MANDATED RECUSAL JUDGE NINA SAFFIER PROTECTING JUSTIN GRAY HORSE THIEF AND MEXICAN SINALOA CARTEL

IN THE METROPOLITAN COURT

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

State of New Mexico Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902

V.

David Derringer

MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE N INA SAFFIER FOR CAUSE OF VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION, PERJURY OF OATH, VIOLATIONS OF NM STATUTES, CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN COLLUSION, COLLABORATION AND PROTECTION OF OFFICER JUSTIN GRAY AND THE INVADING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL, BIAS, PREJUDICE, VIOLATIONS OF CANON AND THE RULES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, ALL, INCLUDING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS

COMES NOW Defendant, David Derringer, represented by counsel Public Defender’s Office LOPD with Motion to Recuse Judge Nina Saffier for valid cause.

MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE NINA SAFFIER FOR CAUSE

Judicial notice sustains there exists many Civil law suits Derringer v. NMLB et al, filed well prior to the fist illegal fraud on April 20, 2023 NMLB of Officer Manuel Monte and co-conspirator Justin Gray weaponizing the criminal courts with false criminal complaint T-4-CR-2023-002115. This illegal act was explicitly designed to file false malicious prosecution of vast 11 false claims to facilitate the continued horse rustling of Sinaloa Cartel admitted horse rustler Benjamin Benavidez Jr.. T-4-CR-2023-002115 was filed in an effort to terrorize Derringer in extreme numbers of false Counts with the idea to force in extortion a plea to gain the start of a criminal record against Derringer with the hopes of enough illegal fraudulent Counts to possibly gain a felony conviction to imprison and assassinate Derringer in jail. With this attack action, there was also false arrest and false imprisonment before partners Monte and Gray obtained a later warrant. Upon Motion to Dismiss this attack of Complaint was withdrawn. This extortion and Malicious prosecution precipitated Derringer v. Officers Monte and Gray, and citizens Monte and Gray NMLB et al CV-2023-0527 along with their Sinaloa Cartel associate Benavidez, all embroiled in the horse larceny against Derringer’s personal property horses as hate crimes, domestic terrorism and racist actions. Derringer has won this litigation by Default and fraud on the court of all Defendants wherein obviously they were counting on the NM Judicial public corruption rigging the case to protect Defendants and the Cartel, wherein thus the Judge despite default of no answers “refuses” to Order Default Judgments to use public judicial corruption to protect both the state employees as criminals and the Sinaloa Cartel supplying the cocaine and minor children to the NM officials and Judges. T-4-CR-2023-002115 had been a new plan of terrorism to affect Derringer stopping his legal litigations in Civil Court as the accumulated evidence sustains any trial completion wins for Derringer. Accordingly, in direct retaliation, revenge and intimidation, (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 CV-2023-07042) Officer Justin Gray comes forth in violation of NMRA Rules 7-201, 7-506(A)(C)(D) in criminal furtherance of criminal acts under NMSA 30-39-1, penal code 118.1, and NMSA 30-27-1 with gross known fraud on the court to deceive the court under vast additional Count charges after 5 months in Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902. [1] Clearly, IF the vast additional Counts had occurred as alleged on the same day, those would have been in the Original Complaint T-4-CR-2023-002115 showing the prima facie evidence to sustain the fraud on the court, and the non-proven original INTENDT to deceive the Court, attempt in coercion and criminal extortion to both intimidate the Defendant so badly to force a plea to gain some conviction and to again attempt to force multiple misdemeanors into a felony to imprison Derringer of the ongoing goal of assassination. 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, The most provable mis-used statute was the additional (all counts are fraud) of NMSA 77-14-3 whereas “with Justin Gray’s explicit “knowledge” of the dividing fence line Pajarito being non-statutory compliant with NMSA 77-16-1 and 77-16-4 and the private lands alleged trespassed of the Santalina not being a legal herd district, defeated immediately the entire T-4-CR-2023-003902, and absolutely sustains the criminal acts of Justin Gray under NMSA 30-39-1, penal code 118.1, NMSA 30-27-1. All vast “additional” Counts were retroactively alleged at the same exact date of the original Complaint of April 20, 2023. On August 23, 2023 citizen Justin Gray posed as Officer Justin Gray again proven illegally under NMSA 77-14-3 PROHIBITED from claiming any trespass, Justin Gray personally stole in grand larceny NMSA 30-16-1; thirteen (actually 17 as4 mares are pregnant) of value $1,700,000.00. Derringer horses, were already stolen by Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez despite the Officer Gray’s mandate to arrest Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez under NMSA 29-1-1 and NMSA 77-9-22(F). Citizen Justin Gray, using extortion by tax payer NMLB trucks and trailers. Defendant Derringer was illegally, improperly arraigned of September 1st, 2023. On September 4th, 2023 Derringer filed suit for larceny of 17 Derringer horses of value $1.7 Million dollars as CV-2023-07042, which citizen Justin Gray has again failed and refused to Answer the Complaint, against counting on the public judicial corruption to save him as a “government employee”.

Prior to, and after the illegal improperly arraignment of September 1st, 2023 Motions to Dismiss T-4-CR-2023-003902 were filed for Defendant that sustained the mandate to dismiss the case based not only on the absolute violations of NMRA Rules 7-201, 7-506(A)(C)(D) in criminal furtherance of criminal acts under NMSA 30-39-1, penal code 118.1, and NMSA 30-27-1 with gross known fraud on the court to deceive the court, but clear writing of NMSA 77-14-3(A) PROHIBITING any claims to trespass which Justin Gray, poses as prosecuting Office and which Justin Gray as criminal felon in grand larceny under NMSA 30-16-1 stole $1.7 Million of 17 Derringer horses.

This matter is now assigned to Judge Nina Saffier, who has absolute “knowledge” of the violations of NMRA Rules 7-201, 7-506(A)(C)(D), has absolute knowledge of the Justin Gray criminal acts under NMSA 30-39-1, penal code 118.1, and NMSA 30-27-1, and has absolute knowledge of the grand larceny of citizen Justin Gray by NMSA 30-156-1 stealing $1.7 Million dollars of 17 Derringer horses on August 23, 2023 and then posting an extortion/ransom note by trespass to Derringer front door residence wherein such Notice was not posted to any other 365,000 residents of Bernalillo County sustaining in prima facie evidence Justin Gray has knowledge the horses are personal property of Derringer, yet lied to public record the horses are “strays”, wherein even as strays stolen on private lands not “wild horses”, Officer Justin Gray also has no jurisdiction to steal or impound them. Despite absolute direct knowledge by Judge Saffier that the case is mandated to be dismissed by rule of law, Judge Saffier moves the case forward with the ploy to attempt to gain an order of “incompetence” in a fraudulent hearing scheduled for November 1, 2023 in total violation of all Derringer’s rights of due process and equal protection. [2] Judge Saffier has direct knowledge that to continue with this case is FUNDAMENTAL ERROR, and wherein Judge Saffier is without jurisdiction to ignore the previous Motions to Dismiss in public corruption, bias and prejudice, deliberately thus acting in conspiracy and collusion with Officer prosecutor Justin Gray to affect protection of Justin Gray, protection of the underlying invading Sinaloa Cartel and performs such in JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. In bias, prejudice, influence of external proven sources, influenced by political agendas as a Democrat, Judge Saffier has full intention to ignore all law, ignore the Motions to Dismiss and force the Defendant to stand and be prosecuted by the exact criminal felon Justin Gray that stole in larceny $1.7 Million dollars of 17 Derringer horses and multiple other criminal acts within this court and outside this court in inexplicably intertwined actions of public corruption. State ex rel Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966) “Requiring petitioner to stand trial before biased or prejudiced judge does not conform to adequate remedy.”

Accordingly, it is proven in “cold hard facts” that Judge Nina Saffier is unfit to serve presiding in this case and must recuse for valid cause detailed above, and instantly step down and not preside over the scheduled hearing on November 1, 2023, based on all the case laws presented below.

Constitution due process and equal protection 5th and 14th Amendments and Title 42 Section 1981(a)-Equal rights under the law (a)”Statement of equal rights- All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other.”

Gladden v. Dist of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 659 A.2d 249 D.C. App. 1995 “Recusal is necessary when alleged bias is traceable to source other than judge’s participation in the case.” Montoya v. Blackhurst, 84 N.M. 91, 500 P.2d 176 (1972); Sena v. Montoya, 346 F.Supp. 5 (D.N.M. 1972); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) pre-judgement seizure of property without opportunity to be heard is unconstitutional, Frates v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502 cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1297, 494 US 1004, 108 L.Ed.2d 474 “Recusal motion should be permitted at any time it becomes apparent that judge is biased or suffers from appearance of bias.” , In re Wyoming Tight Sands Antitrust Cases, 726 F. Supp. 288 “Party moving to disqualify judge must show that reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about judge’s impartiality; standard is objective one.”, NMRA 1986, 1-088.1(D) “No district judge shall sit in any action in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and shall recuse himself in any such action.” Title 28 Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (1 Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996 “Judge should be disqualified from proceeding where circumstances raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality, regardless of his or her state of mind or ability to conduct fair and impartial trial.”, In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 “Where party has made challenge to judge’s failure to recuse, Court of Appeals reviews judge’s decision to hear case on abuse of discretion standard.” US v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523 S.D.N.Y. 1993 “Recusal is appropriate when judge has personal interest at stake, or some personal bias in favor for or against party to the action.”, Martinez v. Carmona, 624 P.2d 54, 95 N.M. 545 writ quashed 624 P.2d 535, 95 N.M. 593 “N.M. Court of Appeals 1980 Judge may be disqualified for statutory, constitutional, or ethical cause-Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 Subd. A, Constitution Article 6, Section 18.” , Beal v Reidy, 80 N.M. 444. 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Authority of court to affect substantive rights limited. This section confers no authority upon the district court to limit the extent of the substantive right to disqualify judges by Rule.”,US Citizen. State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me. 1996 “No judge should preside in case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.”, Purpura v. Purpura, 847 P.2d 314, 115 N.M.80 cert denied 847 P.2d 313, 115 N.M. 79 “N.M. Ct. of Appeals 1993 “If judge becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she is unable to make fair and objective decision, judge must recuse himself or herself. SCRA 1986 1-011, SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300 Subd. A(3) 21-400", US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455(a) “Despite external source requirement, recusal of judge may still be required if judge’s actions during trial considered objectively, display deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgement impossible.” US v. Gordon, 61 F.3d CA.4 (Md.) 1995 28 USCA 455 “Partiality” that requires judicial disqualification is apparent disposition against party that is wrongful or inappropriate.” , Garcia v. Herrera, 959 P.2d 533, 125 N.M. 199 cert denied 958 P.2d 103, 125 N.M. 145 “N.M. App. 1998 Trial court is required to recuse itself from hearing a case when it cannot preside in a fair and impartial manner.”, State ex rel Hannah v. Armijo, 38 N.M. 73, 28 p.2d 511 (1933) “Presumption of bias-A judge is presumptively partial or biased, if he has served as council, or if he has pecuniary interest.”

State ex rel. Anaya v. Scarborough, 410 P.2d 732, 75 N.M. 702 “N.M. 1966 Interest necessary to disqualify judge must be a present pecuniary interest in result.” , Lund v. Helms, 29 F.3d 367 cert denied 115 S. Ct. 111 513 U.S. 1155, 130 L.Ed.2d 1076 CA8 (Iowa) 1994 “Test of whether to recuse judge is one of objective reasonableness, that is, whether judicial officer’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the circumstances.” , In re Doe, 519 P.2d 133, 86 N.M. 37 “N.M. App. 1974 Failure to hear one party’s evidence, when offered, establishes a presumption of prejudice.” , Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., SD Fla. 1986 “Strict construction of statute disqualifying trial judge for bias or prejudice is grounded upon sound principle that there is possibility of substantial abuse since harsh remedy of cessation of trial proceedings is mandated if allegations purport to state cause for bias. 28 USC 455" , Beal v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969) “Prejudiced or biased judge would deprive party of due process of law.”, Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del.) Supra. 1994 “Every litigant is entitled to be heard by a disinterested judge.”, Holt v. KMI Const. Inc., 821 F. Supp. 846 D. Conn. 1993 “Recusal is called for when district judge has personal bias or prejudice in favor or against party.”, In re A.tl Robins Co. Inc., 97 BR 525 ED.Va 1995 “Bias” is condition of mind, which sways judgement and renders judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case.” , State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 Me. 1996 “No judge should preside in case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.” , People v. Walsh, 210 Ill. Dec. 126, 652 N.E.2d 1102, 273 Ill. App. 3d 453, Ill App. 1 Dist. 1995 “To prevail on motion for substitution of judge for cause, accused has to show actual prejudice, animosity, hostility, ill-will, or distrust directed towards accused.”, Paradis v. Arave, 20 F.3d 950 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 915, 513 U.S. 1117, 130 L.Ed.2d 796 CA.9 (Idaho) 1994 “Defendants are entitled to judge who has no direct personal interest in outcome of proceeding.”, DB v. Ocean Tp. Bd. of Education, 985 F. Supp. 457, affirmed 159 F.3d 1350 “DNJ 1997 If through obduracy, honest mistake, or simply inability to attain self knowledge judge fails to acknowledge disqualifying predisposition or circumstance, appellate court must order recusal no matter what the source; litigants ought not have to face judge with respect to whom there is reasonable question as to impartiality.”,.

David Derringer

[1] Fraud on the court embraces 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). [2] 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.”