Thomas Kalm law firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT


ZACHERY BINGHAM
Plaintiff,
No. CV-2008-12023 consolidated with
v. No. CV-2008-12146

DAVID DERRINGER,
Defendant,

DERRINGER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO BINGHAM’S REQUEST
FOR ENTRY OF RULE 1-041 ORDERS UPON WITHDRAWAL
OF CERTAIN DERRINGER CLAIMS

COMES NOW David Derringer representing himself Pro-Se with Derringer’s Response in Opposition to Bingham’s Request For Entry of Rule 1-041 Orders Upon Withdrawal Of Certain Derringer Claims.
The entire premise of this pleading, if it were only to request a formal withdrawal of some of the Derringer claims is “mute” for the reason that in the Deposition of September 9, 2010, with Judge Huling present, Derringer did withdraw “loss of income”, “emotional distress and mental anguish” and requested of this Court that Derringer be allowed to file a formal pleading to that effect. Judge Huling, at that time, directed Derringer to state the withdrawal in the record of the Deposition and clearly stated that in doing so “on court record” that was all that was needed, and no further pleadings need apply. Bingham and Kalm do not come to this court except with “dirty hands” for this pleading is simply tailored not to gain some formal withdrawal, but to inundate the court record and bias this Judge incessantly with additional bogus information, slandering remarks against Derringer and other “inappropriate” and “scandalous” material”, “accusations”, and “allegations” unfounded and unsupported, and with “outside information” that this court cannot make decisions in other cases or use other cases to render a decision about the matters in this case. Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97 “Judge in adversarial judicial proceeding...who reaches outside of record to decide case defiles process.” Clearly Derringer is not receiving either fairness or justice here, as no American has to endure and tolerate this type of “terrorism” and mis-use of the court system by attorney Thomas Kalm and Zachary Bingham. Congress never intended the Court systems to be used to destroy lives, persecute, destroy foundations of society, destroy rights of privacy, and other “gang” tactics by all attorneys attacking Pro-Se parties from different suits, to use their ruses, intimidation, false information, and inundation of the records with slander to defeat a party in legal litigation.
The “abuse” and “terrorism” here has progressed into blatant “fraud” and “criminal extortion” by Bingham, attorney Kalm and the conspiracy of Kalm with Marchiondo. In the beginning, on November 11, 2008 Derringer called the APD to retrieve his stolen vehicle Jeep from Zachary Bingham, and later filed a Civil Suit CV-2008-12146. Without knowledge by David Derringer, prior to that filing, Zachary Bingham filed a Civil Suit CV-2008-12023, and the courts later consolidated these two suits. It was always a quandary to figure out why Bingham had sued Derringer when Bingham had defrauded Derringer and New Mexico Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) to get another copy of the title to the Jeep Bingham had previously legally signed to David Derringer, and gave legal ownership to David Derringer on September 25, 2008, while at the same time transferring the free and clear Title to Derringer’s traded vehicle M35A2 to his own name; thus effectively keeping both vehicles of the trade agreement, by lying to MVD saying his “title was lost”, to gain another title to Bingham’s Jeep and thus having “all” of the assets of the trade, with Derringer having nothing. In a latest pleading to the court dated September 3, 2010, Zachary Bingham and his co-conspirator attorney Thomas Kalm make it clear to the court that they mis-used the Civil Court in “fraud” to “avoid” the criminal prosecution by APD. Page 7 Line 6 “Zach had to file suit to avoid arrest and resolve the issue civilly to satisfy APD”. Accordingly, defrauding the Civil Courts to stop criminal courts is a criminal act of court fraud, and mis-use of the courts. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated. In the action of Bingham v. Derringer/Derringer v. Bingham, the Court Ordered a “free” mediation by court Order of August 5, 2010 [as part of Settlement Week Program 2010] (Exhibit A) for Bingham and Derringer to go to the offices of William Marchiondo to act as mediator to see if the case could be settled under Local Rule LR2-602, (Exhibit B “copy of LR2-602 Settlement Facilitation Program attached”) wherein it is stipulated in (M) that no settlement facilitator will receive any compensation. Additionally, under the Second Judicial District Court “Settlement Facilitation Program” (Exhibit C) it is made clear in #6 Compensation shall not be required for any settlement facilitator for a settlement conference conducted as part of ‘Settlement Week’”. It was clear in the two Marchiondo letters of August 12, 2010, no payment from Derringer was required. (Exhibits D [2 letters]) On September 27, 2010 attorney Thomas Kalm sends Judge Huling a personal letter with copy to David Derringer, with a copy of Order to be signed “Order Holding David Derringer in Contempt of Court” (Exhibits E) which “threatens David Derringer under duress and criminal extortion that he will be illegally jailed at BCDC if David Derringer does not pay an amount not due to William Marchiondo, (attorney Thomas Kalm’s friend and co-conspirator in the mediation of August 27, 2010). In this “proposed Order”, attempts were made to force Derringer under threat of incarceration to pay amounts of money to another for personal gain that are not owed. Jones ET UX v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ET AL, certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 645. These acts are criminal extortion, fraud to the courts and mis-use of threats, intimidation and “obstruction of justice” to persecute a Pro-Se party and instill fear and use “terrorism” because David Derringer, in the mediation of August 27, 2010, did not submit to the cussing, threats, intimidation, gestapo and Italian Mafia tactics of William Marchiondo to make a “settlement” for Zachary Bingham that was attempted to be forced on David Derringer in the settlement conference on August 27, 2010. In “retaliation” William Marchiondo made a nasty report to the court to assist attorney Kalm, his friend, to bias the Judge, and win this case against a Pro-Se party.
Bingham and attorney Kalm have “increased” their filings to this court [recall that attorney Kalm is “pro-bono” by his own admission] without court permission pursuant against the Order of the Court of September 9, 2010 that stated: (3) No additional motions shall be filed by either party without leave of the Court. And: During the deposition on court record Judge Huling stated: on “Page 52 lines 4, 5, and 6: “I don’t want anything else filed without leave of the court at this point”. Judge Huling did also state at that same time in the Deposition of September 9, 2010, that David Derringer has a right for “opportunity to be heard” and can respond to all of the filings of Bingham and attorney Kalm. This “inundation” of the court requiring Derringer’s time and resources to file responses take away valuable time and money that is to be used solely at this late date to prepare for a trial on the merits on October 25, 2010, wherein today is October 6, 2010. If sanctions are not levied against Bingham and Kalm for this behavior against court Orders and against Rule 11, this court has no definition except to exhaust a pro-se party and force Derringer’s submission to the “terrorism” of attorneys that have no fear of sanctions, disbarment, or repercussions from the courts, no matter how much they violate Orders, abuse the system and persecute litigants without any “discipline” by either the Judges or the New Mexico Disciplinary Board (that is shown to do nothing but “protect” errant and unethical attorneys). Bingham and Kalm now numerous time defied this court’s orders, saturating this court record with mis-information of Derringer, other third parties and other law suits, so as to bias and prejudice this Judge prior to trial of this instant case and also with other court cases involving Derringer, settled and not settled; but all having nothing to do with this matter and which cannot be used to make any decision about the facts in this case. Bingham and Kalm have “attacked”, “terrorized”, “threatened”, “intimidated”, “slandered”, “maligned”, “made false accusations”, “made false representations”, made false allegations”, “made false and misleading information part of this court’s record”, and other outrageous, fictitious, outlandish, scandalous, inflammatory remarks, innuendoes, false claims, against Derringer, third parties not subject to or part of this suit, and simply “will not stop” as the court simply allows Derringer to be “terrorized” and slandered in “ABUSE OF PRIVILEGE” without stepping in to control, punish, sanction, or otherwise muzzle an out-of-control attorney Thomas Kalm with his “smoke and mirrors”, also doing indeed “criminal acts” against Derringer of fraud, slander, extortion, harassment, and “attorney terrorism” well outside of the Code of Professional Conduct, without redress. Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193. This is not a Salem, Massachusetts “witch hunt” here for Derringer by the Judicial system of government, and if it is, that is disgusting for American Judges to defeat the United States in such a manner. Matter of Davis, 40BR 163 The deceit and gross and negligent mis-representation here is extreme. Sims v. Craig, 96 Nm 33, 627 P.2d 875 (1981); Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844. Bingham and Kalm’s conduct is intentionally fraudulent and misleading against Derringer to serve the purpose to inundate this court’s record with “untruths” so as to bias this judge, and to saturate this court record for the other “gang” members of attorneys opposing Derringer in other suits can then attempt to use this “mis-information” and slander in their own suits to defeat Derringer by mis-use of other courts. Sachs v. Board of Trustees, Etc. 89 NM 712, 557 P.2d 1170 91984). This “abuse of process” and gang techniques of many attorneys to attack the same litigant in other suits by use of each other’s defamation and abuse of the system is deplorable that any justice can simply stand by and watch this happen to a litigant. Farmer’s Gin Company et al v. J.A. Ward et al, No. 7322 Supreme Court of New Mexico January 27, 1964. “An abuse of process arises when there has been a perversion of court processes to accomplish some end with 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.” Pimentel v. Houk, 101 Cal. App.2d 884, 226 P.2d 739.
SLANDER AND MIS-INFORMATION IN COURT RECORD AGAINST COURT ORDERS MEANT FOR BIAS, PREJUDICE AND DEFAMATION IN “ABUSE OF PRIVILEGE” BY ATTORNEY THOMAS KALM
1) In this court record, it is now clearly shown that this “case” has moved from the merits of Bingham v. Derringer and Derringer v. Bingham in a “breach of contract” suit involving facts and evidence as to Bingham’s breach of contract and fraud; to a “takeover” by attorney Kalm to win this case in an ego based rage, to keep a Pro-Se party from defeating an attorney in court. This encompasses now pleadings not meant to further the facts of the case, but deliberate fraud, slander, mud slinging, attacking third parties, seeking money unfounded, persecuting Derringer for representing himself Pro-Se, violating Derringer’s rights under Constitution and state and federal statutes, attempts to mis-use the courts and biased case laws to prevent due process and equal protection, persecuting Derringer’s living conditions and way of life, inundating the court records with lies about Derringer and mis-representations, attempting to bias and prejudice the judge against Derringer, attempting to subvert the judge and attempted to conspire to precipitate violations of Oath and Constitution, and defying and ignoring all of the court’s orders not to include any cases outside of this case and to leave Derringer’s family, friends and relationships alone.
2) Attorney Kalm is an “opportunist” like a coyote. Kalm’s methodology is not unlike when a chicken gets hurt in the pen the other chickens kill it by pecking it to death. In a quote from Winston Churchill, 1898: "In one respect a cavalry charge is very like ordinary life. So long as you are all right, firmly in your saddle, your horse in hand, and well armed, lots of enemies will give you wide berth. But as soon as you have lost a stirrup, have a rein cut, have dropped your weapon, are wounded, or your horse is wounded, then is the moment when from all quarters enemies rush upon you". Derringer is homeless and perceived prey for the unscrupulous predation of Thomas Kalm and Zachary Bingham. According to Kalm, Derringer has no right to fight back, so “orders” to stop Derringer from litigation take away the playing field except for Kalm’s use.
3) This case is only about a breach of a written and legal binding contract for the trade of two vehicles and repairs to one between Zachary Bingham and David Derringer. This matter is not a trial on David Derringer’s life, family, friends, or relationships, not a trial on how much sun tan or what clothes Derringer wears, whom he knows, or what Derringer does with each minute of his time, not a trial on Derringer’s personality or beliefs, not a trial on Derringer’s marital status, not a trial on Derringer’s mental ability, and not a trial on whether or not Derringer can represent himself Pro-Se in a court of the United States as mandated under the US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and Constitution.
4) Attorney Kalm has resorted to an onslaught of defamation of Derringer’s character, mis-information as to the facts and litigation of other suits by and against Derringer, to bias this court, and to seek destruction of Derringer at any time thereafter in any court of law, and to ruin Derringer’s life, relationships and future function in society. To this end, attorney Kalm has sought out and conspired and conferred with other attorneys in opposition against Derringer in other suits and “formulated” a plan to stop Derringer from ever using the courts of the United States so as to win this instant case and to attempt to prevent any further suits against both Bingham and attorney Kalm, wherein Kalm knows he is liable personally for some of the damage he is causing against Derringer at the present time. In re Rexplore Inc. Securities Litigation, 685 F. Supp. 1132 “ND Cal. 1988. Kalm hopes that if he can convince a Judge to violate his/her oath and conduct treason and sedition against the Constitution to bar Derringer from the courts, he will protect himself and become a “hero” in attorney circles for stopping a Pro-Se person from use of the United States Court system. This methodology is “both criminal harassment” and illegal abuse of the court systems, defeating any claim of “immunity” by an attorney as well as “abuse of privilege” to slander someone in the court record and claim it was necessary in the functioning of the case itself. Hail v. Hollywood Credit Clothing Company, DC Municipal app. 147 A.2d 866.; Bookout v. Griffin, 97 NM 336, 639 P.2d 1190 (1982).; Spellens. V. Spellens, 49 Cal.2d 210, 317 P.2d 613.
WHAT THIS LAW SUIT IS ABOUT
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT:
1) Bingham made a legal, written and binding contract to trade vehicles and do extreme repairs on the vehicle traded to Derringer with a deadline on delivery.
2) Both parties voluntarily traded signed titles as function of the written contract that was sold “as is where is” with no clauses for recission or redemption.
3) Derringer honored his portion of the contract in entirety by signing over the free and clear title to the Derringer vehicle and giving Bingham complete legal access to possession of the Derringer vehicle.
4) Bingham never performed on his written contract to make any repairs to the vehicle traded to Derringer, and at all times kept physical possession of the Derringer vehicle gained in the trade.
5) Bingham then after the trade and written contract defrauded Derringer by defrauding MVD to lie to MVD that he had “lost” his title already signed over to Derringer, and thus by fraud obtained another title to the traded vehicle to Derringer and “stole back” the vehicle, leaving Derringer with nothing of value; then admittedly sued Derringer just to “avoid” the criminal prosecution by APD.
6) CRIMINAL FRAUD AGAINST DERRINGER AND MVD, AND GRAND LARCENY AGAINST DERRINGER IN STEALING BACK A VEHICLE VALUED AT $1,800.00
7) Bingham defrauded Derringer by defrauding MVD to lie to MVD that he had “lost” his title already signed over to Derringer, and thus by fraud obtained another title to the traded vehicle to Derringer and “stole back” the vehicle, leaving Derringer with nothing of value.
8) Bingham has lied to APD and to this court that he defrauded Derringer and MVD because of claims that the Derringer vehicle had a “lien” against it and was unavailable, but Bingham has never produced any document or tangible evidence that any encumbrance was on the Derringer vehicle, and in fact obtained a title to the Derringer vehicle in his own name without any claims of lien or encumbrances; thus having “unfounded” claims that his own motives for the fraud against Derringer and MVD were founded in lies.
9) APD sought to criminally prosecute Bingham for his grand larceny of stealing back Derringer’s vehicle obtained in the trade and for fraud against Derringer and additional fraud against the New Mexico MVD, but attorney Kalm lied to APD that the Derringer vehicle was “encumbered” and that Bingham would sue Derringer in civil court.
10) Bingham sued Derringer in civil court in fraud to “avoid” the criminal prosecution of APD, and in so committed criminal fraud against the civil court. Bingham then seeks to discredit Derringer and prevent Derringer from litigating so as to defeat the civil suit of Derringer and thus avoid the criminal prosecution by APD.
11) Bingham admits in his September 3, 2010 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Including Civil Contempt page 7 paragraph 1 that: “Zack had to file suit to avoid arrest and resolve the issue civilly to satisfy APD”. The key word here obviously is “AVOID”.
THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS OR SUBSTANTIVE PROOF FROM ANYONE SAVE THE “OPINION” OF JAYME MOORE IN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THERE WAS EVER ANY LIEN ON THE TRADED DERRINGER VEHICLE BECAUSE NO LIEN EVER HAS EXISTED OR BEEN FILED ANYWHERE
1) No lien was ever filed against the Derringer vehicle known as the “M35A2 ‘deuce’ military vehicle” with county, MVD or any court, and no court ever awarded the Derringer vehicle to any party as part of a settlement of any Judgement.
2) Neither Jayme Moore and Tumbleweed Auction Company or any other entity ever filed any claim of lien against the Derringer trade vehicle known as the “deuce” and MVD did give Zachary Bingham free and clear title transfer of that vehicle from David Derringer to Zachary Bingham showing that there was no encumbrance.
3) At the time claimed of Tumbleweed selling the deuce (March, 2010) without a title to some unknown party, Zachary Bingham had been the legal owner of the “deuce” for a period of at least 1 ½ years since September 25, 2008, and it is unlawful for a company to sell a vehicle without a title when a free and clear title does exist as did in this matter.
ATTORNEY KALM’S UNFITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW AND LIES AND DISREGARD FOR THE ORDERS OF THE COURT
1) Attorney Kalm has engaged in a rampant attack in court record of David Derringer; Derringer’s life, family, relationships, clothing, and intelligence. This encompasses an extreme number of pleadings meant to bias and prejudice the judge against Derringer and against Pro-Se parties, as well as attempting to bring in much information and mis-information in “selective” excerpts from other cases meant to defame Derringer and to ruin the merits of this case by use of other cases not at all related to the facts and issues of this matter.
2) In the process Kalm has pumped up and spent extreme hours for his client, as well as wasting extreme hours and expenses of this court on frivolous mis-information and slander to attempt to ensure that Kalm does not lose a case to a Pro-Se party. Recall that Kalm has stated in court record he is “pro-bono” and cannot ever attempt to ask this court for “attorney fees”.
3) Kalm has lied first to this court that his client has had to spend tremendous amounts of money in defending against Derringer, wherein most of this money is claimed to be spent by Kalm in multiple depositions, extreme numbers of frivolous pleadings and other time-consuming Kalm activities of attempting to involve third parties that know nothing of this suit, but are meant to ruin Derringer’s life. Attorney Kalm then goes on court record in the hearing of August 27, 2010, again in the hearing of September 9, 2010, and in the court record of “Derringer’s Deposition” of September 9, 2010 Page 48, Line 4 [“It’s a pro-bono case for me”] that he represents Zachary Bingham “pro-bono” and thus cannot claim any attorney fees against either Bingham or claim to ask this court for any attorney fees against David Derringer. Thus, Kalm continually lies to this court of both the cost and that he is entitled to “attorney fees”. Kalm’s seeking money is why he wants to entwine and entangle third parties that have nothing to do with this matter in his insistent “joinder” of other parties or anyone Derringer could know, meet, or associate with so as to steal money from others, while also seeking his main motive of ruining Derringer’s life.
4) Kalm has lied to the face of this court in stating he did not cuss at Derringer in the Deposition of September 30, 2009, and yet comes out in court pleadings, a “discussion” of why he cussed at Derringer, with a bogus claim alleging that Derringer might be armed and the cussing and aggression of Kalm was “in his own defense”.
5) Kalm and Bingham have been given court Orders not to further attempt to bias and prejudice the judge, and have been ordered not to ever again include other court cases regarding Derringer in the pleadings, and have been Ordered three time to not ask or pursue Derringer’s marital status; each time Kalm ignores the court’s orders and inundates the court records with other Court cases regarding Derringer to bias this court, asks to deprive Derringer’s rights to due process and equal protection under law, and permeates this court with mis-information of Derringer’s marital status, personality, living conditions, and other defamation of Derringer; with claims that he can pursue harassing Derringer with both immunity and “privilege” to do this to Derringer as long as it is in the court record.
6) No American should tolerate, and no court should allow this criminal harassment of a litigant, and clearly, if Derringer had an attorney representing him, instead of being Pro-Se, the court would have put a stop to this abuse and persecution of Derringer long before now, and Kalm would not be doing this abuse if Derringer had an attorney representing him.
7) Attorney Kalm now multiple times seeks “attorney fees” from this court against Derringer, when he had stated on court record that he is “pro-bono” and seeks to “join” additional parties with the mis-information simply that they may have “deep pockets” for him to attack and steal their money.
8) Kalm is simply manipulating this court for his own devices of ego, power and a vindictive persecution of his hatred for David Derringer and other pro-se parties.
ATTORNEY KALM ATTEMPTS TO PORTRAY DERRINGER AS SOME “LOOSE CANNON” THAT HAS LITIGATED IN MANY STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, BUT HAS NEVER WON A CASE AND THUS ALL OF HIS LITIGATION IS “FRIVOLOUS”
1) Attorney Kalm mis-represents to this court that Derringer has been a “serial litigator” and has never won a case, and thus should be stopped from use of the United States Court system.
2) Attorney Kalm knows that Derringer can now prove the “abuse of process” wherein the only reason Bingham and Kalm sued Derringer is to AVOID the criminal prosecution by the Albuquerque Police Department against Zachary Bingham for grand larceny of a motor vehicle, and criminal fraud against David Derringer and the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Department. So Kalm wants Derringer stopped unable to litigate.
3) Attorney Kalm deliberately ignores to this court the many “wins” by Pro-Se David Derringer in Albuquerque Metropolitan Courts, New Mexico state “district courts”, and the “win” by David Derringer against the State Engineer of New Mexico “Derringer v. Thomas Turney” in a New Mexico State Engineer’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,127. Derringer has also won in several United States District Court cases in the 10th Circuit, the United States Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
4) In the case of David Derringer against the State Engineer of New Mexico in the New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 21,059 “Derringer v. Thomas Turney”, Derringer won against the New Mexico State Engineer’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,127. Derringer won this matter against the New Mexico State Engineer’s and set the case law standard, never before established, that forced the mandated hearing to be held by the New Mexico State Engineer for all water use applications. This was regarding Derringer’s New Mexico state water appropriation application #4615 and #4615-Amended. Clearly, Derringer’s law suits have both law and substance.
5) This court could instantly look up New Mexico Court of Appeals Case No. 21,059 and the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,127 to establish this as “fact”. Clearly, if Derringer can win against several attorneys representing the State of New Mexico, Derringer can also win this case against attorney Thomas Kalm, and Derringer’s suits are not “frivolous”.
6) It needs to be addressed in retrospect, that attorney Kalm cites State of New Mexico et al. v. George Welsh New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 7888 in “comparison” to Derringer wherein Welsh was unjustly “restrained” by Judge Brennan for suits and for disqualification of justices deemed “unfit” on June 29, 1983. Welsh sought also to disqualify Judge Brennan. Later after stopped and guilty of cocaine, methamphetamine and other drug possession, abuse, Judge Brennan Resigned in 2004. Ex-Judge Brennan then dominates the paper numerous times in domestic abuse on Oct. 10, 2008. It was found that Judge Brennan had been on cocaine, marijuana and other drugs since the 1960's and yet gave seminars and held judicial conferences for “other citizens” to stay off drugs, as well as convicting others for drug abuse. Undeniably, George Welsh Pro-Se knew of the inability of Judge Brennan to be up to the standards required for a “judge” in 1983, wherein the Judicial community and the public now know of the seriousness of Judge Brennan’s addiction and unfitness to be a judge or practice law. But Welsh was persecuted just as Derringer.
7) Attorney Kalm then cites the illegal “injunction” by Judge Fitch against Derringer to stop litigation that involved protection of himself for doing unconstitutional and abusive acts against Derringer and Derringer’s wife at the time Susan Nevitt, as a “standard” as to why Derringer must be further restrained. Judicial Standards recommended Judge Fitch’s removal from the bench on Feb. 11, 2005 due to his wrecking a state car accident while on his way under cocaine and “tequila” to help preside over the New Mexico Supreme Court. In fraud, Judge Fitch “resigned” in 2005 just before he was taken off of the bench, in order to steal his retirement from the public of New Mexico as a state employee. Judge Pope, whom denied Derringer a trial in CV-02-19 and stole over $400,000.00 worth of real property from Derringer, admitted in May , 2006 that his failure to come to a criminal trial was because he was drunk.
8) Clearly, “Welsh” knew of the corruption of justices in New Mexico and took direct legal action against this matter, and the judicial community “covered up” its indiscretions, by laying blame on a Pro-Se party and illegally depriving further use of the courts in a “conspiracy against rights” under the guise of Rule 11 and “protection of the public” from litigation by a pro-se party.
9) Undeniably, the “protection of the public” is to allow use of the courts by any citizen, due process and equal protection of the law, even if this litigation exposes the corruption and injustices of the New Mexico judicial system and the alcohol and drug abuse of some of the justices.
10) The Code of Professional Conduct prohibits attorney Kalm from subjecting David Derringer to harassment, ridicule, persecution, and abuse in pleadings wherein a lawyer is to use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass and intimidate others. In this instance, the mis-information, attempts to bias and prejudice a judge, intent to coerce a judge to violate Oath and commit sedition and treason to the Constitution fall under incitement for public corruption, and violate the Code of Professional Conduct Rule 16-804(A)(B)(C)(D)(F)(G) and (H).
11) The “scandalous” material that is not at all accurate is placed in the court record by Kalm is a severe abuse of privilege of pleadings, wherein the courts were never intended to be used to defame, slander and persecute a litigant.
THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OR JUDICIAL CAPACITY TO ENTERTAIN THE ATTEMPTS OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION AGAINST DERRINGER, TO “ENJOIN” DERRINGER IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO FROM ANY FURTHER USE OF THE COURTS
1) Clearly, this court knows why the United States is set up with a “separation of powers” of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government, so that one person or governmental agency cannot become a dictator and over-rule the other branches of government and thus render the Constitution and statutes ineffective. “The Constitution of the State of New Mexico commands that “the powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, the executive, and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others.” The “yardstick” is the Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress and the New Mexico state Legislature that “control” the actions of the courts, preventing persecution and deprivation against a United States Citizen.
2) A “district court judge” came to office by “swearing to God” to obey the Constitution, the statutes of both state and federal government, and to honor and obey the power of justice to both the rich and poor equally. (The poor being Pro-Se parties). Title 28 Section 453 -Oaths of justices and judges-“Each justice or judge 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 the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as ___under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”; In re Aquinda, 241 F.3d 194 “Presumption exists that a judge will put personal beliefs aside and rule according to the laws as enacted, as required by his or her Oath. 28 USCA 455(a)”. The State of New Mexico also makes each Judge “swear to God” under Oath to: Oath taken by Judge ____: “I, Judge ___, 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.”
3) The Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights, and the New Mexico Constitution; patterned after the US Constitution clearly states: Constitution of the State of New Mexico Article II Bill of Rights 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, and acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.”
4) Title 42 Section 1981(a)-Equal rights under the law (a)”Statement of equal rights- All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other.”
5) “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.”
6) 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”.
1) 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..”
1) 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.”
2) A District Court judge’s “jurisdiction and judicial capacity and authority” is in reality quite limited. A Judge cannot entertain facts or merits of a case in which the judge is not the “fact finder/adjudicator”, and cannot restrain anyone but a party from any action, and cannot restrain the public in general from any actions. Allen v. McClellan, 77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967) A Judge cannot use “Rule 11" to either sanction or dismiss any case unless that case is before the particular judge, and already filed so as to gain that assignment. In other words, there is no judge that can deny filing, prior to being assigned to a case, and Rule 11 does not extend any judicial authority to either circumvent or defeat any statute or Constitutional provision, nor does it extend any authority or jurisdiction to any possible future suit, whether or not the parties are the same or different. In short, just because a party wins a suit, does not foreclose the Defendant or Plaintiff that lost that suit from suing the same party at a different time over a different matter.
3) This court is bound by the “supremacy clause” that defeats any contemplation of Ordering Derringer not to again litigate in the State of New Mexico. Nor can it order Derringer to be subject to “approval” of a suit before filing by the very jurisdiction and judicial capacity of a Judge, wherein a Judge has no “jurisdiction or judicial capacity” of any particular case until that case is assigned to him/her as the fact finder, which only happens after filing. Accordingly, to subject Derringer to some arbitrary judge to “approve” a Complaint before filing subjects Derringer to a “dictatorship judge” of one person that may not like Derringer, defeating due process and equal protection of the laws at all times by deprivation of filing any legal document in any United States Court. “Rule 11" then, without either jurisdiction or authority by any particular judge, would simply be used to single out David Derringer to persecute and punish the exercise of Derringer’s Constitutional rights and statutory rights “to sue” under Title 42 Section 1981(a), and prohibits Derringer due process and equal protection and to circumvent the Constitution, Congress and exercise a “tyranny” of power to overcome the two separate powers of the Executive and the Legislative branches of government.
4) For the court record; What would happen here is that some “arbitrary judge” would order only verbally his employee/subservient court clerk not to physically accept any court paper from David Derringer, and yet not make that a “written” order, thus illegally obstructing Derringer from “appeal” of such a “verbal” judge decision, and defeat by force Derringer’s use of the courts, that could not be legally identified or pursued in any higher court or authority due to the hiding of this means of obstruction of justice dictatorship by only “word of mouth”. This means is “public corruption” on the highest level, but hard to prove to any authority such as the Department of Justice. 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.” This clearly entails violations of the Supremacy Clause. 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, where the court upheld that “ the [rule] violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to regulate an area of federal law controlled. Dismissing the need to characterize the rule as either procedural or ethical, the court stated, ‘for purposes of determining whether [the rule] violates the Supremacy Clause, it matters not at all what the Board or Baylson choose to call it. What matters is whether the substance of [the rule] actually conflicts or is incompatible with federal law.’ The [rule] “does not suddenly become consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 as a state rule of professional conduct” “The Court held that the rule’s judicial approval requirement violated the Supremacy Clause because it was incompatible with the federal rules of criminal procedure”. In the same manner, for this court to foreclose any court filing without “approval” from a judge not legally assigned to the case produces a criminal use of power to act as a “conspiracy against rights” under US Code Title 18 Section 241, and a “deprivation of rights under color of law” within the meaning of US Code Title 18 Section 242, and mis-use of ‘rule 11' to persecute the Plaintiff for exercising his Constitutional and statutory rights to protect his personal property and to prevent illegal larceny, fraud use to constitute illegal seizure, and perjury and mis-use of the civil courts to circumvent the criminal court prosecution of APD.
5) Derringer entered into the “mediation” with the court’s Order with only the understanding that such mediation would be fair and impartial, and without cost. In the mediation with Marchiondo, whose reputation proceeds him as a forceful friend of Attorney Kalm, Derringer was asked repeated questions about issues not in this court, federal court cases and other “unrelated cases” to this matter, cussed, intimidated and threatened, as the reputed Mafia mob tactics that reputation holds. Kalm now comes to this court seeking “debtor’s prison” [constituting criminal extortion] to imprison Derringer if Derringer does not pay Marchiando his hourly rate, despite the mediation being for free. In essence, thus, Kalm seeks criminal ransom and extortion, of threats of incarceration if Derringer does not pay his friend Marchiondo. These criminal acts of “obstruction of justice” and “intimidation” are known by this court. Attorney Thomas Kalm should be sanctioned severely, reported to law enforcement and the disciplinary board and banned from legal representation activity in the Second Judicial District Court in sanctions. The “requests” of Bingham and attorney Kalm are blatant violations of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 13th Amendment against Derringer wherein this court does not have jurisdiction or judicial authority to “jail” Derringer to force in extortion, Derringer to pay an attorney fees that were previously waived in a court ordered Mediation. With this atrocity of request from attorney Kalm, Kalm also seeks as much money as he can in claimed attorney fees by inundating this court with pleadings at the last hour to pump up his hours, when Kalm cannot claim any attorney fees, having repeatedly on court record proclaimed to be representing Zachary Bingham “pro-bono”.
6) The violations requested by Bingham and Kalm clearly fall, if at all approved, in the realm of blatant violations of the Supremacy Clause and meant for “cruel and unusual punishment” and “oppression” and “tyranny” against Derringer. Stoneking v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. “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).” Hence, under the “Supremacy Clause” of the United States Constitution Article VI, no judge can make any order that forecloses on any citizen suing any party, at any time and cannot “jail” any citizen in a “debtor’s prison” until extortion payment is made to an attorney that already waived such payment. All of these “requests” by Bingham and Kalm fall in the category of sanctionable offenses, criminal offenses, obstruction of justice, intimidation and extortion. If any citizen is placed in a position of “mediation” where he will be persecuted and punished if he does not settle in a way preferable to the opposition and then under threat of jail, forced to pay money and slandered; “mediation” becomes synonymous with oppression and tyranny.
7) “Where the state is not in compliance with the federal regulations because of judicial constructions that circumvent or undermine the legislative intentions of the act, a new question arises as to the legitimacy of the state’s participation in the federal program. If justices in New Mexico conduct orders to prevent use of the United States court in violation of US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) for any party without some arbitrary judges” approval” and against Constitution, in complete violation of Oath, the State of New Mexico becomes conducting sedition, treason, and is seceding from the union to attempt to make case law to overwhelm Constitution and federal rights and “appoint” some judge to make a decision as to whether or not a citizen can actually file in a court of law. In determining whether federal law preempts state law, we assess whether the state law actually conflicts with the federal law or interferes with the purpose of the federal law. See Ray v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158, 98 S. Ct. 988, 55 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1978). Because federal regulations and laws cannot infringe upon the Constitutional rights of United States Citizens, it can be presumed that those rights are protected under the federal mandates. If the state is going to make rules or practice procedures by a state judge ordering a citizen not to file complaints, pleadings, responses and any other legal paper without prior approval of some court judge not even assigned to the case, which deny those inherent Constitutional, and federal statutory rights of any citizen “to sue”, then the state actions become void, and this issue prevails over any other under consideration. And where the Constitution of the state or the state statutory laws are subverted through similar means, of “justices” making illegal and un-Constitutional “case law”, the people have no duty to perform unless under threat or coercion by further illegitimate means in order to protect their very lives.
8) In this matter Bingham and Kalm intend to circumvent their criminal fraud against Derringer and the MVD and grand larceny criminal prosecution by APD by keeping Derringer from legal litigation, and to prevent Derringer from suing attorney Kalm as a person acting outside of any law and Code of Professional Conduct in the future. No court can prevent such a suit until assigned a future suit, and protect attorney Kalm by “dismissal under Rule 11" with claims that such a suit is “frivolous”. Upon which appeal could be taken under “abuse of discretion”.
9) Derringer nor any other citizen should be persecuted in this manner under the 13th Amendment, as it is clear none of Kalm’s outrageous pleadings would be tolerated if Derringer were represented by an attorney.
10) This court has a duty to take action against Bingham and Kalm, to stop this unethical and criminal harassment by mis-use of the courts, sanctions should be awarded to Derringer and all of the scandalous, heinous, mis-information, slander, and defamation against Derringer should be stricken from the court record in the numerous pleadings by Bingham and Kalm.
11) Kalm being self-proclaimed as “pro-bono” for Zachary Bingham in open court of August 27, 2010 and again in the recorded deposition of September 9, 2010 of David Derringer, cannot seek, obtain, or request any attorney fees for himself or for his dear friend attorney Marchiondo.
BINGHAM’S ADMONISHMENT AGAINST DERRINGER FOR MAKING
SETTLEMENT OFFER TO END THIS FRAUD BY BINGHAM
Bingham biases this court that Derringer is making a settlement offer in this court that is “improper” use of the previous mediation conferences. Bingham “lies” to this court. The “mediation” twice was not successful, despite Kalm’s lies that “we were close to settlement”. Derringer does not attempt to enter into record anything from the two mediation settlement conferences, but simply responds to the “offer of settlement” during the Derringer Deposition of September 9, 2010 that happened in this court. The Deposition will clearly show that attorney Kalm stated in front of Judge Huling that a settlement might be possible, and then at the end of the deposition pages 53-55 stated that Bingham would offer $800.00 to settle, that was not accepted by David Derringer because Bingham has stolen a vehicle from Derringer of value of $1,800.00 and cost Derringer two years of litigation trying to regain simply what he had before the fraud of Bingham against Derringer and the MVD. Kalm then offered $1,000.00 and Derringer stated in Deposition that he would take no less than the $1,800.00 value of the vehicle. Attorney Kalm at the end suggested that they might bring $1,800.00 cash to the trial to settle before trial; and Derringer agreed with the stipulation of certain writing in the Order of dismissal. Kalm left the Deposition stating that they would think about it. Derringer then realized the conniving and possible scenario of the likelihood of losing the “cash” with some ploy of attorney Kalm and Bingham so properly wrote a letter, that was entered into this court so that this court could be aware that this matter could and should have been settled by Bingham two years ago by paying Derringer his value of the stolen vehicle by Bingham, and the necessity to pay Derringer with a “certified check” so that “some third person” would not “relieve” Derringer of the “cash” before or just after he left the courthouse. Clearly, if this court reads the “court record” in the Deposition of September 9, 2010, it is clear that Derringer did not do anything related to settlement discussions of either mediation, but responded in statements to the “agreement” possibility of Bingham bringing “cash” to the trial to settle for an amount of $1,800.00 wherein Derringer realized that “cash” was not a good idea. There is thus no violation of Rule 11-408 here, but simply an addition to an already discussed matter of court record on Deposition pages 53-55 in the court record of September 9, 2010. Bingham and Kalm simply want this litigation to go on endlessly so that they can continue to harass and persecute David Derringer and attempt to keep Derringer from legal use of the United States Court system. This is criminal under US Code Title 18 Section 241 and 242 as well as obstruction of justice under US Code Title 18 Section 1503. Countless pages are being sent to this court to defame Derringer and Bingham has spent much time in pleadings attempting to “hold the trial” with Judge Huling with what they want to say and force documents into court that are all objected to by Derringer. Kalm believes that he can win this case before it ever goes to trial on the merits by saturating the record with bogus allegations against Derringer and “what they want read of their position”. This does not constitute a “fair trial” for Derringer. Derringer has the right to the same “opportunity to be heard” as Bingham.
WHEREFORE, this court is dutifully and legally bound by Canon, the Code of Judicial Conduct, the criminal statutes of New Mexico enacted by Legislature to punish, sanction, and direct law enforcement to stop the criminal activities going on by Zachary Bingham and attorney Kalm with his co-conspiracy with William Marchiondo. Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 “A judge is not only entitled, but also has a duty to take all lawful measures reasonably necessary to prevent the occurrence of a crime in his courtroom.”
This court is also bound to punish, sanction and seek discipline for an attorney Kalm seeking to deprive due process and equal protection by “coercing” a state Judge to violate Oath and “permanently” keep a US Citizen from litigation in any court in the United States constituting attempts to “obstruct justice”. US v. Baum, 32 F. Supp.2d 642 “SCNY 1999 Obstruction statute is intended to prevent the obstruction of the administration of justice in any court of the United States, corruptly by threats of force.” 18 USCA 1503(a). This court is also dutifully bound to stop the “abuse of privilege, abuse of process, and the ‘terrorism’ and conspiracy that is transpiring to defame Derringer and set up a bogus court record for other unscrupulous attorneys to use and refer to in other cases, as illegally and “corruptly” attorney Kalm is doing in this one to bias and prejudice the Judge and try to “win” a case by corruptly saturating the court with pleadings of “their position” right before a trial on the merits, and by depriving Derringer use of the United States Courts, in a total unfitness to practice law and a sham on the mandates of the Code of Professional Conduct. US v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp.2d 1 “Statute defining “corruptly”, as “acting with an improper purpose, personally influencing another, including making a false, misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” Attorney Kalm and Bingham cannot attempt to use “mob” and “gang” tactics against Derringer in this case based upon what other attorneys have told them, and in appreciation defame Derringer and gives erroneous and inflammatory information to the other attorneys. Accordingly, Bingham cannot have Orders that have already been entered into the court record by Judge Huling personally and by David Derringer under Oath in court recorded Deposition, as these contentions are “mute”. Derringer cannot be forced to enter “depositions” of persons not present for cross examination, and such inundation of these “deposition documents” to bias the court with information forced into record just before trial is “unscrupulous”. Sanctions against both Bingham and Kalm are warranted if ever they are, and Derringer cannot be continually “terrorized” without redress in this court, and denied all sanctions while Kalm runs this court rampantly. Neither Zachary Bingham nor attorney Thomas Kalm can ever ask for or receive attorney fees for Kalm, as Kalm has stated numerous times that he is “pro-bono”, and cannot gain fees for any reason. [SEE: September 9, 2010 Deposition of David Derringer page 48 line 4] Derringer cannot legally be “permanently enjoined” from use of the New Mexico or United States Court system of government in any ‘future’ for redress of torts and blatant fraud and stealing of Derringer’s personal property by Bingham or others in the future. Attorneys have and should be disbarred from inciting “public corruption” against rights of citizens to ever ask a court for an “injunction” against exercising rights under Constitution, US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) and US Code Title 42 Section 1982 and persecution under the 13th Amendment of “singling out” a citizen for “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Respectfully submitted by: ________________________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10-6-2010
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

I further certify that I mailed first class a copy of this pleading to:
Atty. of record Thomas Kalm
8617 Las Camas, NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

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