NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS PROVEN TREASON COLLUSION WITH INVADING SINALOA CARTEL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-40690

Bernalillo County

David Derringer, D-202-CV-2022-03437

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

Defendants-Appellees,

State of New Mexico, New Mexico State Police, Bernalillo County Sheriff Department, Valencia County Sheriff Department, Francisco “Cisco” Lovato (as an individual), Kym M. Damazyn, Mier Pedro, Ramon Manquero, Dennis Chavez, Southwest Event Center LLC, D.C. Livestock Auction, Southwest Livestock Auction, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S NOTICE-BRINGING THIS LEGAL NOTICE OF VOID ORDER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT UNDER NMRA 1-060(b)(3)-OF UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL, NON-JURISDICTIONAL, VOID AND MOOT ORDER OF NOVEMBER 15, 2022 AND NOW THE ILLEGAL CLAIMS OF FINALIZATION OF SUCH AS FRAUD-ON-THE-COURT [1] ORDER; WITH MISUSE OF POWER USE BY THE PROVEN, INDICTABLE, TRAITORS OF NM COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES HANISEE, BORGARDUS, MEDINA, AND HENDERSON DISRUPTING, THE JUDICIAL MECHANICS BY MANIPULATION, RIGGING, FALSIFYING COURT DOCUMENTS AND UNDERLYING SUBVERSION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WITH ALL NAMED DEMOCRATIC JUDGES DISREGARING RULE OF LAW WITH INSTEAD THE POLITICAL AGENDA TO SABOTAGE AND PERFECT ANNIHILATION OF THE US AND NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTIONS, ACTIONS MEANT TO FACILITATE, ENCOURAGE, PROTECT AND ENSLAVE US CITIZENS TO THE FOREIGN INVASION OF THE MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL, TAKING BRIBES TO PERPETRATE JURISDICTIONAL INFRACTIONS, AND VIOLATIONS OF US CODE TITLE 18 SECTIONS 241, 241, 1503, 1505, RICO

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Appellant Derringer (hereinafter “Derringer”) with his Notice under NMRA Rule 1-060(b)(3) and other reasons. This inherently defines the exposure of treason against the United States of America by proven collaboration of the New Mexico judiciary, all inclusive, with the above Judges having direct knowledge of all their illegal acts which mandates the defeat, makes moot, mandates voiding, and withdrawal of the illegal Order of November 15, 2022. [2] these named Judges are orchestrating such sabotage of the judicial system and traitorous subversion of America willfully, maliciously, in bribery by the Sinaloa Cartel, yet also with knowledge of inherent protection by the New Mexico Supreme Court, also in collusion in treason with the Democrat subversive political agenda to destroy America for tyrannical dictatorship and global power in the forced oppression to achieve a “New World Order” with one encompassing dictatorship. This proven subversion by the illegal Order of November 15, 2022 is now illegally claimed finalized, ignoring Derringer’s already filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed previously to the New Mexico Supreme Court on 12-23-2022. The illegal agenda herein is for the NM Court of Appeals to attempt to solidify the FRAUD ON THE COURT to illegally remand the matters back to the already recused on August 3, 2022 Judge Ortega so the traitor Judge Ortega can rig the entire dismissal of the case to undeniably protect all involved NM state employees and agencies and protect the invasion of the foreign Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, that has now stolen, killed, mutilated well over ongoing 224 Derringer horses with at least two counts of larceny per animal of NMSA 30-16-1 and NMSA 30-18-1 wherein by actual stealing permanently, daily stealing locking up over 60 horses each day since October 2, 2022, (larceny) and forcing Derringer to find and release them to obtain coming home to water (animal abuse NMSA 30-18-1) ONGOING DAILY; now proven all defendants have done 24,500 criminal felonies against Derringer disregarded deliberately by the NM Courts in collusion and discharge of all law enforcement willfully under NMSA 29-1-1 and 29-1-2 also disregarding “replevin”. Fraud on the court requires a "scheme by which the integrity of the judicial process has been fraudulently subverted by a deliberately planned scheme in a manner involving 'far more than an injury to a single litigant.`" Addington (Page 9) Farmer's Elevator Mutual Insurance, 650 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Hazel-Atlas Glass, 322 U.S. 238, 245-46, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1002 (1944)).

Derringer has a duty as an American as well as the Plaintiff/Appellant to expose these judicial terrorists Mafioso for the protection of himself and the American and New Mexico population of the public corruption. The standard the Sixth Circuit has announced for independent actions, for example, requires conduct: 1. On the part of an officer of the court; 2. That is directed to the "judicial machinery" itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the court. Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).

INDISPUTABLE FACTS ABSOLUTELY KNOWN BY THE NAMED JUDICIAL TERRORISTS OF THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS:

2ND Judicial District Court Judge Ortega was recused of court record on August 3, 2022 with no legally re-assigned Judge, leaving the case suspended depriving Plaintiff Derringer of all due process and equal protection, while the subversive traitor terrorist Judge Ortega was continuing to rig the case without stepping down, without any hearings ignoring all Derringer’s Motions and pleadings, having ex-parte conferences with the Defendants, denying Derringer’s mandated jury, denying any trial and denying the already won DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, instead setting a November 1, 2022 hearing to cancel and order denied the entire case, already won by Derringer; all with no possible jurisdiction and judicial capacity of the terrorist Judge Ortega. In order to prevail on an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, the party against whom a judgment is entered is required to establish: (1) the existence of a judgment which ought not, in equity and good conscience, be enforced; (2) a valid defense to the alleged claim upon which the judgment is founded; (3) fraud, accident or mistake which prevented a party to the judgment from obtaining the benefit of his defense; (4) the absence of fault or negligence by the party seeking relief from the judgment; and (5) no adequate remedy at law. McGinnity, supra; See also National Surety Company v. State, 120 F. 593 (8th Cir. 1903); Bankers Mortgage Company v. United States, 423 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927, 90 S.Ct. 2242, 26 L.Ed.2d. 793 (1970). Accordingly, if these five (5) elements could be established, a party could prevail on an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, despite the procedural limitations embodied in the court rules and the other recognized means of providing a party relief from judgment.

With total knowledge of all the Constitutional violations, deprivation of a jury, fraud on the court, mandated judgments for all Defendants in DEFAULT, the Justices traitors of the New Mexico Court of Appeals defied all rule of law. The provision of Rule 60(b) commonly known as the "savings clause" states: "This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court." The fraud upon the court described in the savings clause is distinct from the fraud described in Rule 60(b)(3), the latter of which allows a court to relieve a party of a judgment upon the showing of "fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party."; State v. Padilla 879 P.2d 1208, 118 N.M. 189 Cert. Denied 877 P.2d 1105, 117 N.M. 802 “Agreement is gist of crime of conspiracy; overt act is not required, and crime is complete when felonious agreement is reached.” This is clearly sustained by 8 of the Defendants being invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel whereas all did not respond at all to the Complaint; clearly, they simply used drug Cartel money to “buy” Judge Lisa Chavez Ortega for “protection”, wherein “NO SURPRISE” Judge Ortega indeed totally protects all 8 from liability being in total DEFAULT. This shows the absolute direct connection of Judge Ortega to the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel and shows the absolute intent of Judges Medina, Hanisee, Borgardus, and Henderson to force (13th Amendment forced imprisonment to the judicial corruption of NM) the Plaintiff back in front of the illegal Judge Ortega for her to complete rigging the case; thus the absolute FRAUD ON THE COURT and the collusion of Judges Medina, Hanisee, Borgardus, and Henderson directly embroiled with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. 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.” The treason of all embroiled Judges and Justice of New Mexico in this case is explicitly absolutely defined, all with the blood on their hands of not only the domestic and foreign terrorism against the Plaintiff Derringer and killing Derringer horses, but the complicity of Sinaloa Cartel killing Americans with fentanyl, human trafficking the lost 85,000 illegal unaccompanied minors for rape and use by the NM administration and judicial pedophiles and other sadistic and reprehensible acts by the “Honorable” traitors. . [3] Judge Ortega

The Court of Appeals undeniably has knowledge that Judge Ortega was docketed proven RECUSED on August 3, 2022, without any jurisdiction doing malicious domestic terrorism and racist crimes against the Plaintiff in collusion with invasion of the foreign army of Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, facilitating, protecting and accelerating crimes against the Plaintiff also in fundamental error denying Derringer’s jury, denying hearings, ignoring Motions and pleadings; all without jurisdiction or judicial capacity and in FRAUD ON THE COURT. For appellate jurisdiction of court of appeals, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 29; 34-5-8 NMSA 1978. 14th Amendment Section 3.; Torres v. State, 1995-NMSC-025, 119 N.M. 609, 894 P.2d 386. NM Court of Appeals illegal fraud on the court Order: Fraud on the court should embrace only 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). ; Trial court could not act if it did not properly have jurisdiction. Perea v. Baca, 94 NM 624, 614 P.2d 541 (1980). The Court of Appeals know Judge Ortega had no jurisdiction or judicial capacity and was acting in treason with judicial terrorism. 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.” Hence, Judges Medina, Hanisee, Borgardus, and Henderson do perjury to the court in falsification of the court record in FRAUD ON THE COURT to sustain their attempts to dismiss the interlocutory appeal as to willfully return the case to Judge Ortega to finish perfecting the illegal Orders defeating the case to rig protection by the bribe paid-for protection of the insurgent Sinaloa Cartel invading the United States of America. 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”; Fundamental error is such error as goes to the foundation or basis of a right essential and no court ought or could require waiver of that right. State v. Gillihan, 85 NM 514, 514 P.2d 33 (1973).; Court of appeals not bound by trial court interpretations of statutes and rules; rather, it reviews them to determine whether they are legally correct. State v. Herrera, 1978-NMCA-048, 92 N.M. 7, 582 P.2d 384, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972. The NM Court of Appeals was MANDATED to consider jurisdiction and fundamental error. The court of appeals has jurisdiction if proceedings were commenced after effective date of 1967 amendment. State v. Garlick, 1969-NMSC-068, 80 N.M. 352, 456 P.2d 185 (proceedings not commenced before effective date). Lack of jurisdiction at any stage of proceeding in controlling consideration which must be resolved before going further, and an appellate court may raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion. In re Kinscherff, 89 NM 669, 556 P.2d 355 (Ct. App) cet denied 90 NM 8, 558 P.2d 620 (1976): Pacheco v. Pacheco, 82 NM 486, 484 P.2d 69 (1967); State v. McNeece, 82 NM 345, 481 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1971). The language under NMSA 39-3-4(A) appeared in the illegal orders filed “arising in” the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court wherein such FRAUD ON THE COURT of Judge Ortega sustained the mandated consideration of the jurisdiction and fundamental error as “controlling questions of law”.

An orderly process of appellate review must be considered in the grant of an application for an interlocutory appeal turns on whether a substantial ground exists for a difference of opinion on the question, and whether its resolution may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The policy of judicial economy served by this process of interlocutory appeal must, however be weighed against the policy which favors the orderly process of appellate review. Schlieter v. Carlos, 108 NM 507, 775 P.2d 709 (1989). Wherefore the denial of Plaintiff’s Application is absolutely FRAUD ON THE COURT designed to protect Judge Ortega and allow her to perfect the protection of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel now the controlling entity of the State of New Mexico, ensuring the corridor of invasion to the State of Texas and into the main-lands of the United States of America. 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.” The Plaintiff has a Constitutional right to a jury. A fundamental right is involved. State v. Coulter, 98 NM 768, 652 P.2d 1219 (Ct. App 1982). Showing of fundamental nature of error helpful will be heard to prevent a plain miscarriage of justice where someone has been deprived of a rights essential, or to protect those, or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to permit. Doe V. State, 88 NM 347, 540 P.2d 827 (Ct. App.) cert denied 88 NM 318, 540 P.2d 248 (1975). Fundamental error may be first raised on appeal. Fundamental error which goes to the foundation of the case or which takes from a essential right. Where it appears and justice requires, the appellate court will consider it whether or not exceptions are taken in the court below or whether it is assigned as error on appeal. State v. Romero, 86 NM 244, 522 P.2d 579 (1974).; The provision of Rule 60(b) commonly known as the "savings clause" states: "This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court." The fraud upon the court described in the savings clause is distinct from the fraud described in Rule 60(b)(3), the latter of which allows a court to relieve a party of a judgment upon the showing of "fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party."

WHEREFORE, the illegal judgment, order, or proceeding, of November 15, 2022 is void and to no effect and unenforceable due to the BLATANT FRAUD ON THE COURT by the New Mexico Court of Appeals as is the notice of finalization, with motives of treason against the United States of America, and it is mandated to grant relief to Plaintiff Derringer and to set aside the Order of November 15, 2022 as well as the bogus Notice of finalization of such fraudulent Order.

Respectfully submitted by _______________________________________________

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5-3-2023

I hereby certify that I sent by 1st class mail the original of this pleading to the New Mexico Court of Appeals at 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106.

I hereby further certify that I notified all parties as providing the Pleading on the web site

LINK- https://d2bowman4570.wixsite.com/notices/post

Defendants attorney:

Daniel Macke, 8206 Louisiana Blvd. NE Ste. A, Albuquerque New Mexico 87113

Leif C. Rasmussen 2105 Osuna Road NE Albuquerque, NM 87113

Charles N. Lakins, Esq. P.O. Box 91357 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87199

Carlos Quinones 1223 S. Saint Francis Dr. Ste. C Santa Fe, NM 87505

John D’Amato Jr. PO Box 7888, Albuquerque, NM 87194

Judge Murphy 7th District Court 7th District Court P.O. Drawer 1129 Socorro, NM 88901

Judge Mercer 13th Judicial District Court 1835 NM-314 Los Lunas, New Mexico 87031

Judge Ortega 2nd District Court 400 Lomas NW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Judge Medina Ct. App. Judge Hanisee Ct. App. Judge Borgardus Ct. App. Judge Henderson Ct. App. 2211 Tucker Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

[1] There is no statute of limitations for bringing a fraud upon the court claim. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 244. A decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes final. Kenner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 1968). [2] Hazel-Atlas is a prime example of a situation for which the independent action was preserved under Rule 60(b). ("the rule expressly does not limit the power of the court, when fraud has been perpetrated upon it, to give relief under the saving clause. As an illustration of this situation, see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)."). See also Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 46. The Court observed that the courts' equitable power to set aside a final judgment obtained by fraud was well established and that, notwithstanding the "deep-rooted policy" of finality, "where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is "manifestly unconscionable," they have wielded the power without hesitation." 322 U.S. at 244-45 (citations and footnote omitted). All courts have the inherent equitable power to vacate a judgment that has been obtained through the commission of fraud upon the court. Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946). [3] 2381. Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death.