US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

No. _____________

_________________________________________________________________

IN THE

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________◊__________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO USC TITLE 28 SECTION 2241(a)(c)(3);

SECTION 2242; SECTION 2255(a)(b)(c)(f)(1)

__________________◊__________________

DAVID DERRINGER,

            Petitioner,

                                 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

THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

                                                                                   

            Respondent,               

__________________◊__________________

On Petition For a Writ of Habeas Corpus Totally Intertwined With

the Petition for Writ of Certiorari Simultaneously Filed

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

December 29, 2014

__________________◊__________________

                                                                                   

_________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Petitioner, David Derringer with his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Rule 17 original jurisdiction under Article III 28 USC 1651(a), 2241 and Rule 34; David Derringer “sovereign citizen of the US, being “imprisoned” in violation of the 13^th Amendment in the public corruption, judicial fraud, and judicial terrorism of the State of New Mexico and of the 10^th Circuit US District Court for the District of New Mexico as to why this Petition is brought directly to the United States Supreme Court and not to the US District Court of jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico. As simultaneously filed, the “ADDENDUM” provided is appurtenant to both the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is provable that the judicial fraud, Constitutional deprivations, lack of jurisdiction, lack of judicial capacity, violations of all US Code, and New Mexico Constitution and NM Statutory laws are “intertwined” in the comradery and judicial protection of one justice for another in the State of New Mexico judiciary as well as combined with such “judge protection” by the 10^th Circuit US District Court.

            In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a “prisoner” is valid.  A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.  A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State. It can also be used to examine the jurisdiction of the court. See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009),  Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991). David Derringer has exhausted all State of New Mexico remedies with several appeals to the NM Supreme Court, “the court of last resort”, several Petitions for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Superintending Control, Writ of Mandamus, and multiple Complaints to the NM Commission of Judicial Standards. David Derringer has also been legally defeated in deprivation of due process and equal protection with attempts at Civil Rights federal suits under US Code Title 42 Section 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 by the US District Court corruption of the 10^th Circuit for the District of New Mexico. David Derringer has also exposed the public judicial fraud and corruption to the World through public records “FOIA” and New Mexico “IPRA”, on Internet blogs under exercising rights under the 1^st Amendment, as well as letters to the United Nations for Human Rights, NATO, and INTERPOL. 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 10^th Circuit US District Court over “Civil Rights” US Code Title 42 Section 1983 action, the 10^th 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 10^th 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 4^th, 5^th and 14^th Amendments in both violation of Oath, sedition and treason against America by “justices”.

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. DV-12-234-Bernalillo County Sheriff “failed” legal service. (R.P. 2-17-2012 unable to serve.) 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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 1^st 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. 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....  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 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 8^th, 13^th and 14^th 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 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 8^th, 13^th and 14^th 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 10^th 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 10^th 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 10^th 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, making the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus both mandated and necessary for a DOJ criminal investigation of both the NM judiciary and the 10^th 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 is vast, unrealized potential in the writ of habeas corpus to challenge any unlawful detention or restraint on personal liberty. No detention is immune from having its legality tested.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE LAWS VIOLATED AGAINST DAVID DERRINGER BY THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND THE 10^TH CIRCUIT US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

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 (5^th 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

      What is happening here is that David Derringer is “imprisoned” in a foreign county; that being the State of New Mexico; that has taken all rights, immunities and privileges in Constitutional rights, all due process and equal protection of law, and the “Sovereign Citizenship” guaranteed to David Derringer under the Declaration and Bill of Rights, including defying all of the NM Constitution and statutory scheme as well. Article 2, Section 6 of the New Mexico State constitution was amended to say, "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

This, effectively is denying, trampling, disregarding, and discharging all rights as a United States citizen, making David Derringer an “alien” to the United States without rights to exercise any Amendment, and persecuted when such rights are exercised, (SEE: USC Title 18 Sections 241, 242) making David Derringer without a country, and yet without “diplomatic” or other immunity to enforce the Constitution. The “corporation” of government, still demands conformity, payment of taxes, fees, and executes “intimidation”, “threats of incarceration”, illegal “conviction” of criminal harassment without any due process or jurisdiction and extreme illegal acts without law.

Hence, David Derringer has every right to deny and withdraw any consent 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. § 1‑308(a)(b).

Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

David Derringer has been denied Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and persecuted as a United States Citizen, as in this matter of forcing litigation without legal served summons, “convictions” of criminal harassment with 30 day sentence in County with the same judge acting illegally in the CIVIL proceedings, and “thousands” of atrocious judicial acts in the Addendum. Boddie v. Connecticut  Supreme Court of the United States March 02, 1971 401 U.S. 371 91 S.Ct. 780. Clearly, there is no binding contract with the United States requiring David Derringer to “perform” in regard to taxes, fees, licensing or any other requirements. Under “immunity” even other “aliens” that are diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the Constitutional laws of the United States of America as a Sovereign citizen, wherein the judicial fraud has stripped David Derringer of all “human rights” pursuant even of the Geneva Convention. Pursuant to U.C.C. 1-308 grants David Derringer the following relief:

Not a promise to appear and vitiates perjury.

Enforces the Right to contract and the right to compromise an unconscionable contract.

Reserves all applicable Bill of Rights and Article III judicial Power and the Declaration of Independence [1].

"Criminal intent" must be brought forward to proceed.

Separation of Powers.

All Constitutional terms dealing with contracts, judicial and taxes.

Reserves "personam" jurisdictional issues.

Estoppel of subject matter only jurisdiction, and summary Admiralty.

Non‑assumpsit.

Habeas Corpus.

Activating clause for police power at "probable cause."

Disrupts Penumbra Doctrine.

Confession and avoidance.

When Miranda is presented for signature David Derringer can reserve rights on this instrument by not becoming in personam at Rule 12 (b).

Rights to remain silent under the 5^th Amendment.

The “right to remain SILENT” reservation will only will command David Derringer to Justice and due process and equal protection of law afforded to me under the 4^th, 5^th and 14^th Amendments.

The Declaration of “Without Prejudice” UCC 1‑308 above any signature of David Derringer not only puts a condition on an unconditional contract, but also reserves all rights under Article III Judicial. Police power is void unless "crime" and probable cause exist.

"An unconstitutional statute, or writing, such as the illegal Order of Protection, though having the form of law, is in reality, no law and imposed no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no actions performed under it." Am. Jur. 2d Sec. 256.

The graduated income tax, is unconstitutional as I declare  it’s "color of law," "without Prejudice" to David Derringer.

There is no waiving any of any Bill of Rights.

Any and all of David Derringer’s signatures are to be construed as a reservation and protection and preservation of all rights, immunities and privileges under Constitution and Amendments and thereby make all instruments singed whether by force, coercion or threats to be "non‑assumpsit." [2].

"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).

David Derringer could have only been taken to a Grand Jury for indictment under Article III if there is criminal intent and Judge Hadfield had no jurisdiction to Order a conviction of “criminal harassment” and sentence David Derringer to 30 days, and the NM Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to “re-write” the perceived intent of the trial court as “sanctions and contempt”.  

The 5th Amendment states; "No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury." If there is no victim and criminal intent, there is no crime.Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406.

CONCLUSION

            Petitioner, David Derringer has been singled out as a targeted individual, due to exposing judicial and state public corruption, exposing cocaine drug trafficking intertwined with the justices, attorneys and public political figures of New Mexico, and the judicial corruption, “judicial terrorism” against any that might expose their RICO ACT violations, the judicial bribery occurring, the judicial fraud, deprivation of Constitution, violations of Oath, and sedition and treason that make up the racketeering going on in the State of New Mexico, and has mis-used judicial power to “imprison” David Derringer and ruin the life of David Derringer for a period of over 20 years.  In these matters there was never any “jurisdiction or judicial capacity” in “fundamental error”.

1. No legal service of summons
2. No due process and equal protection
3. Constitutional violations and persecution for using Constitutional rights
4. Judicial refusal to recuse for cause
5. Judicial refusal to recuse peremptory under NMSA 38-3-9
6. Judicial refusal to recuse and change venue under NMSA 38-3-3
7. Violations of all case laws, including all case laws determined by the US Supreme Court.
8. Refusal to allow filing in both State and Federal Courts to cover up judicial corruption and persecute a pro-se party, and refusal to allow Title 1983 action valid against a “judge”.
9. Civil trial judge rendered criminal conviction “harassment” (same judge) outside of any due process or equal protection, while NM Court of Appeals covered up criminal judicial fraud by “re-writing” trial court “meant sanctions and contempt”.
10. Judicial criminal bribery and conspiracy involved in this entire matter of “judicial fraud”.

When no legal summons was served in DV-12-234 extending into the corruption of DM-12-610 totally intertwined there was no jurisdiction or judicial capacity in fundamental error to continue all of the “shock the conscience acts” that followed of Constitutional deprivations, due process and equal protection violations, intimidation, destruction of court records, tainting court records, blocking appeals, criminal acts of robbery and larceny of court pleadings, obstruction of justice and “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law” with underlying “judicial bribery” from a corporation employer of Barrie Derringer and an unethical attorney that has since been disbarred over a similar matter of corruption. As David Derringer’s (Plaintiff’s) civil suits of the torts done against him are also intertwined with the corruption of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 in CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816, it followed the judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott to “imprison” David Derringer to his controlling courtroom by not allowing the NM statutory laws to be exercised in peremptory excusal or change of venue so as to force the “imprisonment” of David Derringer, take all David Derringer owns and subject him to homelessness and destitution, trying to stop David Derringer from pursuing legal litigation that exposed what corruption has occurred. Just as the past forced exodus by David Derringer of his legal ranch by the same corruption at the gunpoint of automatic weapons of a Juarez, Mexico drug cartel with an illegal use of force by the SWAT team, without any “identification”, protected by the 10^th Circuit and the judicial fraud of allowing Defendant Judge Cynthia Fry to preside illegally in NM Ct. App. No. 27,127, the 10^th Circuit comes again in judicial fraud outside of jurisdiction to protect Judge Alisa Hadfield when David Derringer attempts a legal Civil Rights suit against a judge working well outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity; hence the 10^th Circuit US District Court also totally intertwined with the “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”; the combined power of the State of New Mexico and the 10^th Circuit leaving no avenue of escape or legal redress for David Derringer “imprisoned” in the public corruption as a “whistleblower” that has legally fought and exposed what is happening here against the “American Republic”.

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 return of the real property of the David Derringer 40 acre ranch taken without due process and equal protection in “fraud” and the return of all personal property illegally taken and detained including, but not limited to the “personal property” of deeded water, timber and mineral rights, and the 8 years of deprivation of such water value illegally used to amount to provable required restitution of $5,500,000.00, plus punitive and exemplary damages against Mick Chapel and the State of New Mexico.

4.                  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”.

5.                  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.

6.                  Order a complete DOJ investigation of all members of the judiciary of the State of New Mexico and of the US District Court 10^th 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”.

7.                  Order restitution and compensation of $100,000,000.00 dollars from Barrie Derringer, Alain Jackson, Commissioner Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Alisa Hadfield, Judge Alan Malott, Judge Cynthia Fry, and the State of New Mexico for deprivation of Constitutional rights, illegal “imprisonment” to a conspiracy of public corruption, payable to David Derringer immediately.

8.                  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.

9.                  Order that David Derringer is entitled to restoration, compensation, and lifetime immunity to further governmental persecution by the United States or the State of New Mexico, and declare that David Derringer is a “sovereign citizen” of the United States of America with inherent rights, privileges, and immunities in accordance with all “human rights” of freedom and liberty.

10.              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 for ruining over 20 years of the life of David Derringer, with such deprivations and stress causing both cancer and heart attacks detrimental to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of David Derringer.

            Respectfully submitted by___________________________________________

                                                            David Derringer

                                                            Box 7431

                                                            Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

                                               

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that  in forma pauperis I caused eleven (11) true and correct originals of the forgoing Petition 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:

New Mexico Supreme Court

Box 848

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

&

Attorney General Gary K. King

111 Lomas Boulevard Northwest

Albuquerque, NM 87102

By:_______________________________________

                        David Derringer Pro-Se

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 Habeas Corpus 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: _________ 

                         

---

[1] 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 4^th, 5^th and 14^th 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.

[2] Black's. Non‑assumpsit. The general issue in the action of assumpsit; being a plea by which the defendant avers, "he did not partake" or promise as alleged.