2ND DISTRICT JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD DOES FELONS TO PROTECT THE RICO RACKETEERING HORSE RUSTLING IN NEW MEXICO OF THE SINALOA CARTEL

CV-2023-09552 Judge Shepherd Order denying injunction.pdf

Download PDF • 37KB

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BERNALILLO COUNTY

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

                                                                                                CV-2023-09203                     

David Derringer,                                                        

            Plaintiff,                                                                     

V.

Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Benjamin Benavidez Jr.,

Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment),

Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment),

Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen George Mendoza (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment),

            Defendants,

PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NMSA RULE 1-060; OF THE CORRUPT, ILLEGAL AND TREASON ORDER FROM THE PROVEN CRIMINAL JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD OF 1-23-2024 IN PERJURY AND FRAUD ON THE COURT “ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BENAVIDEZ MOTION TO DISMISS”, WHILE THE JUDGE HERSELF CORRUPTS THE COURT RECORD HEADING TO PROTECT THE INVASION OF THE SINALOA CARTEL, AND ALL THEIR DOMESTIC TERRORISTS INVOLVED AS THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN, IN CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF OF NMSA 30-26-1(A)(B))C)(D) AND FEDERAL FELONY 18 USC 1506 [1] , 241, 242 1503, 1505, 2381, 2383 AND FACILITATION, AIDING, ABETTING, PROTECTING THE SINALOA CARTEL IN TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT SECTION 3; BROUGHT UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060 FOR (B)(2) NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (B)(3), (B)(4) THE JUDGEMENT IS VOID, (B)(6) OTHER REASONS OF FRAUD AND DEFAULT OF THE DEFENDANT, CRIMINAL ACTS OF DEFENDANT BENAVIDEZ JR. AND ATTORNEY JOHN D’AMATO JR. NMSA 30-26-1(A)(B))C)(D) AND FEDERAL FELONY 18 USC 1506, 241, 242 1503, 1505, 2381, 2383 AND FACILITATION, AIDING, ABETTING, PROTECTING THE SINALOA CARTEL, WITH DEFENDANT BENAVIDEZ JR. TREASON CRIMINAL ACTS, CONVERSION, CONSPIRACY WITH THE CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL JUDGE SHEPHERD, CONTINUED LARCENY BY THE DEFENDANT WIHOUT REMEDY; 3rd MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION ORDER UNDER NMSA RULE 1-055 OF DEFENDANTS BENAVIDEZ JR., JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, AND GEORGE MENDOZA; REPLEVIN TO RETURN THE NOW 500+ STOLEN HORSES BY THE DEFENDANT WITH ACCOMPLICES UNDER NMSA 29-1-2 AND NMSA 42-8-1; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD; EXIBITS ADENDUM ATTACHED

Plaintiff, David Derringer representing himself Pro-Se states his Motions as stated above.

Judge Denise Barela-Shepherd has defined herself as a corrupt NM Judge doing criminal acts as mis-use of power only enabled by her past perjury of oath to achieve the position as “judge” to then take Sinaloa Cartel vast bribery “blood money” of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel that now owns and controls the state of New Mexico and all government entities therein, with a projected base income of illegal enterprises of drug trafficking of cocaine, fentanyl, methylamphetamines, human slavery trafficking, prostitution, providing unaccompanied minor children for NM Judges and elite pedophiles, fully automatic illegal firearms for the BCSO and other agencies for use against American citizens, and  a superfluity of other criminal acts, all promoted by the total violations of all law by Judge Shepherd and other judges similarly situated with a proven pattern of corruption. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172 “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. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.”  With knowledge, Judge Shepherd lies to the court record that (1) the Plaintiff failed to file a responsive pleading to Defendant Benavidez Jr.’ Motion to Dismiss within 15 days, wherein the Plaintiff filed his Answer to this corrupt pleading on January 9, 2024 wherein the corrupt pleading was filed by Defendant Benavidez on December 29, 2023. In the Plaintiff’s timely response, it was made clear to Judge Shepherd that the Defendant Benavidez Jr. and his attorney John D’Amato Jr. had feloniously altered the court record in FRAUD ON THE COURT negating the entire Pleading, leaving the Defendant in total Default of the Complaint, and deliberately leaving out the served and properly amended Defendant George Mendoza. The fraud was deliberate and malicious by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff requested a proper Default Judgment as well as sanctions and disbarment of attorney D’Amato Jr.. [2] The timely response of the Plaintiff not only noticed Judge Shepherd that the FRAUD and criminal corruption of the Court record vitiated the entire Defendant’s Pleading, but set in motion the Judge Shepherds “knowledge” that the Defendant Benavidez Jr. and attorney D’Amato Jr.’ criminal acts were felonies that are mandated to be addressed by the court. 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.” Therefore, even if the Judge could circumvent lying that the Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was “late”, filed on January 9, 2024, it was timely no matter what, being addressing the FRAUD ON THE COURT and criminal acts NMSA 30-26-1(A)(B))C)(D) AND FEDERAL FELONY 18 USC 1506 encompassed in that Defendants false Pleading. There is no statute of limitations for bringing a fraud upon the court claim. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 244. A decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes final. Kenner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 1968). Under Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud on the court," the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. (2) There was no violation of the NMRA Rule 1-08 as necessity to describe the fraud attending all Defendants and specifically defining the egregious criminal acts of the newly added Defendant George Mendoza. Clearly, as Judge Shepherd is proven as a protector and defender of not only the intertwined Defendants, but indeed taking bribes for protection of the underlying Sinaloa Cartel, the “so called” vexatious TRUTH mandated under NMRA Rule 1-090 is distasteful not only exposing the vast corruption of Judge Shepherd but with the very evidence presented [Exhibits] in both filings of the Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint satisfies the premises that indeed, all criminal alleged actions did transpire for a valid Complaint  upon which relief could be granted.  Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984) “In dismissing a Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must liberally construe the pleadings, accept as true all factional allegations in the Complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff’s favor.” Because of necessity to indicate alleged fraud, the Complaint had to be complete for sustaining that fraud and criminal acts underlying. Town of Silver City v. Scartaccini, 2006-NMCA-009, 138 N.M. 813, 126 P.3d 1177. “Function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial”. Pro se pleadings, however in-artfully expressed, must tell a story from which, looking to substance rather than form, the essential elements prerequisite to the granting of the relief sought can be found or reasonably inferred. This would be the rule which would apply to law-abiding citizen appearing pro se in a civil action. Birdo v. Rodriguez, 1972-NMSC-062, 84 N.M. 207, 501 P.2d 195. (3) As proven that the Judge Shepherd is directly involved in the facilitation of the RICO racketeering now stolen 500 + Derringer horses, mis-using her power as a corrupt judge to cover up both the material aspects subject matter and the conspiracy attending, it is no new revelation that the Judge is upset of the vast exposure of the TRUTH emanating from the Complaint that not only exemplifies the complicity of Judge Shepherd, but obviously exposes the vast NM public corruption of the Democrats in power positions attempting the insurrection and coup against America. There was no violation of the Plaintiff of Complaints original or amended under NMRA Rule 1-08(E)(1). “a pleading must contain all of the allegations necessary to bring within the purview of the statutes”.  Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy District, 89 NM 516, 554, P.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1976). (4) The Judge assesses the Complaint as vexatious due to Judge Shepherds complicity in treason and in the RICO of the substantive matters, being bribed by the Sinaloa Cartel for their protection of RICO horse rustling enterprises in New Mexico. U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied “Elements of conspiracy are agreement with another person to violate law, knowledge of essential objectives of conspiracy, knowing and voluntary involvement, and interdependence among alleged co-conspirators.” The more the Plaintiff defines the exact truth with photos entered with the Complaint, the more insistent is the Judge to attempt to dismiss the legal valid action as a cover-up, and conceal the damaging information and exhibits proving the allegations. Morris v. Dodge Country Inc.  513 P.2d 1273, 85 N.M. 491 Cert. Denied 513 P.2d 1265, 85 N.M. 483 “N.M. App. 1973 Conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence; generally, the agreement is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances, including acts of persons alleged to be conspirators.” This entails criminal obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1503, 1505. US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998 “Obstruction of justice statute is construed broadly to include the various corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted; variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined.” 18 USCA 1503. This sustains the exact reasoning that Judge Shepherd herself copied the lead of the criminal acts of the Defendant Benavidez Jr. and attorney D’Amato Jr. that falsified and corrupted the court record heading, and wherein in this Order of January 23, 2024 Judge Shepherd falsifies the heading exactly as already defined to her knowledge of the criminal acts of the Defendant and attorney. Thus, there is absolute proof that Judge Shepherd is corrupt beyond imagination, doing acts of criminal FRAUD ON THE COURT meant for definite protection of RICO, protection of the Sinaloa Cartel, protection of all criminal felon defendants, and treason against the United States of America in collusion with the Sinaloa Cartel. 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.” The diabolical intent here is to use judicial domestic terrorism against the Plaintiff to defeat a valid cause of action in order to subvert the integrity of the court in a coup against America and ruin the Plaintiff life for the Judge Shepherd to attain $ million in protection bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel while also facilitating the drugs and minor children for the Judge addicts and pedophiles. 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.” NMRA Rule 1-090(A). “The purpose of judicial proceedings is to ascertain the truth.” (emphasis added) Judge Shepherd’s reference of “an example of duplicative litigation” is where the judicial notice mandated for a Court to peruse the same corruption and proven protection afforded by Judge Shepherd in CV-2023-09552 wherein Plaintiff Derringer sought to gain an order of protection by extreme need for a restraining Order against the same Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. that has now cooperated with the other members of the Sinaloa Cartel Defendants herein, and the NMLB and other domestic terrorists of the Sinaloa Cartel. Rule 11-201 - Judicial notice of adjudicative facts. A. Scope. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.B. Kinds of facts that may be judicially noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact t hat is not subject to reasonable dispute because it(1) is generally known within the court's territorial jurisdiction,(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, or(3) notice is provided for by statute.C. Taking notice. The court (1) may take judicial notice on its own, or (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.D. Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding. This matter is extremely important, wherein the same Judge Shepherd, in obvious protection of Defendant Benavidez Jr. and the underlying Sinaloa Cartel denied the Plaintiff Derringer’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction against Benavidez Jr. to stop the instant and vast ongoing RICO Sinaloa Cartel wherein Defendant Benavidez Jr. is the “main mule” herding Derringer horses onto the Santalina so that the Sinaloa Cartel and the other civilian Defendants in this case (Monte, Gray, Mendoza) can steal the then already stolen horses by Defendant Benavidez Jr. to embezzle tax money NM equipment to larceny and transport the stolen Derringer horses to concealment and then illegal sales of stolen property enabled in fraud, as their “moonlighting” other job is in corruption and horse larceny with the NMLB. The proven “denial” of an injunction requested by the Plaintiff serves no other purpose than to facilitate, protect and ensure ongoing RICO racketeering horse rustling where it would not be unimpeded for rustler Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. so as to continue to have the aid, abetting and assistance treason with of Judge Shepherd in the horse rustling operation of the Sinaloa Cartel with mis-use of power of the Court for protection of all criminal acts. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297 “Existence of civil conspiracy must be pled either by direct allegations or by allegations of circumstances from which a conclusion may be reasonably inferred.” (5)  Judge Shepherd protects the Defendant Benavidez Jr. claiming that the truth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint “degrades the Defendant’s moral character, contains repulsive language, and detracts for the dignity of the court”, however with “judicial notice”, Judge Shepherd is mandated to review CV-2014-07755 Derringer v. Benjamin Benavidez Jr. et al, wherein in the Answer of January 21, 2015 Defendant Benavidez Jr. admitted to being a felonious horse rustler when stating he used his own truck and horse trailer to knowingly steal Derringer two horses “we too incurred expenses to include man hours, wear and tear on vehicle/trailer, gas, feed, water, etc….although the horses may have names, and no doubt are important to the Plaintiff (Derringer) they are by no means prize possession to the capacity to which he (Derringer) refers to these horses as well as their owner..for the hassle of us having to transport his horses.” 

Clearly, Judge Shepherd is well past being biased, prejudiced, and even an advocate and in collusion and complicity with the Defendants, but is embroiled in the RICO racketeering as the protector of the corruption, public state employee protection, treason against America protection, and the Plaintiff calling a “spade a spade” is entirely justified under the allegations sustained by the presented evidence of record photographs as well as justified under Plaintiff rights of the 1st Amendment. (6) Judge Shepherd defames and slanders the Plaintiff in false statements admonishing the truth presented with sustained evidence in the Complaint with “Plaintiff’s Complaint is rife with ad hominem attacks” wherein it is no “little matter” for the Defendant Benavidez Jr. and his companions of RICO Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, and George Mendoza to steal in larceny NMSA 30-16-1, 30-18-1, 30-16-11 and multiple felonies PER HORSE Derringer’s $50,000,000.00 500 + trade tool, pets, personal property, and affectionate companions and helpers of vast hours of training and wherein in the past thousands of years including the 20th century and before, stealing ONE HORSE WAS A HANGING OFFENSE. Sustained by truth and facts is all the alleged “ad hominem attacks” on the felonious traitor domestic terrorist Defendants in this matter. (7) Clearly, the Judge has no possible “good cause” or “good faith” existing to grant the Defendants’ Motion brought in FRAUD ON THE COURT, with felonious acts of corruption of court record in fundamental error, jurisdictional defect, the Judge Shepherd doing felonious acts of subversion, RICO, treason and herself corruption of the court record for obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1503, 1505,2381, 2383 and other vile acts against the integrity of Article III of the US Constitution. McKay v. Farmers & Stockmans Bank, 92 NM 181, 585 P.2d325 (Ct. App.) Cert denied 92 N.M. 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978) Good cause and good faith is usually a question of fact. Judge Shepherd lied under oath to protect; instead being a felon and lawbreaker. A quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."” (Emphasis added). Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that a court may grant relief from judgment where a new matter "clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself before judgment. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332, 336 (1813). He further emphasized that an Article III court can grant relief where the "equity of the applicant [is] free from doubt," and where a judgment "would be against conscience for the person who has obtained it to avail himself." Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied). Clearly, no rational, not retarded person as an adult would ever condone the larceny of 500 + Derringer horses as private property, wherein it is supposed that Judge Shepherd is not in that category, leaving thus the only explanation of Judge Shepherd protecting the Defendants, protecting the attorney from disbarment and the larceny of $50,000,000.00 ($50 MILLION) dollars of horses [3] is that Judge Shepherd is a member domestic terrorist of the invading Sinaloa Cartel explicitly for RICO profit bribes of personal profit by use of Judicial robes in treason and the illegal sales of the Derringer horses in felons of NMSA 30-16-11. State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) “substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.”; United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.” ; State v. Shafer, 698, P.2d 902, 102 N.M. 629 Cert denied 698 p.2d 886, 102 N.M. 613 “Statute governing conspiracy applies to conspiracy to commit crimes whether they are contained in criminal code or found elsewhere in states statutes. NMSA 1978, 30-28-2"; U.S. v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428 “Once conspiracy is established, only slight evidence is required to connect co-conspirator, and acts attributable to any member of conspiracy are attributable to all members.”; Burton v. Richmond, 276 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the averments of a plaintiff’s pleading are assumed to be true, and the court may not dismiss the plaintiff’s claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” The communal idea here that Judge Shepherd attended in felonies, was to distort the record to skew the court and protect all SINALOA CARTE. AND ALL DEFENDANTS. The proper legal heading is as above;

 Defendants-[Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Sinaloa Cartel domestic terrorist private citizen George Mendoza (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment)]

Instead, the Judge, as a felon, chose to cloak and conceal evidence of all Defendants being members of the enemies of the United States Sinaloa Cartel collectively in treason under the 14th Amendment Section 3 and criminal 18 USC 2381, 2383. Then, the idea was to protect and insulate citizens Gray and Monte by attempting for corrupt Judge Shepherd to emulate the past attorney D’Amato Jr. to gain the entire suit dismissed to save all Defendants, with the latest felon George Mendoza caught red handed stealing Derringer horses as accomplice let into the profits of selling Derringer horses for $Millions in criminal acts of NMSA 30-16-11 to unsuspecting public persons of entities. Hence, the Judge Shepherd herself does the obstruction of justice plan to distort the record as:

[Defendants-Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Justin Gray, and Manuel Monte] These acts are criminal violations both NM State felonies and federal felonies subject maliciously of NMSA 30-26-1(A)(B))C)(D) State v. Gallegos, 1944-NMSC-009, 48 N.M. 72, 145 P.2d 999.; US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998 “Obstruction of justice statute is construed broadly to include the various corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted; variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined.” 18 USCA 1503. ;  Jemez Properties Inc. v . Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 608 P.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1979) cert denied 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980) “Tampering with evidence constitutes exceptional circumstances. Tampering with evidence in the case and with public records in the clerk’s office went beyond the common fraud contemplated in paragraph B(3) of this rule, and constituted exceptional circumstances to allow a reopening of judgement more than a year after its entry, under paragraph B(6) of this rule [Rule 1-060] The alteration of record or process 18 USC 1506   This mandates this Court to entirely dismiss the Defendant’s fraudulent Pleading, leaving all Defendants in Default. All allegations of the complaint are undisputed and with the amended Complaint, there indeed is Defendant George Mendoza.

PLAINTIFF’S 3RD LEGAL MANDATED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENTS NMRA RULE 1-055, AGAINST DEFENDANTS BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, AND GEORGE MENDOZA AS TO ALL COUNTS, IN ALL AMOUNTS AND ALL REQUESTED SANCTIONS, COURT COSTS, AND OTHER REMEDIES OF ABSOLUTE REPLEVIN RETURN OF ALL NOW 500+ STOLEN DERRINGER HORSES WITH VETERINARIAN CERTIFICATES THAT EACH HORSE IS IN GOOD HEALTH AND UN-GELDED OR SPADE

The Plaintiff seeking relief has stated a claim on which relief can be granted, has complied with Rules 1-009(J)(2) and 1-017(E) NMRA, and has substantially complied with the requirements of Form 4-226 NMRA." ENTRY OF DEFAULT. "Default". - "Default" to be entered by the clerk under Subdivision (a) (see now Paragraph A) is a statement in appropriate form as to the state of the record, which serves to invite attention of the court to party's omission to plead or otherwise defend, and to fact that case is ripe for entry of judgment by default. Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Certain elements must be present for entry of default by clerk under Subdivision (a) (see now Paragraph A); there must be claim for affirmative relief and a failure to plead or otherwise defend on the part of the opposing party. Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Simultaneous entry of default and judgment. - Since entry of default is only a formal matter, entry of default and default judgment may be simultaneous, and by a single instrument. Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 1962-NMSC-089, 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797. III. Complaint is defining sufficiently for a claim of action in which relief can be granted. Default of the Complaint is legally valid and Plaintiff Motions the Court for a Default Judgment to grant Judgment of all counts and in all stated amounts in the original Complaint to Plaintiff David Derringer against all above names Defendants. Plaintiff has filed exhibits sustaining the facts, declaration of facts in the Complaint unopposed by default and such fact are to be taken as the facts of the case and cited legal arguments are taken as the conclusions of law. First Nat’l Bank v. George 26 NM 46, 189 P. 240 (1920); Enfield v. Stewart 24 NM 472, 174 P. 428 (1918). Default should be awarded by the Court in all specific amounts requested. Plaintiff requests a Default Judgment against all parties named above with entry of default and default judgment may be simultaneous.  Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962). It is a general rule that an owner of chattel property is competent to testify as to the value of his property. Lewis v. Lewis 739 P.2d 974 (1987)

106 N.M. 105 ; Lahr v. Lahr, 82 NM 223, 478 P. Entry of default and default judgment may be simultaneous, and by a single instrument, since entry of default is only a formal matter. Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 1962-NMSC-089, 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962). Judgment by default does not involve merits of case; it is based solely upon fact that, whatever case the party had, he did not appear at the proper time to present it. Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Default as protection from unresponsive party. - Default judgment must normally be viewed as available when adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party, in which instance diligent party must be protected lest he be faced with interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights; furthermore, possibility of default is a deterrent to those parties who choose delay as part of their litigative strategy. Gallegos v. Franklin, 1976-NMCA-019, 89 N.M. 118, 547 P.2d 1160, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 206, 549 P.2d 284. Judgment goes by default whenever between commencement of suit and its anticipated decision in court either of the parties omits or refuses to pursue, in the regular method, ordinary measures of prosecution or defense. Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82N.M. 355.

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE REPLEVIN OF ALL 500+ STOLEN DERRINGER ORIGINAL HORSES AND A RESTRAING ORDER AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

IMMEDIATE REPLEVIN OF ALL 500+ STOLEN DERRINGER ORIGINAL HORSES IS MANDATED. All Defendants are culpable for the larceny/conversion of now 500+ horses and need a severe permanent restraining Order at the court’s discretion to stop the instant larceny and forever bar each Defendant from touching, herding, confining any Derringer animal, stay at least 100 yards from any Derringer animal and from Derringer, friends of family and never harass, block or do any criminal acts or domestic terrorism against Derringer.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST CORRUPT COMMUNIST JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD IS A PROVEN TRAITOR AGAINT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AIDING, ABETTING AND FACILITATING LARCENY OF DERRINGER HORSES, DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION FOR THE INVADING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL IN A COUP AGAINT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO DEFEAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III

Judge Shepherd has transferred her loyalty from the United States in a perjury of Oath to protect the Constitution and to rule under Canon 3 (B)(2): “A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.”, to a Democrat loyalty poised to destroy America by facilitation of the invading Sinaloa Cartel wreaking havoc and releasing the dogs of war against the citizens of New Mexico, realizing that Derringer needs to be terrorized and a life ruined to force oppression and tyranny against all citizens that expose the public corruption or stand against the destruction of the rule of law. In this matter, not only did Judge Shepherd corrupt the Court record in felonies to cover-up the Sinaloa Cartel, but denied the Plaintiff a hearing in obstruction of justice to keep and conceal further damaging information and exposure that would take place in a hearing wherein the Plaintiff would have “opportunity to be heard” in mandated due process and equal protection. Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive party of due process of law.” ; Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992 First Amendment, equal protection and due process clauses of Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of Federal Constitution afford protection to those who serve government as well as those who are served by them,.. for all citizens injured by abridgement of those protections.; 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). Judge Shepherd has betrayed the trust embodied in a judicial position, and instead acts by way of debased betrayal of the power invested in the position of judicial officer of the court, to undermine and do insurrection against the Article III, and more egregious when it involves the treason under the meaning of the 14th Amendment Article 3 and criminal acts of 18 USC 2381 and 2383, working against America with invading Sinaloa Cartel enemies of the United States. Herring, 424 F.3d at 386. A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). The collusion with Defendants and violation of all rule of law is to do criminal acts knowingly against a citizen Plaintiff Derringer by using Judge Shepherd’s power as a weaponization of the Courts and readily assist the larceny of Derringer horses, gain Sinaloa Cartel bribes and likely a cut of the pie of the vast unjust enrichment of the illegal sales of Derringer horses in felonies of NMSA 30-16-11 selling known stolen property for more profit. 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.”. Clearly, Judge Shepherd is working in concert and cahoots with the Defendants and Sinaloa Cartel, and with the collusion of the public corruption of the NMLB, and the RICO racketeering enterprises of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel as in this matter the RICO horse rustling of now 500+ Derringer horses by the NMLB from the Pajarito and Santalina and illegal felony sales of the animals for $ Millions in felonies of NMSA 30-16-11. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park Inc., Va. 1969 90 S. Ct. 400, 396 US 229, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 “Federal Court has power to fashion effective and equitable remedy for enforcement of this section (PRIVATE PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1982), and such remedy is available in state court if latter is empowered to grant relief generally.”;  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232, 241 (1974) “the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws for the protection of the public.” ; 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.” Because Judge Shepherd’s decisions and deprivation of law decisions are proven to be doing criminal acts of larceny, embezzlement, stolen property, concealment, illegal sales of stolen property, and multiple other felonies PER HORSE, and falsifying court records, it is appropriate the most severe punishment of sanctions without boundaries is needed to protect the integrity of the Court as designed by the Founders Article III of the US Constitution. Derringer asks permission to punish: sanctions without boundaries based upon mis-use of the Judge’s lack of integrity, criminal motives only enabled by the mis-use of power in judicial robes.  Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172 “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. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.”  The horrendous mis-use of power herein is to betray the position entrusted and reposed in the Judge and the duty of an officer of the court. Based on Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico, 2013-NMCA-105,  2, 311 P.3d 1236, Plaintiff-Derringer seeks “justice” for this court to sanction Judge Shepherd for an amount of $100,000.00, payable to victim Plaintiff David Derringer wherein this case is both doing acts involving both deprivation of all due process and equal protection and based on subversion and treason in protection of felons and the underlying RICO racketeering of the invading Sinaloa Cartel as the most egregious acts any corrupt Judge could perform. In Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico, the NM Ct. App. concluded that severe sanctions were necessary as “sufficiently significant in light of the misconduct at issue and the relative size and resources of the wrongdoers.” The most egregious act of a Court is betraying the trust reposed as an officer of the court certainly calls for the most severe sanctions. This Court has a duty and responsibility with the Court's inherent authority as “the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process”, so as to immediately grant the Plaintiff’s request for sanctions of $100,000.00 against Judge Denise Barela-Shepherd and removal from the bench, and further discretion of punishment as the Court deems just and proper. The court, has broad power to issue effective compensatory sanctions in order to deter any abuse of any Judge under Canon 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 in mis-use of power and promote accountability. NOTE: As there are severe criminal acts done by Judge Shepherd against the Plaintiff, including treason and RICO, this pleading is copied to the FBI, DOJ, DHS, PENTAGON, GUANTANAMO BAY AND MEDIA.

Respectfully submitted by ______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service 1-31-2024 I, David Derringer certify that I sent an original copy of the above pleading to the 2nd District Court at 400 Lomas NW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 and sent a copy to attorney John D’Amato PO Box 7888 Albuquerque New Mexico 87194