top of page
Search

PROVEN NM CORRUPTION AND TREASON AGAINST AMERICA

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BERNALILLO COUNTY

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CV-2023-07042

Plaintiff,

V.


AND TREASONOUS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH FOR IMPROPER SERVICE; REQUEST FOR

SEVERE SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN JUSTIN GRAY, ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY FOR EXTREME VIOLATIONS IN FRAUD OF NMSA RULE 11; REQUEST ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN JUSTIN GRAY, ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY FOR EXTREME VIOLATIONS OF FRAUD DESIGNED EXPLICITLY TO AFFECT THE DEMISE OF THE US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III IN TREASON AGAINST AMERICA TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST CITIZEN JUSTIN GRAY, BENAVIDEZ RANCH, AND CITIZEN “JOHN DOE”

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David Derringer, representing himself Pro-Se with his Response in Opposition to Defendants’ ILLEGAL, FRAUD, AND MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL APPREARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH FOR IMPROPER SERVICE and notice to the court of criminal acts distorting the court records in felonies state and federal.

In FRAUD of New Mexico state-paid with tax dollars, attorney Daniel Mackey has come to this court in fraud attempting to embezzle tax monies to pay the attorney fees of private citizen sued of Justin Gray. Embezzling tax money is a felony criminal act of collusion of both Justin Gray and attorney Daniel Mackey not only mandating disbarment of attorney Mackey, [1] but directive to “authorities” by Judge Brickhouse to prosecute in criminal acts within this court. 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.” 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 mis-representation,.. engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his fitness to practice law.” ; In re Ayala, 102 N.M. 214, 693 p.2d 580 (1984) “Attorney disbarred for having engaged in ..misconduct, including subornation of false statements, dishonesty, and intentional misrepresentations, in the form of false statements”.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ILLEGAL, FRAUD,

AND TREASONOUS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL APPREARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH FOR IMPROPER SERVICE

  1. On September 4, 2023 summons was hand delivered to citizen Justin Gray by a paid server at Justin Gray’s legal place of employment 2105 Osuna Road NE Albuquerque, New Mexico as proper service to an individual NM citizen, as available when the Plaintiff does not know a home address or if in fact Justin Gray is “homeless” and does not have an actual home address. NMRA Rule 1-004(F)(3) provides that service may be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person apparently in charge of the actual place of business of the defendant. The Summons was properly served by a paid server, not the Plaintiff, and copies of this service on private citizen Justin Gray are filed with the court. As the time has well passed to Answer the Complaint, private citizen Justin Gray is in DEFAULT of the Complaint. Justin Gray is not represented by the only private attorney in the litigation as is also not Defendant “John Doe” and Defendant Benavidez Ranch who these two Defendants are also in DEFAULT. Attorney John D’Amato Jr. only represents Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. [Exhibit 1]. Justin Gray is proven by the statutory writing of NMSA 77-14-3 not to have had any legal ability to either file criminal charges under his employment as doing a felony of NMSA 30-39-1 and in a felony under penal code 118.1, and then in retaliation, revenge, retribution, obstruction of justice, treason, intimidation and other criminal acts state and federal, acted as an individual private citizen to steal 13(17) known Derringer horses, wherein already such horses were stolen by Sinaloa Cartel member Benjamin Benavidez Jr. locked without food and water (felonies per horse in larceny NMSA 30-16-1 and animal abuse NMSA 30-18-1 [2 FELONIES PER HORSE]) on the Santalina, and citizen Justin Gray then lied to public record that the horses were strays, posted an extortion/ransom note for money to return the horses on Derringer’s front door residence by doing trespass. Justin Gray, thus without any authority by employment, [Exhibit 2] and took the stolen horses that are personal property of Derringer [2] to places unknown transporting stolen property and in then concealment and illegal possession of stolen property entailing vast and multiple felonies in NM and federal treason working in cahoots with known and admitted (confession of Sinaloa Cartel member Benavidez in court) of being a horse rustler: SEE: judicial notice D-202-CV-2014-07755 Derringer v. Benavidez, (Answer of Benavidez January 15, 2015). HORSES ARE IDENTIFIED AS #1 Bay stallion. #2 Buckskin mare. #3 Buckskin filly. #4 Sorrel mare. #5 Sorrel colt. #6 Black filly. #7 Bay colt. #8 Sorrel colt. #9 Sorrel colt. #10 Sorrel mare. #11 Sorrel colt. #12 Bay mare. #13 Bay filly.

  2. Derringer completed legal proper service at the place of Justin Gray’s employment as no other address was known. NMRA Rule 1-004(F)(3) provides that service may be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person apparently in charge of the actual place of business of the defendant. The heading of the Complaint makes it abundantly clear that Justin Gray was served a private law suit whereas he stole the Derringer horses not available under any ruse of strays and specifically not available under any false claim of trespass not allowed under the specific writing of the statute 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”) whereas the dividing fence line for access to Derringer’s Pajarito open range horses is non-compliant with NMSA 77-16-1. Accordingly, Justin Gray knowingly stole 13(17 [3]) Derringer horses with knowledge by statutory construction of NMSA 77-14-3, and with Officer Gray’s personal knowledge of the Pajarito fence line not in compliance ever with NMSA 77-16-1 and 77-16-4 the FENCE THEM OUT law sustained by NM Court of Appeals No. 12-8853 that Justin Gray could not pose as an officer to take horses on private lands not a herd district, and horses already stolen by Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez. As an officer Justin Gray had to arrest his Sinaloa Cartel buddy Benavidez under NMSA 77-9-22(F) bit as a collusion member of the Sinaloa Cartel, private citizen Justin Gray instead chose to do domestic terrorism against owner Derringer for filing law suits against him. 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 “Statute proscribing harassment (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1512) is not limited to conduct that actually dissuades testimony, and the success of an attempt to do so or the possibility thereof is irrelevant.” Any person, whether citizen, governmental employee, officer, judge or other working with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel to assist their horse rustling, drug trafficking, human trafficking of providing “protection” by falsifying court records, refusal to arrest, assisting criminal acts and other “facilitation is a traitor to the United States under the 14th Amendment Section 3, and US Code Title 18 Section 2381; “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, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.” Justin Gray has been caught stealing horses as an individual (and has been sued as such in this action) traitor, and refusing to arrest Sinaloa Cartel proven and admitted horse rustler Benavidez Jr.as an “officer” employed by the State of New Mexico Justin Gray protects the Sinaloa Cartel as a traitor to America.

  3. (MISLABELED AS 2) As Derringer legally sued Justin Gray as an individual citizen as the law under which he tried to hide behind by his badge and posing illegally in fraud doesn’t work for horse rustling/larceny, Justin Gray was properly identified as a private citizen moonlighting as a SINALOA CARTEL HORSE RUSTLER, thus unable to use a state paid attorney well stated in the Complaint heading. { David Derringer, Plaintiff, V. Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Benavidez Ranch Employee John Doe, private New Mexico citizen Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment) } Accordingly, private citizen Justin Gray cannot be represented by state attorney Daniel Mackey, nor does Plaintiff Derringer have to notify in any way a law suit against a private citizen to the New Mexico Attorney General. Attorney Daniel Mackey in fraud on the court deliberately deceives the Court both changing the heading entailing criminal acts of falsification of public records to pose and ploy the Mackey can represent a private citizen doing deliberate fraud to Judge Brickhouse that Justin Gray was not sued as an individual by corruption of the Complaint heading as “BENJAMIN BENAVIDEZ JR., BENAVIDEZ RANCH, JOHN DOE, JUSTIN GRAY”

4. (MISLABELED AS 3) This Court has absolute personal jurisdiction over private citizen Justin Gray properly served under NMRA Rule 1-004(F)(3), and in the venue of the 2nd District Court, wherein citizen Justin Gray did not enter any pro-se appearance, did not hire any private attorney not available to be paid by the State of New Mexico, and is in total DEFAULT OF THE COMPLAINT. 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). ; 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)). [1] People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) The instant fraud Pleading DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL APPREARANCE AND MOTION TO QUASH FOR IMPROPER SERVICE encompasses fraud on the court for improper purposes under NMRA Rule 11 and all contents of the Pleading are barred by FRAUD. ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."). Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944)). Mackey uses and accelerates the FRAUD ON THE COURT by use of 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. Mackey fraudulently recaptions 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. [4] Daniel Mackey intentionally makes misrepresentations to a tribunal. Mackey attempts to defeat Derringer’s legal cause of action where relief can be granted by use of fraud. In re Venie,; In re Gabell, 1993-NMSC-045, 115 N.M. 737, 858 P.2d 404).This action of Mackey and citizen Justin Gray is criminal. 2017-NMSC-018NM Stat § 30-26-1 (2021). [5]. In this instant matter, as before in other cases, attorney Daniel Mackey distorts the Plaintiff’s heading so as to deceive the court that he can represent private citizen Justin Gray, which he cannot. Daniel Mackey distorts the heading from the Complaint. The legal heading is the heading of the Plaintiff as above in this pleading that cannot be changed. 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 illegal pleading seeking to “QUASH” as fraud wherein this court cannot consider any writings within. Daniel Mackey engages in a federal crime, United States. 18 US Code 1519, 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 a Judge in what is easily called attempt to bribe or coerce. Crime or Fraud by Client 16-401 Under Paragraph D of Rule 16-102 NMRA of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. “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.

NOTICES: Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and Benavidez Ranch are in breach of contract of the Santolina private lands grazing permit from Garrett Development Corporation whereas the contract specifies that the East-West Pajarito fence line separating the Santolina from the entirely private lands of the Pajarito to the South, making their alleged claim to grazing on the Santalina legally void as to no legal effect. NMLB is mandated to properly arrest Benavidez Jr. for larceny of now established 285 + Derringer horses over the last three years mandated under NMSA 77-9-22(f) and NMSA 29-1-1 and refusal to rescue the stolen horses from the Benavidez grazing permit on the Santalina Garrett Development Corporation mandated under NMSA 29-1-2 as facilitation, assistance, complicity, and conspiracy as accessories to Benavidez’ horse rustling for protection of the Sinaloa Cartel. Accordingly, Justin Gray private citizen felon Sinaloa Cartel horse rustler has been legally caught stealing 17 Derringer horses in cahoots with Sinaloa Cartel admitted horse rustler Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and is in DEFAULT of a legal sustained law suit where justice and damages can be awarded in congruence with the rule of law in a Complaint where relief can be granted. Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984) “the court must liberally construe the pleadings, accept as true all factional allegations in the Complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff’s favor.”

REQUEST FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN JUSTIN GRAY, ATTORNEY DANIEL MACKEY FOR EXTREME VIOLATIONS IN FRAUD OF NMSA RULE 11

This instant pleading by Defendant individual citizen Justin Gray is fraud and collusion with a state paid attorney in a conspiracy to defile and deceive the court to protect Justin Gray’s moonlighting horse rustling with the Sinaloa Cartel invading the United States. The pleading was not only for improper purposes, but to dupe the court of misinformation, fraud of representation, attempts to dismiss a legal suit filed and served legally by lying to a judge and trying to influence a legal procedure when both attorney and alleged client are both doing criminal acts. New York State National Org. for Women v. Terry, 732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990 Attorneys do not possess immunity from sanctions for their conduct in judicial proceedings so as to preclude imposition of Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to rules enabling act. Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USCA, 28 USCA 2072." ; “Fraud by Client” “ Paragraph B of 16-401 (Truthfulness in statements to others) recognizes that substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have assisted the clients’ crime or fraud.”NMRA 0-11 provides: 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. In adopting an abuse of discretion standard for the review of an award of sanctions, the Supreme Court stated: “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). This fraud is a direct violation of Rule 11. This is a "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." Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int'l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Plaintiff requests for sanctions against each of individual Justin Gray and attorney Daniel Mackey separately in the amount to be awarded Plaintiff David Derringer of $50,000.00.

ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES

This pleading in fraud presented by the Defendant Justin Gray in deliberate fraud on the court in cahoots with attorney Daniel Mackey goes well beyond sanctions of NMRA Rule 11 by attempting to defeat the very integrity of the judiciary itself asking a court to deny due process, deny equal protection and defeat the intent of the founders of Article III of the Constitution. US v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288 “Statute prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with rights secured by Constitution or laws of the United States created no substantive rights, but prohibits interference with rights established by Constitution or laws and by decisions interpreting them.” These matters involve not only false fraud on the court pleadings, but an attempt to stop the Plaintiff for any redress of stealing 17 horses included with the other 285 + horses worth themselves $28,500,000.00 and extreme other damages. (the 13(17) horses stolen specifically by Justin Gray have a value of $1,700,000.00 or if each horse is not returned Derringer is owed $100,000.00 per horse) [6] Defendant Justin Gray and attorney Mackey seek to weaponize the judicial system for improper purposes. 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. Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N. & H. Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir. 1980). This matter supersedes the instant attack on the Plaintiff, and is an attack upon the integrity of the US Constitution Article III as its intent is to weaponize the courts to intimidate, retaliate and force oppression upon adversaries. The criminal Defendants actions are a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant, but to "corrupt the judicial process" or "subvert the integrity of the court." Oxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int'l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff Derringer requests of the Court to punish Defendant Justin Gray and attorney Daniel Mackey each separately in abuse of process, and malicious prosecution to knowingly producing pleadings intended to delay justice and to deny redress and justice. Plaintiff Derringer requests permission to punish: sanctions without boundaries Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico, 2013-NMCA-105, ¶ 2, 311 P.3d 1236, for this court to sanction Defendant Justin Gray and attorney Daniel Mackey each separately for an amount of $100,000.00 payable to Plaintiff David Derringer wherein this case is involving both false pleadings and oppression of Constitution and improper purposes to defeat justice on the most basic level. In NM Court of Appeals review of the “Harrison” case, the Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions. The main rationale for doing so was “ . the need to prevent abusive litigation practice and preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JUSTIN GRAY, “JOHN DOE”, AND BENAVIDEZ RANCH FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR APPEAR UNDER NMRA RULE 1-055

Motion for Default Judgement under NMRA Rule 1-055 is of legal sustenance mandating the granting all Counts in all amounts requested against the Defendants and requested additional extreme punishment, exemplary damages and relief at the discretion of the Judge regarding treason against the United States by NM employees and citizen domestic terrorists that are facilitating the invading Sinaloa Cartel rustle Derringer horses, now stolen 285 +., including, but not limited to the HORSES ARE IDENTIFIED AS #1 Bay stallion. #2 Buckskin mare. #3 Buckskin filly. #4 Sorrel mare. #5 Sorrel colt. #6 Black filly. #7 Bay colt. #8 Sorrel colt. #9 Sorrel colt. #10 Sorrel mare. #11 Sorrel colt. #12 Bay mare. #13 Bay filly wherein the Court should Order all 285 + horses immediately returned to owner David Derringer with Order to Justin Gray to disclose the location of each of the 13 horses he stole in larceny, any and all persons involved in the possession of the 13 horses for the last 2 ½ months with full names and addresses for future suits against them.

The matter, as stated in well pleaded and detailed Complaint will be used by the Court for “finding of facts and conclusions of law” and sustains all counts with all amounts requested in redress. This matter entails that all Defendants are in collusion with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel, not only doing the extreme damages to the Plaintiff of stealing horses and constant criminal attacks against Derringer, but aiding, abetting, facilitating the Sinaloa Cartel New Mexico operations in drug trafficking, human trafficking, pedophilia, prostitution, weapons trafficking, using NM as a “headquarters” of US entry, and as a NM base of total crime.

In this matter, proper legal service was sustained to Defendant individual Justin Gray to the proper address of 2105 Osuna Rd. Building South, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113 wherein Gray is employed. Defendants “John Doe” as employee of Defendant Benavidez Ranch and Benavidez Ranch were legally served at 9701 Volcano NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87121. Defendants Justin Gray, “John Doe” and Benavidez Ranch deliberately refused and failed to respond in any manner to the Complaint mandating the Judge to Order “John Doe’s” real name stated, known by Defendant Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and Order a DEFAULT judgment for Plaintiff Derringer in all counts and in all amounts and enter the Judgment of record at the same time. Schmider v. Sapir, 82 NM 355, 482 P.2d 58 (1971); Gallegos v. Franklin, 89 NM 118, 547, Pl2d 1160 (Ct. App.) cert denied 89 NM 206, 549 P.2d 284 (1976); Kutz v. Independent Publishins Co., 101 NM 587, 686 Pl2d 277 (Ct. App. 1984).

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests a Default Judgment against all parties named above with entry of default and default judgment may be simultaneous. Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 NM 209, 372 P.2d 797 (1962), all court costs, all sanctions requested, and any and all necessary relief as may be deemed proper by the court for the extreme behavior of the Defendants and attorney Mackey acting in treason against the Constitution and against America as “domestic terrorists”.


Respectfully submitted by __________________________________________________

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

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.

[1] In re Quintana, 104 N.M. 511, 724, P.2d 220 (1986) “Indefinite suspension warranted- Sixteen violations of nine rules governing professional responsibility, involving misrepresentation, neglect, and other conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice resulted in defendant’s being suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.” [2] Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Congress provided that the right to real and personal property was to be enjoyed equally throughout the United States, and that right was to be secured against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private.” [3] 4 Deringer mares of the Justin Gray stolen horses are known pregnant horses making Justin Gray’s horse larceny and other crimes per horse actually 17. [4] Disbarment for manufacturing evidence. — When an attorney, who is an officer of the court and whose duty is it to protect the integrity of the adversarial system, intentionally lies under oath and manufactures documents designed to achieve an advantage in litigation, he demonstrates a complete lack of fitness to practice law. In re Gabell, 1993-NMSC-045, 115 N.M. 737, 858 P.2d 404). [5] 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 [6] 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.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

NOTICES:

bottom of page