CORRUPTION OF JUDGE SHEPHERD, SINALOA CARTEL, WITH NMLB

CV-2023-09203 David Derringer V. Citizens Justin Gray, Benavidez, Manuel Monte , George Me

Download CITIZENS JUSTIN GRAY, BENAVIDEZ, MANUEL MONTE , GEORGE ME • 556KB

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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR.’ MOTION TO DISSMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

AND FOR SANCTIONS: REQUEST FOR NMRA RULE 11 SANCTIONS; IMMEDIATE REPLEVIN OF NOW STOLEN 500+ DERRINGER HORSES WITH TORT REPARATIONS UNDER NMSA 42-8-1 WITH PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER; MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER NMRA RULE 1-055 AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., DEFENDANT JUSTIN GRAY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MENDOZA, AND DEFENDANT MANUEL MONTE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

WITHOUT BOUNDARIES

Plaintiff, David Derringer representing himself Pro-Se states his pleading and Motion as follows.

Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. represented in FRAUD ON THE COURT and criminal violations by attorney John D’Amato Jr.(mandating disbarment) comes to this court not only in criminal fraud of NMSA 30-16-6, but in deliberate mis-representation by malicious distortion of the court record, meant to disrupt the entire ability of the court to judge affectively and fairly by Defendant’s tampering with the court record for obvious deliberate reasons to protect not only the client Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr., but clearly to distort the record to also protect non-responsive Defendants in Default of Justin Gray, Manuel Monte and George Mendoza; wherein the entire Pleading DEFENDANT BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR.’ MOTION TO DISSMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS is vitiated fraud and mute for any response to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; hence making Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. in total Default of the Complaint. [1] Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . .Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) The distortion of court record as not at all inadvertent error, vitiates the entire pleading of the Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and mandates this court to notify authorities of criminal acts in this court, as well as under Canon 3(D)(2) pursuant to NMRA 16-804 disbar attorney John D’Amato Jr.. It is clear that Benjamin Benavidez Jr. realizes that the court already has photographs to prove as evidence all the allegations of the Complaint, filed with the Complaint, and decided to do malicious fraud and distortion of the court record to dupe the judge and make that Fraud on the court tailored to a fraud that does, or at least attempts to, "defile the court itself," perpetrated by officer of the court attorney D’Amato, so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases. Moore's Federal Practice 3d ¶ 60.21[4][a] (3d ed. 2003). This "fraud on the court" is a fraud designed not simply to cheat the opposing litigant Plaintiff Derringer, but to "corrupt the judicial process" or "subvert the integrity of the court." Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int'l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The Court can easily see the whole purpose of timely filing an “amended” complaint was to thus additional sue criminal felon George Mendoza who stole yet another 6 Derringer horses in December, 2023 right after Derringer had filed the law suit against Defendants Benavidez, Monte and Gray. As all Defendants are intertwined [2] with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in treason against America, all doing RICO racketeering acts of horse rustling, notably they are all co-conspirators and have constant direct contact with one another. The communal idea here was to distort the record to skew the court and protect all if this is rendered before any Judge that does not meticulous abide by all laws. 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 felons 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 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. [Exhibits 1] Hence, the obstruction of justice plan was 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   Stealing, altering, or falsifying court records or processes is a felony offense. The penalty for violating this law is pretty straightforward: if convicted on any count, you could face up to 5 years in prison, plus hefty fines. This mandates this Court to entirely dismiss the Defendant’s fraudulent leaving all Defendants in Default and also sanction and report to the proper authorites under mandates to take action of crimes in this court, to the “appropriate authority” not only now the crimes of RICO horse larceny, but also now tampering with court record felonies. Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated; 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.” All allegations of the complaint are undisputed and with the amended Complaint, there indeed is Defendant George Mendoza.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES SIMPLY AS A MATTER OF RECORD, NOT NECESSARILY DUE, TO FRAUD ON THE COURT VITIATING ALL OF THE DEFENDANT’S PLEADING

As S.O.P. of the attorney D’Amato, seeks incessantly to slander, defame the Plaintiff to dupe the Judge and skew the record to stop and make nonsense the TRUTH that the Defendants attempt to conceal, (that the filed photographs sustain entirely) and fraudulently ask the Court Judge to defile Oath and Constitution due process and equal protection against the Plaintiff that is a “whistleblower” of the TRUTH as mandated under NMRA 1-090. Instead of filing and answer to the Complaint, Defendants seek to use an "unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions," Dixon v. Commissioner, No. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The Defendants and fraud by unscrupulous attorney D’Amato Jr. seek to use false claims of Plaintiff’s legal due process in a weaponization against the Plaintiff to attempt to discredit and use "egregious misconduct directed to the court itself." Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). This diatribe of #1-43 expressly invites the Judge to not only defy Constitutional rights of due process and equal protection against the Plaintiff,  [3] but criminally request the Judge to reach outside the court record, without any jurisdiction or judicial capacity, in acts of known violations of Canon, the Code of Judicial Conduct and be totally liable for all such actions. 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.” ; Mann v. Conlin, 22 F.3d 100, 1994 Fed App. 122P cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 193, 513 US 870, 130 L.Ed2d 126 “Judge acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction and may be liable for money damages, when court of limited jurisdiction attempts to adjudicate case outside of its jurisdiction.”; 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”; Vickrey v. Dunivan, “Judicial officers are not immune when they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”; Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 “Judges are liable when they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction.” ; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779. ; Cameron v. Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 1994 Fed. App. 356P “Judicial immunity may be overcome in only two sets of circumstances: First, a Judge is not immune from liability for non-judicial actions; ie. Actions not taken in judicial capacity. And, two, Judge is not immune from actions through judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”; 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 even though judge may be immune from damages under Civil Rights statute Title 18 U.S.C. 242, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983". Asking a Judge to skew the case based on alleged other cases not of jurisdiction of this court, all of which are still ongoing, is directly acts of the Defendants sanctionable and acts of attorney D’Amato mandating disbarment under NMRA 16-804. In re Rickard, 93 N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248 (1979) “Unprofessional conduct involving dishonesty and fraud warrants disbarment.” The acts of Defendant Benavidez and attorney D’Amato Jr. are criminal obstruction of justice against the Plaintiff, the Judge, and subversion of the US Constitution Article III, meant to . 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 document presented in fraud of Defendant’s Motion is an explicit case of "injustices which are deemed sufficiently gross to demand sanctions and that extreme punishment "should be available to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice." Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944)).Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 47. Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891).

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER NMRA RULE 11

Defendant Benavidez Jr. and attorney D’Amato Jr. have direct knowledge that such a pleading in fraud is for “improper purposes”, meant to delay judgment, meant to skew the court and grossly and detrimentally influence the judge by distorting the Court record. NMRA 0-11 provides: The signature of (a)... party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper: that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay....For a willful violation of this rule (a)...party may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary or other action. In adopting an abuse of discretion standard for the review of an award of sanctions, the Supreme Court stated:“A court may exercise its discretion and impose sanctions for a willful violation of the rule when it finds, for example, that a pleading or other paper signed by an attorney is not well grounded in fact, is not warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for its extension, or is interposed for an improper purpose.”The primary goal of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court...Although the rule should be read in light of concerns that it will spawn satellite litigation and chill vigorous advocacy, an interpretation must give effect to the rules’s central purpose of deterrence. Id.; see also White v. General Motors Corp. 908 P.2d 675, 683 (10th Cir. 1990) (sanctions are intended to deter future litigation abuse, punish present litigations abuse, compensate victims of litigation abuse, and streamline court dockets and facilitate case management); Invest Fin. Group. Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc., 815 P.2d 391, 404 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987). Accordingly, Plaintiff requests sanctions against separately Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and attorney John D’Amato Jr. in the amount from each of $250,000.00, disbarment of attorney D’Amato and court costs and any and all other remedy or punishment as deemed appropriate by the Court. New York State National Org. for Women v. Terry, 732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990 Attorneys do not possess immunity from sanctions for their conduct in judicial proceedings so as to preclude imposition of Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to rules enabling act. Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USCA, 28 USCA 2072."

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

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.

PLAINTIFF’S 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, 82 N.M. 355.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST

BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR. AND SEPARATELY AGAINST ATTORNEY JOHN D’AMATO JR. WORKING IN TANDEM AGAINST ALL LAW AS  SUBVERSIVES TO DEFEAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III

Attorney D’Amato Jr. violates all provisions of NMRA 16-804 and acts by way of debased betrayal of the power invested in the position of 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 with his client Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr.. Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. do criminal acts knowingly against a citizen Plaintiff Derringer by using their power as a weaponization of the Courts. Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. are actually working in cahoots with the corrupt NMLB, and the RICO racketeering enterprises of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel as RICO activities and TO influence the judges to protect all state employees involved in the carnage and, 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 Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. are proven to be doing criminal acts 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 integrity of the courts and horrendous mis-use of power of felons Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. to betray the position entrusted in an attorney in cahoots in fraud with a client to betray with power 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 Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. for an amount of $100,000.00 each separately 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 attorney in fraud with his client 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 Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. betraying the trust reposed as an officer of the court certainly calls for the most severe sanctions and disbarment with remedy to recommend criminal prosecution. 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 Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and John D’Amato Jr. 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 attorney mis-use of power and promote accountability.

Respectfully submitted by ______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service 1-9-2024

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

EXHIBITS 1

[1] The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

[2] 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.”; 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.”

[3] 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.”