PERSECUTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS TO PROTECT THE INVADING MEXICAN NATIONAL SINALOA CARTEL COCAINE

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

NOTICE OF THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 1, AS VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AS A SHAM HEARING FOR IMPROPER PURPOSES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR AN UNCONSCIONABLE SCHEME TO SUBVERT THE INTEGRITY OF ARTICLE III, FOR MISUSING THE COURTS AS A WEAPON AGAINST A WHISTLEBLOWER OF NEW MEXICO PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND TREASON

COMES NOW Defendant, David Derringer, represented by counsel Public Defender’s Office with notice in Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902 for the following legal reasons.

This Court, without 4th, 5th 14th legal due process or equal protection, and by use of a statutorily-proven false criminal complaint, by use of extortion, hate crimes and malicious prosecution is allowing the actual felon criminal Officer Justin Gray to illegally prosecute Defendant Derringer. Justin Gray as a private criminal citizen, has personally stolen in grand larceny 13(17) known Derringer horses, wherein each horse is a separate felony under NMSA 30-16-1; horses of value of $1,700,000.00 ($ 1.7 Million dollars). Justin Gray also, as a conspirator member of the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, in treason against the United States, has also facilitated and assisted the Cartel to steal another 285 + Derringer horses valued at $28,500,000.00 ( $ 28.5 Million dollars).

1. Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902 is proven in fundamental legal error, and lack thereof jurisdiction, by the Statutory writing of NMSA 77-14-3 prohibiting any claim of trespass without statutory compliance with NMSA 77-16-1 & 77-16-4 wherein the Pajarito fence line is non-compliant. This was and is well known to prosecuting Officer Justin Gray as he falsely filed criminal complaint against victim/Defendant David Derringer, constituting fraud on the court for improper purposes and criminal acts under NMSA 30-39-1 and penal code 118.1, also the false criminal complaint knowingly filed against NMRA Rule 7-201. There existed prior inexplicably intertwined, related to, arising before, subject matter relating to Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902, of prior civil suit Derringer v. Officer Justin Gray, private citizen Justin Gray et al. CV-2023-05227 that provided Justin Gray the motive of retaliation, intimidation and obstruction of justice to maliciously misuse Article III to attack Derringer by false criminal Complaint. as Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902 in fraud on the court. [1] This knowingly false criminal act by Justin Gray, proven by known false use of NMSA 77-14-3, and all other alleged false counts are also a criminal false complaint as filed, wherein no trial would be legal. "It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.") Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill. App. 475 (1894). In a further criminal attack on Derringer, as the Plaintiff in CV-2023-05227, Justin Gray then, as a private citizen, wherein NMSA 77-14-3 would not support any official action of confiscation of the personal property of others, and by falsely claiming trespass of already stolen horses locked in private non-herd district lands and pens of proven and admitted horse rustler Benjamin Benavidez Jr. not of the owner; Justin Gray then used illegally State taxpayer trucks and trailers, and in larceny NMSA 30-16-1 outside of all law, private citizen Justin Gray stole 13(17 - 4 mares are pregnant) known by Justin Gray, that these were Derringer horses already stolen in pens by Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez. Justin Gray knowingly then posted an extortion/ransom note at the front door of the Derringer residence and to none of the other 675,000 other resident of Bernalillo County. Justin Gray stealing known Derringer horses were acts of “domestic terrorism” against owner Derringer intended to stop the Derringer civil litigation against Officer Justin Gray and against also citizen Justin Gray, and a means to protect, facilitate and encourage the continued Sinaloa Cartel horse rustling by Benavidez and other Cartel members. In response to the Justin Gray personal criminal larceny of 13(17) Derringer horses, on September 4, 2023, 4 days after a false indictment under the illegal criminal Complaint of Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902, Derringer as then Plaintiff filed Derringer v. individual citizen Justin Gray, Benavidez Jr. et al CV-2023-07042. against the personal larceny/conversion and other torts by Justin Gray in operation of treason with the Sinaloa Cartel horse rustling including Benavidez Jr. In Civil Case CV-2023-05227, both Officer Justin Gray and individual citizen Justin Gray have lost by DEFAULT likely unbalancing any competence or rational behavior, and creating a rage of unprofessional behavior-incompetence of Justin Gray.

2. Over a period of 30 years, since 1993, David Derringer has exposed extreme endemic corruption of the State of New Mexico judiciary and administration, wherein devious means have been illegally employed by those corrupt [2] , to stop the legal litigation by Derringer so as to protect the invading Sinaloa Cartel and protect the criminals of both state employ and subservient citizens involved in the crimes. After filing the action Derringer v. individual citizen Justin Gray, Benavidez Jr. et al CV-2023-07042. against the personal larceny by Justin Gray in operation of treason with the Sinaloa Cartel horse rustling, Justin Gray employed attorney John D’Amato Jr. who instantly by illegal request of client Justin Gray, attempts to bribe and corrupt the assigned Judge by a dialog directed to illegally violate US Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments and against US Code Title 18 Sections 241, 242 and 1503 by attempts to stop Derringer’s Pro-Se litigation of due process and equal protection, by “the Court could require the Plaintiff to first file with the Clerk of the Court a “Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File a Pro Se Action …that Plaintiff is required to post a bond with his proposed Complaint in complete compliance with an Order setting forth the restrictions” Clearly, these are deliberate violations of all rights, immunities and privileges under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments whereas client in that case, Justin Gray, is desperately attempting to escape prosecution for larceny of Derringer’s horses and all NM State and criminal employees are frantic to stop legal litigation exposing the corruption of New Mexico involved with the Sinaloa Cartel by singling out and targeting Derringer as an individual to deprive rights so as to stop whistleblowing and legal redress in justice for Derringer. The intent here is clear to deprive Derringer of due process and equal protection. 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.” The scheduled “inquisition competency hearing” for November 1st, is clearly a new idea to also stop all litigation by Derringer, in the instant cases both criminal and civil by a new plan to discredit Derringer as “incompetent” so as to allow the illegal trial to take place in Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902 in a plan to imprison Derringer for planned assassination, or at the least stop the litigation involving public corruption. This is moreover an attempt to gain a document that Derringer is “incompetent” so as to stop CV-2023-05227, CV-2023-07042 to save Justin Gray, other Cartel members, corrupt NM employees, and to prevent any and all Derringer instant and future legal due process and equal protection litigation by all NM Judges. This plan is to simply deny any existing or future filing, stating that the Plaintiff Derringer has been deemed “incompetent” and therefore any litigation of Derringer is “frivolous”: a true ploy of treason against the US Constitution Article III. The fear of NM is the whistleblowing exposure Derringer exudes of public corruption involving the Sinaloa Cartel and judicial use of cocaine and other debauchery, including now the terrorism horse rustling designed to ruin Derringer’s life, destroy income, destroy emotional bonds to pet and trade tool horses and other acts of torts. Without doubt, Derringer does not know or has not had any previous contact with this presiding Judge of Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902, nor has this Judge ever had any contact or interaction directly with the Defendant Derringer. Thus as not all Defendants are forced into a “competency hearing”, and wherein without former contact, this Judge has no possible “probable cause” to question or believe of any possibility of Defendant Derringer being “incompetent” needing any evaluation. Accordingly, this is a direct targeting and singling-out of Derringer for spurious and political reasons. Additionally, the obvious singling out and targeting Defendant Derringer for a hearing on November 1, 2023 is abuse of discretion of arbitrary and capricious acts derived obviously as a new plan from sources external to this instant litigation, to discredit the Defendant Derringer by other motives, rumors, third party opinions, and hearsay sources as a ploy and unconscionable plan of Spanish inquisition, with deceit and deception abuse of power. This undeniably violates the due process of Derringer by reaching outside the court record to other parties developing a plan of corruption-conspiracy. Matter of Charge of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, 39 F.3d 374, 309, US App. DC 97 “Judge in adversarial judicial proceeding...who reaches outside of record to decide case defiles process.” In this matter, case records of New Mexico establish that David Derringer is not only fluid and lucid entirely competent in Derringer’s personal affairs, but to the dismay of the judiciary, is also well-competent in Pro-Se representation in any and all courts of law, and cannot be ruled as “incompetent” so as to deceive all future courts in a well contrived conspiracy to stop use of the United States courts to protect disclosure of public corruption. David Derringer in point of fact as Pro-Se has set precedent Case law in New Mexico for “water rights hearings”; Derringer v. Turney, 2001-NMCA-075, 131 N.M. 40, 33 P.3d 40, cert. denied,131 N.M. 64 , 33 P.3d 284; and mandated penalties and punishment for failure to disclose Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) violations; Derringer v. State, 133 N.M. 721 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) 2003 NMCA 73 68 P.3d 961, and represented himself Pro-Se in the United States Supreme Court No. 18-7785 and other docketed cases. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the scheduled hearing for “competency” of November 1, 2023 is a set-up for corruption motives for instant and future fraud on the court. Thus, this hearing is designed for a "fraud on the court" that 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) (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). There is clearly an exponential discrimination occurring here in bias and prejudice against Defendant David Derringer based on one or all of the following discriminations of: age; political affiliation; sex; race; society status, exterior to the court rumors, opinions, past Derringer filings exposing public corruption; Communist coup; protection of the Sinaloa Cartel; Social class of non-government employment discrimination; Democrat party solidarity against conservative registered Republican; political agendas using the Sinaloa Cartel invasion as a political weapon; protection of government employees; and other matters. The competency questions that arbitrarily abused the discretion to schedule an inquisition hearing scheduled on November 1, 2023 were without probable cause singling out and targeting citizen Derringer for improper purposes to discriminate and harass. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) The Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a "class of one" when the plaintiff does not allege membership in a class or group, but alleges that they have been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for such treatment. Easily noted in court record docket, there is no scheduled hearing regarding the competence of the prosecuting Officer Justin Gray, despite his irrational criminal acts of knowingly filing a false criminal complaint in perjury and collusion against Derringer, and then stealing in grand larceny 13(17) known Derringer horses posing both such “insane” actions illegally by illegal claims of NMSA 77-14-3. The second sentence (NMSA 77-14-3) defeats the premise to use this Statute to either file criminal charges, or for Justin Gray to pose in misuse of his badge [3] to use this statute to steal in larceny any horses on private lands, knowingly lying to public record the horses are “strays”. In pre-meditated larceny for ulterior proven motives, Justin Gray simply misused his badge and known statutory writing prohibiting both stated [4] to indeed personally do criminal falsification of public records, fraud on the court, and personal larceny of 13(17) horses. The rational mind would question the competency of Justin Gray, [5] wherein there is no hearing set in “equal protection” for Defendant Derringer involving equal law against any questioned competence of Justin Gray, instead against only singled-out David Derringer. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) “Strict judicial scrutiny is reserved for cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of suspect classes or interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.” Clearly, this establishes a different level of law performed with government employees, as compared to a vastly different level of law performed against the American public citizens. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) “The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.” Questions arise as to the impartiality, fairness and rule of law being improperly addressed in Case No. T-4-CR-2023-003902 since there is a continued illegal prosecution of Defendant Derringer with statutorily prohibited foundation of Complaint, and no scrutiny of the motives, competency and illegal actions of the prosecutor Officer Justin Gray. US v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820 amended CA7 (Ill.) 1996. These matters are brought to the attention of the trial court to preserve all issues for any and all possible necessary appeals. State V. Tom, 2010-NMCA-062, N.M. P.3d State Of New Mexico, Docket No. 27,549 Court Of Appeals Of New Mexico May 25, 2010.

[1] Officer Justin Gray’s species of fraud does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, and is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968). [2] 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.” [3] 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.” [4] NMSA 77-14-3 ….The provisions of this section shall not be construed to affect the obligation of a property owner to meet the requirements of Section 77-16-1 NMSA 1978 for fencing against such trespasses. [5] 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.”