No. _____________
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________♦_________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
__________________♦__________________
DAVID
DERRINGER,
Petitioner/Respondent/Appellant
New Mexico
Supreme Court 32,587; 34,244; 34,350; 34,875
vs.
New Mexico
Court of Appeals No. 27,127; 32,326; 32,587; 32,982
Second Judicial District Court DV-12-234 inexplicably intertwined
with DM-12-610 inexplicably intertwined with CV-12-1307 consol.
with CV-12-10816
BARRIE DERRINGER, NEW MEXICO
SUPREME COURT,
THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Respondents,
__________________♦__________________
On Petition for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Totally Intertwined With
the Simultaneously Filed Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus
To The State of New Mexico and
Requested Ordered directive to the FBI/DOJ for
investigation
of exposed public corruption of the State of New Mexico Judiciary
Constitutional deprivations, judicial fraud,
judicial bribery, and
conspiracy against rights and deprivation of
rights
under color of law by Respondent
With attached Addendum Appurtenant to both the
Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
regarding violations of “JURISDICTION”
__________________♦__________________
David
Derringer
Box 7431
Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87194
January 8, 2015
__________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1)
Whether any court can deprive Constitutional 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th
and 14th Amendment rights and violate the Supremacy Clause
Constitution Article VI, US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, Title 18 Section
241, 242, 1503, with a CIVIL order of protection brought by provable perjury
and fraud WITHOUT SERVICE OF SUMMONS, and then use deprivations of due process
not allowing a pro-se person to present evidence, witnesses, testimony, cross
examination and threaten and intimidate the pro-se party by the presiding judge
in chambers changing a CIVIL matter
to a claim of CRIMINAL HARASSMENT as criminal obstruction of justice, meant to
stop the pro-se person from posting public court records on the Internet to
expose the public corruption, judicial fraud, judicial bribery, and mis-use of
power?
2)
Whether either a State Judge or a Federal Judge in a US
court can peruse and view court filings before having “jurisdiction” prior to
filing, and then deny such filings by illegal Order to the court clerk not to
file any Complaint or other legal court papers, when they disclose public
corruption, disclose proven judicial bribery, illegal Constitutional
deprivations, criminal acts by justices, judicial bribery, and valid Civil
Rights law suit against a judge that lost judicial immunity due to violations
of Oath, sedition, treason, Constitutional deprivations and public corruption
of mis-use of public office in a
conspiracy with other justices to rule against all law, or any other
matters that the Judge does not want to hear, so as to deny due process and
equal protection, and blocking any appeal of such mis-use of power and
dictatorship, without any filing docket number and whether any judge or court
can limit the issues based on “Forma Pauperis” so as to deny issues that deal
with judicial fraud, Constitutional deprivations, and mis-use of power to
intimidate, destroy court records, and deny filing access to the courts?
3)
Whether the State of New Mexico can continue to receive
Federal funding when depriving citizens Constitutional deprivations and using
judicial bribery to rule against all law for multimillion dollar corporations
and those involved with such, and why the FBI and Department of Justice
“refuses” to investigate the judicial bribery involved in these matters here,
as a ploy to cover up the public corruption and judicial fraud that is known
also by Governor Susanna Martinez, when such actions of the State of New Mexico
remove it from the Union?
4)
Whether Second Judicial District Judge Alisa Hadfield
can deliberately destroy court records of David Derringer, block appeals and
sign a written Order to court clerks not to accept any court filings, before
she had “jurisdiction” over such filings so as to permanently block a US
citizen from use of the United States Court system of our government, with all
higher NM supporting such criminal acts to cover “judges” and public
corruption, and whether the 10th Circuit US District Court can
illegally peruse a proper, legal and sustained by law “Complaint” Civil Rights
law suit under US Code Title 42 Section 1983 when the “Defendant” judge has
worked outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity with no possible
judicial or public immunity, and force the Plaintiff to allow the 10 circuit
justices to see the Complaint before their legal jurisdiction before filing and
then deny such filing so as to protect the public corruption of other justices,
being then in criminal violation themselves under US Code Title 18 Sections
241, 241 and 1503?
5)
Whether any federal judge can act in violation of US
Code Title 28 Section 453 and 455 in perjury of Oath, and deprive due process
and equal protection against a poor, pro-se party, and deprive any litigant the
rights, privileges and immunities under the US Courts Rules of Civil Procedure
and Appellate Procedure to file proper pleadings for “reconsideration”,
“clarification”, or “modification” in order to stop any further “exposing” by
documents in pleadings and substantiation of the “public corruption of the
justices of the State of New Mexico, and whether the FBI and Department of Justice
can deny investigation of judicial bribery and force the Petitioner to file
letters of the judicial corruption of the United States with the United Nations
and Interpol?
6)
Whether the court can attempt to block “forma pauperis”
when the Appellant is on proven public assistance as a means to block appeal,
and then “pick and choose” issues, denying hearing any issues about underlying
judicial fraud, Constitutional rights, “jurisdiction lacking without service of
legal summons”, criminal acts by justices to destroy court records, Order no
use of the US courts from the judge to court clerks, block appeals, and deny
Constitutional rights?
7)
Whether any court can maliciously disregard
“jurisdiction and fundamental error” in a case without legal service of summons,
and defy the Rules of Civil Procedure and force continuation of a case meant to
steal, harass, intimidate, persecute, and deprive Constitutional rights from a
US Citizen, and particularly persecute a “pro-se” citizen attempting to deny
use of the courts by attempting to force a “poor” citizen to have to hire an
attorney or not have any use of US Courts unless financing the “judicial and
attorney industry”?
8)
Whether the court can deny due process by preventing
cross examination by a pro-se party with statements of: “the special
commissioner (Cosgrove/Aguilar) stated that the court does not permit
cross-examination ‘of pro se plaintiffs
in most situations’”?
9)
Whether a written in Civil phrase of: (“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.”) without
any criminal violations of firearms and where firearms are not at issue in the
litigation can automatically take away 2nd Amendment rights and
rights to a profession that necessitates use of firearms (professional
hunter/outfitter)?
10)
Whether a judge can conduct larceny/robbery of court
pleadings before filing and destroy them without being convicted of any
criminal acts?
11)
Whether the United States Supreme Court will exercise
“superintending control” over the entire judiciary of the State of New Mexico
and prosecute judges for deprivations in conspiracy of Constitution, and
violations of Oath, Canon, Judicial Standards, criminal acts of state and
federal and remove all involved in these atrocities against justice from the
bench with investigations by the FBI and Department of Justice?
12)
Whether the US Court system can operate on corporate
law or maritime and disregard the sovereignty of US citizens under the Constitution,
Amendments, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, and disregard
common law and case law?
__________________♦________________
LIST OF PARTIES
In
the proceedings below, Party David Derringer hereafter may be referred to as
the Petitioner. The Real party in this matter is Barrie Lee Derringer aka
Barrie Lee Beverley aka Barrie Lee Crowe.
_________________♦_________________
As simultaneously filed, the “ADDENDUM” provided is
appurtenant to both the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
_________________♦_________________
TABLE OF
CONTENTS Page
OPINIONS BELOW. . . . . . . . 1
JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED. . 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION. . . . 19
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . 21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . 23
PROOF AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . 23
_________________♦_________________
INDEX TO APPENDICES
1.
Notice of Appeal from the New Mexico Supreme Court to
the United States Supreme Court defining issues of judicial corruption and lack
of jurisdiction
2.
Order Deprivation use of the United States Court System
by the trial court
3.
Trial Court docket
4.
Judge Alisa Hadfield Oath of Office with Document 2nd
Judicial District Court
5.
Letter to FBI May 20, 2014 New
Mexico pubic corruption
6.
US District Court 10th Circuit legal
Complaint against Judge Hadfield
7.
US District Court 10th Circuit legal Motion
for Forma Pauperis
8.
US District Court 10th Circuit Motion to
File Suit (against illegal obstruction for filing of US District Court in
violation of USC Title 42 Section 1981(a)
9.
US District Court 10th Circuit illegal
injunction prohibiting use of US Courts
10.
US District Court 10th Circuit illegal
denial for filing in violation of USC
Title 42 Section 1981(a) “without jurisdiction prior to filing”
11.
Letter to US Department of Justice December 26, 2012
12.
Notice of Appeal to the NM Ct. App. July 3, 2012
13.
Notice of Appeal to the NM Ct. App. June 5, 2013
14.
Notice of Appeal to the NM Ct. App. August 6, 2013
15.
Trial Court docketing statement May 21, 2012
16.
Trial Court docketing statement May 25, 2012
17.
Trial Court docketing statement May 30, 2012
18.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Judge Alan Malott
19.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus rehearing against Judge
Alan Malott
20.
Petition for Writ of Superintending Control against
Judge Alisa Hadfield, Judge Alan Malott, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, and
Attorney Alain Jackson
21.
Petition for Writ of Superintending Control against
Judge Alisa Hadfield
22.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court June 11, 2012
23.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court June 12, 2012
24.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court June 29, 2012
25.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court July 18, 2012
26.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court September 12, 2012
27.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court September 24, 2014
28.
Order New
Mexico Supreme Court
October 17, 2014
29.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals May 4, 2012
30.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals Assignment to General Calendar
December 19, 2012
31.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals January 28, 2013
32.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals Amended January 30, 2013
33.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals July 11, 2013
34.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals July 15, 2013
35.
Order New Mexico Court of Appeals Notice proposes
summary dispotition February
20, 2014
36.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals April 8, 2014
37.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals Notice of Submission May 1, 2014
38.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals May 8, 2014
39.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals July 14, 2014
40.
Order New
Mexico Court of Appeals August 8, 2014
41.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari rehearing June 20, 2012
42.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari April 17, 2013
43.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari May 6, 2013
44.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 5, 2013
45.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 27, 2013
46.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari November 7, 2013
47.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari May 20, 2014
48.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari August 27, 2014
49.
NM Sup. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari rehearing September 24, 2014
50.
NM Sup. Ct. Liberty
Law Amicus Curiae Motion
51.
NM Sup. Ct. Liberty
Law Amicus Curiae Brief
52.
NM Ct. App. Emergency Motion animal life or death
53.
NM Ct. App. Notice of Appeal May 9, 2012
54.
NM Ct. App. Motion for Stay December 6, 2012
55.
NM Ct. App. Memorandum 2nd Amendment rights January 24, 2013
56.
NM Ct. App. Amended Brief in Chief March 7, 2013
57.
NM Ct. App. Emergency Motion to stop corruption March 12, 2013
58.
NM Ct. App. Amended Brief in Chief April 2, 2013
59.
NM Ct. App. Motion for rehearing September 3, 2013
60.
NM Ct. App. Memorandum March 6, 2014
61.
NM Ct. App. Motion for rehearing April 22, 2014
62.
NM Ct. App. Motion for rehearing July 14, 2014
_________________♦_________________
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CITATIONS SUPPORTING DAVID
DERRINGER IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
United States Constitution
New Mexico Constitution
US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242
US Code Title 18 Section 922
US Code Title 18 Section 1503
US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a)
US Code Title 42 Section 1982
US Code Title 42 Section 1983
US Code Title 42 Section 1985
US Code Title 42 Section 1986
US
CONSTITUTION SUPREMACY CLAUSE ARTICLE VI
14th Amendment Section 3
1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th
Amendments
US Code Title 28 Section 455
Declaration of Independence
US Supreme Court
decisions
Alden v. Maine Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 1999 527 U.S. 706 119
S.Ct. 2240
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
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Supreme
Court of the United States
March 27, 1990
494 U.S.
652 110 S.Ct. 1391
Barry v. Barchi Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1979 443 U.S. 55 99
S.Ct. 2642.
Boddie v. Connecticut Supreme Court of the United States March 02, 1971 401 U.S. 371 91
S.Ct. 780
Borough of Duryea,
Pa. v. Guarnieri Supreme Court of the United States June 20, 2011 131 S.Ct.
2488 2011 WL 2437008
Brown v. Hartlage Supreme Court of the United States April 05, 1982 456 U.S. 45 102
S.Ct.1523
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United
States June 24, 1992 505 U.S. 504 112 S.Ct. 2608
District of Columbia
v. Heller Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 2008 554 U.S. 570 128
S.Ct. 2783
Elrod v. Burns Supreme
Court of the United States
June 28, 1976 427
U.S.
347 96 S.Ct. 2673
Emspak v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States May 23, 1955 349 U.S. 190 75
S.Ct. 687
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
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
First Nat. Bank of Boston
v. Bellotti Supreme Court of the
United States
April 26, 1978
435 U.S.
765 98 S.Ct. 1407
Gravel v. U. S.
Supreme Court of the United
States June 29, 1972 408 U.S. 606 92 S.Ct. 2614
Griffin v. Griffin
Supreme Court of the United States February 25, 1946 327 U.S. 220 66
S.Ct. 556
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath Supreme Court of the United States April 30, 1951 341 U.S. 123 71
S.Ct. 624
Lewis v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States February 27, 1980 445 U.S. 55 100
S.Ct. 915 Lindsey v. Normet Supreme
Court of the United States
February 23, 1972
405 U.S.
56 92 S.Ct.
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 1972 405 U.S. 538 92
S.Ct.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Com'n
Supreme Court of the United States April 02, 2014 134 S.Ct. 1434 2014 WL
1301866
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
Ill. Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 2010 561 U.S. 742 130
S.Ct. 3020
Monroe v. Pape Supreme Court of the United States February 20, 1961 365 U.S. 167 81
S.Ct.
Muniz v. Hoffman Supreme
Court of the United States
June 25, 1975 422
U.S.
454 95 S.Ct. 2178
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
Mutual harmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 2013 133 S.Ct.
2466 2013 WL 3155230
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
New York v. U.S.
Supreme Court of the United
States June 19, 1992 505 U.S. 144 Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 20,553
New York Times Co. v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 30, 1971 403 U.S. 713 91
S.Ct. 2140
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri
Government PAC Supreme Court of
the United States
January 24, 2000
528 U.S.
377 120 S.Ct. 897
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States April 18, 1978 435 U.S. 589 98
S.Ct. 1306
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing Supreme
Court of the United States
June 23, 2011 131
S.Ct. 2567 2011 WL 2472790
Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures
508 U.S.
49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993)
Printz v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 27, 1997 521 U.S. 898 117
S.Ct. 2365
Rice v. Rice Supreme Court of the United States April 18, 1949 336 U.S. 674 69
S.Ct. 751
Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board Supreme
Court of the United States.
June 08, 1925 268 U.S. 619 45
S.Ct. 621
Scales v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 05, 1961 367 U.S. 203 81
S.Ct. 1469 Screws v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States May 07, 1945 325 U.S. 91 65
S.Ct. 1031
Settlemier v. Sullivan Supreme
Court of the United States
October 01, 1878
97 U.S.
444 7 Otto 444
Shapiro v. Thompson Supreme Court of the United States April 21, 1969 394 U.S. 618 89
S.Ct. 1322
Schwarz v. Folloder,
767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985)
Tennessee v. Lane
Supreme Court of the United States May 17, 2004 541 U.S. 509 124
S.Ct. 1978
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 2010 559 U.S. 260 130
S.Ct. 1367
United States
v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) S. Ct.
(CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.).
US Supreme Court in US Supreme Court No. 10-1521
U.S. v. International Union United Auto.,
Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) Supreme
Court of the United States
March 11, 1957
352 U.S.
567 77 S.Ct. 529 .
United States
v. Taylor,
487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d
297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744
CASE LAW
Adamson v. C.I.R.
CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421
(1975)
Anderson
v. U.S.
U.S.
W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S.
211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20
Andrews v. Steinberg, 122 Misc.2d 468,
471 NYS.2d 764, NY Supp. 1983
Arizona & C. R. Co. v. Denver & R. G.
R. Co., 84 P. 1018 N.M.Terr.,1906
Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand
Barela v. Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441
(1966)
Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.
120 NM 343,
901 P.2d 761 NM App. 1995
Birdo v. Rodriquez, 84 NM 207, 501 P.2d 195 (1972)
Caffey v. Johnson, 883 F. Supp. 128
Cartello v. US CCA8
(Mo) 1937, 93 F.2d 412
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US 317, 324
(1986)
Citizens State Bank of Barstow, Tex
v. Vidal, 114 F.2d 380 C.A.10.N.M.,1940
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
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061,
503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992
Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv.
L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990)
Fairchild v. United Serv.
Corp., 52 NM 289, 197 P.2d 875 (1948)
Federalist No. 47 by
James Madison
Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972)
Giron v. Corrections
Corp. of America,
14 F.Supp.2d 1245
Gonzales v. Oil Workers Int’l Union,
77 N.M. 61, 419 p.2d 257 (1966)
Gonzales v. Raich,
No. 03-1454
Griffin
v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US787
(1966)
Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802
Hill v. Silsbee Independent Scholl dist.,
933 F. Supp. 616 ED Tex.
1996
Holmes v. Faycus, 85 NM 740, 516 P.2d 1123 (Ct. App. 1973).
Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372,
375 (10th Cir. 1993)
Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305
In re Aquinda,
241 F.3d 194
In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520 Mich. 1991
In re Williamson, 43 BR 813
Jemez Properties Inc. v. Lucero, 94
N.M. 181, 608 P.2d 157
(Ct. App.1979) cert denied 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545
(1980)
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme
Court 392 U.S.
409 (1968) No. 645
Lujan v. McCuistion, 232 P.2d
478, 55 NM 275
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)
Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424
opinion modified on denial of
rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated
McKinney
V. Gannett Co. Inc. 660 F. Supp 984,
appeal
dismissed, cause remanded 694 F.2d 1240 on remand 660
F.
Supp. 1037. Affirmed 817 F.2d
659
Meade v. Grubbs,
841 F.2d 1512, 1527-28 (10th Cir. 1988)
Milliken v. Martinez,
159 P. 952, 22 NM 61
Montgomery
v. Cook, 76 NM 199, 413 P.2d 477 (1966)
Montoya v. Blackhurst,
84 N.M. 91, 500 P.2d 176 (1972)
Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357
N.M.,1972118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972)
Nienstedt v. Wetzel,
133 Ariz.
348, 651 P.2d 876 1982
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763
(1981)
Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981
524 F. Supp. 927
Olmstead v. United States,
277 U.S.
438, 485 (1928)
Owen v. City
of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622
(1980) No. 78-1779
Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527, 101
Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981)
Phelps v. Hamilton,
122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997)
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 118
S.Ct. 1925 U.S.Tex.,1998
Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508U.S.49,113 S.Ct.1920,
1925,123L.Ed.2d 611 (1993)
Rea v. State of Missouri, 84 U.S. 532
U.S.Mo.,1873
Robbins v. Wilkie, 433 F.3d 755
C.A.10.Wyo.,2006
Sena v. Montoya, 346 F.Supp. 5
(D.N.M. 1972)
Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral
Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967
Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157
F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert
denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647
Society National Bank v.
Parson Partnership LTD.,
122 F.3d 574
States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No.
14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)
State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell,
74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964)
State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623,
634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940)
State v. Southern Pacific
Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 “N.M. 1929
State ex rel Sandoval v.
Taylor, 87 P.2d 681 N.M.,1939
State v. Tunnell, 1982 99 NM 450 659
P.2d 902 rev 99 NM 446, 659 P.2d 989
State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks,
106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987)
Stephenson v. Esquivel,
614 F. Supp. 986 “D.N.M. 1985
T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 885 (8th ed. 1927)
Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523
The Idaho, 93 U.S. 575 U.S.N.Y.,1876
Tyus v. Martinez,
106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US
1138,
90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800
F.2d 230
Ulibarri v. Geistenberger, 178 Az 151,
164, 891 P.2d 698, 711(App. 1993)
US v. Anderson,
798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.)
1986
US v. Andreas,
39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill.
1998
US v. Barker, CADC 1976, 546
F.2d 940, 178 US
App DC 174 30,31
U.S. v. Brenson,
104 F.3d 1267, rehearing denied 113
F.3d 1253, cert. denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139
L.Ed.2d 148 33,34,35
United
States v. Burr, 25 F.
Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)
United
States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081,
10th USCA
United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305, 311
(10th Cir.1977)
US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 “CA6 (Ky.) 1997
US v. Ehrlichman, CADC 1976, 546 F.2d
910, 178 US
App.
DC 144, cert denied 97 S. Ct.
1155, 429 US
1120, 51 Led.2d 570 25,
US v. Ellis WDSC 1942, 43 F.Supp. 321
U.S.
v. Elwell, C.A. 1 (Mass.)
1993 984 F.2d 1289 cert denied
113 S. Ct. 2429, 508
US
945, 124 L.Ed.2d 650
United States v. Guest, 383 US
745 (1966)
US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp.
789
US v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931,
101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288
U.S.
v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590
US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.)
1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied
111 S. Ct. 1681, 500
US
904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76
U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert
denied 115 Supreme Court 347,
513 U.S.
941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied
U.S. v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476 C.A.10.Kan.,1991
United
States v. Taylor, 487U.S.326,108 S.Ct.2413,101
L.Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744
U.S.Tex.,1998
US v. Waddell, US Ark 1884, 5 S. Ct. 35, 112 US 76, 28 L.Ed 673
U.S. v. Wilson,
C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand
640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d
848
Village
of Willow
brook v. Olech, 528 US 562, 120 Supreme Court 1073 (2000)
Williams v. U.S. C.A.5 (Fla) 1950, 179 F.2d 644
cert. granted 71
S. Ct. 77, 340 U.S. 849, 95 L.Ed 622 affirmed 71
S.Ct. 581, 341 U.S.
70, 95 L.Ed 758
Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy District, 89 NM 516, 554
P.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1976)
Wood v. Grau, 234
P.2d 362 N.M.,1951
Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1400
(10th Cir. 1992)
OPINIONS BELOW
Cases DV-12-234; DM-12-610, CV-12-1307; CV-12-10816
totally intertwined are non-published and unreported to any knowledge of the
Petitioner.
JURISDICTION
The United States Supreme Court has
jurisdiction for considerations governing review on Certiorari under Rule 10(a)(b)(c). The New Mexico
Supreme Court, as the court of last resort of the State of New Mexico has
violated the Constitution, the US Code, the Supremacy Clause, the statutory
scheme of New Mexico including the New Mexico Constitution, Oath, and rights of
due process and equal protection and violations of the 1st, 2nd,
4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th,
13th and 14th Amendments, and condones and endorses
judicial fraud and judicial bribery, and upon notification of an extreme number
of United States Supreme Court case laws of already decided important federal
questions, has made decisions that entirely conflict with the US Supreme Court
and the foundations of the “American Republic”; the NM Supreme Court has
disregarded the decisions of the US Supreme Court to act “in rogue” to
persecute a US citizen against the US Supreme Court defying the superintending
court, mandating exercising this US Supreme Court’s “supervisory power”. This
Petition for Writ of Certiorari is timely filed.
The original courts have a duty
to provide use and due process and equal protection to a pro-se citizen Under
US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and throughout the appellate process. David
Derringer has been forced to litigate throughout the entire NM judicial system
with an occurrence that started with DV-12-234 without any legal service of
summons to the highest court of the land; the New Mexico Supreme Court, who
denied all law, Constitution, and persecuted David Derringer with deprivations
of all due process and equal protection and taking all rights, immunities and
privileges as a US Citizen.
The
U. S. Supreme Court now has jurisdiction to review the New Mexico Supreme Court
and has “superintending control” over the NM Judiciary that has violated all
Constitution and law, including but not limited to all law ever decided by the
US Supreme Court as their superior court, and the US Supreme Court has the
ability to Order an FBI and Department of Justice investigation for prosecution
of the NM judiciary under US Code Title 18 Sections 241,242; Order a stop to all federal funds to the State
of New Mexico because the State has deprived citizens of Constitutional rights;
and redress and compensation to David Derringer for Constitutional deprivation
and criminal acts by public officials that “shock the conscience”, and all
judicial acts were in violation of the Supremacy Clause. David Derringer has
been “imprisoned” in the public corruption of New Mexico functioning as a
foreign State that has seceded from the Union by depriving its citizens all
Constitutional and other rights as US citizens, and David Derringer deserves
“diplomatic immunity” as a way to provide all Constitutional provisions to
David Derringer as a “sovereign American citizen”. New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 US
254, 265 (1964) (finding that application of both statutory and common law
constitutes state action for purposes of Constitutional violations).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
1. Petitioner has
guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the 4th,
5th and 14th Amendment and the Petitioner can only be
fined, punished or incarcerated according to the equal protection of the laws
that are equally applied to all citizens, and cannot be enslaved and persecuted
not in accordance with, or selected out for cruel or unusual punishment or
select deprivations, and cannot have any injunction placed against the
Petitioner that would deprive, rights, privileges, immunities, or guarantees
enacted by Congress under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a). Petitioner has
rights, without any criminal conviction or violation to use, ownership, and
possession of firearms, and to use firearms for a legal profession of
professional hunter/outfitter under the 2nd Amendment and under the
NM Constitution without confiscation, orders to dispose, or alleged illegal
possession by an unconstitutional phrase in a CIVIL
order of protection. In these matters were violations of the 1st, 2nd,
4th, 5th, 6th 8th, 10th,
13th and 14th Amendments and direct violations of the NM
Constitution regarding firearms. Article II Section 6.
2. Petitioner has guaranteed rights use of the US Court system
pro-se without being forced to have an attorney, and cannot be forced to submit
his Complaints and other court papers for perusal before the court has any
jurisdiction before filing; violating “due process and equal protection” under
the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. A pro-se
citizen cannot be prevented by Order from filing in any US court with any court
clerk, and judges cannot rob commit larceny and fraud to steal court pleading
before filing to destroy them to taint the court record, and courts cannot bock
appeals; violating “due process and
equal protection” under the 4th, 5th and 14th
Amendments.
3. Courts cannot threaten, intimidate and
coerce a litigant to stop litigation and to deny 1st Amendment
rights of placing public records on the Internet (“FOIA” and NM IPRA”) exposing
judicial corruption by “intimidation”, “threats”, “coercion”, and by falsely
and illegally “convicting” a pro-se party to incarceration by “criminal charges
of harassment” in chambers of a civil court with the presiding judge of such
court legally unable to make such ruling; Fourth
Amendment: The right to be free from
unlawful search or seizure. Fifth Amendment: The right to be tried before
a jury, the right to be free from self-incrimination. This means that you do not
have to disclose evidence that would help the people prosecuting you, the right
to due process. Sixth Amendment: The right to a speedy and public trial,
the right to an impartial jury. the right to be informed of the crime you are
charged with, the right to confront witnesses against you and to be able to
obtain witnesses for your side, and the right to have the assistance of a
lawyer; Eighth Amendment: The right to be free from excessive bail,
fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
4. The Bill of Rights grants David Derringer
rights as a “sovereign citizen of America” with a right to freedom and
liberty and happiness without enslavement by others under violations of the 13th
Amendment in public corruption and cannot be denied or enslaved to be required
to “ask permission” to file suit of Civil Rights deprivations by a single judge
for future suits, not already assigned to any particular case in mis us of FRCP Rule 11, and cannot be denied access and use
of the US Courts under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) for filing a Civil
Rights Complaint against a Judge when that Judge has violated Constitution and
lacking jurisdiction and judicial capacity without either judicial or public
immunity in order for one judge to illegally protect another judge in public
corruption. Derringer thus cannot have his court records destroyed by the
justices and courts themselves to block and inhibit appeals of deprivations of
Constitution and all laws. David Derringer cannot be persecuted by judges
because he is poor and on public assistance. David Derringer cannot be singled
out as a “targeted individual” by “judicial terrorism” and persecuted for
exercising his 1st Amendment right to expose public corruption on
the Internet by posting public court records, and is thus protected by the
federal obstruction of justice, and obstruction of proceedings under United
States Code Title 18 Sections 241, 242, and 1503, and protected additionally
for exposing and “whistle-blowing” on this public corruption by the
Whistle-blowing act” of 1989. "But whenever the Judicial Power is called
into play. It is responsible to the fundamental law and no other authority can
intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it." Yakus v. U.S 321 U.S. 414 pg. 468
(1944).
5. David Derringer
has unalienable rights by Consent of Authority in the Declaration of
Independence and the Law “We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed”..The term “consent of the governed” is We The People” a.k.a. American
Republic. “Unalienable”: Incapable of being alienated, that is sold and
transferred” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523. You cannot
surrender, forced into oppression, subjected to tyranny, or sell or transfer
unalienable rights as they are a gift from the creator to the individual and
can not under any circumstances be either surrendered or taken. The due process
clauses of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
protect the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence
rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or
regulations. Sandin v. Conner, 515 US 472 ‑ 1995 ‑ United States
Supreme Court ‑ Cited by 8158. Petitioner has all rights under Constitution as a “sovereign
citizen” in the American
Republic as designed by
Congress, Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of
Independence.
6. Petitioner
has guaranteed rights Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981(a) to equal protection and full and equal benefit of all laws, and
to free use of any provisions, rights, privileges, or immunities of statutory
laws provided for any other members of the public, and rights under US Code
Title 42 Section 1982 to use, own, and control all of Derringer’s personal
property, and specifically all property that falls under any statute as
“exempt” to civil suit, “necessities of life”, and “trade tools” that are
mandated to be in the possession of David Derringer to make his living. There
is no provision in the United States for any civil suit or justice to strip any
American of any and all worldly possessions and force that person to be
homeless and destitute and then punish and persecute that person when seeking
redress of such egregious situations in the courts of the United States, and
there is no Constitutional provision for any justice to be the dictator as to
how, when and where any citizen can exercise his “rights to sue” under Title 42
Section 1981(a).
7. Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 1982 affords the Petitioner the right to private ownership of real and
personal property without the punishment of ownership or use thereof by others
producing fines, damages or orders against such legal ownership and use of
trade tools for income without deprivations, without interference, fines, punishment
or persecution by any state or federal justices who have no contractual,
proprietary, or monetary interest in the affected “personal property”.
8. Petitioner is
afforded the right to Pro-Se representation in any court of law in the United
States at any time, both civil and criminal, under the provisions of the 14th
Amendment and Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a), and cannot be stopped by
dictatorship of a particular justice in bias and prejudice against David
Derringer in particular, mis use judicial power to stop “future” suits not in
the judicial capacity or authority or jurisdiction of the particular judge, or
against Derringer filing suit due to any of Derringer’s beliefs, religion,
ethnical ties, or former use of any court not subject to res judicata,
collateral estoppel or the law of some former case, and David Derringer’s court
pleading cannot be perused by any justice prior to the jurisdiction and
assignment of the judge ‘after filing with the clerk of the court’, and such
court papers to be filed cannot be denied before filing with the clerk of the
court.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The
Party David Derringer hereafter may be referred to as the Petitioner, and is
the poor, pro-se Respondent/Appellant/Petitioner of multiple attempts at
justice and due process denied with Constitutional deprivations, intimidation,
destruction of court records, the deprivation of due process and equal
protection, and the blocking of appeals of violations of all laws in underlying
cases of DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307,
CV-12-10816 and violations of the 10th Circuit US District Court
blocking legal filing Complaint 1983 of judges without jurisdiction and
judicial capacity that don’t have judicial or public immunity, while perfecting
Constitutional deprivations against David Derringer, illegal seizure of
property illegal “criminal charges” and deprivation of use of US Courts. The New Mexico judiciary
deprived Constitutional 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
6th, 8th, 10th, 13th and 14th
Amendments, used intimidation, obstruction of justice, and persecuted with
illegal conviction of “criminal harassment” without any trial or due process by
the Civil Judge in “chambers”. Trial court has no jurisdiction, refused to
peremptory excuse under law, refused to recuse for cause of Constitutional and
statutory violations, refused to change the venue under statute for justice to
be served, and matters include judicial bribery by NAI Maestas and Ward
Commercial Real Estate multimillion dollar corporation. The Petitioner, David Derringer has been
“imprisoned” in violation of the 13th Amendment in the public
corruption, judicial fraud, and judicial terrorism of the State of New Mexico and of the 10th
Circuit US District Court for the District of New Mexico. All actions
by the underlying Judiciary are against all Constitution and all laws in the United States. Free expression should
never be suppressed by threats and extortion. “The basic rights
and freedoms, to which all humans are
entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression,
and equality before the law”; whereas, Merriam defines it “as freedom from unlawful imprisonment ".
The New Mexico Judiciary is involved
with the cocaine trafficking in New Mexico, and past litigation by the
Petitioner (CV-94-10; CV-02-19, NM Ct. App. No. 27,127) involve racketeering of
two Judges Thomas Fitch and Judge John Pope that were involved with cocaine
importer Mick Chapel of Quemado, New Mexico, who used judicial fraud, judicial
bribery and extortion, to steal by larceny the Petitioner’s 40 acre ranch
located in Catron County, New Mexico and driving the Petitioner from his free
and clear legal real property by the gunpoint of automatic weapons with a
combination of the Catron County SWAT team coupled with the Juarez drug cartel
thugs, driving David Derringer from his legal property and with three attempts
to assassinate David Derringer. Although the Petitioner, David Derringer sued
four NM justices in the 10th Circuit US District Court over “Civil
Rights” US Code Title 42 Section 1983 action, the 10th Circuit
covered up the illegal actions of the underlying NM justices by unilaterally
dismissing all actions with claims of “judicial immunity” even though this was
not legal wherein the sued NM justices had worked well outside of both
jurisdiction and judicial capacity, negating any claim to “judicial or public
immunity” and were absolutely both civilly and criminally liable. These
“dismissals” of legal, valid suits were both to persecute a Pro-Se party, and
to undeniably protect the corrupt justices of the State of New Mexico. As one of such justices, “Judge
Cynthia Fry” was a “Defendant” to David Derringer in such 1983 action, she
could not come near any cases involving the Petitioner, David Derringer, and
yet “presided” over the Appeal of CV-02-19 being NM Ct. App. No. 27,127,
disregarding that there was underlying judicial fraud, extortion and with no
foreclosure trial and in violation of NM statute NMSA 29-5-5, Judge Fry
summarily “gave” the twice appraised $400,000.00 free and clear David Derringer
40 acre ranch to the cocaine importer Mick Chapel and allowed the Federal
automatic stay to be broken and assisted the grand larceny of the David
Derringer legal ranch, making David Derringer homeless as a way of retribution,
retaliation and revenge of the federal law suit against her by David Derringer.
As further protection, the 10th Circuit US District court then
issued an illegal Order against David Derringer to force David Derringer to
submit any further Complaints before they had jurisdiction prior to filing for
the court’s perusal so that they could then stop any filings in the US District
Court that involved any attack on the corruption of the judiciary of New
Mexico; attending the corruption protection and without any jurisdiction to
make such Order that violates both due process and equal protection of the US
Constitution 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments in
both violation of Oath, sedition and treason against America by “justices”. As
of this, David Derringer was put on a “black list” that at any time the NM
judiciary was involved in any matters of David Derringer, ruling would be
against David Derringer despite any law and as much persecution and retaliation
due from the judges of New Mexico.
On or about February 6, 2012 Barrie Lee Derringer filed in proven perjury
and fraud a CIVIL Petition for Order of Protection lying that David Derringer
had abused her on February 4, 2012, and failed and refused to legally serve a
summons for such CIVIL action. Despite no legal service of summons,
the Second Judicial District Court held hearing on February 21, 2012,
disregarding David Derringer’s statements that they had no jurisdiction and
such hearing was unconstitutional and in fundamental error with no judicial
capacity, and instead forced David Derringer into ongoing litigation of
DV-12-234 summarily taking the 2nd Amendment rights to David
Derringer’s legal rights to own and possess firearms and ammunition as well as
taking the “profession” of professional hunter/outfitter NM #32, away from
David Derringer by such unconstitutional actions for a period of two (2) years;
all intertwined with an illegal “divorce action” of DM-12-610 in fraud without
due process or equal protection, mandating dismissal with no “jurisdiction”. On
or about February 4, 2012, Barrie Derringer and her criminal bosses of NAI
Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation had criminally helped
Barrie Derringer “break and enter” the Petitioner’s storage facilities before
any filing for divorce and before the filing of DV-12-234, and when caught in
the act by David Derringer had done criminal assault and battery and conversion
against David Derringer. David Derringer filed a Civil action of torts under
CV-12-1307, and later another tort action CV-12-10816 both then encompassing
the criminal and illegal tort acts of Barrie Derringer, Alain Jackson, NAI
Maestas and Ward Corporation and bosses of NAI Maestas and Ward, and other John
Does involved. The record speaks for itself in all cases of DV-12-234,
DM-12-610, CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 that Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge
Alisa Hadfield, and Judge Alan Malott were bought off and criminally
bribed by the multimillion dollar NAI Maestas and Ward Commercial Real
Estate Corporation, which also had their corporate attorneys helping to
represent Barrie Derringer in order to stop all David Derringer litigation
against the Corporation and to protect their “accountant” Barrie Lee Derringer
that was forced by the Corporation under duress to “cook the books” of NAI Maestas
and Ward Corporation that is laundering drug cocaine Juarez, Mexico drug monies
into New Mexico Commercial Real Estate in violation of the RICO Act.
In the illegal without service
DV-12-234, and totally intertwined DM-12-610, David Derringer continued to
fight and was denied all due process and equal protection, denied witnesses,
exhibits, documents, cross examination, intimidated, threatened, persecuted and
personal property stolen with further break-ins to storage endorsed by the
court, to gain unfair advantage and “unjust enrichment” for Barrie Derringer.
As David Derringer then exercised his 1st Amendment rights to expose
this public judicial corruption on the Internet blogs of “public court records”
Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar and Judge Alisa Hadfield Ordered David Derringer
to stop placing public court records on the Internet that exposed the judicial
fraud, and then in a CIVIL case DV-12-234 Judge Hadfield, without any
jurisdiction as the CIVIL judge in the matter, herself, in chambers “criminally
sentenced” David Derringer without Criminal complaint, trial, Miranda, jury,
attorney and other mandated due process to 30 days in county jail for
exercising 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of
expression to place public court documents for public view on the Internet with expression of what the
Petitioner perceived was being persecuted against him When the criminal intimidation, fraud and
violent threats of Judge Hadfield did not stop the Petitioner’s legal
litigation, Judge Hadfield made written Order to the clerks of the Second
Judicial District Court not to accept for filing any legal court pleading or
paper of David Derringer, thus blocking due process access to the United States
Court system of our Government in violation of Constitutional 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th,
13th and 14th Amendment rights and violations of the
Supremacy Clause Constitution Article VI, US Code Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982,
Title 18 Section 241, 242, 1503. In addition, Judge Hadfield would repeatedly
steal and confiscate any and all copies of legal court pleadings David
Derringer attempted to legally file, without any jurisdiction or judicial
capacity and then destroy the court record so as to taint and subject the court
trial record to fraud and stop any further information before appeal. Judge
Hadfield also blocked filing of the notice of appeal and the docketing
statements of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610.
On
multiple appeal attempts of both DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 intertwined without
jurisdiction, the NM Ct. App. blocked and circumvented judicial fraud issues
and Constitutional deprivations and jurisdictional issues under collateral
attack so as to uphold all deprivations and underlying criminal acts by the
trial justices in “sedition and treason” to the Constitution Article III. Upon
appeal for Petition for Writ of Certiorari multiple times, coupled with
multiple complaints to the NM Judicial Standard’s Commission and with Petitions
to the New Mexico Supreme Court for a Petition for Superintending Control and a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus, all such legal filings were ignored or denied by
the NM Supreme Court so as to sustain the deprivation of David Derringer’s Constitutional
1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
8th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights and violations
of the Supremacy Clause Constitution Article VI, US Code Title 42 Sections
1981, 1982, Title 18 Section 241, 242, 1503, and allow David Derringer to be
forced into courts without service of summons, “convicted” of a criminal act
without substance in intimidation and “judicial terrorism”, forced to litigate
without due process or equal protection, and denied substantive appeal, with
the NM Ct. App. adopting the illegal stance of the 10th Circuit US
District Court forcing David Derringer to submit any pleading, Complaint of
other court papers for illegal perusal before any jurisdiction of filing so as
to then deny filing to stop any litigation or further exposure of the
underlying public corruption of the State of New Mexico. When David Derringer
attempted to file a legal sufficient Civil Rights 1983 Action against Judge
Alisa Hadfield in the 10th Circuit US District Court, the illegal
and unconstitutional previous Order was sustained wherein the federal justices
forced David Derringer to allow them to read the Complaint before they had any
jurisdiction before filing and then realizing that such Complaint legally
attacked a NM State Judge working well outside of both jurisdiction and
judicial capacity and who had even done criminal acts with mis-use of power
against David Derringer, the 10th Circuit US District Court denied
and deprived David Derringer’s legal Complaint to be filed under violations of
the parameters of USC Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986, thus
protecting the underlying NM public corruption and judicial fraud, as well as
persecuting and depriving David Derringer due process and equal protection use
of the United States court system of our government; thus “imprisoning” David
Derringer to the public corruption of the State of New Mexico and depriving any
“sovereign citizenship” rights, privileges and immunities in the United States
of America. This action violates the 10th Amendment, with New Mexico acting in
abandon of Constitution to take power over David Derringer in violation of the
Supremacy Clause where such power does not exist. The Tenth Amendment continues
to be defined as courts and legislatures address
the balance of federal
and state power. 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 Constitution
specifies the parameters
of authority that may be exercised by the
three branches of the federal government:
executive, legislative, and judicial. The
Tenth Amendment reserves
to the states all
powers that are
not granted to the
federal government by the Constitution, except
for those powers
that states are
constitutionally forbidden from exercising. Because of 10th
Amendment violations of persecution and “human rights deprivations against
David Derringer, it is necessary for a DOJ criminal investigation of
both the NM judiciary and the 10th Circuit federal US District Court
for the District of New Mexico, all involved in criminal acts under the meaning
of USC Title 18 Sections 241 and 242.
In
cases CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 bribed Judge Alan Malott, disregarded all law
for the sustainable torts to dismiss most of the case issues, violated Oath and
refused to recuse for cause when proven to have been bribed, proven to have
violated all due process and equal protection and Constitutional rights against
David Derringer, then refused to obey NMSA 38-3-9 to peremptory recuse upon consolidation,
refused to obey NMSA 38-3-3 to
grant a change of venue “for justice to be served”, and disregarded both
mandated hearing and “justice to be served” and then persecuted and sanctioned
David Derringer for exercising statutory rights under NMSA
38-3-9 and 38-3-3 by “dismissing” all claims after illegally consolidating and
thus “imprisoning” and controlling David Derringer in both cases of CV-12-1307
and CV-12-10816. This was so as to consummate the “bribery” relief by NAI
Maestas and Ward Commercial Real Estate Corporation, to keep all issues from
any due process and equal protection, including protecting the other “10”
persons that did criminal assault and battery against David Derringer,
“imprisoning” David Derringer both to the corruption and the criminal acts
against David Derringer’s person in “violence” and “judicial terrorism”. The NM
Court of Appeals disregarded forma pauperis even though David Derringer is on
public assistance, as well as covered up and disregarded all issues including
the judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott, and the NM Supreme Court on Petition
for Writ of Certiorari “ignores”, “refuses to consider”, “covers up the
judicial bribery” and “disregards Constitution” not to address any of these
matters and thus denied by default any possibility of David Derringer getting a
trial and due process and equal protection over any of the matters of
CV-12-1307 consolidated with CV-12-10816 as “imprisonment” of public corruption
and judicial fraud. In sum, it can be stated that there can be “jurisdictional
challenge” to the US Supreme Court to challenge any unlawful detention or
restraint on personal liberty and deprivation of due process and equal protection.
No detention or Constitutional violation is immune from having its legality
tested.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE
PETITION
The state of New Mexico has usurped all authority and
disregarded jurisdiction to persecute and maliciously deny all rights to an American Republic citizen, subjecting David
Derringer to outrageous acts in sedition and treason and “imprisonment”. This
should “shock the conscience” of the US Supreme Court wherein the NM Supreme
Court has total knowledge of judicial bribery, Constitutional deprivations and
egregious acts of the trial court and NM Ct. App. and has disregarded extreme
numbers of US Supreme Court prior decisions enforcing the laws to the benefit
of David Derringer and has discarded those laws in order to punish David Derringer
for legally continuing to exercise his Constitutional rights, which by doing
exposes the extreme judicial and public corruption and cocaine intertwining of
RICO violations of the NM State Judiciary and other politicians involved. Under
Rule 10(a), the US Supreme Court has a duty to uphold both Constitution and
uphold their own former rulings that conflict with the current egotistical errors
of the NM Supreme Court; the NM S.Ct. has decided federal questions in legal
error, violated Oath and the 14th Amendment Section 3 and violated
the Supremacy Clause, and extremely departed from the accepted and usual course
of judicial proceedings and sanctioned and condoned the lower court’s
persecution and punishment of a US citizen exercising Constitutional rights in
retribution, retaliation, and revenge against singled-out David Derringer that
has stood up against the judicial corruption of New Mexico, calling thus for
the US Supreme Court’s “supervisory power”. Under Rule 10(b), the US Supreme
Court has a duty to stop and reverse the NM S. Ct. that has decided multiple federal
questions already decided by the US Supreme Court in order to deny David
Derringer his rights to firearms and ammunition and personal defense, and
rights to freedom of expression and posting public documents to the World by
exercising the 1st Amendment, and has done so to hide and cover up
exposed public corruption and treason against America by those justices that
are a domestic enemy of “WE THE
PEOPLE”. Under Rule 10(c), the US Supreme Court has a duty to uphold
its own case laws of important decisions already settled by this court and now
has a lower court denying, contesting, ignoring, and superseding established US
Supreme Court rulings in total conflict with the US Supreme Court. The egregious
acts of public corruption occurring here is at total odds with Oath, Canon,
Code of Judicial Conduct, Constitution and in violation of the “Supremacy
Clause” and all decisions underlying have been against a citizen have been
performed here in America in sedition and treason against the United States;
and justices involved are buried in this matter; showing how debased the
judicial system has become. The justice
system has become a dictatorship against pro-se, “poor” litigants with NM
seceding from the Union, yet still accepting
the federal monies when depriving Constitutional rights to its citizens as a
“foreign” State against America
in which David Derringer is “imprisoned”.
The United States
Constitution is the backbone of America
and prevents, by the 14th Amendment Section 3, any Judicial immunity
when attack on the Constitution. The integrity of the judicial system cannot be
maintained by criminals sitting on the bench acting in Civil Rights
conspiracies with private parties to ruin the lives of others without any
accountability for their evil actions. Canon: “Our legal system is based on the
principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and
apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American
concepts of justice ad the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code
are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and
honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain
confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for
the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the
rule of law.”
A quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C.
Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d
1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more
quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard
of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said
in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our
Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it
teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law
unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis added).
It
is clearly seen in the underlying unscrupulous state violations of the
Supremacy Clause, and then the “enslavement” of David Derringer to this by
ignoring all Constitution and statutory rights, and then arbitrary and
capricious mis-use of power, that these unlawful acts by knowingly conducting
violations of Constitution by court justices, and then the overall penchant of
all justices to protect their own, when violations of oaths are blatant, that
there is a comradery of justices acting in violation of Title 18 Section 241 and
242 to simply not allow a pro-se citizen to either prevail under law, or gain
any “justice” within the system. “Whistle-blowing on public corruption makes
one a “targeted individual” whose life will be destroyed by the acts of
protection of this unscrupulous element of our modern society, with Courts
Orders to take unethical and illegal precedent over justice, equity and law. Owen
v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No.
78-1779 “Section 1983 provides a private right of action against “[e]very
person” acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to be imposed a
deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to immunities,
this Court has held that the law “is to be read in harmony with general
principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them”.
The United States Supreme Court has a duty to protect the American public
against corruption and to assure redress of Constitutional and statutory
deprivations. The justices involved here even disregard the rights of a citizen
to utilize the court rules enacted by themselves, and all unscrupulous justices
herein are so embroiled with their power that they perceive a berserk condition
of “absolutism” and a dictatorship approach to their judicial system so as to
threaten and violate all Constitution and statutes under them without
conscience, with higher courts taking no “jurisdiction or responsibility” and
with no judge in discharge of Oath ever being accountable for damages to
Americans. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232, 241
(1974) “the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws for
the protection of the public.” As it is clearly shown in this instance, the New
Mexico State Courts and their public corruption is intertwined with the lower
federal 10th Circuit courts to not allow the public to access the
truth of the public corruption going on against citizens of America, and
disregards that a pro-se person in the United States never receives due
process, equal protection or any “justice”. Cf.P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D.
Shapiro, & H. Wshsler, Hart and Weshsler’s The Federal Courts and the
Federal System, 336 (2d.ed 1973)“[W]here constitutional rights are at
stake, the courts are properly astute, in construing statutes, to avoid the
conclusion that Congress intended to use the privilege of immunity...in order
to defeat them.”)
Accordingly,
the Supreme Court of the United
States has a duty to protect America, even
from those deviant and unscrupulous justices that have infiltrated the judicial
system for evil purposes to assist the small community of justices
non-accountability.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner
Derringer always had a right to his “sovereign citizenship” and Constitutional
protection and unalienable rights as a human being. Although poor and pro-se,
David Derringer has a right to due process and equal protection and a right use
any and all of the US Courts without being regulated and prohibited filings
wherein no court has the right to read, peruse and deny such filings by forcing
David Derringer to submit his Complaints and court pleadings before the court
or any particular judge has any jurisdiction to read such pleadings, and only
thereafter is appurtenant can a pleading or filing be deemed stricken by “Rule
11”. Despite allegations and facts exposing public corruption and judicial
fraud and judicial bribery, no judge can disregard those issues simply to
illegally protect another justice, and no judge can order the court clerks not
to take any legal filings from any particular individual at any time to deprive
use of the US Courts to a citizen. At all times, when there is a failure of
“legal service of summons” the case is jurisdictionally defective and in
fundamental error and has to be dismissed, as so also at any moment in such
case that due process and equal protection are denied or compromised. Any violation
of the Supremacy Clause, causes the case to be defective without jurisdiction
to continue and the citizen is to be compensated for such outrageous acts. Owen
v. City of Independence, US Supreme
Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “The innocent individual who is harmed by
an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for
his injury.” David Derringer has and will continue to expose this debased
element of our United States until the Department of Justice investigation is
ordered against the judicial public corruption in the State of New Mexico and
other courts to expose these and other unlawful activities until some element
of the Government takes corrective action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures
508 U.S.
49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).
Simply
put, the United States Supreme Court cannot allow the State of New Mexico to defy
citizens rights, immunities and privileges against Constitution and ignore
rights of the State of New Mexico’s
own Constitution and legislated laws for the protection of David Derringer. For
the United States Supreme Court to ignore this case makes the entire system of
Congressional laws mute, and makes worthless the US Constitution. Under all
circumstances the Constitution must be enforced against those that would
destroy it. “US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3-No
person shall be an ..elector..or hold any office, under the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath,..as a judicial
officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
THEREFORE,
the petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted, action should be
directed to the FBI/DOJ, and the State of New Mexico must be mandated to enforce the
“Supremacy Clause” and in the interim be denied all federal funding.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
David Derringer is legally entitled to be “released
from imprisonment” of the public corruption of New Mexico and granted restitution and
redress by the following:
1.
Order all Constitutional and Amendment rights restored
in full for David Derringer including, but not limited to “sovereign
citizenship” not subject to any governmental contractual obligations of which
David Derringer denies and refuses under UCC 1-308(a)(b). David Derringer is
not to be subject to any past, present and future “contracts” under
Color of Law, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or Customs (Executive Orders)
pursuant to “under protest” and “without prejudice” and both preserve and
retain all Constitutional rights pursuant to U.C.C. 1-308.
2.
Order “diplomatic immunity” of the State of New Mexico
for Constitutional protections afforded in rights, immunities and privileges of
a “sovereign citizen” of the United States of America, wherein the State of New
Mexico has denied all Constitution, NM Constitution, US Code, NM Statutes, and
all case laws against David Derringer, not further subjecting David Derringer
to any authority of the State of New Mexico, having acted in a manner seceding
the Union in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
3.
Order a complete dismissal of DV-12-234 and rel.
intertwined DM-12-610 without any service of summons, in Constitutional
deprivations and without any due process and equal protection along with all
appeals and subject matter, “WITH PREJUDICE”.
4.
Order an original “trial de novo” of all original
issues of both CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 in front of an impartial justice, in
a court of venue for justice to be served.
5.
Order a complete DOJ investigation of all members of
the judiciary of the State of New
Mexico and of the US District Court 10th
Circuit in any and all cases involving David Derringer, past and present, and
investigation and criminal prosecution of
“conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”.
6.
Order restitution and compensation of $100,000,000.00
dollars from Barrie Derringer, Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar,
Judge Alisa Hadfield, Judge Alan Malott, and the State of New Mexico for deprivation of Constitutional
rights, illegal “imprisonment” to a conspiracy of public corruption, payable to
David Derringer immediately.
7.
Order all federal funds stopped to the State of New Mexico for
violations of Civil, Human, and Constitutional right deprivations to New Mexico citizens in
total violation of the Constitution Supremacy Clause of Article VI.
8.
Any other and just punishment, sanctions, and
disciplinary actions against any and all that are involved in any past and
present Constitutional deprivations against David Derringer, including involved
attorneys and others subject to the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, and
any other and further relief, compensation and restitution to be awarded to
David Derringer.
Respectfully
submitted by___________________________________________
David
Derringer
Box 7431
Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Petitioner,
David Derringer, acting in forma pauperis, pro-se has provided a Petition in
format of Rule 33(2) with less than 40 pages in double spaced type Times New
Roman.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that
in forma pauperis I caused eleven (11) true and correct
originals of the forgoing Petition with one full copy of attachments, to be
sent first class mail on the ___th day of January, 2015 for filing
to:
The Supreme Court of the United States
1 First
Street, N.E.
Washington,
DC 20543
I hereby further certify that I caused a true
and correct original of the forgoing Petition to be sent via first class
prepaid mail to the following counsel of record in this matter on the ___th
day of January, 2015.
Respondent:
Barrie Derringer
c/o attorney Alain
Jackson
423 6th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
87194
By:______________________________________________________________
David
Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW
MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO )
I, David Derringer, being first duly sworn, upon my oath
state that I have knowledge and have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of
Certiorari and know the contents thereof, and that the statements contained
therein are true to my knowledge, except for those statements made on
information and belief, which I believe are true.
David
Derringer
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before
me on January ____, 2015 by David
Derringer.
________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
(Seal)
My Commission Expires:
_________
No comments:
Post a Comment