IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

SHANON CRUMBLEY,
Defendant-Appellant,

VS. Docket No. A-1-CA-38765

D-608-DM-2017-00093

CLEE CRUMBLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Defendant-Appellant, Shanon Crumbley, pro se, submits a Petition for

Rehearing to this court’s Order Dismissing for Lack of Final Order and thereof

states as follows:

1. The Order does not bring the fact the judge refuses to act responsibly in his

position and address my motions any closer to resolution. It leaves my case

hanging as a non-final order with no direction for mitigation on the unfair

judgement that trespasses the laws of our state by the same man that choses not to

respond to any motion that I put into the court pertaining to my inherent right₁. If

the order contained the words “and remand this matter to the district court for

further proceedings”, then it would bring my case into a path of resolution. As it

stands nothing will become of my case because the judge is not being directed to.

Page 1 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
 1 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.

2. Any reasonable person would consider a First Amended Final Decree of

Divorce and a Final Decree that was issued after the date motions were submitted

without answer to be a rejection to the motion. The longer this division of our

assets is in the air due to what is now being considered a non-final order the longer

the tax debt is not being taken care of by the assets producing money that have

been illegally taken from me and converted to herself by Joann Fowler.

Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution provides aggrieved

parties with an automatic right to one appeal. This Court is granted appellate

jurisdiction by our Constitution “as may be provided by law.” N.M. Const. art. VI,

§ 29. In other words, either the Constitution, or the Legislature by statute, may

grant appellate jurisdiction. See State v. Smallwood, 2007-NMSC-005, ¶ 6, 141

N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 (“The phrase ‘as may be provided by law’ means that our

Constitution or Legislature must vest [our courts] with appellate jurisdiction[.]”).

In NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-2 (1966), the Legislature granted the Court of
Appeals jurisdiction to review civil appeals from district court that affect
substantial rights of an aggrieved party. To be aggrieved, a party must have a
substantial interest adversely affected by a district court’s final order. St. Sauver v.
N.M. Peterbilt, Inc., 1984-NMCA-024, ¶ 4, 101 N.M. 84, 678 P.2d 712. Because
TAL Realty sustained a final judgment against it in the district court regarding a
Page 2 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
sought-after property right, TAL Realty is an aggrieved party that has a
constitutional right to one appeal. See Moody v. Stribling, 1999-NMCA-094, ¶
47, 127 N.M. 630, 985 P.2d 1210 (“To be aggrieved, a party must have a personal
or pecuniary interest or property right adversely affected by the judgment. The
party’s interest must be immediate, pecuniary, and substantial, not nominal or a
remote consequence of judgment.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).

{8} Similarly, in Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Shiveley, 110 N.M.

15, 17, 791 P.2d 466, 468 (Ct.App.1989), the Court of Appeals addressed an order
of dismissal without prejudice for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals
determined that “[a] decision which terminates the suit, or puts the case out of
court without an adjudication on the merits, is a final judgment.” Id. The Court of
Appeals followed Bralley and concluded that the order was final for purposes of
appeal. “Although there was no determination on the merits, this order terminated
the suit and the proceeding was completely disposed of so far as the court had
[power to dispose of it.” Id. In Shiveley, unlike Bralley, there had been a timely
appeal; thus, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. Id. at 17-18, 791 P.2d at 468-
69.

3. The trial courts action and judgments against me would leave any reasonable

person with an opinion that the judge held a strong bias toward me. His choice to

ignore every motion I submitted pertaining to my rights is a show of prejudice

against me because the only motion he answered had to do with him defending the

rights of Mr. Crumbley. I think Judge Stewart’s decision to give my company to

the Plaintiff-Appellee was decided in ex party communications where the judge

knowingly allowed Crumbley to immediately upon the divorce finalizing take our

assets to Yuma, AZ to be used on the project of building the wall. I can imagine

the assets were bringing in close to $800 an hour. That would come out to $32000

a month and they were gone six months which is $192,000.

Page 3 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
 The last telephone hearing I had with Judge Stewart presiding over

Crumbley made the comment “it was when I was in Yuma”. It left an impression

like he was saying you remember when you gave me my company to run away

with. Crumbley changed title names the day before the divorce was final. That is

an indicator he knew a lot more than I did about what was happening. Another

thing that happened at this hearing is I asked Judge Stewart why he was helping

Crumbley and Fowler with tax evasion and he answered, that’s not exactly true. He

knows as well as I do, and anyone else in the community, that Crumbley and

Fowler are walking all over our laws and gaining off my losses. My mom kept our

company financially alive the last 13 years and my hard work. The mistress has no

right to just step into my position and take over.

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a
requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the
reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779
F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of
partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual
bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the
judicial file:///C|/Users/Jeff/Internet/The-Matrix/fraud-upon-the-court.html (2 of 4)
[7/24/2008 1:17:07 PM] Fraud upon the court process.").

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if
he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a
judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting
without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of
treason and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate
Page 4 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their
criminal acts. Since file:///C|/Users/Jeff/Internet/The-Matrix/fraud-upon-the-
court.html (3 of 4) [7/24/2008 1:17:07 PM] Fraud upon the court both treason and
the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity
to engage in such acts.

4. Judge Tom Stewart and Judge Jim Foy are first cousins and Foy has been

Mr. Crumbley’s Attorney for the last 45 years and is classmates of both Fowler and

Crumbley. There is no way I will receive an impartial judgement in Grant County

Sixth Judicial Court. I sent in a motion after the last hearing I had with Stewart

presiding over to disqualify him from my cases and of course never got any

response. (Exhibit 1) I think it would be a waist of time for me to try and disqualify

him or write any motions to him in the future on this case.

5. Since January 16, 2020, when the judge issued what I believed to be the

Final Order he has refused to do anything to stop the illegal takeover of my LLC’s

assets to be run into the ground by Fowler’s LLC. They are operating on our

highways running oversize loads without obtaining permits and the state police

will not do anything to stop them. Yesterday I caught them running an oversize

load and even warned the state cops the night before but knowing I was on to the

illegal activity, they got up and left way before curfew lifted and got away with the

illegal oversize move anyway. I have witnessed it twice in the last three months.

Page 5 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
None of the money being made off my LLC’s assets is paying toward the back

taxes the illegally converted assets are attached to under my name.

{30} “[T]his Court is not a fact-finding body.” State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch
Ltd. Partnership, 2009-NMSC-010, ¶ 21, 145 N.M. 769, 205 P.3d 816. “We
therefore think the fairest solution is to remand to the district court for an
opportunity to clarify its findings and conclusions.” Herrington v. State of N.M. ex
rel. Office of State Engineer, 2006-NMSC-014, ¶ 36, 139 N.M. 368, 133 P.3d 258;
see also State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep’t v. Coleman, 1986-NMCA-074, ¶ 26, 104
N.M. 500, 723 P.2d 971 (stating that where ambiguity or doubt exists as to the trial
court’s findings of fact the appellate court can remand when the ends of justice so
require), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, ¶ 2,
116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192; Foutz v. Foutz, 1990-NMCA-093, ¶¶ 16, 21, 110
N.M. 642, 798 P.2d 592 (vacating a judgment because the findings were
insufficient for meaningful review). “[I]t is the trial court’s duty to make findings
of the essential or determining facts, on which its conclusions in the case w[ere]
reached, specific enough to enable this court to review its decision on the same
grounds as those on which it stands.” Apodaca v. Lueras, 1929-NMSC-041, ¶ 9, 34
N.M. 121, 278 P. 197.

WHEREAS I pray the court will within the dismissal include an order to

remand it back to the Sixth Judicial District Court, but not in Grant County, have it

assigned to the Luna County courthouse so that I may have an opportunity for a

fair trial with an unbiased judge.

Defendant-Appellant

Shanon Crumbley
17 Gold Rush Rd
Hanover, NM 88041
(575) 574-2142
shanon@techie.com
Page 6 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing
 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING

Shanon Crumbley, being duly sworn upon her oath or affirmation, hereby declares
under penalty of perjury that she emailed the foregoing to the following people or
entities on this 5th day of August 2021.

Defendant-Appellant

Shanon Crumbley
17 Gold Rush Rd
Hanover, NM 88041
(575) 574-2142
shanon@techie.com

District Court Clerk

PO Box 2339
Silver City, NM 88062

Tom F. Stewart
PO Box 2339
Silver City, NM 88062

David M. Lopez
PO Box 1289
Silver City, NM 88062

Court Reporter for Judge Stewart

PO Box 2339
Silver City, NM 88062

Page 7 of 7
Crumbley Vs., Crumbley
D-608-DM-2017-00093
Docket No. A-1-CA-38765
Petition for Rehearing