NMLB FRAUD-FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORD-COVER UP ASSISTANCE TO SINALOA CARTEL; LARCENY-13 HORSES

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BERNALILLO COUNTY

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CV-2023-05227

David Derringer,

Plaintiff,

V.

New Mexico Livestock Board, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray, Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment)

Defendants,

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S ILLEGAL

AND FRAUDULENT DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH; DEFENDANTS ILLEGAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; EACH CONTAINING ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL ACTS FOR IMPROPER SERVICE ENTAILING CRIMINAL ACTS, LACK OF STANDING, FRAUD ON THE COURT, MALICIOUS FALSIFICATION OF THE COURT RECORD AS A CRIMINAL ACT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF EMBEZZLING NM TAX DOLLARS ALLEGING TO FALSELY REPRESENT SPECIFIC PRIVATE PARTIES WITH STATE MONEY, FACILITATION OF THE INVADING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL IN INSURRECTION AND TREASON, ASSISTING PRIVATE PARTIES JUSTIN GRAY AND MANUEL MONTE STEALING IN LARCENY 13 (ACTUALLY 17 SINCE 4 MARES ARE PREGNANT0 HORSES IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND

INTIMIDATION IN ATTEMPTS TO STOP THIS LITIGATION BY

RICO RACKETEERING; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND

RECUSAL OF THE BIASED AND PREJUDICED POLITICAL

DEMOCRAT JUDGE THAT KNOWINGLY IS ALLOWING DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND DEFIANCE OF ALL RULE OF LAW AGAINST

THE PLAINTIFF; AND REQUESTS FOR EXTREME SANCTIONS AGAINST BOTH ILLEGAL MOTIONS AND DEMAND FOR INSTANT RETURN OF DERRINGER’S 13 HORSES STOLEN LIVESTOCK WITH DIRECTION

TO PROSECUTE

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David Derringer, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) representing himself Pro-Se with his Response to the two illegal Motions, only as notification to the Court of the extreme FRAUD ON THE COURT, criminal acts, treason, and being presided by a Judge placing Democratic political agendas far in precedence over the rule of law, blocking Default Judgements, catering to Defaulted parties to protect state employees and agencies, protect ruthless attorneys defying Rules, law and doing FRAUD ON THE COURT, and turning a blind eye to crimes in the courtroom, as well as blatant protection for the intertwined, invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. This “response” in no way validates, grants standing, makes any statement acceptable to this court that is presented by the Defaulted Defendants, or to be accepted or used in any way by the Judge to render decisions, and noted exclusively that the Defendants herein filing this improper purpose and illegal and fraudulent pleading have no valid legal representation in this court. In bias and prejudice, this Judge is refusing and ignoring Statutory law and appurtenant case law to defy Ordering and mandated filing a Default Judgement against New Mexico Livestock Board, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray, Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment). Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 of which reads, "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice”. These Defendants didn’t file a response by the deadline, and Plaintiff has already filed a Motion for Default with the Court under NMRA 1-055 and all sustaining case laws mandating the Judge to act. These 2 illegal pleadings filed by these Defendants in FRAUD ON THE COURT contain no mention of attempting gain “leave” of either the Court or Plaintiff, seeks no extension of time, which knowingly would be denied by the Court under NMRA 1-004, and wherein Defendants through an unethical attorney violate all Rules. A Default ends the Defendants chance to file a response because the Defendants have not responded in time. Although their “improper service” is false FRAUD ON THE COURT to deceive the court and skew the Court’s opinion, they seek no proper claim of remedy under NMRA 1-060, and obviously had 30 days after proper service to contest service, and now have had well over a month beyond the Plaintiff’s filing of Motion for Default. Hence, procrastination shows INTENT to defraud the court, not inadvertent error, but direct and punishable “improper purposes” under NMRA Rule 1-011. A Default is a failure to perform a duty in legal proceedings, where clearly no Judge can protect them by abuse of discretion ruling in personal opinion disregarding law. A Default is binding and the defaulting Defendants may not litigate their case or present any evidence. A Civil action Default judgment will grant the amount of the relief sought in a Plaintiff’s Complaint. A Default judgement (also known as judgement by Default) is a mandated ruling granted by a Judge or Court in favor of a Plaintiff in the event that the Defendants in a legal case fails to respond to a court Summons or does not appear in court. There is no ability for this Judge to set aside a Default and has errored grossly not ordering and filing a Default for the Defendants to file only under NMRA 1-060. Clearly, by deliberate refusal to Order and file a Default, the Judge was “leaving a door open deliberately to “rig” the case if needed. "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all. Disbarment of attorney Daniel Mackey is mandated. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(2). Disciplinary responsibilities: “A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge. In re C’De Baca, 109 N.M. 151, 782 P.2d 1348 (1989) “Attorney engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation,.. engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his fitness to practice law.”

CRIMINAL FRAUD ON THE COURT

1. FRAUD ON THE COURT-Tampering with records, distortion of court pleadings, falsification of heading, for improper purposes of NM state dollar embezzlement to falsely represent select private parties using tax money attorney payment; multiple criminal acts State and Federal. Attorney Daniel Mackey has a history with the Plaintiff of falsifying court records for this Judge to take Judicial notice in underlying and intertwined New Mexico District Court Cases 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 -Derringer v. Davis & Derringer v. State of New Mexico et. al., New Mexico District Court Cases: 2nd District Court: CV-2022-03437 where in each Case, as this one Mackey fraudulently recaptioned the heading so as to falsify representation so as to embezzle state tax money and work in proven conflict of interest to falsely represent select private party NM citizens. NM Stat § 30-26-1 (2021). Tampering with public records consists of: A. knowingly altering any public record without lawful authority; B. any public officer or public employee knowingly filing or recording any written instrument, judicial order, judgment or decree in a form other than as the original thereof in fact appeared; C. any public officer or public employee knowingly falsifying or falsely making any record or file, authorized or required by law to be kept; D. any public officer or public employee knowingly issuing or causing to be issued, any false or untrue certified copy of a public record; or E. knowingly destroying, concealing, mutilating or removing without lawful authority any public record or public document belonging to or received or kept by any public authority for information, record or pursuant to law. Whoever commits tampering with public records is guilty of a fourth degree felony. In this instant matter, as before attorney Daniel Mackey distorts the Plaintiff’s heading so as to deceive the court that he can represent private citizens Manuel Monte and Justin Gray, which he cannot. Daniel Mackey distorts the heading thusly: (Defendants) NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., BENAVIDEZ RANCH, OFFICER MANUEL MONTE, OFFICER JUSTIN GRAY, MANUEL MONTE, in his Individual Capacity, JUSTIN GRAY, in his Individual Capacity. The legal heading is: New Mexico Livestock Board, Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray, Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment). 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 physical evidence in the case and with public records in the county clerk’s office went beyond the common fraud contemplated by Subdivision (b)(3) of this rule [Rule 1-060], and constituted exceptional circumstances to allow the reopening of judgement more than a year after its entry, under Subdivision (b)(6).” Fraud upon the court is fraud committed by officers of the court. The officers of the court are attorneys, judges, and judicial employees, including the staff of the clerk of the court. Attorney fraud upon the court is types of actions designed to interfere with the proper functioning and decision-making of a court..that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, as it 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). This act alone vitiates the entire pleading as fraud wherein this court cannot consider any writings within. 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."). Daniel Mackey engages in a federal crime, not only to protect state employees and private citizens doing criminal acts against the Plaintiff and in cahoots with the Sinaloa Cartel in treason, but to fraudulently coerce and engage the Judge to accept the fraud to help “rig” the case without any Default or damages to the state political Democratic communism agenda and not punish, nay “protect” the Sinaloa Cartel providing the cocaine to the Judges and officials. US v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089; Kunkel v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121 L.Ed.2d 340; Ruis v. US, 113 S. Ct. 985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d 137 “Government’s failure to be aware of and stop use and distribution of cocaine”. This Judge has “knowledge” and a duty to stop all of this but “won’t. 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.” Accordingly, and ABSOLUTELY private NM citizens Manuel Monte and Justin Gray did not answer the Complaint Pro-Se, did not hire any legal bar association attorney to represent them, cannot allow Daniel Mackey as a state-paid NM attorney claimed to be illegally representing NM agencies and state employees in a conflict of interest. Therefore, absolutely citizens private parties NM Manuel Monte and Justin Gray are in total Default and mandated this Judge to award a Default Judgment for all counts and in all amounts against them. Accordingly, Daniel Mackey cannot represent Defendants New Mexico Livestock Board, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray by doing FRAUD ON THE COURT and criminal acts of falsification of records. “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. 18 US Code 1519.

Therefore, absolutely Defendants New Mexico Livestock Board, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray are in total Default and mandated this Judge to award a Default Judgment for all counts and in all amounts against them. "Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently "The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:"(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities."(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism."(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings."(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court. The bias, prejudice, and procrastination of refusal to grant a Default Judgement against these parties is both deliberate and malicious. "Unjustifiable delay in court proceedings, particularly in deciding cases, can have a significant impact on the parties and reflects adversely on the judicial system. Under Canon 3B(8) of the 1990 model code, a judge is required to "dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly." Commentary to the 1990 model code reminds judges that "in disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard," while a comment to the 2007 model code cautions that "the duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed . . . to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate."

1. CRIMINAL ACTS IN THIS COURT UNDER JURISDICTION OF THE JUDGE.

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.” On August 23, 2023 in retaliation, obstruction of justice, RICO, retribution, revenge, intimidation and personal criminal acts of Justin Gray and Mauuel Monte, but arranged, in complicit and conspiracy with the New Mexico Livestock Board, all Defendants orchestrated a domestic terrorist criminal attack against the Plaintiff in treason and insurrection to attempt to punish, trap, illegally gain prison, and destroy Derringer’s horses. Justin Gray with using former malicious knowing fraud of Manuel Monte filed knowingly criminal false charges against Derringer for trespass of livestock under NMSA 77-14-3 wherein the false charges were already proven fraud by the writing of the statute that there will be no trespass since the Pajarito fence dividing line enabling Derringer’s horses to access the Santolina IS NOT compliant with NMSA 77-16-1 or NMSA 77-16-4 as mandated for any claim of trespass in NMSA 77-14-3. Hence, KNOWLINGLY Justin Gray filed false criminal Complaint Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902, as criminal acts under NMSA 30-39-1 and penal code 118.1, and then using state truck, trailer and false authority stole by larceny 13 (4 Derringer mares are pregnant meaning stealing 17 horses as felony not only 13) Derringer horses, fraudulently claiming strays trespassing, then felony transported stolen horses to conceal stolen horses in possession of stolen horses; all multiple felonies per horse. Gray and Monte assisting, then posted an extortion/ransom note of impoundment on Derringer’s residence front door by trespassing on the property defeating any fraudulent claim of “strays” as they know absolutely the horses are Derringer’s personal property and did these acts well outside of duties and law, as private criminals to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and protect the Benavidez Sinaloa Cartel.

OPPOSITION TO THE FRAUD ILLEGAL PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS AND THE ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY

1. Indeed, a legal Summons was received by the Defendants on July 7, 2023.

2. Pursuant to Rule 1-004(H)(1)(b) the New Mexico Attorney General was made aware of the suit and ongoing criminal acts by all Defendants in Complaint NMOAG-ECS-20230523-2c2a.

3. Accordingly, the NMAG was made aware of the instant suit.

4. Accordingly, the NMAG was made aware of the instant suit.

These Defendants didn’t file a response by the deadline, and Plaintiff has already filed a Motion for Default with the Court under NMRA 1-055 and all sustaining case laws mandating the Judge to act. This illegal pleading filed by these Defendants in FRAUD ON THE COURT contains no mention of attempting gain “leave” of either the Court or Plaintiff, seeks no extension of time, which knowingly would be denied by the Court under NMRA 1-004, and wherein Defendants through an unethical attorney violate all Rules. A Default ends the Defendants chance to file a response because the Defendants have not responded in time. Although their “improper service” is false FRAUD ON THE COURT to deceive the court and skew the Court’s opinion, they seek no proper claim of remedy under NMRA 1-060, and obviously had 30 days after proper service to contest service, and now have had well over a month beyond the Plaintiff’s filing of Motion for Default. Hence, procrastination shows INTENT to defraud the court, not inadvertent error, but direct and punishable “improper purposes” under NMRA Rule 1-011.

MANDATED SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH FOR IMPROPER SERVICE.

“A court may exercise its discretion and impose sanctions for a willful violation of the rule when it finds, for example, that a pleading or other paper signed by an attorney is not well grounded in fact, is not warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for its extension, or is interposed for an improper purpose.”

The primary goal of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court...Although the rule should be read in light of concerns that it will spawn satellite litigation and chill vigorous advocacy, an interpretation must give effect to the rules’s central purpose of deterrence. Id.; see also White v. General Motors Corp. 908 P.2d 675, 683 (10th Cir. 1990) (sanctions are intended to deter future litigation abuse, punish present litigations abuse, compensate victims of litigation abuse, and streamline court dockets and facilitate case management); Invest Fin. Group. Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc., 815 P.2d 391, 404 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987).

WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests the amount of $500,000.00 sanctions from each separately of Defendants New Mexico Livestock Board, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray, Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment) court costs and any and all other punishment or sanctions that the court deems just and proper.

SANCTIONS FOR ILLEGAL: DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

These Defendants didn’t file a response by the deadline, and Plaintiff has already filed a Motion for Default with the Court under NMRA 1-055 and all sustaining case laws mandating the Judge to act. This illegal pleading filed by these Defendants in FRAUD ON THE COURT contains no mention of attempting gain “leave” of either the Court or Plaintiff, seeks no extension of time, which knowingly would be denied by the Court under NMRA 1-004, and wherein Defendants through an unethical attorney violate all Rules. A Default ends the Defendants chance to file a response because the Defendants have not responded in time. Although their “improper service” is false FRAUD ON THE COURT to deceive the court and skew the Court’s opinion, they seek no proper claim of remedy under NMRA 1-060, and obviously had 30 days after proper service to contest service, and now have had well over a month beyond the Plaintiff’s filing of Motion for Default. Hence, procrastination shows INTENT to defraud the court, not inadvertent error, but direct and punishable “improper purposes” under NMRA Rule 1-011.

A Default is a failure to perform a duty in legal proceedings, where clearly no Judge can protect them by abuse of discretion ruling in personal opinion disregarding law. A Default is binding and the defaulting Defendants may not litigate their case or present any evidence.

Rule 11 has the meaning of: The signature of (a)... party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper: that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay....For a willful violation of this rule (a)...party may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary or other action. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1) “Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the litigation.” United Nuclear Corp. V. General Atomic Co. 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231 (1980) “In imposing stringent sanctions, court are free to consider the general deterrent effect their orders may have on the instant case and on other litigation.” In this matter a normal sanction is not adequate wherein the basis is an attorney Mackey mandated to be disbarred and criminals of state employee using their positions of power well outside of duties and law demand sanctions without boundaries. Mis use of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the State law. Brown v. Chaffee, 612 F.2d 497, 501 (10th Cir. 1979. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests for the amount of $100,000.00 paid to Derringer from each Defendant party of New Mexico Livestock Board, Officer Manuel Monte, Officer Justin Gray, Manuel Monte (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment), Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment). It is the most egregious violation of law when an officer of the law does criminal acts knowingly against a citizen by using his badge to commit the crimes working with a known and confessed horse rustler to effect stealing horses known to not be “estrays” and known to be owned by David Derringer. Derringer asks permission to punish: sanctions without boundaries based upon mis use of the integrity of the courts and horrendous mis-use of power entrusted in him by betrayal of public position and lying under Oath. Based on Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico, 2013-NMCA-105, ¶ 2, 311 P.3d 1236, Defendant Derringer seeks “justice” for this court to sanction Officer Justin Gray and individual citizen accomplice Benjamin Benavidez Jr. separately for an amount of $100,000.00 payable to victim Defendant David Derringer wherein this case is involving both false Complaint coupled with motive of the most extreme and egregious acts. 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.” ; 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.”

Respectfully submitted by __________________________________________________

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

Certificate of Service 8-8-2023

I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of this Response to the 2nd Dist. Ct. on this date. 400 Lomas NW Albuquerque New Mexico 87102

I further certify that I mailed a copy of this Response to John D’Amato PO Box 7888 Albuquerque New Mexico 87194 and only out of courtesy mailed a copy to Defaulted parties to Daniel Mackey8206 Louisiana Blvd NE Ste A Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113-1738.