Supreme Court of the
United States May 14, 1973 411 U.S. 677 93 S.Ct. 1764 ...‘(W)hile
the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid
discrimination that is ‘so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process....
[12] “Order
of Protection” 2: Consequences of entry of order of protection (B) “if you are
the spouse or former spouse of the other party, an individual who cohabitates
with or has cohabitated with the other party, or if you and the other party
have had a child together, federal law prohibits you from possessing or
transporting firearms or ammunition, you should immediately dispose of the
firearm or ammunition.”
[13] Bell's
Gap R. Co. v. Com. of Pennsylvania
Supreme Court of the United States March 10, 1890 134 U.S. 232 10 S.Ct.
533 ‘The fourteenth amendment, in
declaring that no state ‘shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws,’ undoubtedly intended, not only that there should
be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of
property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under
like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that
all persons should be equally...It involves no violation of due process of law
when it is executed according to customary forms and established usages, or in
subordination to the principles which underlie them....
[14]
Nixon
v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Supreme Court of the United States January 24, 2000 528 U.S. 377 120
S.Ct. 897 ...‘deter actual corruption.. by exposing… to the
light of publicity.’...Because the Court unjustifiably discounts the First
Amendment interests of citizens
[15] Federal
Election Com'n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee Supreme Court of the United States June 25,
2001 533 U.S. 431 121 S.Ct. 2351 the
First Amendment demands a more coherent explication of the evidence of
corruption... In any
event, there is a second, well-tailored option for combating corruption that
does not entail the reduction of parties' First Amendment freedoms....
No comments:
Post a Comment