JUDGES O'CONNELL, WARD, SHEPHERD, ORTEGA, BRICKHOUSE ORDERING NO USE OF THE US COURT SYSTEM TO PROTECT RICO HORSE RUSTLING OF THE NMLB AND SINALOA CARTEL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

David Derringer,

                                                                                                            No. A-1-CA-41648

Plaintiff-Appellant,                                                                             Bernalillo County

CV-2022-03437

V.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, VALENCIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, (as an individual), KYM D. DAMZYN, MIER PEDRO, RAMON MANQUERO, DENNIS CHAVEZ, SW EVENT CENTER LLC, D.C. LIVESTOCK AUCTION, SOUTHWEST LIVESTOCK AUCTION, BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., and BENAVIDEZ RANCH,

Defendants-Appellees,  

PLAINTIFF-APPELANT’S MOTION MANDATING NEW JUDGE DESIGNATION UNDER TITLE 28 SECTION 455; DESIGNATION OF ORDER AND FILING OF PROVEN DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS OF ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR FILE PROPERLY UNDER RULE 60; DESIGNATION THAT PLAINTIFF DERRINGER CANNOT BE FORCED TO STAND BEFORE A PROVEN CORRUPT JUDGE ORTEGA THAT HAS BEEN DOCKET-STATED RECUSED ON AUGUST 23, 2022, YET ILLEGALLY CONTINUES TO PRESIDE OVER THE CASE, HAS DEFIED AND IGNORED SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RECUSE FOR CAUSE WITHOUT MANDATED HEARING BEFORE A SEPARATE JUDGE, DENIED AND IGNORED MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT, DENIED JURY AND EMBEZZLED THE PLAINTIFF’S JURY MONEY, IGNORED DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS CRIMINALLY FALSIFYING COURT RECORD, ILLEGALLY REPRESENTING  PRIVATE PARTIES BY EMBEZZLING TAX MONEY AS STATE-PAID ATTORNEYS WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATIONS OF RULE 16-804, FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS MAKING PLEADINGS FILED MUTE BY FRAUD ON THE COURT, INSTIGATING AN ASSASINATION ATTEMPTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WITH THEN FORCED DENIAL OF ALL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION; WHEREAS “REFUSAL” TO APPEAR BEFORE SUCH A BIASED, PREJUDICED AND TREASONOUS JUDGE PROVEN ASSISTING THE SINALOA CARTEL IN RICO ACTIONS WAS RATIONAL; SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST NAMED JUDGES INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH SINALOA CARTEL BRIBERY USING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PLAINTIFF DERRINGER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY SABOTAGE AND INSURRECTION TREASON

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Appellant with taking exception to the April 18, 2024 illegal, non-jurisdictional Order Containing Findings Following Evidentiary Hearing and Failure to Appear by Plaintiff David Derringer, illegally filed by the already recused on August 23, 2022, Judge Ortega. Plaintiff-Appellant has been illegally barred in criminal obstruction of justice 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505 and treason 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383 from filing any pleading now or in the future with the 2nd District Court, so the Plaintiff-Appellant properly brings these above Motions and additional Motion for Sanctions to the NM Ct. App. as both a superintending higher court, and of current jurisdiction of the issues involved. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.”

The United States Constitution Section 1 Article III has been entirely desecrated and defiled by the saturated infestation of NM Judicial corruption, making justice or judicial redress an impossibility in the seceded State of New Mexico now owned and controlled by the incessant bribery of $32 Millions of dollars per week of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. This original Plaintiff Derringer Case CV-2022-03437 was legally filed under 42 USC 1981, 1983 the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights of the Plaintiff under the United States Constitution and the NM Constitution upon a valid cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Owner Derringer was a visual material witness to the underlying RICO Sinaloa Cartel and involved New Mexico Livestock Board horse rustling, winning Defaulted suits, yet being illegally defeated by the already Sinaloa Cartel bribed Judge Mercer rigging the cases ignoring Defendants’ Default for protection of both the Sinaloa Cartel and NMLB and Darron “Shawn” Davis in the former cases of 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 -Derringer v. Davis & Derringer v. State of New Mexico ete al., This actually traces back to the formerly witnessed NMLB horse rustling involving Derringer v. State Due 133 N.M. 721 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) 2003 NMCA 73 68 P.3d 961; that set IPRA case law for New Mexico exposing the public corruption of the RICO horse rustling of the New Mexico Livestock Board. 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 was Judge Mercer providing protection of the NMLB/Sinaloa Cartel RICO by bribed Judge Mercer. This instant case on appeal of CV-2022-03437 is the systematic repercussions and explosions of extreme crime that stems from the total malicious discharge of duties under Oath of corrupt Judges of this instant NM Ct. App. with condoning underlying extreme 2nd District Court corruption. Underlying bribed corrupt Judge Victor Lopez protected the Defendant Benavidez Jr. larceny in 2014 (CV-2014-07755) of the 2 Derringer horses from the Santolina, that should, and would be legally defeated by the former Case law of this NM Ct. App. No. 12-8853. However, despite extreme violations of law, rules and Constitution by Judge Lopez, not only did this court ignore and refuse to act 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.”] but after Appeal of the CV-2014-07755 by Plaintiff Derringer, this Court has ignored and refused to rule in any manner on the now 10 year pending appeal that centers on the very prior Case law of this instant Court No. 12-8853 FENCE THEM OUT.  Accordingly, the corruption of this court simply opened the door of the RICO horse rusting operations on the Santolina by bribed protections, headed by Sinaloa Cartel Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr., New Mexico livestock Board and the political aspirations of the English Barclays Bank owner of the Santolina; directly involved in the Governor Grisham open border NM/Mexico aid and facilitation for the Invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. The ramifications of the RICO horse rustling Plaintiff Derringer horses stemmed directly from the Defendant Benavidez Jr. involvement with the corruption of the NMLB wherein after Defendant Benavidez Jr. perfected stealing 2 Derringer horses in 2014 with the protection of the NMLB and the NM Courts. Thereafter was a perfected RICO racketeering scheme that has been viable and accelerating ever since. With bribed protection of the Courts, there is no available redress. With the assistance and protection by both the Sinaloa Cartel RICO, the direct involvement and protection by the NMLB, then the NMSP, BCSO, VCSO and State of New Mexico, all had a meeting of the minds that exploitation of the then privately-owned Derringer several hundred horses on the legal open range of the Pajarito was simply a “waiting milk cow to be exploited”. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297. Hence, with all New Mexico reaping the larceny (NMSA 30-16-1) selling (NMSA 30-16-11) abuse of animals (NMSA 30-18-1(E)), and with NM closed to horse killing, the RICO operation sells directly to staged auctions for horse killers from Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and other states, with the NMLB state employees and Judges reaping millions on the murdering of Derringer’s precious ”trade-tools” working livestock, companions and treasured pets, now totaling over 756 + stolen horses since the original 2 in 2014 worth a values of $75,600,000.00 as “no little matter”. In CV-2022-03437 Derringer sued everyone directly involved, and designated corrupt Judge Ortega was defined to “rig” the case to entirely defeat Derringer to protect not only the Sinaloa Cartel bribery income, but protect the ongoing underground cocaine Judiciary use, pedophilia, and other extreme debased activities as well as the pocked money and extortion involved of RICO. Just the illegal sales of Derringer’s stolen personal property has been $Millions to all involved in the RICO with the NMLB taking advantage of the unobstructed opportunistic access to hundreds of horses to be available without contest by corrupt “officers” with use of NMLB felons with badges and guns, and Sinaloa Cartel with terrorism and guns, where single person owner David Derringer could not stop the RICO. 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.” Accordingly, the docket is very explanatory of every emergency motion of Derringer’s ignored by recused Judge Ortega, payment for a jury embezzled without trial, a recused Judge Ortega refusing to step down and ignoring Motion to Recuse without hearing.  But the most obvious corruption is the docket showing 9 of the Defendants being Sinaloa Cartel and domestic terrorist “mules” neither Answering the Complaint nor any entry, thus sustaining the concept that there was ex-parte judicial notice that Answer was not needed as the case will be “rigged” to defeat Derringer and protect all RICO involved. United States v. Grinnell Corp. 384 US 563-566 563, 583 applies to USC 28-455(a). Hence, the other Defendants were allowed to corrupt the record, illegally represent private parties, do extreme fraud on the court, with all Plaintiff’s disclosure of such ignored.  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. As this case is won by Plaintiff Derringer by Default, so as are the entire 18 matters [1] all revolving around the Sinaloa Cartel underlying motive and bribery of NM Judges. Sinaloa Cartel NM bribed and involved Judges now simply Order Plaintiff Derringer not to file pleadings, not to use the United States Court system, either now or at any time in the future. [Exhibits 1] This is emphasized with direct threats against Plaintiff Derringer that if Derringer answers any pleading, Derringer will be arrested for contempt, jailed and summarily assassinated as has been attempted now multiple times. U.S. v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S. Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 “with conspiracy to obstruct justice, one aspect of the conspiracy charged was a plan to murder a person who was providing information, so long as the evidence showed that the prospective murder victim was a source of the information.” NM Judges attempt to cover up the truth of NM public and judicial corruption disclosed by whistleblower Derringer pursuant to NMRA 1-090, by terming it “vexatious litigation”. U.S. v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590. The NM Judiciary simply acts in treason to take away all Derringer’s Constitutional rights for due process and equal protection to stop the exposure of corruption. US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239. To defeat and completely dismiss the entire case, recused Judge Ortega planned a hearing without trial after embezzling Derringer’s paid jury money, with the intent to simply dismiss the case on November 1, 2022. Plaintiff Derringer, before hearing, filed an interlocutory appeal with the NM Ct. App. revolving around the absolute fundamental error and jurisdictional defect of recused Judge Ortega with vast prejudicial effect, having no jurisdiction or judicial capacity. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). When Plaintiff Derringer filed the interlocutory appeal, recused Judge Ortega lost her “alleged” jurisdiction (already none by recusal) and could not hold the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2022. Plaintiff filed a Pleading stating the November 1, 2022 could not be held, and was ignored by recused Judge Ortega, who held the hearing illegally under multiple circumstances anyway, without the presence of the Plaintiff Derringer that had no obligation to attend the illegal hearing without any jurisdiction or judicial capacity. Holguin v. Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P.2d 88 (1977) Without the proper parties involved in the suit, the case has the defective inability to proceed and must be dismissed. In the illegal hearing, recused Judge Ortega proceeded to allow all Defaulted Defendants to present evidence, present witnesses, give testimony; all ex-parte without the Plaintiff and without any legality under rule of law. NMRA Rule 1-055 “A Default is the failure to Answer the Complaint, wherein the Defaulted party Defendant has no further rights to litigate the case or present any evidence”. Starnes v. Starnes, 1963-NMSC-081, 72 N.M. 142, 381 P.2d 423. Relief from default before pleading. - Party in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend action must apply to court for relief under this rule before he can plead in the cause. Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 1962-NMSC-089, 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797. Recused Judge Ortega also, without any jurisdiction could not allow the hearing without the Plaintiff, nor make any rulings without law or without the paid-for jury and certainly without any jurisdiction. The interlocutory Court of Appeals No. A-I-CA-40690. The illegal hearing of November 1, 2022 could not proceed at all, but did to rig the case with information to falsely dismiss and save all felon state employees and protect the Sinaloa Cartel.  Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgement, the trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step in regard to the motion to alter or amend judgement.” Court of Appeals No. A-I-CA-40690 was specifically told by Plaintiff-Appellant Derringer of the vast and monumental issues of fundamental error and jurisdictional defect, as “plain and obvious”, wherein the appeal court had even a duty sua-sponte to investigate the issues of fundamental error and jurisdictional defect, and instead, ignored the issues to rush to remand the case back to recused Judge Ortega to protect the Sinaloa Cartel and State of New Mexico in rigging a defeat against Derringer; illegal actions deliberately and maliciously in treason 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383. Varney  v. Taylor, 79 NM 652, 448 P.2d 164 (1968) “This appears to be the total effect of deciding a case in which jurisdiction is lacking but overlooked on appeal.” The proof that the NM Appeal Judges are Sinaloa Cartel bribed and accomplices to the vile acts of larceny and murder of Derringer horses and all attending RICO racketeering of the Sinaloa Cartel is founded in fact. On April 11, 2024, just after NMLB stole in ongoing larceny 8 more Derringer horses on April 9, 2024 [Exhibit 2] and blatantly E-mailed Derringer to taunt and terrorize Derringer that Gray stole horses that Derringer can’t stop, Plaintiff Derringer hand delivered 5 separate Motions to the NM Ct. App. In appeal cases CV-2022-03437, CV-2023-09203, CV-2023-09552, CV-2023-09874, and CV-2024-00261 (all on current appeal) as EXTREME EMERGENCY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CEASE AND DESIST; REPLEVIN; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST EACH DEFENDANTS AND COLLUSION OF CORRUPT JUDGES FACILITATING ALL DEFINED CRIMINAL ACTS. This was defining the RICO horse rustling of now 756 + Derringer horses stolen, illegally sold (valued at $75,600,000.00) and now murdered in satanic retribution, retaliation and revenge of the extreme public and judicial corruption Communist coup of the State of NM to terrorize the Plaintiff-Appellant to stop exposing the corruption by ruining the Plaintiff’s life for the personal gain of NM Judges and Democrat Communists intent on taking over America. Now, a month later, it is clear that the NM Ct. App. Judges (Plural) have no intention of stopping the domestic terrorism against Derringer, taking no action and ignoring all 5 motions, proving without doubt the collusion with the Sinaloa Cartel. The NM Ct. App. Judges are MANDATED [2] to stop criminal acts in their court, by definitely have not intention of stopping the attack on singled-out Derringer in blatant acts of treason. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. The again staged illegal hearing of April 16, 2024 was intended again to illegally allow standing to Defaulted Defendants [3] to gain a court record that would fraudulently substantiate false reasons to entirely dismiss Derringer’s Complaint CV-2022-03437, as absolutely illegal recused Judge Ortega acts in fraud on the court. [4] This proved already the direct sabotage of Article III and the NM Ct. App. Judges as accessories in direct collusion with the underlying Sinaloa Cartel, to all the RICO horse rustling larceny (NMSA 30-16-1), sales of stolen property (NMSA 30-16-11) and murdering Derringer’s horses in direct known sales to “horse killers” to be needlessly killed for meat as criminal animal abuse (NMSA 30-18-1(E) instead of the mandated return of known owner Derringer’s horses mandated under NMSA 29-1-2. As this is back in formal appeal. No. A-1-CA-41648, indisputable proof is that the NM Ct. App. Judges are acting in treason to force Derringer in front of a known recused corrupt Sinaloa Cartel bribed Judge Ortega to perfect and accomplish rigging the case for complete dismissal, while continuing to steal Derringer horses in Judicial and domestic terrorism with the Sinaloa Cartel. The intertwined matters of multiple cases all regarding the NM public and judicial corruption is what the judiciary attempts to stop disclosure to the voting public by depriving Derringer his rights or murde4ring Derringer as they are doing to Derringer’s horses. 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. The question would arise as the how much bribery money, minor slave illegal alien children for pedophiles, profits from illegally selling and murdering Derringer horses, cocaine, and other contraband is payment for treason against the United States of America. These matters are stemming from the acceleration of the vast NM judiciary direct and bribed involvement with the Sinaloa Cartel massive RICO racketeering operations in New Mexico that are incited, perpetuated and favored by the Administration and particularly the NM judiciary involved in the use of cocaine, illegal alien human and minor children slave trafficking for resident elite and judicial pedophiles, profits from Sinaloa Cartel protection bribery, personal profit of illegal sales of Plaintiff-Appellants’ personal property stolen horses. 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.”. All these acts are by collusion of the NMLB and the horse rustling operations on the Santolina, the fully automatic firearms purchases from the Sinaloa Cartel by the BCSO and the bribery induced NMAG (Raul Torres admitted taken bribery of $100,000.00 from international Communist George Soros) paid destruction of rule of law to incite domestic violence to sabotage America by directly allowing criminals to not be arrested, released wherein Derringer filed complaints of the criminal acts herein are ignored. Accordingly, CV-2022-03437 has been entirely won by Plaintiff Derringer for all counts and in all amount to be legally granted under by both Default of all Defendants and the fraud on the court of all defending pleading tendered in fraud and bad faith under NMRA Rule 11. Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. NOTE: These matters are before the United States Supreme Court wherein this and other pleadings are filed as Exhibitss.     [Exhibit 3]

MOTION TO REOUEST SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL PREVIOUS SANCTIONS; AGAINST EACH SEPARATELY AGAINST OF SINALOA CARTEL FACILITATORS STATE OF NEW MEXICO, BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, VALENCIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, DARRON “SHAWN” DAVIS, KYM D. DAMZYN, MIER PEDRO, RAMON MANQUERO, DENNIS CHAVEZ, SW EVENT CENTER LLC, D.C. LIVESTOCK AUCTION, SOUTHWEST LIVESTOCK AUCTION, BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., BENAVIDEZ RANCH, JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA, NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL RAUL TORREZ, BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF MANUEL GONZALEZ III, PRIVATE CITIZEN MANUEL GONZALEZ III, BARCLAYS BANK, WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS LLC, TED GARRETT, JUDGE O’CONNELL, JUDGE ORTEGA, JUDGE SHEPHERD, JUDGE TORRES, JUDGE WARD, ALL INVOLVED NM CT. APP. JUDGES ACTING IN TREASON AND ACCESSORIES WITH THE SINALOA CARTEL AGAINST 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 111

Plaintiff-Appellant properly brings this Motion for Sanctions to the NM Ct. App. as both a superintending higher court, and of current jurisdiction of the issues involved. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.” The Judges deny and ignore Derringer’s Motions for proper Default Judgments so as to rig the case against Derringer for defeat, wherein Derringer has exclusively won CV-2022-03437. The premise that fraud on the court and denial of Constitutional rights vitiates every illegal Order of this and the underlying Court. ("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). Accordingly, the fraud remand, the lower court without jurisdiction and fundamental error and the Default and fraud of any and all attending attorneys is mute and Default is mandated to be Ordered and filed for Plaintiff Derringer as to all Defendants in all counts and in all amounts including requested sanctions. Both this and the underlying court has done criminal acts taking all Plaintiff’s Constitution rights in treason and domestic and judicial terrorism in a radical attempt to not only rig the instant case for defeat, but attempt to take all Derringer’s Constitutional rights to future sue legally for redress by Ordering Derringer not to use the United States Courts. Derringer is currently threatened with jail of contempt, preventing the mandated instant additional suit against Defendant Justin Gray and Defendant Benavidez Jr. for the instant recent April 9th -10th , 2024 larceny, intimidation, obstruction of justice stealing an additional 5(8) known Derringer horses and notifying the victim Plaintiff Derringer by criminal harassment, terrorism of E-Mail. This instills an arrogant guarantee of protection not only for felon Defendant Justin Gray, but all Defendants and Sinaloa Cartel, knowing that Derringer can get no justice, arrest, prosecution, or accountability so that all Defendants can steal and terrorize Derringer with no escape; thus Derringer imprisoned by all Defendant criminals in terrorism and hate crimes in violation of the 13th Amendment.  Plaintiff Derringer is under a forced oppression and tyranny by all Defendants and involved Judges of this NM Ct. App..  Plaintiff Derringer is unlawfully prevented not to have any Constitutional due process and equal protection in violation of the 1st , 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to forfeit Derringer’s personal property horses that Derringer can legally protect under the 5th Amendment, “rights to sue” under 42 USC 1983, 1982 private property rights and case law. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Plaintiff-Appellant has tried all remedies, exhausting the agencies and authorities to stop the underlying RICO, and the grand larceny is increasing to extremes ongoing. 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. 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." , Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523. ; 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 foreign, judicial, and domestic terrorism taking place against targeted Derringer is due to the vast public corruption entangled in all suits before the courts. mis-use of power herein is to betray the position entrusted and reposed in the Judges’ and the duty of officers 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 against Each Separately of: State Of New Mexico, Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department, New Mexico Livestock Board, Valencia County Sheriff’s Department, New Mexico State Police, Francisco “Cisco” Lovato, sDarron “Shawn” Davis, Kym D. Damzyn, Mier Pedro, Ramon Manquero, Dennis Chavez, SW Event Center LLC, D.C. Livestock Auction, Southwest Livestock Auction, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, George Mendoza, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzalez III, Private Citizen Manuel Gonzalez III, Barclays Bank, Western Albuquerque Land Holdings LLC, Ted Garrett, Judge O’Connell, Judge Ortega, Judge Shepherd, Judge Torres, Judge Ward, and all bribed and involved Judges of the NM Court of Appeals for an amount of $100,000.00, payable to victim Plaintiff-Appellant 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 NM Ct. App. stated "the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process", so as to immediately grant the Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for sanctions of $100,000.00 against all above, as well as Judges O’Connell, Judge Ortega, Judge Shepherd, Judge Torres, Judge Ward, and all corrupt NM Ct. App. Judges to be removed 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 by any Judge under Canon Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(l). WHEREFORE All Defendants have teamed up in concert with corrupt judges to defeat the entire integrity of the US Constitution Section 1 Article III, using deprivation of rights, FRAUD ON THE COURT, violation of oath an usurpation of jurisdiction and power to destroy America as direct accessories to the RICO racketeering of the Sinaloa Cartel. The defined Judges are clearly intertwined with the protection of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in treason against America protecting both the domestic and foreign terrorists Defendants in these cases allowing RICO racketeering horse rustling, drug and human trafficking operations and other subversion taking place on the property known as the Santolina. The Judges refuse to Order and file simultaneously the legal Default and Summary Judgments as a way to block any redress, replevin, and justice for the Plaintiff, and deny deliberately all Petitions for injunctions so as to criminally keep the ability open for the ongoing horse rustling against Derringer and other involved hate crimes and terrorism. Default judgments against all Defendants in CV-2022-03437 is mandated under Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962).; Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297Respectfully submitted by _______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service       5-2-2024

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the NM Ct. Appeals. 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Impound Form on 5 David Derringer 4.10.docx

NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD

IMPOUNDMENT FORM

Date: April 10, 2024

Name: David Derringer

Address: Po Box 7431 Albuquerque, NM 87194

This is to inform you that New Mexico Livestock Inspector: Justin Gray

Has Impounded 5, head of horses that are not branded.

Description of livestock

1.      Gruella Mare with both hind socks.

2.      Gruella Colt with a small star.

3.      Sorrel Filly with a Blaze

4.      Sorrel Filly with a strip, snip, and both front socks

5.      Chestnut stud with a blaze, both front socks and a left hind sock.

Livestock were picked up at: Benavidez Corrals north of Grant Rd

Date Impounded: April 9, 2024

This is to notify you that you have 15 days to produce sufficient proof of ownership to the satisfaction of the board. If proof of ownership is not established in 15 days, the livestock will be sold as estrays.

Impoundment Fees: Pursuant to NMSA 77-2-29 J. a fee for the impoundment of trespass livestock pursuant to Section 77-14-36 NMSA 1978 in an amount not to exceed ten dollars ($10.00) per head per day and a reasonable charge for the moving of trespass livestock pursuant to Section 77-14-36 NMSA 1978 to be set by the board;

Inspection:            _____________________

Feed Bill:               $10 per head per day

Hauling:                $1.50 per loaded mile

Inspector’s Time: _____________________

Other:                    _____________________

Total__________________________

Justin Gray     Email: justin.gray@nmlb.nm.gov    Phone: 505.301.3391

_____________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit 3

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EXTREME EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, 2ND DISTRICT COURT, 7TH DISTRICT COURT, 13TH DISTRICT COURT, US DISTRICT COURT 10TH CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, JOHN D’ANTONIO, WAYNE CANON, MICKEY CHAPEL, JENNIFER CHAPEL, BENJAMIN CHAPEL, JOHN CHAPEL, DARRON “SHAWN” DAVIS, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA; REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND PROHIBITION AGAINST EACH HAVING ANY FUTURE CONTACT OR INTERFERENCE WITH ANY OF THE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER

In Re: DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Petitioner-Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194: (505) 227-7229

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition is under Rule 20, Rule 14, 33, 34, authorized by 28 USC 1651 (a), 2241, and 2254(a).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

l) As traitors were hung in the 1950's, is the United States now so corrupt that traitors go unpunished and unaccountable for violations of the 14th Amendment Section 3 and 18 USC 2381 and 2383 that the New Mexico State government, domestic American terrorists, and others in complicity and conspiracy can steal Derringer real property, steal over now 756 + horses in

a

[1] No. S-l-SC-39680, Court of Appeals No. A-I-CA-40690, 7th District Court: CV-94-10; CV-02-19, D-727-CV-2021-00028, 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 -Derringer v. Davis & Derringer v. State of New Mexico ete al., 2nd District Court: D-002-CV-2014-07755, CV-2022-03437, CV-2023-05227, CV-2023-07042, CV-2023-09203, CV-2023-09552, CV-2023-09874, CV-2024-00261, false criminal Complaints T-4-CR2023-002115 and T-4-CR-2023-003902

[2] 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.”

[3] When a defendant doesn’t respond promptly, the plaintiff can ask the court to enter a default judgment against the defendant. Unless the defendant has a legal basis for vacating that judgment, and seeks to vacate that judgment with the time set by court rules, the judgment will effectively close the door on any efforts to dispute the truth or accuracy of the complaint’s allegations. 

[4] "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

David Derringer,                                                                                

Plaintiff,                                                                                              Underlying

CV-2023-09203

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),

PLAINTIFF-APPELANT’S MOTION MANDATING NEW JUDGE DESIGNATION UNDER TITLE 28 SECTION 455; DESIGNATION OF ORDER AND FILING OF PROVEN DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS OF ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR FILE PROPERLY UNDER RULE 60; DESIGNATION THAT PLAINTIFF DERRINGER’S LEGAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CANNOT BE ENTIRELY STRICKEN TO HIDE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION OF FRAUD ON THE COURT; SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST JUDGE BRICKHOUSE AND ALL DEFENDANTS INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH SINALOA CARTEL BRIBERY USING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PLAINTIFF DERRINGER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY SABOTAGE AND INSURRECTION TREASON

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Appellant with taking exception to the April 18, 2024 illegal, non-jurisdictional Order Striking Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Filed on February 1, 2024, illegally filed by Judge Brickhouse wherein the entire matter is under prior appeal with the NM Ct. App. Rendering the illegal order without any jurisdiction of Judge Brickhouse, making the Judge doing FRAUD ON THE COURT and the illegal Order mute and unenforceable, mandating the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of February 1, 2024 [Exhibit 1] too be formerly re-instated in the court record for public scrutiny under auspices of IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act). Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgement, the trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step….to alter or amend…” Judge Brickhouse intentionally distorts and conceals damaging information from the Court record in order to both protect the Defendants and for the protection of the Sinaloa Cartel RICO activities underlying this entire matter of horse rustling the over 756 + known Derringer horses, as criminal acts by Judge Brickhouse of tampering with the court record as a felony as a fraud on the court false Order without jurisdiction to taint the court record in falsification of the Court record in felonies under NMSA 31-18-15 Whoever commits the crime of falsification of documents is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978. and federal felony under 18 USC 1519 “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States”. 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] Felon attorney Daniel Mackey, in fraud collusion with his false alleged “client” Justin Gray, as a total violation of NMRA 16-401 and 16-804 have engaged in a conspiracy with Judge Brickhouse to commit felonies of embezzlement of tax dollars to illegally represent  select private citizen Justin Gray sued by Plaintiff Derringer as an individual citizen. (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.”) Plaintiff Derringer, having exposed criminal acts of Daniel Mackey in the legal Motion for Reconsideration of February 1, 2024, Judge Brickhouse attempts to distort the court record in fraud on the court so as to allow criminal acts of attorney Mackey, and thus is herself complicit, mandating both disbarment of both attorney Daniel Mackey and Judge Brickhouse under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) by mandates of this NM Ct. App. This blatant felony by Judge Brickhouse mandates removal from the bench and criminal prosecution. In re C’De Baca, 109 N.M. 151, 782 P.2d 1348 (1989) “engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation,.. engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his/her fitness to practice law.”; Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." The motive here is to defend and defraud the court in deceit aimed at concealment that the felon attorney Daniel Mackey that is deliberately embezzling tax dollars to represent a private individual select citizen Justin Gray, and deliberately falsifies the court record to remove the legal proper heading “Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Benavidez Ranch Employee John Doe [Exhibit 1] [1], private New Mexico citizen Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment)” in fraud distortion to “BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., BENAVIDEZ RANCH, BENAVIDEZ RANCH EMPLOYEE JOHN DOE, JUSTIN GRAY,”; so as to do FRAUD ON THE COURT, [1] to distort the court record in attempt to validate a New Mexico state tax paid attorney illegally representing a select private individual.  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 is the multiple time that the Defendant Justin Gray in conspiracy with the invading Sinaloa Cartel other Defendants has used the felon attorney Daniel Mackey to distort the court record with full “knowledge” of the presiding Judge now intertwined in the conspiracy and treason under 18 USC 2381, 2383 for the Judge to now “knowingly” conspire [2] and work in collusion with Defendant Justin Gray and other Defendants to ignore duties under Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated;  Judge Ortega filed an illegal Order, having no jurisdiction due to prior appeal, in order to aid and abet the criminal larceny embezzlement of attorney Daniel Mackey illegally using stolen salary tax money to falsely represent select private parties. This is treason of Judge Brickhouse. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. Shucher v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202 rehearing denied, cert denied 109 S. Ct. 561, 488 US 995 102 L.Ed.2d 587 “Judge loses his absolute immunity from damage actions when he acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, or performs an act which is not judicial in nature.”; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) “A judge will be subject to liability when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Let alone the motive of criminal concealment for attorney Daniel Mackey, Judge Brickhouse knew and forced a felony upon the Plaintiff to destroy Plaintiff’s legal pleadings without jurisdiction. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. The United States Constitution Section 1 Article III has been entirely desecrated and defiled by the saturated infestation of NM Judicial corruption, making justice or judicial redress an impossibility in the seceded State of New Mexico now owned and controlled by the incessant bribery of $32 Millions of dollars per week of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel that is underlying this entire matter. This Court is mandated to take action against Judge Brickhouse and attorney Daniel Mackey. 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.”]. 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.” Plaintiff Derringer has a Constitutional right to fair and impartial Judges. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). NOTE: These matters are before the United States Supreme Court wherein this and other pleadings are filed as Exhibits.     [Exhibit 2]

MOTION TO REOUEST SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL PREVIOUS SANCTIONS; AGAINST JUDGE BRICKHOUSE ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY AND EACH ABOVE DEFENDANT SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY AGAINST BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA, IN A COUP AGAINT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO DEFEAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 111

Plaintiff-Appellant properly brings this Motion for Sanctions to the NM Ct. App. as both a superintending higher court, and of current jurisdiction of the issues involved. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.” Judge Brickhouse has deliberately done criminal acts without jurisdiction and is entirely liable without immunity. 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” Plaintiff Derringer correctly exposed that NM State-paid (tax dollars) attorney Daniel Mackey fraudulently attempts to represent a select private party citizen Justin Gray (who was sued as an individual citizen by Plaintiff Derringer) by embezzling tax dollars for attorney fees, and worse deliberately falsifies and changes the Court record heading to deceive the court into new wording to make it sound as though the attorney could legally represent Justin Gray; thus fraud on the court as well as criminal felonies both state and federal, as detailed above. This clearly vitiates every filing by attorney Daniel Mackey making absolute that all Defendants including Justin Gray are in Default mandating an Order from this Court to grant Plaintiff Derringer Default judgments as to all counts, in all Complaint amounts and to award all requested sanctions. As well beyond Judge Brickhouse being biased, prejudiced and simply absolutely corrupt, Judge Brickhouse seeks to protect all the Defendants by refusing to Order the mandated Default judgment, showing Judge Brickhouse undeniably bribed by the Sinaloa Cartel. Judge Brickhouse and then does criminal felonies herself to destroy the Court record as embroiled in the controversy to mis-use judicial power in obstruction of justice. Plaintiff Derringer had exposed the felonies in a legal Motion for Reconsideration of the illegal Judge Brickhouse Orders to dismiss and protect the Defendants, all Defaulted. Judge Brickhouse doesn’t want the Court record to prove the attorney being corrupt and using felonies to win a case, so without reasoning mandated, Judge Brickhouse simply Orders the legal Derringer Motion for Reconsideration destroyed, as multiple felonies of Judge Brickhouse to desecrate the entire judicial system Article III. This act of Judge Brickhouse involved protecting all Defaulted Defendants and the underlying invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, with all Defendants in RICO racketeering horse rustling now over 756 + Derringer horses valued at $75,600,000.00. ("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). Without doubt, Judge Brickhouse is simply a criminal felon sitting on the bench, mandated not only to be disbarred and criminally prosecuted, but this is treason under 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383 and deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights as criminal acts against Plaintiff Derringer. 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505. Sanctions are mandated to protect the integrity of the judiciary Article III with no immunity available for Judge Brickhouse [3] (Oldfield v. Benavidez, 867 p.2d 1167, 116 N.M. 785 “N.M. 1994 Qualified-immunity doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”) and liability of attorney Daniel Mackey and all complicit Defendants. Sanctions mandated are separately defined against each, as well as the mandate to Order Default Judgments against All Defendants, whereas fraud on the court mutes all Defendants pleadings. Simply put, Judge Brickhouse simply Ordered Court records destroyed to affect both all Defendants from the mandated Default Judgments, and protect all from IPRA and FOIA public records exposure of violent and criminal acts of falsifying and destruction of public court records so as to save the attorney reputation and avoid all going to federal prison for obstruction of justice. In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245 “Obstruction of justice statute is satisfied whenever a person with the intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings, takes action having the natural and probable effect of doing so.” As this involved also attorney Daniel Mackey, it is a conspiracy agreement between all Defendants to defeat the Plaintiff making all liable for sabotage and criminal acts to affect the succeeding of the felonies. 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. This Court under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) clearly has power under both criminal acts occurring in this court and power to disbar both Judge Brickhouse and attorney Daniel Mackey as well as sanctions against both herein. Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane Aetna Federal Insurance Co., 632 F. Supp. 418 “D. Del. 1986 District Court has power to supervise ethical activities of attorneys who practice before it and, if necessary, disqualify those whose conduct breaches norms established by bar.” Both this and the underlying court have done criminal acts taking all Plaintiff’s Constitution rights in treason and domestic and judicial terrorism in a radical attempt to not only rig the instant case for defeat, but attempt to take all Derringer’s Constitutional rights to future sue legally for redress by Ordering Derringer not to use the United States Courts. Derringer is currently threatened with jail of contempt, preventing the mandated instant additional suit against Defendant Justin Gray and Defendant Benavidez Jr. for the instant recent April 9th -10th , 2024 larceny, intimidation, obstruction of justice stealing an additional 5(8) known Derringer horses and notifying the victim Plaintiff Derringer by criminal harassment, terrorism of E-Mail. This instills an arrogant guarantee of protection from the felon Judge Brickhouse, not only for felon Defendant Justin Gray, but all Defendants and Sinaloa Cartel, knowing that Derringer can get no justice, arrest, prosecution, or accountability so that all Defendants can steal and terrorize Derringer with no escape; thus Derringer imprisoned by all Defendant criminals in terrorism and hate crimes in violation of the 13th Amendment.  Plaintiff Derringer is under a forced oppression and tyranny by all Defendants and involved Judges of this NM Ct. App..  Plaintiff Derringer is unlawfully prevented not to have any Constitutional due process and equal protection in violation of the 1st , 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to forfeit Derringer’s personal property horses that Derringer can legally protect under the 5th Amendment, “rights to sue” under 42 USC 1983, 1982 private property rights and case law. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Plaintiff-Appellant has tried all remedies, exhausting the agencies and authorities to stop the underlying RICO, and the grand larceny is increasing to extremes ongoing. 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. 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." , Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523. ; 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 foreign, judicial, and domestic terrorism taking place against targeted Derringer is due to the vast public corruption entangled in all suits before the courts. mis-use of power herein is to betray the position entrusted and reposed in the Judges’ and the duty of officers 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 against Each Separately of: Judge Brickhouse, attorney Daniel Mackey, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, George Mendoza, and Judge O’Connell, and Judge Ward, for illegally Ordering US Citizen David Derringer to be barred forever in the present and future from any use of the court system under Article III of the United States Constitution, in a sanction amount against each separately and distinctly for an amount of $100,000.00, payable to victim Plaintiff-Appellant 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 NM Ct. App. stated "the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process", so as to immediately grant the Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for sanctions of $100,000.00 against all above, as well as Judge Brickhouse to be removed 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 by any Judge under Canon Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(l). 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.”

WHEREFORE All Defendants have teamed up in concert with corrupt judges and attorneys to defeat the entire integrity of the US Constitution Section 1 Article III, using deprivation of rights, FRAUD ON THE COURT, ordered destruction of legal court records, violation of oath an usurpation of jurisdiction and power to destroy America as direct accessories to the RICO racketeering of the Sinaloa Cartel. Judge Brickhouse is clearly intertwined with the protection of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in treason against America protecting both the domestic and foreign terrorists Defendants in this case allowing RICO racketeering horse rustling, drug and human trafficking operations and other subversion taking place on the property known as the Santolina. Judge Brickhouse destroys the court record in felonies to cover  prior felonies of attorney Mackey and all Defendants, and refuses to Order and file simultaneously the legal Default and Summary Judgments as a way to block any redress, replevin, and justice for the Plaintiff, and deny deliberately all redress, where the entities of “justice”, “due process”, and “equal protection” do not reside in the State of New Mexico so as to criminally keep the ability open for the ongoing horse rustling against Derringer and other involved hate crimes and terrorism. Default judgments against all Defendants in CV-2022-03437 is mandated under Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962).; Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297; Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), “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.”

Respectfully submitted by _______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service       5-2-2024

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the NM Ct. Appeals. 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

Exhibit 1

ENDORSED

FILED IN MY OFFICE THIS

FEB 1 2024

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

CLERK DISTRICT COURT

BERNALILLO COUNTY

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CV-2023-09203

David Derringer,

Plaintiff,

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 M0T10N FOR RECONSIDERATION NMSA RULE 1060; 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 M0T10N 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  AND FEDERAL FELONY 18 USC 1506 , 241, 242 1503, 1505, 2381, 2383 AND FACILITATION, AIDING, ABETTING, PROTECTING THE SINALOA CARTEL IN TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE 14 TH AMENDMENT SECTION 3; BROUGHT UNDER NMRA RULE 1-060 FOR 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 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, UP TO 5 YEARS IN PRISON, PLUS HEFTY FINES.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; M0T10N 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 govemment 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 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 Plaintiffs 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 cotu•t 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 attomey 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 Plaintiffs 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 AND FEDERAL FELONY 18 USC 1506 encompassed in that

2 Fraud on the court should embrace that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court) (citation omitted); Kerwit Med. Prods. Inc. v. N. & H. Instruments Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir. 1980). The People ofthe state oflllinois

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.

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 [EÜib.iG] 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 Plaintiffs 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 inartfully expressed, must tell a story from which, looking to substance rather than 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 111. 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 I "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 l, 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 coun may judicially notice a' fact t hat is not subject to reasonable dispute because it(l) 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." 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 CV2014-07755 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,"

Respectfully submitted by: Pro Se

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 I st Amendment. 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 3016-1, 30-18-1, 30-16-11 and multiple felonies PER HORSE Derringer's  + 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 20 th 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. C) 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 Ill 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 Ill 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 [4] 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 plaintiffs pleading are assumed to be true, and the court may not dismiss the plaintiffs 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 ofNM tax dollarfee 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 14 th 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  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 3 RD 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., 1962NMSC-089, 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797. 111. 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. 1 18, 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.

REOUEST 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 111

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. 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(l)(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 Ill, and more egregious when it involves the treason under the meaning of the 14 th 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 l, 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 Ill 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 misuse 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 Plaintiffs 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)(l) 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

Certificate of Service 1-31-2024 1, 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

FILED 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

Bemalillo County 1/9/2024 9:42 AM

KATINA WATSON CLERK OF THE COURT

            STATE OF NEW MEXICO  Amanda Jimenez

COUNTY OF BERNALLLO

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DAVID DERRINGER,

Plaintiff,

D002-CV-2023-09552

BENJAIVffN BENAVIDEZ

Defendant,

ORDER DENYING ENERGENCY MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

A Verified Application for Restraining Order against Defendant was filed December 14, 2023. The Application for Restraining Order was DENIED on December 15, 2023, as it was not clear from the specific facts asserted in the Application that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the Plaintiff. (See Rule 1-066 (B) NMRA). Then on December 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Permanent Injunction (hereinafter "Motion") in the same matter naming the same Defendant and citing similar facts. This motion is also DENIED as the specific facts asserted in this Motion do not illustrate that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the Applicant. (See Rule 1-066 (B) NNfRA)

If Plaintiff fears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage may occur to  him, he is to call 9-1-1 for the Albuquerque Police Department or contact the Bernalillo

County Sheriff's Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit 2

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EXTREME EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, 2ND DISTRICT COURT, 7TH DISTRICT COURT, 13TH DISTRICT COURT, US DISTRICT COURT 10TH CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, JOHN D’ANTONIO, WAYNE CANON, MICKEY CHAPEL, JENNIFER CHAPEL, BENJAMIN CHAPEL, JOHN CHAPEL, DARRON “SHAWN” DAVIS, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA; REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND PROHIBITION AGAINST EACH HAVING ANY FUTURE CONTACT OR INTERFERENCE WITH ANY OF THE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER

In Re: DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Petitioner-Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194: (505) 227-7229

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition is under Rule 20, Rule 14, 33, 34, authorized by 28 USC 1651 (a), 2241, and 2254(a).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

l) As traitors were hung in the 1950's, is the United States now so corrupt that traitors go unpunished and unaccountable for violations of the 14th Amendment Section 3 and 18 USC 2381 and 2383 that the New Mexico State government, domestic American terrorists, and others in complicity and conspiracy can steal Derringer real property, steal over now 756 + horses in

a

[1] 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 faith is usually a question of fact.” This if fraud on the court. "fraud on the court" is a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant, but to "corrupt the judicial process" or "subvert the integrity of the court." Oxford 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); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994). It is marked by 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), or by "egregious misconduct directed to the court itself." Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

[2] 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.”

[3] 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.”; Vickrey v. Dunivan, “Judicial officers are not immune when they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”

[4] 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."

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Underlying

CV-2024-00261

David Derringer,

Plaintiff,

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzalez III, Private Citizen Manuel Gonzalez III,

Defendants,

PLAINTIFF-APPELANT’S MOTION MANDATING NEW JUDGE DESIGNATION UNDER TITLE 28 SECTION 455; DESIGNATION OF ORDER AND FILING OF PROVEN DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS OF ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR FILE PROPERLY UNDER RULE 60; DESIGNATION THAT PLAINTIFF DERRINGER CANNOT BE SINGLED-OUT IN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE 1ST, 4TH, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS AGAINST 42 USC 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 IN CRIMINAL ACTS OF 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505, 2381, 2382, 2383 IN TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY A COMMUNIST JUDGE O’CONNELL WORKING WELL OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY DENYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DOING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHT AGAING THE LEGAL PLAINTIFF DERRINGER FOR MOTIVES OF AIDING AND ABETTING THE INVADTING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL WITH USE OF SINALOA CARTEL BRIBES AND RICO RACKETEERING; SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST JUDGE O’CONNELL AND ALL DEFENDANTS INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH SINALOA CARTEL BRIBERY USING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PLAINTIFF DERRINGER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY SABOTAGE AND INSURRECTION TREASON

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Appellant with taking exception to the April 15, 2024 illegal, non-jurisdictional ORDER DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE, illegally filed by Judge O’Connell as thus a Communist traitor to the United States of America [1] in perjury of oath waging war against the US Constitution Article III, wherein the entire matter is under prior appeal with the NM Ct. App. Rendering the illegal order without any jurisdiction of Judge O’Connell, making the Judge doing FRAUD ON THE COURT and the illegal Order mute and unenforceable. [2] The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Judge O’onnell has already rendered multiple illegal obstruction of justice Orders against Derringer in treason deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights indicating a death threat against Derringer wherein threatening jail for contempt as a means to trap incarceration of Derringer to be assassinated by the Sinaloa Cartel or other paid O’Connell thug. Judge O’Connell has no possible jurisdiction to Order anything as the jurisdiction of this matter rests in the NM Court of Appeals over all matters. Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgement, the trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step….to alter or amend…” Judge O’Connell intentionally criminally attacks the Plaintiff Derringer as a violent Communist traitor seeking to protect all Defendants, attorneys of fraud, and the underlying Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel invading the United States, making Judge O’Connell a direct threat to the national security, mandating this court to notify the FBI, DOJ and US State Department as Judge O’Connell as a domestic terrorist to by placed on the terrorist watch list. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, (New Mexico) any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383, Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) The penalty for treason is death by hanging. Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. Judge O’Connell intentionally threatens the legal Plaintiff Derringer in ways directly insinuating that if Derringer continues to lawfully exercise Constitutional rights, Judge O’Connell will arrange for Derringer’s unlawful arrest and illegal imprisonment and arrange for Plaintiff Derringer to be assassinated directly as stated in U.S. v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S. Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 “with conspiracy to obstruct justice, one aspect of the conspiracy charged was a plan to murder a person who was providing information, so long as the evidence showed that the prospective murder victim was a source of the information.”; U.S. v. Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848 “Statute proscribing harassment (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1512) is not limited to conduct that actually dissuades testimony, and the success of an attempt to do so or the possibility thereof is irrelevant.” The illegal Order closing a case outside of Judge O’Connell’s jurisdiction for purposes of ignoring Default of all Defendants and promoting the ongoing RICO racketeering definitely shows Judge Brickhouse and all Defendants, also involved as violent insurrectionists as a death threat and national terrorist group that has formed a conspiracy not only to kill and destroy Derringer, but to overthrow the United States of America by violence. It is already shown and admitted that NMAG Raul Torrez took a $100,000.00 bribe from international Communist George Soros to sabotage and wage war on the United States, and admitted that Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III purchases fully automatic firearm guns from the Sinaloa Cartel in criminal acts of ATF 922. Judge O’Connell deliberately in criminal felonies again falsifies the court record in this illegal Order willfully deleting the Defendant Manuel Gonzalez III as a private citizen so as to protect him in fraud. This is a criminal act of Judge O’Connell under this false Order heading due to criminal falsification of the Court record in felonies under NMSA 31-18-15 Whoever commits the crime of falsification of documents is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978. and federal felony under 18 USC 1519 “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States”.  This Order as well as Judge O’Connell’s vast illegal Orders against Derringer’s Constitutional rights are a lethal threat to all Americans under the very meaning of 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505, 2381, 2382, 2383. Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against rights  “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”. Title 18 Section 242-Deprivation of rights under color of law. Title 18 Section 242 provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..” It is well documented and sustained that the underlying matter involved direct collusion of NM State Judges and many other state employees and actors of state employee ie. NMLB, NMSP, BCSO, VCSO, NMAG and others are directly being bribed and involved in RICO racketeering activities of drug and human trafficking, slave trades and pedophilia based upon the capture and sexual torture of illegal alien minor children, illegal BCSO possession and sales of fully automatic firearms purchased directly from the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in violation of ATF 922 and other RICO activities, many of which are personally witnessed by the Plaintiff Derringer as a material witness, including, but not limited to the horrible RICO horse rustling of now 756 + Derringer horses stolen in grand larceny (NMSA 30-16-1) by the NMLB, particularly state employees Daron “Shawn” Davis, Francisco “Cisco” Lovato, Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, and George Mendoza, who then conceal, sell the stolen horses (NMSA 30-16-11) directly to horse killers by way of illegal auctions in Dixon, NM to purposefully be murdering the Derringer horses for meat in criminal abuse of animals under NMSA 30-18-1(E) instead of the mandated return to known owner David Derringer under NMSA 29-1-2; all criminal acts facilitated by the instant Defendants. This is a raging criminal conspiracy involving many bribed Judges including Judge O’Connell by Sinaloa Cartel blood drug monies. It is clearly seen, as Derringer continues to litigate in defense of his stolen animals and literally in defense of his own life against these criminal public corruption coup cabal, the violence increases and the attempts to murder Plaintiff Derringer are severe. The violence and threats instilled in this attack against Plaintiff Derringer’s Constitutional rights is only a fraction of the wrath and ongoing devastation that the conspiracy has planned.  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.”; 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.” Plaintiff Derringer, having exposed criminal acts of Judge Shepherd, Judge O’Connell, Judge Brickhouse, Judge Ward and others instigated the attack from Judge O’Connell both to deprive Derringer’s use of US Courts, and then to illegally contend to Order the instant suit dismised with prejudice in this instant matter, with both knowledge of Judge O’Connell that she had no jurisdiction to file anything since the jurisdiction is in the NM Ct. App. but also “with knowledge” that depriving Constitutional rights and inciting insurrection and treason are the highest of crimes in the United States with a penalty of death by hanging, wherein all Defendants herein are also involved. 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.” This Court is mandated to take instant action against these death threats against Derringer and indeed threats against every American and desecration against Article III, under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) by mandates of this NM Ct. App. This blatant felony by Judge O’Connell mandates removal from the bench and criminal prosecution. In re C’De Baca, 109 N.M. 151, 782 P.2d 1348 (1989) “engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation,.. engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his/her fitness to practice law.”; Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." The motive here is to defend the Sinaloa Cartel invasion of the United States and all their RICO racketeering of larceny of 756 + Derringer horses worth $75,600,000.00 and other acts of foreign and domestic terrorism. 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.” With full “knowledge” of the presiding Judge O’Connell now intertwined in the conspiracy and treason under 18 USC 2381, 2383 for the Judge to now “knowingly” conspire [3] and work in collusion with Defendants, this NM Ct. App. is mandated to take immediate actions under duties Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated;  Clearly, the vicious treason Illegal Order of dismissal by Judge O’Connell is void and of no effect and is not valid in sedition as well as jurisdictional defect, [4] and Judge O’Connell is both liable for sanctions and mandated to be prosecuted, and O’Connell is disqualified as a Judge absolutely. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").  If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) “A judge will be subject to liability when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 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.”]. 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.” Plaintiff Derringer has a Constitutional right to fair and impartial Judges. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). NOTE: These matters are before the United States Supreme Court wherein this and other pleadings are filed as Exhibits.     [Exhibit 1]

MOTION TO REOUEST SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL PREVIOUS SANCTIONS; AGAINST JUDGE O’CONNELL AND EACH ABOVE DEFENDANTS NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL RAUL TORREZ, BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF MANUEL GONZALEZ III, AND PRIVATE CITIZEN MANUEL GONZALEZ III (ON ORIGINAL COMPLAINT)  SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY IN A COUP AGAINT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO DEFEAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 111

Plaintiff-Appellant properly brings this Motion for Sanctions to the NM Ct. App. as both a superintending higher court, and of current jurisdiction of the issues involved. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.” Judge O’Connell has deliberately done criminal acts without jurisdiction and is entirely liable without immunity. 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” Plaintiff Derringer correctly exposed public and judicial corruption in legal 1st Amendment rights of truth under NMRA Rule 1-090 and under the Whistleblowing Act of federal law 1989. Judge O’Connell is beyond being biased, prejudiced and simply absolutely corrupt, Judge O’Connell seeks to protect all the Defendants by refusing to Order the mandated Default judgment, and attacks Derringer’s rights to due process and equal protection with real death threats, illegal dismissal of the valid suit cause of action wherein all Defendants DEFAULTED showing Judge O’Connell undeniably bribed by the Sinaloa Cartel. US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by Constitution or laws of United States incorporates prohibition of involuntary servitude contained in Thirteenth Amendment.” ; 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.”; US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.” Plaintiff Derringer had exposed many felonies in the original Complaint not Answered in Default wherein the illegal Judge O’Connell Orders to dismiss and protect the Defendants, all Defaulted. Judge O’Connell doesn’t want the Court record to prove the criminal acts involving many Judges with the RICO of the Sinaloa Cartel, hence this attack now against all Constitutional rights, with this act of Judge O’Connell involved protecting all Defaulted Defendants and the underlying invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, with all Defendants in RICO racketeering horse rustling now over 756 + Derringer horses valued at $75,600,000.00. ("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). Without doubt, Judge O’Connell is simply a criminal felon sitting on the bench, mandated not only to be disbarred and criminally prosecuted, but this is treason under 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383 and deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights as criminal acts against Plaintiff Derringer. 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505. Sanctions are mandated to protect the integrity of the judiciary Article III with no immunity available for Judge O’Connell [5] (Oldfield v. Benavidez, 867 p.2d 1167, 116 N.M. 785 “N.M. 1994 Qualified-immunity doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”) and all complicit Defendants. Sanctions mandated are separately defined against each, as well as the mandate to Order Default Judgments against All Defendants, whereas fraud on the court mutes all Defendants lack of any standing by no Answer in DEFAULT. Simply put, Judge O’Connell simply Ordered the case dismissed to affect both all Defendants from the mandated Default Judgments, and protect her bribery from the Sinaloa Cartel paying her for their protection involving many state officials and private domestic terrorist as Defendant citizen Manuel Gonzalez III to avoid all going to federal prison for obstruction of justice and RICO. In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245 “Obstruction of justice statute is satisfied whenever a person with the intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings, takes action having the natural and probable effect of doing so.” This is a conspiracy agreement between all Defendants to defeat the Plaintiff making all liable for sabotage and criminal acts to affect the succeeding of the felonies. This Court under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) clearly has power under both criminal acts occurring in this court and power to disbar Judge O’Connell as well as sanctions herein. Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane Aetna Federal Insurance Co., 632 F. Supp. 418 “D. Del. 1986 District Court has power to supervise ethical activities of attorneys who practice before it and, if necessary, disqualify those whose conduct breaches norms established by bar.” A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). Both this and the underlying court have done criminal acts taking all Plaintiff’s Constitution rights in treason and domestic and judicial terrorism in a radical attempt to not only rig the instant case for defeat, but attempt to take all Derringer’s Constitutional rights to future sue legally for redress by Ordering Derringer not to use the United State Courts. Derringer is currently threatened with jail of contempt, preventing the mandated instant additional suit against Defendant Justin Gray and Defendant Benavidez Jr. for the instant recent April 9th -10th , 2024 larceny, intimidation, obstruction of justice stealing an additional 5(8) known Derringer horses and notifying the victim Plaintiff Derringer by criminal harassment, terrorism of E-Mail. This instills an arrogant guarantee of protection from the felon Judge O’Connell, with all Defendants and Sinaloa Cartel, knowing that Derringer can get no justice, arrest, prosecution, or accountability so that all Defendants can steal and terrorize Derringer with no escape; thus Derringer imprisoned by all Defendant criminals in terrorism and hate crimes in violation of the 13th Amendment.  Plaintiff Derringer is under a forced oppression and tyranny by all Defendants and involved Judges of this NM Ct. App..  Plaintiff Derringer is unlawfully prevented not to have any Constitutional due process and equal protection in violation of the 1st , 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to forfeit Derringer’s personal property horses that Derringer can legally protect under the 5th Amendment, “rights to sue” under 42 USC 1983, 1982 private property rights and case law. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Plaintiff-Appellant has tried all remedies, exhausting the agencies and authorities to stop the underlying RICO, and the grand larceny is increasing to extremes ongoing. 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. 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." , Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523. ; 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 foreign, judicial, and domestic terrorism taking place against targeted Derringer is due to the vast public corruption entangled in all suits before the courts. mis-use of power herein is to betray the position entrusted and reposed in the Judges’ and the duty of officers 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 against Each Separately of: Defendants New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzalez III, And Private Citizen Manuel Gonzalez III (On Original Complaint)   Judge O’Connell, and Judge Ward, for illegally Ordering US Citizen David Derringer to be barred forever in the present and future from any use of the court system under Article III of the United States Constitution, in a sanction amount against each separately and distinctly for an amount of $100,000.00, payable to victim Plaintiff-Appellant 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 NM Ct. App. stated "the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process", so as to immediately grant the Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for sanctions of $100,000.00 against all above, as well as Judge O’Connell and Judge Ward to be removed 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 by any Judge under Canon Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(l). 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.”

WHEREFORE All Defendants have teamed up in concert with corrupt judges and attorneys to defeat the entire integrity of the US Constitution Section 1 Article III, using deprivation of rights, FRAUD ON THE COURT, ordered destruction of legal court records, violation of oath an usurpation of jurisdiction and power to destroy America as direct accessories to the RICO racketeering of the Sinaloa Cartel. Judge O’Connell is clearly intertwined with the protection of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in treason against America protecting both the domestic and foreign terrorists Defendants in this case allowing RICO racketeering horse rustling, drug and human trafficking operations and other subversion taking place on the property known as the Santolina. Judge O’Connell refuses to Order and file simultaneously the legal Default as a way to block any redress, replevin, and justice for the Plaintiff, and deny deliberately all redress, where the entities of “justice”, “due process”, and “equal protection” do not reside in the State of New Mexico so as to criminally keep the ability open for the ongoing horse rustling against Derringer and other involved hate crimes and terrorism. Default judgments against all Defendants in CV-2022-03437 is mandated under Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962).; Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297; Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), “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.”

Respectfully submitted by _______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service       5-2-2024

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the NM Ct. Appeals. 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

Exhibit 1

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EXTREME EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, 2ND DISTRICT COURT, 7TH DISTRICT COURT, 13TH DISTRICT COURT, US DISTRICT COURT 10TH CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, JOHN D’ANTONIO, WAYNE CANON, MICKEY CHAPEL, JENNIFER CHAPEL, BENJAMIN CHAPEL, JOHN CHAPEL, DARRON “SHAWN” DAVIS, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA; REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND PROHIBITION AGAINST EACH HAVING ANY FUTURE CONTACT OR INTERFERENCE WITH ANY OF THE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER

In Re: DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Petitioner-Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194: (505) 227-7229

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition is under Rule 20, Rule 14, 33, 34, authorized by 28 USC 1651 (a), 2241, and 2254(a).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

l) As traitors were hung in the 1950's, is the United States now so corrupt that traitors go unpunished and unaccountable for violations of the 14th Amendment Section 3 and 18 USC 2381 and 2383 that the New Mexico State government, domestic American terrorists, and others in complicity and conspiracy can steal Derringer real property, steal over now 756 + horses in

a

[1] Anderson v. U.S. U.S. W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 “Single conspiracy may have several purposes, but if one of them, whether primary or secondary, be violation of federal law, conspiracy is unlawful under federal law.”; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) “A judge will be subject to liability when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction”.

[2] Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. 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)

[3] 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.”

[4] Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934)

[5] 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.”; Vickrey v. Dunivan, “Judicial officers are not immune when they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

David Derringer,                                                                                

Plaintiff,                                                                                              Underlying

CV-2023-09203

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),

PLAINTIFF-APPELANT’S MOTION MANDATING NEW JUDGE DESIGNATION UNDER TITLE 28 SECTION 455; DESIGNATION OF ORDER AND FILING OF PROVEN DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS OF ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR FILE PROPERLY UNDER RULE 60; DESIGNATION THAT PLAINTIFF DERRINGER CANNOT BE SINGLED-OUT IN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE 1ST, 4TH, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS AGAINST 42 USC 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 IN CRIMINAL ACTS OF 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505, 2381, 2382, 2383 IN TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY A COMMUNIST JUDGE WORKING WELL OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY DESTROYING COURT RECORDS AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE INVADTING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL; SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST JUDGE BRICKHOUSE AND ALL DEFENDANTS INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH SINALOA CARTEL BRIBERY USING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PLAINTIFF DERRINGER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY SABOTAGE AND INSURRECTION TREASON

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Appellant with taking exception to the April 18, 2024 illegal, non-jurisdictional ORDER IMPOSNG FILING RESTRICTIONS, illegally filed by Judge Brickhouse as thus a Communist traitor to the United States of America in perjury of oath waging war against the US Constitution Article III, wherein the entire matter is under prior appeal with the NM Ct. App. Rendering the illegal order without any jurisdiction of Judge Brickhouse, making the Judge doing FRAUD ON THE COURT and the illegal Order mute and unenforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Judge Brickhouse has no possible jurisdiction to Order anything as the jurisdiction of this matter rests in the NM Court of Appeals over all matters. Meeker v. Walker 80 N.M. 280, 454 P.2d 762 (1969) “From and after the filing of the notice of appeal from a judgement, the trial court was without jurisdiction to take any further step….to alter or amend…” Judge Brickhouse intentionally criminally attacks the Plaintiff Derringer as a violent Communist traitor seeking to protect all Defendants, attorneys of fraud, and the underlying Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel invading the United States, making Judge Brickhouse a direct threat to the national security, mandating this court to notify the FBI, DOJ and US State Department as Judge Brickhouse as a domestic terrorist to by placed on the terrorist watch list. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for treason? Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. Judge Brickhouse intentionally threatens the legal Plaintiff Derringer in ways directly insinuating that if Derringer continues to lawfully exercise Constitutional rights, Judge Brickhouse will arrange for Derringer’s unlawful arrest and illegal imprisonment and arrange for Plaintiff Derringer to be assassinated directly as stated in U.S. v. Cuesta, C.A. 5 (Fla.) 1979 597 F.2d 903 cert denied 100 S. Ct. 451, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 cert denied 100 S.Ct. 452, 444 US 964, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 “with conspiracy to obstruct justice, one aspect of the conspiracy charged was a plan to murder a person who was providing information, so long as the evidence showed that the prospective murder victim was a source of the information.”; U.S. v. Wilson, C.A. 4 (W. Va.) 1986 796 F.2d 55, on remand 640 F. Supp. 238 cert denied 107 S. Ct. 896, 479 US 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848 “Statute proscribing harassment (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1512) is not limited to conduct that actually dissuades testimony, and the success of an attempt to do so or the possibility thereof is irrelevant.” The illegal Order Imposing Filing Restrictions definitely shows Judge Brickhouse and all Defendants, attorney Mackey, D’Amato also involved as violent insurrectionists as a death threat and national terrorist group that has formed a conspiracy not only to kill and destroy Derringer, but to overthrow the United States of America by violence. These “restrictions” are a lethal threat to all Americans under the very meaning of 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505, 2381, 2382, 2383.

Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against rights  “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”. Title 18 Section 242-Deprivation of rights under color of law. Title 18 Section 242 provides: Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..” It is well documented and sustained that the underlying matter involved direct collusion of NM State Judges and many other state employees and actors of state employee ie. NMLB, NMSP, BCSO, VCSO, NMAG and others are directly being bribed and involved in RICO racketeering activities of drug and human trafficking, slave trades and pedophilia based upon the capture and sexual torture of illegal alien minor children, illegal possession and sales of fully automatic firearms purchased directly from the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in violation of ATF 922 and other RICO activities, many of which are personally witnessed by the Plaintiff Derringer as a material witness, including, but not limited to the horrible RICO horse rustling of now 756 + Derringer horses stolen in grand larceny (NMSA 30-16-1) by the NMLB, particularly state employees Daron “Shawn” Davis, Francisco “Cisco” Lovato, Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, and George Mendoza, who then conceal, sell the stolen horses (NMSA 30-16-11) directly to horse killers by way of illegal auctions in Dixon, NM to purposefully be murdering the Derringer horses for meat in criminal abuse of animals under NMSA 30-18-1(E) instead of the mandated return to known owner David Derringer under NMSA 29-1-2. This is a raging criminal conspiracy involving many bribed Judges including Judge Brickhouse by Sinaloa Cartel blood drug monies. It is clearly seen, a Derringer continues to litigate in defense of his stolen animals and literally in defense of his own life against these criminal  public corruption coup cabal, the violence increases and the attempts to murder Plaintiff Derringer are severe. The violence and threats instilled in this attack against Plaintiff Derringer’s Constitutional rights is only a fraction of the wrath and ongoing devastation that the conspiracy has planned.  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.”; 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.” Plaintiff Derringer, having exposed criminal acts of Judge Shepherd, Judge O’Connell, Judge Brickhouse, Judge Ward and others instighated the attack from Judge Brickhouse in this instant matter, with both knowledge of Judge Brickhouse she had no jurisdiction to file anything since the jurisdiction is in the NM Ct. App. but also “with knowledge” that depriving Constitutional rights and inciting insurrection and treason are the highest of crimes in the United States with a penalty of death by hanging, wherein all Defendsaants herein are also involved. 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.” This Court is mandated to take instant action against these death threats against Derringer and indeed threats against every American and desecration against Article III, under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) by mandates of this NM Ct. App. This blatant felony by Judge Brickhouse mandates removal from the bench and criminal prosecution. In re C’De Baca, 109 N.M. 151, 782 P.2d 1348 (1989) “engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation,.. engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his/her fitness to practice law.”; Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." The motive here is to defend the Sinaloa Cartel invasion of the United States and all their RICO racketeering of larceny of 756 + Derringer horses worth $75,600,000.00 and other acts of foreign and domestic terrorism. 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.” With full “knowledge” of the presiding Judge Brickhouse now intertwined in the conspiracy and treason under 18 USC 2381, 2383 for the Judge to now “knowingly” conspire [1] and work in collusion with Defendants Justin Gray and other Defendants, this NM Ct. App. is mandated to take immediate actions under duties Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated;  Clearly, the vicious treason Illegal Order of Judge Brickhouse of Order Imposing Filing Restrictions is not valid in sedition as well as jurisdictional defect, and Judge Brickhouse is both liable for sanctions and mandated to be prosecuted, and Brickhouse is disqualified as a Judge absolutely. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

 If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) “A judge will be subject to liability when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 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.”]. 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.” Plaintiff Derringer has a Constitutional right to fair and impartial Judges. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). NOTE: These matters are before the United States Supreme Court wherein this and other pleadings are filed as Exhibits.     [Exhibit 1]

MOTION TO REOUEST SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL PREVIOUS SANCTIONS; AGAINST JUDGE BRICKHOUSE ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY ATTORNEY D’AMATO Jr., AND EACH ABOVE DEFENDANT SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY AGAINST BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA, IN A COUP AGAINT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO DEFEAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 111

Plaintiff-Appellant properly brings this Motion for Sanctions to the NM Ct. App. as both a superintending higher court, and of current jurisdiction of the issues involved. Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 524 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1974) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 88 N.M. 299, 540 p.2d 229 (1975) “Trial court loses jurisdiction when appeal taken. Although this rule applies to the district courts, the court of appeals correctly entertained this motion as the trial court could not have considered it, having lost jurisdiction by reason of the appeal.” Judge Brickhouse has deliberately done criminal acts without jurisdiction and is entirely liable without immunity. 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” Plaintiff Derringer correctly exposed public and judicial corruption in legal 1st Amendment rights of truth under NMRA Rule 1-090 and under the Whistleblowing Act of federal law 1989. Judge Brickhouse is beyond being biased, prejudiced and simply absolutely corrupt, Judge Brickhouse seeks to protect all the Defendants by refusing to Order the mandated Default judgment, and attacks Derringer’s rights to due process and equal protection with real death threats, showing Judge Brickhouse undeniably bribed by the Sinaloa Cartel. US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by Constitution or laws of United States incorporates prohibition of involuntary servitude contained in Thirteenth Amendment.” ; 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.”; US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitant of a state in free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under Constitution or laws of United States applied to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.” Plaintiff Derringer had exposed many felonies in a legal Motion for Reconsideration of the illegal Judge Brickhouse Orders to dismiss and protect the Defendants, all Defaulted. Judge Brickhouse doesn’t want the Court record to prove the criminal acts involving many Judges with the RICO of the Sinaloa Cartel, hence this attack now against all Constitutional rights, with this act of Judge Brickhouse involved protecting all Defaulted Defendants and the underlying invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, with all Defendants in RICO racketeering horse rustling now over 756 + Derringer horses valued at $75,600,000.00. ("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). Without doubt, Judge Brickhouse is simply a criminal felon sitting on the bench, mandated not only to be disbarred and criminally prosecuted, but this is treason under 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383 and deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights as criminal acts against Plaintiff Derringer. 18 USC 241, 242, 1503, 1505. Sanctions are mandated to protect the integrity of the judiciary Article III with no immunity available for Judge Brickhouse [2] (Oldfield v. Benavidez, 867 p.2d 1167, 116 N.M. 785 “N.M. 1994 Qualified-immunity doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”) and all complicit Defendants. Sanctions mandated are separately defined against each, as well as the mandate to Order Default Judgments against All Defendants, whereas fraud on the court mutes all Defendants pleadings. Simply put, Judge Brickhouse simply Ordered Court records destroyed to affect both all Defendants from the mandated Default Judgments, and protect all from IPRA and FOIA public records exposure of violent and criminal acts of falsifying and destruction of public court records so as to save the attorney reputation and avoid all going to federal prison for obstruction of justice. In re Sealed Case, 162 F.3d 670, 333 US App DC 245 “Obstruction of justice statute is satisfied whenever a person with the intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings, takes action having the natural and probable effect of doing so.” As this involved also attorney Daniel Mackey, it is a conspiracy agreement between all Defendants to defeat the Plaintiff making all liable for sabotage and criminal acts to affect the succeeding of the felonies. 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. This Court under Canon 3(D)(1)(2) clearly has power under both criminal acts occurring in this court and power to disbar both Judge Brickhouse and attorney Daniel Mackey as well as sanctions against both herein. Nemours Foundation v. Gilbane Aetna Federal Insurance Co., 632 F. Supp. 418 “D. Del. 1986 District Court has power to supervise ethical activities of attorneys who practice before it and, if necessary, disqualify those whose conduct breaches norms established by bar.” Both this and the underlying court have done criminal acts taking all Plaintiff’s Constitution rights in treason and domestic and judicial terrorism in a radical attempt to not only rig the instant case for defeat, but attempt to take all Derringer’s Constitutional rights to future sue legally for redress by Ordering Derringer not to use the United State Courts. Derringer is currently threatened with jail of contempt, preventing the mandated instant additional suit against Defendant Justin Gray and Defendant Benavidez Jr. for the instant recent April 9th -10th , 2024 larceny, intimidation, obstruction of justice stealing an additional 5(8) known Derringer horses and notifying the victim Plaintiff Derringer by criminal harassment, terrorism of E-Mail. This instills an arrogant guarantee of protection from the felon Judge Brickhouse, not only for felon Defendant Justin Gray, but all Defendants and Sinaloa Cartel, knowing that Derringer can get no justice, arrest, prosecution, or accountability so that all Defendants can steal and terrorize Derringer with no escape; thus Derringer imprisoned by all Defendant criminals in terrorism and hate crimes in violation of the 13th Amendment.  Plaintiff Derringer is under a forced oppression and tyranny by all Defendants and involved Judges of this NM Ct. App..  Plaintiff Derringer is unlawfully prevented not to have any Constitutional due process and equal protection in violation of the 1st , 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to forfeit Derringer’s personal property horses that Derringer can legally protect under the 5th Amendment, “rights to sue” under 42 USC 1983, 1982 private property rights and case law. Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Plaintiff-Appellant has tried all remedies, exhausting the agencies and authorities to stop the underlying RICO, and the grand larceny is increasing to extremes ongoing. 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. 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." , Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523. ; 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 foreign, judicial, and domestic terrorism taking place against targeted Derringer is due to the vast public corruption entangled in all suits before the courts. mis-use of power herein is to betray the position entrusted and reposed in the Judges’ and the duty of officers 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 against Each Separately of: Judge Brickhouse, attorney Daniel Mackey, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Justin Gray, Manuel Monte, George Mendoza, and Judge O’Connell, and Judge Ward, for illegally Ordering US Citizen David Derringer to be barred forever in the present and future from any use of the court system under Article III of the United States Constitution, in a sanction amount against each separately and distinctly for an amount of $100,000.00, payable to victim Plaintiff-Appellant 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 NM Ct. App. stated "the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process", so as to immediately grant the Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for sanctions of $100,000.00 against all above, as well as Judge Brickhouse to be removed 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 by any Judge under Canon Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(l). 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.”

WHEREFORE All Defendants have teamed up in concert with corrupt judges and attorneys to defeat the entire integrity of the US Constitution Section 1 Article III, using deprivation of rights, FRAUD ON THE COURT, ordered destruction of legal court records, violation of oath an usurpation of jurisdiction and power to destroy America as direct accessories to the RICO racketeering of the Sinaloa Cartel. Judge Brickhouse is clearly intertwined with the protection of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in treason against America protecting both the domestic and foreign terrorists Defendants in this case allowing RICO racketeering horse rustling, drug and human trafficking operations and other subversion taking place on the property known as the Santolina. Judge Brickhouse destroys the court record in felonies to cover  prior felonies of attorney Mackey and all Defendants, and refuses to Order and file simultaneously the legal Default and Summary Judgments as a way to block any redress, replevin, and justice for the Plaintiff, and deny deliberately all redress, where the entities of “justice”, “due process”, and “equal protection” do not reside in the State of New Mexico so as to criminally keep the ability open for the ongoing horse rustling against Derringer and other involved hate crimes and terrorism. Default judgments against all Defendants in CV-2022-03437 is mandated under Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962).; Schmider v. Sapir, 1971-NMSC-030, 82 N.M. 355, 482 P.2d 58. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297; Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), “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.”

Respectfully submitted by _______________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

Certificate of Service       5-2-2024

I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the NM Ct. Appeals. 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

Exhibit 1

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EXTREME EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, 2ND DISTRICT COURT, 7TH DISTRICT COURT, 13TH DISTRICT COURT, US DISTRICT COURT 10TH CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, JOHN D’ANTONIO, WAYNE CANON, MICKEY CHAPEL, JENNIFER CHAPEL, BENJAMIN CHAPEL, JOHN CHAPEL, DARRON “SHAWN” DAVIS, FRANCISCO “CISCO” LOVATO, JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, GEORGE MENDOZA; REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND PROHIBITION AGAINST EACH HAVING ANY FUTURE CONTACT OR INTERFERENCE WITH ANY OF THE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER

In Re: DAVID BRIAN DERRINGER,

Petitioner-Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194: (505) 227-7229

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition is under Rule 20, Rule 14, 33, 34, authorized by 28 USC 1651 (a), 2241, and 2254(a).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

l) As traitors were hung in the 1950's, is the United States now so corrupt that traitors go unpunished and unaccountable for violations of the 14th Amendment Section 3 and 18 USC 2381 and 2383 that the New Mexico State government, domestic American terrorists, and others in complicity and conspiracy can steal Derringer real property, steal over now 756 + horses in

a

[1] 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.”

[2] 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.”; Vickrey v. Dunivan, “Judicial officers are not immune when they act wholly in excess of their jurisdiction.”