JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD TREASON AGAINST AMERICA LOYALTY TO SINALOA CARTEL BRIBES AND DEMOCRAT COMMUNIST COUP AGAINST AMERICA

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

Download CITIZENS JUSTIN GRAY, BENAVIDEZ, MANUEL MONTE , GEORGE ME • 580KB

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 “NOTICE” IN RESPONSE TO THE CORRUPTION OF FRAUDULENT, CRIMINAL, AND VIOLATIONS OF NMRA RULE 11 DEFENDANT BENAVIDEZ JR. AND ATTORNEY D’AMATO JR.’ “NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING” FILED 1-18-2024, WITH REQUEST FOR DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEY JOHN D’AMATO JR. UNDER CANON 3(D)(2) [1]; REQUEST FOR EXTREME SANCTIONS UNDER NMRA RULE 1-011 AGAINST SEPARATLY DEFENDANT BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR. AND ATTORNEY JOHN D’AMATO JR.; IMMEDIATE REPLEVIN OF KNOWN 500+ DERRINGER HORSES CONTINUALLY STOLEN BY THE DEFENDANTS CIRCUMSTANTIALLY PROVEN  IN FACILITATION BY SINALOA CARTEL BRIBED JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST JUDGE DENISE BARELA-SHEPHERD WORKING IN CONSPIRACY AND TREASON WITH THE INVADING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL AND ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, David Derringer representing himself Pro-Se states his pleading of Notice and requests as follows. [Exhibits] “attached” will prove, without doubt, that all Defendants are continually stealing in larceny, and multiple other crimes now over 500+ Derringer horses intertwined with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel RICO racketeering

all-Defendant’s admitted horse rustling ring, and other debased domestic terrorism and criminal enterprises. This is also associated with the Sinaloa Cartel’s providing cocaine [2], methylamphetamines, fentanyl, human trafficked minor illegal aliens (85,000 missing unaccompanied children) to pedophile NM Judges and elite politicians and attorneys, $ Millions in drug money bribes of NM Judges for protection of the Sinaloa Cartel debased enterprises, fully automatic weapons directly to the Bernalillo County Sheriff Department in criminal acts of 18 USC 922 in ATF violations of Class-3 weapons, extreme prostitution in Albuquerque and multiple other extreme attacks on the citizens of NM and throughout America.  The Plaintiff filed a law suit valid Complaint (with defining exhibits of proof at time of filing) in which relief can 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.” In this matter, circumstantially proven, “word” was given that the case would be “rigged” in favor of all Defendants by the obviously bribed Judge Denise Barela-Shepherd [3] so as to not only protect the Sinaloa Cartel “mule” Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. (constantly stealing the Derringer horses by baiting and herding them into the private lands of the Santolina), but also the private citizens Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, and George Mendoza felons, that steal in larceny the “already stolen” Derringer horses in captivity, and adversely conceal stolen property containment by Defendant Benavidez, then to illegally sell the stolen horses to the unsuspecting public with fraudulent and false bills of sale in additional felonies under NMSA 30-16-11, as they “moonlight” as NMLB Inspectors as notably corrupt felons as “officers”. [4] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 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.” As a corrupt response to the Complaint, attorney D’Amato Jr. colluded with his client Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. in malicious FRAUD under NMRA 16-401 and 16-804, [5] and filed a known false and conspiratory response on December 29, 2023, wherein asking the Judge to violate due process and equal protection against the Plaintiff in criminal acts against “rights to sue” and 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505, and “treason” under 2381, and 2383 facilitating the Sinaloa Cartel, as a way to defeat the Plaintiff and assist the corrupt Judge Shepherd to use as rigging the case. The illegal pleading was posing as a dispositive Motion: DEFENDANT BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR.’ MOTION TO DISSMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [6] WITH PREJUDICE, TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS. The malicious design of the illegal Motion was under decisions that were obviously made, that attorney D’Amato Jr. would “ride lead” to attack the Plaintiff with a pleading for “improper purposes” (Rule 11) but with the direct sabotage of corrupting the Court record to conceal the RICO involvement with the Sinaloa Cartel by tampering and corrupting the heading to not only delete that “Sinaloa Cartel” against all Defendants, [7] but to insulate the latest horse larceny of additionally sued Defendant George Mendoza added in the Plaintiff’s legal amended Complaint, by simply “removing” Defendant Mendoza from the heading. Obviously, corrupt-bribed Judge Shepherd had agreed that the private citizens Defendants Justin gray, Manuel Monte and George Mendoza had no need to Answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint, as law mandates, as they would be insulated by rigging the case against any claims of Default, (Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 1962-NMSC-089, 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797. III.) hence definitive proof of Judge Shepherd’s bribed conspiracy in the matter to protect not only all named Defendants, but exclusively to protect the invading Sinaloa Cartel RICO enterprises of horse rustling. [8] The Defendant Benavidez Jr. and attorney D’Amato Jr.’ illegal Pleading served many corrupt motives, as to deceive the Court, delay all proceedings, do criminal acts of distortion of court records to conceal damaging information of the collusion with the Sinaloa Cartel, but also to sabotage the public records acts of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act [federal]) and IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act [New Mexico]) so as to betray the public and hide the egregious acts of NM public corruption, particularly hindering the truth in 2024 before the Presidential election wherein making it easier to dupe the public that the Communist regime coup of the Democrats is only “conspiracy theory”, when the corruption of all Democrat NM Judges is absolutely real. NMRA Rule 1-090. The malicious and extensive FRAUD ON THE COURT and criminal violations by attorney John D’Amato Jr.(mandating disbarment) came 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 integrity of the Court to sabotage the entire premises of Constitution Article III, meant to defeat the ability of justice by a judge to make rulings affectively and fairly. “This species of fraud is which does, or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, and is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court. Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N. & H. Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir. 1980). The Defendant’s tampering with the court record was 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 is vitiated fraud and mute for any response to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; hence making that Pleading void, making Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. also in Default. 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.” Clearly, the additional Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s entire Complaint was to entirely hide the corruption and Sinaloa Cartel Judge Shepherd being bribed from the public record to conceal the damaging information because of the formerly stolen 2022 Presidential election, right before the upcoming second attempt to steal the 2024 Presidential election to confirm a Democratic Communist dictatorship overthrowing the Constitutional Republic of the United States. [9] The Plaintiff responded to the fraudulent Defendant’s illegal Motions timely on January 9, 2024 with the notices to the Court of the fraud on the court vitiating the entire false pleading. Plaintiff requested sanctions and Default judgements against all Defendants, and other requests, known of Court record by both Judge Shepherd and all Defendants, wherein also it was proven that Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. is in total Default of the Complaint. [10] 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 is not at all inadvertent error, and it 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 additionally 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 [11] 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 meticulously 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 also 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. Hence, the obstruction of justice plan was to distort the record heading to instead, 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). 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 mandated Judge Shepherd to entirely dismiss the Defendant’s fraudulent Pleading, leaving all Defendants in Default. Judge Shepherd had a duty under case law mandated to also sanction and report to the proper authorities 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 a Defendant George Mendoza. As both Judge Shepherd and all Defendants were “of knowledge” of the Plaintiff’s response of January 9, 2024, the next fraud on the court was to falsify the Court record with the latest January 18, 2024 “NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING” wherein perjury of the Defendant Benavidez Jr. accompanied by the fraud perjury of attorney D’Amato Jr. falsely claim that the Plaintiff did not respond to the fraud on the court Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr.’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [12] With Prejudice, To Strike Complaint And For Sanctions. Accordingly, with the proven collusion and corruption of Judge Shepherd “embroiled” in the Sinaloa Cartel bribery and acting as the adversary against the Plaintiff, the Judge will either destroy the Court record as “Striking the Complaint” to hide the entire matter, and certainly will not recuse as mandated under the circumstances. Purpura v. Purpura, 847 P.2d 314, 115 N.M.80 cert denied 847 P.2d 313, 115 N.M. 79 “N.M. Ct. of Appeals 1993 “If judge becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she is unable to make fair and objective decision, judge must recuse himself or herself. SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300 Subd. A(3) 21-400" Accordingly, both Judge Shepherd and all Defendants are doing collusion of all criminal acts as sanctions against both entities are mandated.  Plaintiff is a “whistleblower” of the TRUTH as mandated under NMRA 1-090. Defendants, Judge Shepherd, and attorney D’Amato Jr. deliberately conspire to defeat all rule of law as felons. All 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).; US v. Ellis WDSC 1942, 43 F.Supp. 321 “The provision of Title 18 Section 241 covering offense of conspiracy to injure citizens in exercise of civil rights was applicable to instances of conspiracy on part of both private individuals and public officials.”; 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. Clearly, attorney John D’Amato Jr. is mandated to be both disbarred and criminally prosecuted under under Canon 3(D)(2) [13]. In re Rickard, 93 N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248 (1979) “unprofessional conduct involving dishonesty and fraud warrants disbarment.” All Defendants and Judge Shepherd are acting in criminal corruption. 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.”

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER NMRA RULE 11

Defendant Benavidez Jr. and attorney D’Amato Jr. have direct knowledge that the most recent false pleading of Notice of Completion of Briefing is in fraud, is for “improper purposes”, meant to delay all Defendants in Default judgments, 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 $100,000.00, for this distinct illegal Pleading of Notice of Completion of Briefing as separate and distinct from any other requests for sanctions previously stated, and mandated 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."

2ND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REPLEVIN OF ALL 500+ STOLEN DERRINGER ORIGINAL HORSES AND A RESTRAING ORDER

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, AND LEGAL 2ND REQUEST FOR THE MANDATED DEFAULT JUDGMENTS UNDER NMRA RULE 1-055 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. All Defendants are in Default, with a Judge Shepherd in collusion protecting all from liability including, but not limited to the Judge’s protection of the underlying Sinaloa Cartel so the bribes, perks, cocaine and other debauchery continue to the State Judges and officials unimpeded. 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. Judge Shepherd is maliciously blocking Justice to protect the Sinaloa Cartel, allow Defendants to continue to steal more and more Derringer horses, facilitating the domestic terrorism against the Plaintiff, and make the availability of the use of the Courts under “rights to sue for redress” totally ineffective due to public corruption and the Communist coup to promote and accelerate the destruction of America by the invading Sinaloa Cartel. [14] All entities of this suit as Judge, attorney and Defendants are working “in concert” to defeat justice and use Judicial Terrorism against the Plaintiff. 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.

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 the Plaintiff 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.  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.

Respectfully submitted by ______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service 1-26-2024

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] Canon: “knowledge”, denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. SEE: sections Canon 2B, 3C(5), 3(D), 3(E)(1), and 5(A)(1) and (3).

[2] US v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089; Kunkel v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121 L.Ed.2d 340; Ruis v. US, 113 S. Ct. 985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d 137 “Government’s failure to be aware of and stop use and distribution of cocaine”.

[3] 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.”

[4] Hall v. Budagher, 76 N.M. 591, 417 P.2d 71 (1986) The Motion to dismiss a complaint should be granted only if it appears that upon no facts provable under the complaint could plaintiff recover or be entitled to relief.”

[5] Rule 16-401 - Truthfulness in statements to others: In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: A. make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; orB. fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client. Misrepresentation [1] A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Crime or Fraud by Client [3] Under Paragraph D of Rule 16-102 NMRA of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Paragraph B of this rule states a specific application of the principle set forth in Paragraph D of Rule 16-102 NMRA of the Rules of Professional Conduct and addresses the situation where a client's crime or fraud takes the form of a lie or misrepresentation. In extreme cases, a lawyer is deemed to have assisted the client's crime or fraud. In re Archuleta, 1996-NMSC-039, 122 N.M. 52, 920 P.2d 517.

[6] 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.”

[7] 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]

[8] 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.”

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.”

[9] Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802 “Evidence is sufficient to establish a conspiracy to cheat and defraud if the facts and circumstances pieced together and considered as a whole convince the judicial mind that the parties united in an understanding way to accomplish the fraudulent scheme.”

[10] 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).

[11] 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.”

[12] U.S. v. Austin, 614 F. Supp. 1208 “Conspiracy conviction may be sustained upon sufficient showing essential nature of plan and defendants’ connection with it.”

[13] Canon: “knowledge”, denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. SEE: sections Canon 2B, 3C(5), 3(D), 3(E)(1), and 5(A)(1) and (3).

[14] 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 for actions jointly taken, where state officials and private party act in concert in effecting particular deprivation of constitutional rights."