OPPOSITION'S ILLEGAL MOTION TO DESTROY EVIDENCE TO RIG THE CASE IN DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS

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 TIMELY RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR.’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 0F SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 TO THE WRONG ZIP CODE BEING RECEIVED ONLY ON OCTOBER 5, 2023 [1]; AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO NMRA RULE 1-056

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David Derringer, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) representing himself Pro-Se with his Response in Opposition to Benjamin Benavidez Jr’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice response of 9-27-2023. All the Defendants have the contention that the Plaintiff is only allowed to have ½ of the opportunities to be heard as the Defendants, wherein equal protection of the 5th and 14th Amendment mandates the due process of the 5th and 14th Amendment mandated an equal opportunity for both parties.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to I.

Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. skews the record to insinuate that the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgement against all Defendants, wherein the reality is the Motion for Default Judgement only encompassed 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).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 2.

Rule 11 does not in any way state its’ validity in for striking of scandalous material. Defendants attempt to preclude the facts to rig and skew the Court by complaining of the Plaintiff’s factual notice to the Court that all Defendants are aiding and abetting, takeing bribes, use of drug and minor children contraband, and stealing Derringer horses as well documented with lots of photos and witnesses to sell them and take them to Mexico to be butchered for meat. This is treason against the United States well proven involvement of all the NM law enforcement and current administration. Whereas the NMLB and corrupt state employees use Derringer’s tax dollars to embezzle trucks, trailers, buy hay and salt blocks to trap and bait Derringer’s horses on PRIVATE LANDS, without jurisdiction of the NMLB to claim estrays, as these horses are not on public lands nor “wild horses”. Simply put, all Defendants are horse rustlers and criminals. The Defendants’ Benavidez simply attempt as their standard procedure to rig the case, to dismiss the entire complaint, because the Plaintiff’s evidence for a trial is overwhelming as well as their connection to the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. [2] In unethical moves with knowledge that Judge O’Connell intends to use the Defendants to rig the case against the Plaintiff as treason to protect the Cartel and deny all justice and truth to the Court by FRAUD under NMRA 1-090. Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . . Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 3

A Motion to Strike says nothing whatsoever to preclude introduction of evidence to support the contentions of the Complaint, wherein now, the Court already “has knowledge” that the Plaintiff has extreme evidence, with more coming forth with any actual trial, which would be held in front of a jury. The terrorism of the Defendants is glaringly apparent that there is more that enough evidence to win this litigation, and now places a more extreme burden on the corrupt Judge O’Connell to rig the case

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 4

Plaintiff filed no affidavits with the court, only tangible photographs that the Defendants seek to ban to falsify the record and enable the corrupt Judge O’Connell to rig the case in fraud by a conspiracy to intentionally defraud: the corruption of the Judge working in concert with the Defendants; all to protect the invading Sinaloa Cartel in the Democrat political agenda to overthrown America into Communism, of which the Sinaloa Cartel is the main vehicle. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 5.

Since there is no preclusion for presenting photographs as a response wherein the Defendants falsely claimed the Plaintiff had no evidence to present, as fraud to distort the court record, “matters outside the court pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court”. This fraud was.to be the “vehicle” for the corruption proven of Judge O’Connell to use to rig the case against Plaintiff Derringer. The Defendants want the sustainable proof of exhibits stricken whereas they show (with many more photos and witnesses available for a trial) without any doubt that all Defendants of NM State employees on the NMLB as well as adhesion and protection by the NMSP and BCSO, all protecting the ongoing horse larceny-rustling ring of Sinaloa Cartel persons with American domestic terrorists, all working in concert with Judge Erin B. O’Connell. The Judge was mandated to sua sponte recuse, if such Judge contained one grain of ethics, wherein that did not happen, so a formal Motion to Recuse has been filed; no doubt this Judge will illegally stay on the case to rig dismissal, proving her a traitor to America protecting the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel in violation of the 14th Amendment Section 3, and US Code Title 18 Section 2381. The evidence already presented proves this case for the Plaintiff with no doubts. Plaintiff has stated explicitly a claim for which relief can be granted. Burton v. Richmond, 276 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the averments of a plaintiff’s pleading are assumed to be true, and the court may not dismiss the plaintiff’s claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 6

The legal standing of the 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) where they did not legally answer the Complaint and are in Default, saved thus far only by corrupt Judge O’Connell refusing to obey Rule 1-055 and all supporting case law mandating an Order for Default and filing of record. However, by rule of law, such Defendants have no legal standing to litigate any of the issues, and would be legally prevented from any standing in a trial. That leaves only the Defendants Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, whereas all photographs already presented show undeniable proof of the Derringer horses being locked in the perimeter fence of the Santolina alleged grazing permit of Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and the permanent pens of Benavidez in the interior of the Santalina. By criminal law, NMSA 30-16-1, each time Benavidez knowingly closes the Santalina perimeter fence with Derringer’s or other horses not owned by Benavidez, it constitutes a felony per horse (conversion). As there are no wells or water on the Santolina, each time Benavidez knowingly closes the Santalina perimeter fence with Derringer’s or other horses not owned by Benavidez, thus depriving them to get home to the Pajarito to owner Derringer’s water, it constitutes a felony per horse under NMSA 30-18-1 (abuse of animals). Each time Benavidez illegally herds the Derringer horses within the Santolina to his permanent interior pens and locks them up without food or water in a felony per horse of both NMSA 30-16-1, 30-18-1,

and 30-16-8 (2021) wherein each of Derringer’ horses have a lifetime value (horses live for 30-32 years, some more) of $100,000.00 + per horse, easily calculated by $60 per hour as a horse working as a trail horse, value of offspring, stud fees, and many other aspects of “working animals as trade tools” of Derringer NM Outfitter #32. It is a general rule that an owner of chattel property is competent to testify as to the value of his property. This rule is applicable in both civil and criminal trials. State v. Zarafonetis, 1970-NMCA-064, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P. the personal value of the bond and love of particular animals and all owned animals, the trailing hours, years and dependent use forms a “sentimental value” when assessing damages awards, wherein New Mexico, as several courts throughout the United States will allow an award of damages based upon evidence of an item’s actual value to a particular owner, including New Mexico. In addition, courts consider various factors such as the original cost of the item, as well as the item’s reproduction or replacement cost (including the probability, practicability or difficulty of replacement) when determining such “actual” value. The Sinaloa Cartel members including Benavidez, all State NMLB and particularly NMLB employees Daron Shawn Davis, Francisco Cisco Lovato, Manuel Monte, and Justin Gray are proven, seen, photographed, witnessed stealing Derringer horses, in defiance of all law, including the scam of pretense of gathering and stealing Derringer horses with use of NM State NMLB trucks and horse trailers under NMSA 77-14-3 illegally claiming Derringer’s horses stolen by Benavidez on the Santalina are strays and are trespassing, when the statute NMSA 77-14-3 SPECIFICALLY states there can be no trespass in the Pajarito fence line dividing the Santolina from the Pajarito is no statutorily compliant with NMSA 77-16-1 and 77-16-4 which it has not been for 110 years, despite the legal binding contract of Garrett Corporation issuing the Benavidez grazing permit on the Santolina mandating the Pajarito fence be compliant with NMSA 77-16-1 as proven BREACH OF CONTRACT. Thus far the Benavidez and all Defendants are stealing Derringer horses daily of one to two horses, and often herds of 15-30 at this time since 3 years ago, stealing all Derringer’s baby horses and more. 285 + Derringer horses have been stolen thus far as the NM Courts in collusion and protection of the Sinaloa Cartel with bribes to gain their cocaine, minor children for pedophiles and other gross debauchery, and sustained facilitation of the invading Sinaloa Cartel in their Democratic coup to destroy America to Communism in treason, makes all Judges “knowingly” turn a blind eye to the public corruption of all Defendants to defeat Derringer by rigging the case against his proof. Defendants here, already seeing much tangible proof seek to destroy the court record to strike the indisputable evidence, conceal the evidence and dupe and corrupt the court records in a cover-up with the assistance of their corrupt Judge Erin O’Connell as their Democrat advocate. Only a purely corrupt Judge or an insane one would facilitate and condone no accountability of stealing 285 + horses of values $28,500,000.00. Benavidez Jr. has worked with the invading Sinaloa Cartel in horse rustling RICO racketeering, worked is concert with state officials and agencies in corruption, embezzlement, larceny, bribery, coercion, conspiracy and federal acts of obstruction and intimidation against Derringer to stop legal court action, including just asking in the instant pleading to defile law and bribe this judge to Order Derringer not to be able to use a court of law for redress. The 5th and 14th Amendment states otherwise.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 7

The Defendants go to any extremes to stop the proven disclosure of concrete evidence of the larceny/conversion of Derringer horses. (A) Page Limitation. A principal brief may not exceed 30 pages, or a reply brief 15 pages.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 8

Plaintiff does not own or have the grazing permit on the Santalina, but has the Derringer horses on the private lands of the Pajarito, giving no legal “public land” jurisdiction to the NMLB to claim any horses are strays. Without any legal doubt the horses stolen by Benavidez givens no authority whatsoever to Benavidez to simply call any horse entering the Santolina private lands a “stray”. Due to the Pajarito dividing fence line in total disrepair, showing clearly in [Exhibit 2] as only one example of hundreds, where Benavidez has illegally in larceny/conversion captured-detained 4 Derringer horses from their Pajarito home and water in criminal acts of NMSA 30-16-1 and 30-18-1. Since it is not Derringer penning up horses, detaining horses, larceny capture of horses on any lands used by Derringer, and wherein Benavidez “KNOWINGLY” pens up horses not owned by Benavidez lying they are strays, and since the Derringer horses and other branded horses running in some of the Derringer herds not owned by Derringer are all free grazing the Pajarito, Derringer is in no way legally or can be terrorized by Benavidez, nor attorney D’Amato Jr. to produce any proof of ownership of horses not belonging to Benavidez, yet deliberately locked up by Benavidez on the Santaolina with INTENT of larceny, some herded into permanent pens on the Santalina. [Exhibit 3] The rule of law is very explicit that it is Benavidez Jr. that is mandated to prove with bills of sale that the horses locked up by Benavidez and all his employees are owned by Benavidez, which they are not. Derringer has never sold any of his horses to Benavidez or other members (as Benavidez) which are Sinaloa Cartel. Therefore despite the protection of the Sinaloa Cartel by the Judge, attorney D’Amato Jr. , NMSP, BCSO, NMLB in treason, refusing to ask Benavidez under NMSA 29-1-1 for proof of ownership mandated under NMSA 77-9-22(F), all are complicit, in collusion and accessories in discharge of duties, treason, complicity, conspiracy, neglect to prevent and multiple felonies. Section 77-9-22 - Bills of sale; requirements; evidence of larceny. NM Stat § 77-9-22(D)(E)(F) (2021) D. A registration certificate issued by a recognized pure-bred association, properly identifying the animal and properly acknowledged by the secretary of the association, may be used as proof of ownership.E. An inspection certificate executed as a bill of sale and certified by an inspector may be used as proof of ownership. F. The possession by any person of livestock having a brand not his recorded brand unless he has a bill of sale or authority in writing to possess or sell the livestock shall be take [taken] as prima facie evidence that he committed larceny of the livestock except in instances where stray or injured animals are inadvertently impounded and shall be sufficient for his conviction of larceny unless the evidence shows his innocence. Despite the absolute REFUSAL to mandate Benavidez proving the animals are his personal property, all involved as the Judge, NMSP, NMLB, BCSO and others, it is like the Judge personally stole Derringer horses as much as any other in the conspiracy. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297; U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303. 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.”; A governmental entity and its law enforcement officers may be held liable, after receiving notice, for negligently failing to take adequate action to protect a citizen from imminent danger and injury because of failure to adopt proper procedures for responding to and investigating a reported criminal act. Schear v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1984-NMSC-079, 101 N.M. 671, 687 P.2d 728.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 9

As the saying “a picture paints a thousand words”, there is no legal doubt that horses not owned by Benavidez locked in permanent pens as well as inside maliciously locked in the perimeter fence of the Santalina in Exhibits 2 and 3, show how the Defendants acted WITH INTENT coupled with the historical confession of Benavidez Jr. as answer to Derringer v. Benavidez D-202-CV-2014-07755 Answer on January 15, 2015, leaves no doubt that Benavidez Jr. and his membership of the Sinaloa Cartel are HORSE RUSTLERS for a long period of history, coupled with Benavidez Jr.’ father Benjamin Benavidez “ the elder “ having convictions for livestock larceny teaching his son well for the same as photos Exhibit 2, 3 and Derringer’s over 100 other photos confirm. (all mandated under judicial notice) Accordingly violations of multiple criminal statures under NMSA Article 30 as well as federal violations of treason and others.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 10

Since the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss excludes the Defendants Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, attorney John D’Amato Jr. attacks the court in “improper pleadings” whereas though, it is no new revelation of the conspiracy protecting not only the Sinaloa Cartel, but one another. 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.” Photographs don’t lie wherein the Exhibit 2, 3 and Derringer’s over 100 other photos prove as FACTS the truth as mandated in NMRA 1-090.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 11

There is nothing “scandalous” about the truth under NMRA 1-090 proven in concrete by tangible exhibits as evidence Exhibit 2, 3 and Derringer’s over 100 other photos. This contention is for improper purposes to influence the Judge in fraud on the court. 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). Typically, attorney D’Amato Jr. is a coconspirator both in the fraud and criminal acts of his clients under NMRA 16-404, but also a traitor to America protecting the Sinaloa Cartel in criminal acts of treason and violations demanding disbarment under NMRA 16-804.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 12

SEE No 11 ABOVE. The fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court." Id. at 1338 (citing to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944)). 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). Typically, attorney D’Amato Jr. is a coconspirator both in the fraud and criminal acts of his clients under NMRA 16-404, but also a traitor to America protecting the Sinaloa Cartel in criminal acts of treason and violations demanding disbarment under NMRA 16-804.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 13

SEE ANSWER TO No 11 AND 12 ABOVE. Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . . Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 13

No Court has any judicial discretion to arbitrarily and capriciously deny and strike concrete evidence from the court in order to protect and defend the Defendants and in this matter in treason to protect the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel. Photographs don’t lie of the larceny by all the Defendants.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 14

Sanctions are mandated in this matter, not only as formerly requested, but also for this instant pleading in all error of law, meant to bribe and coerce the Judge, misrepresent fact proven by photographs and distort the court record to deceive 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." Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 15

Plaintiff has already won this case against all Defendants but Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and Benavidez Ranch by Default, with a Judge in collusion to rig the case against the Plaintiff to protect the treason of the Sinaloa Cartel and NM employees, and domestic terrorists as Benavidez in conspiracy. The presented Complaint against thus remaining Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and Benavidez Ranch has been won by direct evidence of tangible proof that indeed larceny of Derringer’s and other persons branded livestock has occurred and in ongoing in the Conspiracy involving also the presiding Judge, now all involved have stolen 285 + horses more each day well known to the Judge, doing nothing to stop it despite having power and mandatory obligation. State v. Clark 3 P.3d 689, 129 N.M. 194 2000-NMCA-052 cert denied 4 P.3d 35, 129 N.M. 207 “Conspiracy, like larceny, can be a continuing crime.”; 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.”

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 16

Clearly there is no frivolous or vexatious litigation of accountability of Conversion and multiple torts for stealing, domestic terrorism, treason, RICO racketeering and other extreme and ongoing crimes of taking actual damages of $28,500,000.00 of Derringer’s lifetime value or trade tools horses, with multiple vast amount of other damages in associated torts.

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 17

As Judge O’Connell is totally involved in the conspiracy and nay also totally actually involved as a bribed protector of all Defendants and protection of the Cartel there is no possibility of a fair and impartial case with this Judge rigging the case. All parties are entitled to a fair trial, which requires that the judge overseeing the trial be completely impartial. See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Hope v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 110 N.C. App. 599 (1993).

Plaintiff’s extreme opposition to 18

Defendants are asking, bribing, misrepresenting and in collusion with a Judge attempting to rig the case in treason to protect ALL Defendants and the Sinaloa Cartel in the nationwide Democrat subversion political agenda coup to overthrow America using the criminal Sinaloa Cartel against Americans as a tool of destruction and domestic terrorism exemplified herein this instant case. The requested order of Defendants must be denied under rule of law.

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTION REGARDING THIS INSTANT PLEADING, WHILE NOT DENYING FORMER SANCTION REQUESTS.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against each separately of Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, and attorney John D’Amato Jr. paid to Plaintiff David Derringer in the amount of $50,000.00 due to malicious process, improper purposes, and abuse of process in this instant pleading.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 1-056

Rule 1-056 - Summary judgment A. For claimant. A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. Plaintiff has already won a Default Judgment against all 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) where the corruption of the Judge protecting them refuses to abide by law to grant an Order. Defendants Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch have attempted to coerce and bribe the Judge to strike clear sustainable evidence presented to the Court so as to have the vehicle needed for the corrupt judge to rig and illegally defeat the case. However, in such coercion, Defendants have not disputed and without any contest of the photographs and sustaining evidence to win the case for the Plaintiff by sustaining a case in which relief can be obtained wherein all Counts in all amount are proven for Order for Summary Judgment. The facts are undisputed. Great Western Construction Co. v. N.C. Ribble Co., 77 N.M. 725, 427 P.2d 246 (1967) “A summary judgement will be granted only when the moving party is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law upon clear and undisputed facts.” Although the Defendants want to destroy the evidence, distort the court record and goad the Judge into rigging the case for defeat as planned to protect criminal state employees and the Sinaloa Cartel, the rule of law must be followed to grant summary Judgment against all Defendants, since the Judge refuses to property grant the Default against select Defendants as mandated. C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank, 93 N.M.150, 597 P.2d 1190 (Ct. App. 1979) “Summary judgement is drastic, and its purpose is not to substitute for existing methods in the trial of issues of fact.” In this matter Defendants 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) cannot further litigate for any trial having lost all standing and due process not answering the Complaint, and where the Defendants Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch have no dispute with the evidence already presented sustaining a valid case where judgment on the Complaint allegations are accepted as fact as a case where relief can be granted for all counts in all requested amounts. Agnew v. Libby, 53 N.M. 56, 201 P.2d 775 (1949) “This rule (1-056) is obviously designed to expedite litigation by eliminating needless trials and by avoiding frivolous defenses delaying determination of the legitimate issues.” This case is uncontested except the attempt of the Defendants to strike all evidence, which is a criminal act of obstruction of justice. Pederson v. Lothman, 63 N.M. 364, 320, P.2d 378 (1958) “Summary judgement provides a method whereby it is possible to determine whether a genuine claim for relief or defense exists and whether there is a genuine issue of fact warranting the submission of the case to a jury.” ; 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.” Plaintiff has proven his case by both circumstantial evidence, actual photographs, allegations uncontested by any Defendant, and undermining actions of fraud by Defendants to rig the case in defiance of law. Plaintiff is undeniably due a Summary Judgment against all Defendants for all Counts of the Complaint and in all amounts requested as well as all requested sanctions throughout the litigation requested by the Plaintiff. Goffe v. Pharmaseal Labs. Inc., 90 N.M. 764, 568 P.2d 600 (Ct. App. 1976) “Purpose of summary judgement proceeding is to expedite litigation by determining whether a party possesses competent evidence to support his pleadings so as to raise genuine issues of material fact and, if he has not, then to dispose of the matter at that state of the proceeding.”; Buffington v. Continental Gas Co., 69 N.M. 365, 367 P.2d 539 (1961) “Trial courts are to bring litigation to an end at an early stage when it clearly appears that one of the parties is entitled to a judgement in the case as made out by the pleadings and the admission of the parties.. The courts are not intended to substitute a new method of trial when no issue of facts exists.”

Respectfully submitted by __________________________________________________

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

Certificate of Service 10-5-2023

I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of this Motion 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.

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

[1] [Exhibit 1] [2] Peoples v. Peoples, 72 NM 64, 380 p.2d 513 (1963) “Entire complaint not stricken-Generally the entire complaint will not be stricken. Only those matters improperly pleaded, or which have no bearing on the lawsuit, should be stricken.”; DiMatteo v. County of Dona Ana ex rel. Board of County Commissioners, 109 NM 374, 785 P.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1989) “Entire complaint not stricken-Generally the entire complaint will not be stricken. Only those matters improperly pleaded, or which have no bearing on the lawsuit, should be stricken.”