NewMexico Injustice: June 2010

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Santa Fe corruption of law firms

6-17-2010
David Derringer
Box 1205
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
490 Old Santa Fe Trail
Room 400, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

RE: STATE JUDGE THERESA BACA IN CRIMINAL PUBLIC CORRUPTION

Honorable Governor Richardson,

I have documented your state Judge Theresa Baca violating all causes of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Standards by perjury to violate Oath and depriving due process and equal protection and persecution of Pro-Se parties in a court of law. This entails violating the US and New Mexico State Constitutions against me, as well as deliberately denying and depriving my rights under STATUTORY LAWS OF NEW MEXICO NMSA 35-11-1 “REPLEVIN” in order to “facilitate” and be an “accessory” to steal the grand larceny of 1 million dollars of my trade tools, exempt personal property and other equipment that cannot be taken as a matter of law, and wherein no person or entity has any lien or claim against it. Judge Baca simply “refuses” to allow me a statutory redemption of this personal property under NMSA 35-11-1 without cause save public corruption, and allows Chapels to hold it for ransom and extortion against me preventing my income for a period now exceeding four years. This matter includes the illegal detention and deprivation of my personal property when such property is not subject to any other court action and no one hold any legal claim to this property save myself under US Code Title 42 Section 1982 private property rights. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Congress provided that the right to real and personal property was to be enjoyed equally throughout the United States, and that right was to be secured against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private.”
This matter is more serious than just Constitutional and New Mexico statutory “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivations under color of law” as “criminal acts” [US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242] as this also involves multiple state and federal felonies committed against me including, but not limited to stealing firearms, breaking and entering and other related conspiracies. The most egregious of this matter is denying me due process and equal protection and preventing a Pro-Se person from redress in a United States Court, rendering the State of New Mexico in “sedition and treason” against the “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution Article VI. Judge Baca not only conducts “facilitation” of multiple felonies against me but is an ‘ACCESSORY’ to these criminal acts, and feels that she is “immune” with title of “ judge”. She is not “immune” to violate the Constitution and New Mexico statutory laws as well as is not “immune” to conduct “knowingly” criminal acts against me. Caffey v. Johnson, 883 F. Supp. 128 “For purposes of qualified immunity from 1983 liability, right is clearly established only when its contours are sufficiently clear that reasonable official would have realized that her conduct was otherwise improper.”42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Chief Judge Ted Baca knows of these violations by Judge Theresa Baca and does nothing to stop these tyrannical acts despite his mandate under the Code of Judicial Conduct “Canon” to do so. Judge Theresa Baca of the Second Judicial District Court is mis-using her power for extortion, ransom, violations of Constitution and New Mexico statutes, federal and state felonies, and violations of “Oath” wherein she swore to “God” that she would uphold the Constitution and the New Mexico state statutes; criminal perjury in and of itself. Title 28 Section 453 Oath of justices and judges: Each justice of the United States shall take the following Oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I______do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties incumbent upon me as _______ under the Constitution and law of the United States. So help me God.” ; In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 “An oath is an affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting an untruth PUNISHABLE FOR PERJURY.”; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172 and 184 “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. Congress sought to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it.”; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.” Pp. 635-658 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.”
What is happening here is “outrageous” of a Justice taking 1 million dollars from me, making me homeless and destitute for a period over four years by depriving my “trade tools” for income and the State of New Mexico violating the “Supremacy Clause” of Article VI of the US Constitution to persecute and ignore their own New Mexico state laws to punish and persecute a New Mexico senior citizen by stealing all personal property without law. STATUTORY LAWS OF NEW MEXICO NMSA 35-11-1 ‘guarantee’ the return of my personal property under “replevin” and “mandates” that my personal property is returned to me when no one has any legal claim to that property, as well as under Constitution and US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a), I have an inherent right to “sue” to recover damages and torts against me. Judge Baca not only allows Chapels to conduct criminal acts against me, but simply “dismisses” my legal suit and attempts to prevent me from bringing it again outside of the law, jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but has “knowingly” allowed Chapels and others to violate my privacy by “perusing” private documents and has allowed illegal breaking and entering, larceny of tens of thousands of dollars of my property and illegal movement and “concealment” of my property in Quemado, New Mexico. Weightman v. The Corporation of Washington, 1 Black 39, 50-52 (1862) “courts regularly held that in imposing a specific duty..by statute, the State had impliedly withdrawn immunity from liability for the non-performance or mis-performance of its obligation.”
A judge working in criminal acts is still “accountable” for criminal prosecution, and clearly David Derringer will not allow this to stand with un-accountability for stealing 1 million dollars of my exempt personal property of which no one has any lien, claim or foreclosure suit against, and making me homeless and destitute at 61 years of age as a “senior citizen”. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 116 S. Ct. 286, 112 L. Ed.2d 9 (1991) “were performed in the complete lack of jurisdiction”. Civil Rights federal suit is available against the egregious acts of the State of New Mexico without immediate redress, removal and criminal prosecution of Judge Baca and “restitution” and “damages” for these acts against a United States citizen. Forrester v. White, 792 F.2d 647 cert granted 107 S. Ct. 1282, 479 US 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 140 reversed 108 S. Ct. 538, 484 US 219, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 on remand 846 F.2d 29 “Defense of judicial immunity will not protect a judge from injunctive relief or from a criminal prosecution.” As a “justice” of New Mexico public officer, Judge Baca has violated all laws, done criminal acts, been “facilitator” to multiple criminal acts and violated Oath to steal 1 million in personal property that is “exempt” under civil suit as well as all Derringer “personal property” not being attached by any legal means, and thus without lien or “foreclosure suit” to either “possess” or steal and auction. Derringer’s property has to be returned as a statutory matter of law NMSA 35-11-1 “immediately”. Galindo v. Western States Collection Co., 477 P.2d 325, 82 N.M. 149 “N.M. App. 1970 Judicial officers are not liable for erroneously exercising their judicial powers, but they are liable for acting wholly in excess of their jurisdiction; the distinction is between an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and a usurpation of authority; and this rule applies to justices of the peace as well.”; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 “A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.” Pp. 635-658
This State of New Mexico is bound by the “Supremacy Clause” that demands that David Derringer be given his rights under Constitution to own and protect personal property, rights under Federal Law Title 42 Section 1982 to “own and use personal property” and rights under STATUTORY LAWS OF NEW MEXICO NMSA 35-11-1 to have exempt personal property and to immediately “redeem” personal property under “replevin”. David Derringer thus has a Title 42 Section 1981(a) “statutory rights to sue” for willful deprivations and criminal acts by the State of New Mexico against Derringer’s rights under Constitution and this state’s own statutory laws being violated against a New Mexico senior citizen and seeks immediate “restitution” and damages for deprivation of property, rights and privileges under Constitution and New Mexico state laws. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) “where state employee negligently deprives an individual of property, individual has no cognizable section 1983 claim if state makes available an adequate post-deprivation remedy.” Judge Baca has for this state of New Mexico violated the “Supremacy Clause” and singled out David Derringer both Pro-Se and a citizen of New Mexico to plunder and extort all of Derringer’s personal property in collusion with Chapels and the unethical attorney Joseph Manges of Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman and Indall LLP of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and violated Derringer in multiple criminal manners with both Chapels and in criminal public corruption and conspiracy with Judge Baca. State v. Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied 112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991) “To satisfy a case for violations of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “DEFENDANT WAS SINGLED OUT for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.”; Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216 “Private party is “willful participant” in joint action with state or its agents, permitting finding of liability under 1983 for actions jointly taken, where state officials and private party act in concert in effecting particular deprivation of constitutional rights. 42 USCA 1983". On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that.. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail...” in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. David Derringer is exercising his Constitutional and statutory rights to protect his personal property with a legal suit and has been “dismissed” due to representing himself “Pro-Se” and denied due process and equal protection of the laws and New Mexico statutory deprivations. Derringer filed suit legally to prevent illegal larceny, illegal seizure, illegal confiscation, illegal detention, illegal concealment of his “exempt” trade tools and other personal property and immediate return of Derringer’s legal personal property under New Mexico law NMSA 35-11-1 and has been persecuted and denied access to the New Mexico state courts. Judge Baca is violating New Mexico state laws to “prevent” Derringer any recovery of personal property well outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity which is a blatant violation of the Supremacy Clause and meant for “cruel and unusual punishment” and “oppression” and “tyranny” against Derringer and bias against Pro-Se person in the State of New Mexico where it destroys and is meant to kill Derringer by attrition of deprivation of income and necessities for life itself. “Under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. US Constitution Article VI Cl.2 “The Supremacy Clause prohibits the application of state laws which conflict with federal laws.” Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993).” Clearly, there is a violation of “equal protection” here that is more than outrageous. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) “was an intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities.. the conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all”
I am enclosing the latest pleading and documents to make this Governor’s office completely aware of the violations occurring here that are well outside of the jurisdiction of the courts, making it possible for the Governor to take immediate action to both remove Judge Baca and to criminally prosecute David Baca for “conspiracy”, “facilitation” and multiple other felonies of New Mexico state. Since “criminal acts” are occurring here and violations of Constitutional and New Mexico statutory laws outside of “judge” jurisdiction and judicial capacity, and “perjury” under Oath that these law would be upheld in her court of law, there is no possibility for the Governor’s office to not get involved due to any claim of “separation of powers”. I am exposing the public corruption of New Mexico on the Internet with a copy of this same pleading, and will go to Washington as needed for redress of a state of New Mexico violating the “Supremacy Clause” against a United States citizen if needed. This matter needs to be immediately addressed and my Constitutional, statutory and personal property rights restored with restitution and damages. Clearly, tens of thousands of dollars of irreplaceable items have already been stolen, damaged and discarded that need to be returned, replaced and the criminals responsible prosecuted.
Sincerely,

David Derringer

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

CASE No.CV-2010-01934

DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CURTIS CHAPEL,
MICKEY CHAPEL, and JENNIFER CHAPEL,

Defendants,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RETRIAL UNDER RULES 59(A)(E) AND 60(B) OF THE ORDER OF JUNE 11, 2010; TO RESCIND THIS ORDER AS IT IS A VIOLATION/DEPRIVATION OF BOTH DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (VOID), AND THEN DEMAND FOR RECUSAL
FOR CAUSE OF “PERJURY” UNDER THE MEANING OF LYING ON OATH CONSTITUTING SEDITION AND TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
AND STATUTORY LAWS OF BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO; AND CRIMINAL FACILITATION OF GRAND THEFT OF
OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS WITH JUDGE THERESA BACA KNOWINGLY BEING AN ACCESSORY TO FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL ACTS AND COVERUP OF SAME

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David Derringer, representing himself Pro-Se with his timely motion for retrial/reconsideration of the Order of June 11, 2010 [Exhibit 1]. Plaintiff Derringer comes to request due process and equal protection of a “trial on the merits” provided for Derringer under all laws and under NMRA Rule 59(A)(E), and the reasons that the Order of June 11, 2010 is “void”, illegal, incorrect, and fraudulent, including “facilitating” and “conspiring” in criminal acts under NMRA Rule 60(B) of “mistake”; “newly discovered evidence”; “fraud”(Delgado v. Costello, 91 N.M. 732, 580 p.2d 500 (Ct. App. 1978) “There is sufficient particularity..if the facts alleged are facts from which fraud will be necessarily implied.”); “the judgement is void due to Constitutional and statutory deprivations”(“A judgement is void if the court rendering it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 91 NM 455, 459 (1977) 575 P.2d 1340) ; and “other reasons” indicated below” to include but not limited to “abuse of discretion”, “criminal acts by a Judge”, acts outside of “jurisdiction and judicial capacity”, “violations of Oath”, “sedition and treason” of acts against Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3 and refusal to obey and enforce Constitution and New Mexico statutory laws, “distortion of a court record”, “public corruption”, “mis-use of power”, “bias” and “prejudice” against a Pro-Se party, “bias and prejudice” against a “senior” New Mexico citizen, “retaliation” against disclosure of public corruption, and acts in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This also mandates and has “cause” and reasons for not only mandated recusal under NMRA 1-088.1(D); US Code Title 28 Section 455, but facts necessitating removal from the bench by dismissing the entire legal Complaint by the Plaintiff due to Judge Theresa Baca “refusing” to allow David Derringer to litigate and represent himself “Pro-Se” in a court of law in the United States of America. NMRA Rule 1-088.1(D): “No district judge shall sit in any action in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and shall recuse himself in any such action.” Oath taken by Judge Theresa Baca: “I, Judge Theresa Baca, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Judge on which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability, SO HELP ME GOD.” {SEE: US Code Title 28 Section 455, & Title 42 Section 1981(a)}
There are then further errors in both abuse of discretion and “conspiracy” in dismissing all counts of the Complaint which were filed legally, in good faith and that each count has never been before litigated in any court in the United States of America. Chapels and Manges have intent to “steal” all of Derringer’s personal property, and Judge Baca is now a “facilitator” in this endeavor with “refusing” to give Derringer due process as mandated by the US and New Mexico Constitutions.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV [Citizenship Rights Not to be Abridged by States] “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

New Mexico Constitution Article II. Section 18 [Due process; Equal Protection] “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws.”Section 4 [Inherent rights] “All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.”

“ALL” counts that have never before been litigated were illegally dismissed to “obstruct justice” by claims of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and “prior jurisdiction”, as was also erroneously ruled that this complaint, never before filed, was in the jurisdiction of some other court, which it is not and never has been. Derringer was then denied change of venue in the interest of justice, as Catron County is proven to be both corrupt and has singled out David Derringer in denial of trials and persecution. Matter of Ruther’s Estate, 631 P.2d 1330, 96 N.M. 462 “Venue was properly transferred where party objecting to transfer never objected that transfer was in the interest of justice.” Despite “Derringer motion” for change of venue that has to be approved by this court upon motion that justice cannot be had in the court in Catron County “in the interest of justice”, that “justice” was denied. Blake v. Cavins 185 P. 374, 25 N.M. 574 “Section 5571, Code 1915 provides that the venue of a case either civil or criminal, may be changed when it shall appear that either party cannot have justice done him at a trial in the county in which such case is then pending. Section 5573, Code 1915 makes the changing of venue mandatory upon motion filed.” In short, in a total abuse of discretion, bias, prejudice, sedition and treason against Constitution and perjury of Oath, and total deprivation of due process and equal protection of the laws of Constitution, US Code and New Mexico statutory laws, Judge Theresa Baca simply disregarded all documents, evidence, Constitution, New Mexico statutes and all case laws presented by the Pro-Se Plaintiff, and ruled for the Defendants “motion to dismiss” which was primarily based on the coercion of a state judge that David Derringer simply could not “sue” or protect his over one million dollars of exclusively owned and legally titled to David Derringer “personal property” as law allows by use of the United States Court system, and to “stop” Derringer from ever litigating these issues as “dismissed with prejudice” so as to protect past and future criminal acts by Chapels and Joseph Manges. [SEE: EXHIBIT 1, 2, 3] Plaintiff Derringer had received the “proposed” Order from attorney Manges that distorts the court record as to what occurred in the hearing of May 3, 2010, and “hides” the fact that the paramount reason that Derringer’s complaint is completely dismissed is that both attorney Manges and Judge Theresa Baca teamed up to “single out Derringer as a targeted individual” and deny and deprive David Derringer due process and equal protection of the law to litigate Pro-Se. Judge Baca admitted that she dismissed Derringer for not being able to represent himself Pro-Se in the hearing of May 3, 2010 and stated that Derringer “should bring this action” in the courts of Catron County. State v. Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied 112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991) “To satisfy a case for violations of equal protection, the matter must include two elements. 1. “Defendant was singled out for prosecution while other similarly situated were not. 2. This was animated by intentional or purposeful discrimination.”. But then Judge Theresa Baca signs the attorney Manges Order [Exhibit 1] instead of the Derringer Proposed Order [Exhibit 3] to distort the court record, cover what actually happened in the hearing with a “generic” dismissal without definition of decisions, to prevent proper appeal, while also dismissing “with prejudice” to hopefully keep Derringer from ever bringing this suit again and lose all his property to the Chapels. “This Court previously has recognized–even with respect to another statute the legislative history of which indicated that courts were to have “wide discretion exercising their equitable powers,” 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)–that “discretionary choices are not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ ” Id., at 416, quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, a decision calling for the exercise of judicial discretion “hardly means that it is unfettered by meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review.” Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S., at 416.”” United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added)
There is a reason of “retaliation” and “corruption” in the obvious “change of heart” of Judge Baca between what she Ordered in the hearing of May 3, 2010 and to then sign an Order of attorney Joseph Manges to “dismiss with prejudice” to assist the Chapels forever ruin the life of senior citizen David Derringer. This “change of opinion between the date of hearing of May 3, 2010 and signing of the Manges Order on June 11, 2010 is due to the fact that after the hearing of May 3, 2010, Derringer presented to the Second Judicial District Court “Chief Judge Ted Baca” that a justice of his court was depriving due process and equal protection of the laws against a Pro-Se United States Senior Citizen and thus lying upon Oath and total violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary responsibilities: “A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate action. A Judge having “knowledge” that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. Not only has Chief Judge Ted Baca done nothing to stop these egregious acts of sedition and treason against Constitution by a judge lying in her Oath as mandated by “Canon”, but Judge Theresa Baca then “had motive” for “retribution”, “retaliation”, and “revenge” to forever ruin the life of David Derringer. Gladden v. Dist of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 659 A.2d 249 D.C. App. 1995 “Recusal is necessary when alleged bias is traceable to source other than judge’s participation in the case.” Judge Theresa Baca thus manifested a mis-use of power to assist the Chapels steal Derringer’s over $1,000,000.00 dollars of exclusively owned Derringer personal property so as to leave forever David Derringer homeless and destitute without his assets, trade tools at 61 years of age so recovery would be impossible, and “changed her mind” that Derringer should be stopped from bringing this action in “any court”. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) by Chief Justice Burger, “when litigation processes are not tightly controlled-and often they are not-they can be and are used as mechanics of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits does not repair the damage.”; US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986. Federalist No. 47 by James Madison, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” ; Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216 “Private party is “willful participant” in joint action with state or its agents, permitting finding of liability under 1983 for actions jointly taken, where state officials and private party act in concert in effecting particular deprivation of constitutional rights. 42 USCA 1983"
DISMISSING THIS SUIT DOES NOT GRANT CHAPELS TITLE, POSSESSION, OWNERSHIP OR JURISDICTION OVER ANY OF DAVID DERRINGER’S STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY, and clearly there will be accountability for such an egregious grand theft of over $1,000,000.00 with criminal acts and mis-use of the courts to attempt to attain “more” unjust enrichment. Ulibarri v. Geistenberger, 178 Az 151, 164, 891 P.2d 698, 711 (App. 1993) “Where the burden to consider such relief has been met, the court should exercise its discretion so as to not deny relief where the result is harsh, rather than fair and equitable. Moreover, Judge Theresa Baca had “knowledge” of the criminal acts by the Defendants and attorney Joseph Manges of Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman and Indall LLP of Santa Fe, New Mexico of already illegally driving David Derringer from his home and personal property by “gunpoint” of automatic weapons on January 11, 2006 to wilfully render Derringer “homeless and destitute” to gain this “personal property”, due to Derringer disclosing the Chapel and Manges cocaine racketeering and connections to many politicians in New Mexico, and whereby Defendants Chapels have been attempting to run Derringer from New Mexico for a period of almost 18 years to then steal this over one million dollars of “personal property”, including two murder attempts against Derringer. This suit also is “dismissed” in a connection with the underlying cocaine and trafficking operation of Chapels that encompasses the higher echelon of the judges, lawyers, and politicians in the State of New Mexico where “cocaine money” is used to “spare no expense” to win in the courts. US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789 “Even a sensible and efficient use of power by court is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.” ; Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) pre-judgement seizure of property without opportunity to be heard is unconstitutional.
In short, Chapels, Joseph Manges and the New Mexico Court system have taken all of Derringer’s real and personal property to permanently render him “homeless and destitute” without possibility of recovery to “shut him up” to prevent further disclosure and exposure of the corruption of the State of New Mexico, and the complete failure of the United States Judicial system due to that corruption. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 No. 645 (1968) “shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”; In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 “Where party has made challenge to judge’s failure to recuse, Court of Appeals reviews judge’s decision to hear case on abuse of discretion standard.”
Chapels have no lien, no legal claim or title to any of Derringer’s “personal property” and yet have illegally detained trade tools, exempt items under any conditions of civil suit, and Chapels have no basis, nor have ever filed any “foreclosure action” against Derringer’s personal property. Chapels have simply ‘STOLEN’ over one million ($1,000,000.00) of Derringer’s personal property and don’t want this law suit redressing this matter and have found a judge to “stop” Derringer. Chapels have kept Derringer homeless and without income for a period exceeding four years in fraud with paying off judges in the State of New Mexico for depriving Derringer “rights to sue” {US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a)} and depriving Derringer’s “rights to protect” personal property under both US and New Mexico Constitutions, and continuously are keeping Derringer from representing himself Pro-Se in any court. Clearly, this court is no exception as Judge Baca “refuses” to allow Derringer to litigate his valid and legal Complaint in order to stop Derringer’s redress against criminal acts by Chapels. US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996 “Judge should be disqualified from proceeding where circumstances raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality, regardless of his or her state of mind or ability to conduct fair and impartial trial.” (SEE: “History” below) Chapels simply drove Derringer from his home and real property by gunpoint of automatic weapons as in some “Communist” country, kept all of Derringer’s personal property and then broke and entered, and have stolen tens of thousands of dollars of this property, with full knowledge of these facts by Judge Theresa Baca, in which thus to “protect” these crimes and “facilitate” further grand larceny against Derringer, Judge Baca prevents Derringer from suing and representing himself in the courts, dismisses his legal action, and then “dismisses” this action for legal redress “with prejudice” to stop Derringer from protection of his property in any other court by fraudulently “creating ‘res judicata’” , and to hide and protect the past from the public of the United States, and to protect ongoing and future actions of the Chapels and Joseph Manges to steal the rest of Derringer’s personal property. Frates v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494 US 1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474 “Recusal motion should be permitted at any time it becomes apparent that judge is biased or suffers from appearance of bias.” This pleading exposing the total disregard of the laws, Constitution and criminal assistance by a “judge” in dictatorship power of mis-use of office will be spread worldwide over the Internet to show the public corruption of Judge Theresa Baca, the Second Judicial District Court, and the State of New Mexico. Martinez v. Carmona, 624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article 6, Section 18.”
By this pleading, Derringer protects, “preserves”, and substantiates items for future appeal of “abuse of discretion”, “criminal acts by a Judge”, acts outside of “jurisdiction and judicial capacity”, “violations of Oath”, “sedition and treason” of acts against Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3 and refusal to obey and enforce Constitution and New Mexico statutory laws, “distortion of a court record”, “public corruption”, “mis-use of power”, “bias” and “prejudice” against a Pro-Se party, “bias and prejudice” against a “senior” New Mexico citizen, “retaliation” against disclosure of public corruption, and acts in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Plaintiff Derringer sustains his reasons for “recusal by cause” against Judge Theresa Baca. US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455(a) “Despite external source requirement, recusal of judge may still be required if judge’s actions during trial considered objectively, display deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgement impossible.”
BRIEF HISTORY WITH ARGUMENT
David Derringer owned a beautiful 40 acre ranch “free and clear” with never any mortgage near Quemado, New Mexico in the corrupt and nationally infamous “Catron County”, New Mexico, in which drug trafficking, poaching and other illegal activities abound with governmental knowledge and participation. From the first day in 1993, Chapels “terrorized” Derringer and his wife for 13 years to force removal of the Derringers from Catron County, and in 1994 {CV-94-10}entered into litigation against only Derringer’s wife, despite Derringer being a property owner, until money ran out for lawyers, Derringer’s wife divorced him and left, over a period of 11 years, and until Chapels attained a lien against the “real” property ranch under conditions of criminal fraud. Mainly since that time, by force and necessity, Derringer has represented himself “Pro-Se” in all courts of the United States as is available to Derringer as a matter of Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to all state courts, federal courts and in the United States Supreme Court. With this “lien”, Chapels then proceeded to steal the over $400,000.00 value of the “real” property in a foreclosure action of CV-02-19 with a claim of lien of only $144,000.00, By the court of Judge Pope “refusing” to grant Derringer a statutorily mandated “trial” and “refusing” to disallow Chapels the ranch without the statutorily mandated 2/3 appraised value, and “refusing” to allow Derringer his 9 month statutorily mandated “redemption”, Chapels succeeded in “stealing” the Derringer real $400,000.00 real 40 acre ranch by driving Derringer from his home and property by gunpoint of automatic weapons with a “SWAT” team of collusion of Chapels, Joseph Manges attorney of Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman and Indall LLP of Santa Fe, New Mexico and contrived court order that Derringer could no longer litigate in the United States of America Pro-Se. David Derringer had sued four (4) judges in the State of New Mexico under Constitutional and Civil Rights deprivations without “jurisdiction or judicial capacity” in the 10th Circuit Federal Court, which was “dismissed with prejudice” even though each justice has no “immunity” for their corrupt actions of depriving a Pro-Se person “due process and equal protection”. In retaliation one “DEFENDANT” to Derringer in federal court; New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Fry, “presided” over Derringer’s appeal (when legally she could not be any part of Derringer litigation due to being a former “Defendant” of Derringer) of the illegal foreclosure of his ranch real property and simply “gave Chapels Derringer’s ranch” stating that “Derringer “did not need a trial” (NM Ct. App. #27,127). The public corruption of New Mexico is “outrageous”.
When Chapels and Joseph Manges drove Derringer from his “real” property on January 11, 2006, they killed two of the Derringer pet cats and “prevented” Derringer from taking or later retrieving all of his “personal property”. The “foreclosure” action of CV-02-19 was brought by Chapels against Derringer only over the Derringer real property, and had no foreclosure action against Derringer’s “personal property”. All of these documents of all Complaints and Orders of CV-02-19 have been presented to Judge Theresa Baca and Judge Baca refuses to peruse this information of the Pro-Se party proving without doubt that the issues of this suit have never before been litigated in any court and thus “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” and “prior jurisdiction” do not, and cannot apply. However, in a complete bias against Pro-Se parties, Judge Baca simply believes attorney Joseph Manges without reading the court records; to decide that “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” and “prior jurisdiction” will be used in error to defeat Derringer’s valid and legal Complaint even though all of this suit has different issues, parties and subject matter never ruled upon by any former court. Adams v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 97 N.M. 369, 640 P.2d 475 (1982); C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank, 93 NM 150, 160-61, 597 P.2d 1190, 1200-01 (Ct. App. 1979) “When the duty sued upon stems from different roots in the prior and subsequent actions, even if both actions involve essentially the same course of wrongful conduct, it is indicated that the suits arise from different causes of action.” Thus, there was no “jurisdiction” or judicial capacity of Judge Pope in CV-02-19 in a foreclosure of only “real property”, over any of Derringer’s “personal property”, nor any claims against such “personal property” by Chapels in that suit, and Derringer and a pro-bono attorney for Derringer at the time, only referenced Derringer’s “personal property” in that action for “protection” against Chapels seizure and possession of the real property to stop any claim of Chapels that Derringer “abandoned” his personal property, which Derringer never has. Since this suit is distinctly different in both law and facts, this court is way outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity to “dismiss” replevin and damages done against Derringer regarding “personal property” and dismissal is for corrupt reasons since Derringer has been denied both due process and equal protection of the laws and lacked any “opportunity to be heard” upon stealing Derringer’s extreme valued “personal property”. C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank, 93 NM 150, 160-61, 597 P.2d 1190, 1200-01 (Ct. App. 1979) “In deciding whether to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the trial judge may determine that its application would fundamentally unfair and would not further the aim of the doctrine. Fundamental fairness requires that the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Since the “connection” here involves extreme money value to take, extreme money used by Chapels to litigate, and underlying drug connections, the “dismissal” of a “complete Complaint” is obviously not legally correct leaving not even one “count” standing against Chapels. “since the Law of the Case doctrine is merely one of practice or court policy, and not of inflexible law, so that court are not absolutely bound thereby”Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998 ; “the law of the case considers justness of applying a particular rule to the parties”, Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998, ; “The Law of the Case should not be used to accomplish an obvious injustice, or applied where a previous decision clearly, palpably or manifestly was erroneous or unjust.” “Where there is manifest injustice to one party, with an erroneous decision, it should be disregarded and set aside.” New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion No. 1998-NMSC-031 No. 18,296 consolidated with: No. 19,118 (Sept 8th, 1998).; “law of the case won’t be used to uphold a clearly erroneous decision”. Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998.
Once Chapels took possession of the “real” property, they immediately broke and entered the Derringer mobile home, portable buildings, cabin, storage containers, and stole tens of thousands of dollars of the over $1,000,000.00 value of the Derringer personal property and illegally prohibited Derringer from exercising his water, timber and mineral rights previously legally separated from the real property in Derringer’s own name by deed as “personal property”. Chapels did these acts to destroy the life of David Derringer wherein their two previous murder attempts against Derringer had failed. Now, the Chapels forced Derringer into the streets homeless and destitute by taking all of his real and personal property and keeping Derringer illegally from using his water, timber and mineral rights to make his living. Derringer thus, became a “persecuted”, “targeted individual” at the age of 61 without income and without his trade tools for any living. The plan by the Courts and Chapels is “death by attrition”.
Derringer filed legal and proper suit in his city of residence, Albuquerque, New Mexico even though homeless, in the Second Judicial District Court as rights “to sue” under the US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) for:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, REPLEVIN, CONVERSION, VIOLATIONS OF NMSA 35-11-1 OF THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY WITH DAMAGES TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AND WRONGFUL AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION AND DEPRIVATION OF TRADE TOOLS AND WATER/TIMBER/MINERAL DEED, LOSS OF INCOME, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND MENTAL ANGUISH, CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OF 1ST, 2ND, 4TH, 9TH, 14TH AMENDMENTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND PRIMA FACIE TORT
It is clearly seen that this suit by “each count” has nothing to do with the CV-02-19 Chapel v. Derringer CV-02-19 “Petition for real property foreclosure”. Upon this Derringer suit, Chapels by way of attorney Joseph Manges came forth with a “motion to dismiss” based upon four claims.
1) Derringer has been enjoined from filing complaint in state and federal courts.
2) The Complaint is barred under collateral bar rule and res judicata.
3) The Complaint should be dismissed under the priority jurisdiction doctrine.
4) The Complaint should be dismissed for improper venue.
Chapels and Joseph Manges attorney then “lie” to this court that David Derringer can be denied rights to sue under Federal statutory law US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and hold the New Mexico Court of Appeals Opinion June 16, 2008 #23,815 to substantiate that fact, and “demand” that Judge Theresa Baca violate her Oath where she “swore to God” to uphold the Constitution and all laws. Again Judge Theresa Baca “refuses” to actually read the NM Court of Appeals Opinion, and “refuses” to read the case laws used in Chapels’ support that “do not” prohibit a United States citizen from filing suits and “do not” prohibit a Pro-Se litigant, and simply succumbs to attorney Joseph Manges’ demands that Derringer not be allowed to litigate in any state or federal court in the United States. In re Doe, 519 P.2d 133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear one party’s evidence, when offered, establishes a presumption of prejudice.” Joseph Manges of Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman and Indall LLP of Santa Fe, New Mexico simply win their cases by coercing or buying judges and “deprivation” of rights of the opposition; all activities that are both unscrupulous and “criminal” as will be exposed to the public of the world on the Internet by copy of this pleading, as the public has a “right to know” the corruption going on in America. The NM Court of Appeals “did not” state that Derringer could not litigate or file suits in the United States of America as would defeat the US and New Mexico Constitutions, render Congress mute, and defeat any law of the New Mexico Legislature. What was said is: “Defendants appear to be arguing that their due process rights are denied by the order of the trial court regarding further filing of pleadings in the district court. As we pointed out in our notice, the court can constitutionally restrict a litigant’s access to court.” State ex rel. Bardacke, 102 NM at 597, 698 P.2d at 467. “Such restrictions can be a limitation on both the filing of pleadings and the length of pleadings.” This court cannot use this to deny due process and equal protection of the Constitution and federal statutory code to be able to protect and defend yourself by “filing suit” statutorily mandated available under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a). (SEE: US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242. “Conspiracy against rights” and “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.) Title 18 Section 241 provides:
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”.
Title 18 Section 242 provides:
Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..”
The “Second Judicial District Court” has made no Order at any time that Derringer has to petition this court before filing, nor cannot represent himself Pro-Se, nor is there any “restrictions” made in this court as to particular length of pleadings, but a “conspiracy” against Derringer by Judge Theresa Baca, attorney Joseph Manges and Chapels encompassing illegal stealing of Derringer’s exclusive rights to his over $1,000,000.00 worth of “personal property”. Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986 “Strict construction of statute disqualifying trial judge for bias or prejudice is grounded upon sound principle that there is possibility of substantial abuse since harsh remedy of cessation of trial proceedings is mandated if allegations purport to state cause for bias. 28 USC 455"; US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 “This section (Title 18 Section 241) pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of USCA Constitution Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vague.” A restriction in the Seventh Judicial District Court does not apply to the Second Judicial District Court, bearing in mind that Judge Fitch of the 7th that contrived this “restriction” in CV-94-10 was also at the time a “Defendant” to David Derringer in the Federal US District Court 10th Circuit CIV-03-0155, so as to obviously be seen the “retribution” going on here. The “restrictions” of the 10th Circuit involving Derringer applied only to the US Court 10th circuit, bearing in mind also that the Federal courts were “protecting” New Mexico justices sued by Derringer over Civil Rights deprivations even though the Judges “were not immune” acting outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity. Hence, there is no possible “authority” for Judge Theresa Baca to deprive due process and equal protection (Chapels claim # 1) against Derringer in this suit, except to aid and abet the Chapels attempts to steal over $1,000,000.00 worth of Derringer personal property. Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive party of due process of law.”; United Salt Corp. v. McKee 96 N.M. 65, 628 p.2d 310 (1981)“Abuse of discretion is present which is defined as when the judge has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably under the particular circumstances.” In the hearing of May 3, 2010 Judge Baca specifically stated that Derringer should bring this action in Catron County, and yet signs the attorney Manges proposed Order “with prejudice” to keep Derringer from ever filing this action to “facilitate” and “conspire as accessory” to Chapels stealing Derringer’s personal property without lien or legal claim whatsoever. The Code of Judicial Conduct and “Oath” of office to abide by the Constitution does not exempt any judge from that mandate or liability, simply due to some other justice violating same, nor does it exempt the disciplinary responsibilities to expose any attorney whom attempts to win a case by claims that the other party “cannot litigate” in the United States. (See: Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(2). Disciplinary responsibilities: “A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge) In re Rickard, 93 N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248 (1979) “Unprofessional conduct.”; Newsome v. Farer, 103 N.M. 415, 420, 708 P.2d 327, 332 (1985) “Abuse of discretion will only be found when the district court’s decision is clearly untenable or contrary to logic and reason.”; Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del.) Supra. 1994 “Every litigant is entitled to be heard by a disinterested judge.”
All of these counts have never before been brought against the Chapels and other “new parties” of the Defendants in any court of law in the United States and were lawful rights under Constitution, and the statutory laws of New Mexico for “replevin” and recovery of legal personal property of David Derringer both illegally taken, and wrongfully detained by the Chapels and co-conspirators. Thus, there is no (Chapels claim # 2) “res judicata” or “collateral estoppel” that apply, nor is their any (Chapels claim # 3) “priority jurisdiction”. Chapels simply have illegally detained and stolen over one million dollars of Derringer’s personal property without cause, without lien, without claims of any foreclosure actions and Derringer has a right to his personal property under the US Code Title 42 Section 1982 “private property rights” as well as mandated return under New Mexico law NMSA “replevin” 35-11-1. Richens v. Mayfield, 85 N.M. 578, 514 P.2d 854 (1973) “Abuse of discretion is present which is defined as when the judge has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably under the particular circumstances.”
Even an idiot can see that it is profitable in “unjust enrichment” to keep Derringer’s over $1,000,000.00 worth of personal exempt trade tools and personal property that is in the adverse possession by Chapels driving Derringer out of his home and property at gunpoint, rather than have to give back and replace Derringer’s personal property damaged, stolen and given away by Chapels.
Judge Baca simply believes attorney Joseph Manges over the Pro-Se party Derringer without reading her Oath sworn to, and without reading the actual court records and ignoring the Pro-Se motion to change venue “in the interests of justice”. Clearly, as stated above, as the Catron County Justices just “gave away” Derringer’s over $400,000.00 ranch to Chapels without the statutorily mandated 2/3 value of claim of lien, without the statutorily mandated 90 day right of redemption, and without the statutorily mandated right to a foreclosure trial, Derringer has legal reason not to litigate in the corruption of Catron County venue (Chapels claim # 4). Conejos County Lumber Co. v. Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 80 N.M. 612, 459 P.2d 138 (1969) “Discretion, in this sense was abused when the trial judge acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.”
Judge Baca simply believes that she can “blame shift” any Constitutional and statutory deprivations against Derringer by indicating (and distorting the court record not to show the due process deprivation) that a different and higher court than herself did it and therefore she can lie against her own Oath and deprive Derringer Constitutional and statutory rights herself based on other’s illegal treason and sedition. “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.” What has happened here is that Judge Theresa Baca lied to the public of New Mexico and of the United States and took “Oath” to defend this nation’s Constitution to attain public office, wherein she then simply acts on her own beliefs or coercion of other attorneys in defiance of all laws. Canon 3 (B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. 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. Canon 3 (B)(7): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” 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). Derringer has a valid and legal Complaint, not stopped by any ability of deprivation of due process and deprivation of equal protection. US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986 “Word should in Canon..of Judicial Conduct which states that judge “should” accord to every interested person a full right to be heard, imposes mandatory standard of conduct upon judges and requires presence of both prosecuting attorneys and defendant at any proceeding which bears on outcome of pending..case.” Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3, Subd. A(4) and C(1)(a); Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). “manifest error of law is clearly present.”; “A judgement is void if the court rendering it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” Classen v. Classen, 119 NM 582, 585 (App 1995) 893 P.2d 478 see also Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 91 NM 455, 459 (1977) 575 P.2d 1340 Each justice “swears to God” to uphold the rights, privileges and immunities of Constitution and federal and state laws, wherein Chapels and unethical attorney Joseph Manges would seek to “corrupt” and coerce judges to defy their Oath and stop Derringer’s litigation “rights to sue”{US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a)} in order that they can take all of Derringer’s property without “intervention by the courts” under law. Derringer has illegally been denied a trial on the merits of his case to protect his exclusive personal property and rights to due process with Judge Baca in full knowledge of what is transpiring here in grand larceny by Chapels and unethical attorney Joseph Manges, making Judge Baca liable for Constitutional and Civil Rights deprivations by acting “corruptly” outside of jurisdiction and judicial capacity to some end of a portion of the Derringer’s over $1,000,000.00 worth of exempt and exclusive personal property not legally attached by anyone. In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520 Mich. 1991 “To use power of public office as judge to ruin another for personal gain plainly violates several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, 3, 5; Such conduct may also constitute crime Canons 1-3, 5.” ; Dennis v. Sparks, 101 S. Ct. 183, 449 US 24, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 “US Tex. 1980 State Judge may be found criminally liable for violation of civil rights"; US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1 “Statute defining “corruptly”, as “acting with an improper purpose, personally influencing another”.. Thus, Chapels and Manges have attained Judge Baca to commit “perjury of Oath” in order to support Chapels’ motion to dismiss and to violate Derringer’s Constitutional and federal and New Mexico state statutory rights to recover “personal property” NMSA 35-11-1 (replevin). Adamson v. C.I.R. CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541 “Federal Courts cannot countenance deliberate violations of basic Constitutional rights; to do so would violate judicial oath to uphold Constitution of United States.”; In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 “In its strict sense, term “oath” refers to attestation coupled with invocation to Supreme Being to witness word of attesting party and to visit him with judgement if the words be false; in its more general sense, the term includes any attestation or affirmation where-by party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully or speak truly, regardless whether or not that attestation invokes Supreme Being or is accompanied by conditional self-cursing”. “An oath is an affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting an untruth punishable for perjury.” “Asking this court to simply stop Derringer from litigation in order to lawfully recover his personal property under replevin by deprivation of due process falls under the “obstruction of justice” statute. [an “abuse of process” arises when there has been a perversion of court processes to accomplish some end which the process was not intended by law to accomplish, or which compels the party against whom it has been used to do some collateral thing which he could not legally and regularly be compelled to do.] Spellens v. Spellens, 49 Cal.2d 210, 317 P.2d 613; Geier v. Jordan, DC Mun App. 107 A.2d 440; Hall v. Field Enterprises, DC Mun App. 94 A.2d 479; Pimentel v. Houk, 101 Cal. App 2d 884, 226 P.2d 739; Ellis v. Wellons, 224 NC 269, 29 SE 2d 884.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff David Derringer brought a valid, legal Complaint for “replevin” under State statute NMSA 35-11-1, never before litigated, to recover his legal personal property, with attending Complaints and counts to redress the injustices perpetrated against him against all rights, privileges and immunities afforded Derringer in the United States of America under Constitution and statutory laws. Judge Theresa Baca entered into a “conspiracy against rights” with the Defendants Chapels and through unethical and criminal coercion by attorney Joseph Manges to deny Derringer due process, persecute Derringer based on his necessity to represent himself Pro-Se, and to then be an “accessory” an to “facilitate” Chapels stealing of Derringer’s over $1,000,000.00 worth of personal property, trade tools, exempt items and other private property without legal cause, lien, foreclosure action or any other legal means of “grand larceny”. When Derringer disclosed Judge Theresa Baca’s violation of Oath and blatant violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct to her superior Chief Judge Ted Baca mandating Judge Theresa Baca’s “removal from the bench” due to perjury of Oath, sedition and treason to the Constitution; upon “knowledge” of this act, Judge Theresa Baca then “changes her Order” of open court of May 3, 2010 for Derringer to file this action again in Catron County and in “retaliation” with mis use of power, Orders Derringer’s suit “dismissed with prejudice” to assist Chapels forever ruin the life of David Derringer. The four claims of Chapels’ Motion to Dismiss have been defeated as a matter of law, and this court cannot stop Derringer from due process and equal protection by deprivation of a trial on the merits, nor can this court stop David Derringer from representing himself Pro-Se in any court in the United States of America. This Order of June 11, 2010 must be rescinded as a matter of law for Derringer’s valid Complaint to go forth to a proper trial on the merits. Judge Theresa Baca must recuse this matter for valid cause and properly remove herself from the bench as the most egregious act of any public official justice is to deny due process and equal protection of the laws.
THEREFORE the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Order of June 11, 2010 be abolished, and that this case be placed in the hands of a fair and equitable justice for a trial on the merits of the case. At the very least, this court cannot dismiss “all” counts of the Complaint, since no part of this complaint was ever litigated in any court of law in the United States, and cannot be dismissed by “collateral estoppel”, “res judicata”, or “prior jurisdiction” and when filed in the Second Judicial District Court, and with showing why it cannot be filed in the venue of Catron County for justice to be served, this case has to remain and be prosecuted in the Second Judicial District Court. The Order of June 11, 2010 is “void” due to Constitutional and statutory deprivations. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Martin, 79 NM 737, 449 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1968); Perez v. Perez, 75 NM 656, 409 p.2d 804 (1966); Barker v. Barker, 94 NM 162, 608 p.2d 138 (1980) “In simple English, the language of the “other reasons” clause, ...vests power in court adequate to enable them to vacate judgement whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” ; Eaton v. Cooke, 74 NM 301, 393 P.2d 329 (1964) “Where the judgement is void, this rule does not purport to place any limitation on time.”; State v. Romero, 76 NM 449, 415 P.2d 837 (1966). If this motion for reconsideration/retrial is denied, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of decisions of cause of the dismissal of the entire Complaint of the Plaintiff for proper appeal, and such denial will affect the time for appeal. “At a minimum, the district court must give reasons for its decision.”. Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985). Perez v. Perez, 75 NM 656, 409 P.2d 804 (1966) “Because judgement not final until denial of motion-Motions under Rule 60- a motion under this rule made within 10 days, does affect finality of judgement and the running of the time for appeal.”
By:_______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se P.O. Box 1205 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
June 17, 2010
I certify that I sent a copy of this pleading by first class mail to:

Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

I further certify that I sent a copy of this pleading by first class mail to:

Joseph Manges
Box 669
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Santa Fe corruption of law firms

Joseph Manges corruption