top of page
Search

SINALOA CARTEL AND NMLB DEFENDANTS DENYING DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BERNALILLO COUNTY

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CV-2023-07042

David Derringer,

Plaintiff,

V.

Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Benavidez Ranch Employee John Doe [Exhibit 1] [1], private New Mexico citizen Justin Gray (as an individual NM citizen precluded attorney representation by use of NM tax dollar fee payment)


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David Derringer, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) representing himself Pro-Se with his Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, Justin Gray’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice to Strike Complaint and for Sanctions not filed with service on 9-19-2023 and not mailed until 9-27-2023 and not received until 10-5-2023 making this Plaintiff’s response timely. Defendant refuse to present to the court the real name of the Benavidez Ranch employee “John Doe” in concealment of evidence and protection of member John Doe also involved with the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel.

BRIEF HISTORY: On April 20, 2023 NMLB Officer Manuel Monte and Officer Justin Gray worked in concert [3] with admitted Sinaloa Cartel horse rustler Benjamin Benavidez Jr. having filed a false police report in violation of NMSA 30-39-1. As CRIMINALS hiding behind a badge in usurpation of power, acting as intimidators, both Manuel Monte and Justin Gray “knowingly” misused this false contrived report to then file a known false criminal complaint against victim David Derringer in violation of NMSA 30-39-1 and penal code 118.1, and without warrant of legal service arrested and jailed Defendant Derringer without due process or probable cause. This was affected as a means of retaliation, intimidation, and obstruction of justice of the ongoing 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 -Derringer v. Davis & Derringer v. New Mexico Livestock Board et. al. Civil matters already in court regarding the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel conspiracy providing cocaine, minor children and other contraband using bribes for “protection” by Nm Judges and public officials. These acts of citizens Monte and Gray far outside of employment duties were simply personal domestic terrorism and treason against the United States meant to gain solidarity with the NM DEEP STATE public corruption for protection of the Sinaloa Cartel. This entailed of course a total discharge of duties of the NMLB employment 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. [4] It is well known that the Benavidez family are confessed horse rustlers, with admittance of stealing 2 Derringer horses in their answer to 2nd District Court: D-202-CV-2014-07755 on January 15, 2015 (of proper judicial notice). Both the criminals of NMlb employ use Los Lunas stolen livestock “fence” Dennis Chavez to illegally claim “stray horses” and sell them to Dennis Chavez, convicted horse rustler for kick-back money from the Sinaloa Cartel. Benjamin Benavidez “the elder”, father of Benjamin Benavidez Jr. is also a convicted livestock rustler. This Complaint was against David Derringer as a Defendant with alleged 11 counts of injuring a fence on the same date alleged to be the Defendant releasing his stolen horses to access water. This Case was number T-4-CR-2023-002115. On May 9, 2023 Defendant was arraigned on these false charges T-4-CR-2023-002115 and the 182 Rule for commencement of trial began to run. NMRA Rule 7-506(B). Motion to Dismiss for this case was filed and on June 22, 2023, the State of New Mexico, through NMLB Officer Justin Gray, filed a Nolle Prosequi in Case T-4-CR-2023-002115. These unlawful acts by the NMLB, Officer Manuel Monte, and Officer Gray precipitated the instant Civil lawsuit by Plaintiff David Derringer known as CV-2023-05227 David Derringer 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). This entailed suit against both Officer Monte and Officer Gray both under collusion with the Sinaloa Cartel as Officers and individual citizens. In obvious retaliation and intimidation with obstruction of justice [5] , on August 11, 2023 Justin Gray knowingly filed a false criminal complaint in violation of NMSA 30-39-1 and penal code 118.1 copying the April 20, 2023 criminal complaint, and embellishing with 5 additional counts of injury to fence on the same date with additional alleged false claims of trespass of livestock under NMSA 77-14-3 [6] and failure to show ownership, not statutorily required under any current circumstances. Citizen Justin Gray has personal full knowledge that Benavidez was using the dilapidated Pajarito fence line in non-compliance with both NMSA 77-16-2 and 77-16-4 to deliberately open some strands of barbed wire particularly in the SW corner only 200 yards North of the Derringer residence on the Pajarito where, obviously, the Derringer horses are constantly, wherein thus Derringer horses saw the open fence and go in, and Benavidez and employee John Doe then close the only 2 strands of barbed wire, instantly trapping and capturing the Derringer horses, as well as thus preventing them from coming home to the Pajarito and also depriving them of water at the Derringer residence, wherein there is not any wells or water on the Santalina; accordingly instant 2 felonies (per horse) of horse larceny and abuse of animals under NMSA 30-16-1 and NMSA 30-18-1 as [Exhibit 2, 3] (of only two of 100 + photographs Derringer has as evidence to sustain this valid Complaint cause of action for which relief can be granted, of the horse larceny of Benavidez and Justin Gray). Justin Gray knowingly then filed the false charges of trespass, in violation of NMSA 30-39-1 and PENAL CODE 118.1, 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 THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSTAINED sustained by NM Court of Appeals No. 12-9953. As is this improper purposes instant pleading to dismiss, both are false, as is the criminal complaint with the fraud on the court [7] use of all claims sustained as false, criminal complaint alleged new case T-4-CR-2023-003902 was contrary to NMRA Rule 7-201, and was a weaponizing of the US Court system in retaliation of CV-2023-05227 David Derringer v. NMLB et al. T-4-CR-2023-003902 is an exact copy of the injury to fence charge of T-4-CR-2023-002115 with multiple added alleged counts on the same original date of April 20, 2023, yet knowingly falsely claiming a new case in blatant sustained violation of NMSA 30-39-1 and penal code 118.1. On August 23, 2023 Officer Gray usurped any conceivable alleged claims of duties by illegally accepting another false police report by Sinaloa Cartel admitted horse rustler Benjamin Benavidez Jr. again in violation of NMSA 30-39-1 to personally in larceny under NMSA 30-16-1 and multiple other felonies, went to where Benavidez had locked up 13 Derringer horses (4 mares are pregnant making the theft 17 horses, each horse a felony) in larceny without food or water in animal abuse, and Justin Gray, without any authority under NMSA 77-14-3 (by the Pajarito fence non-complaint with NMSA 77-16-1) and stole the 13(17) Derringer horses in false pretense of illegal performance of NMSA 77-14-3. Derringer had to watch with a 6-18 power spotting scope as Benjamin Benavidez Jr., employee John Doe, Justin Gray and partner in crime Manuel Monte used a NMLB silver pick-up with the NMLB emblem on the doors, a large black livestock trailer to load in larceny 13 very identifiable Derringer horses, in terrorism whereas none of these horses had ever been in a trailer before. Hence, several of the horses were forced and abused to get them in the trailer. Derringer was left a helpless victim knowing that Justin Gray and Monte were illegally embezzling use of state trucks and trailers to steal the Derringer horses falsely claiming perjury to public record of claimed “estrays”. Both Justin Gray and Monte were dressed in their uniforms hiding behind their badges, yet as citizens stealing livestock, on private lands, without warrants, without and against all law, knowing these horses were Derringer’s and not “wild horses” are were armed with firearms. Hence, Derringer knew if he went on the Santalina to stop them, he would be arrested for either trespass of interference, or “as rustlers,” Justin Gray would probably shoot and kill Derringer. 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.” Justin Gray was taking the stolen livestock to places unknown. In proof of knowledge of Defendant’s ownership, Justin Gray then trespassed on the residence of Derringer to post an extortion/ransom notice of impoundment with ransom fees due for Defendant to retrieve his stolen livestock.[Exhibit 4] On September 4, 2023 Derringer Plaintiff immediately filed this instant Civil Suit CV-2023-07042 David Derringer 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) served upon all parties on September 4, 2023. Watching Justin Gray steal the Derringer horses was “domestic terrorism”. That herd of Derringer horses is easily identified through a spotting scope as mare “Cremella” has a distinctive cream color with white in her black mane with black lower legs. [Exhibit 5] This [Exhibit 5] shows the herd at the Derringer residence enjoying their salt-mineral blocks (not the entire herd in the photo) with the herd stallion in the forefront at right and obviously “Cremella” at the far left with her darker buckskin baby beside her. In the extortion/ransom notice by Justin Gray [Exhibit 4] the stallion is noted as horse #1, “Cremella” is noted as horse #2, and “Cremella”’s baby is noted as horse #3. To date, now 2 months, in retaliation, not only has Justin Gray not returned any of the 13 horses, but has colluded again with Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez Jr. in obstruction of justice [8] to steal another two Derringer herds of 22 horses in the last 2 weeks. The intent of the Justin Gray in cahoots with the Benavidez’ and the Sinaloa Cartel is to steal every horse Derringer owns with use of the protection of the Sinaloa Cartel. The illegal re-filing knowingly as false charges of the injury to fence, with multiple additional charges added alleged on the same date, is a motive to create a felony multiple conviction, to remove Defendant from the interference of the Sinaloa Cartel operating on the Pajarito and all the charges are both fraud on the court and improper. Justin Gray is knowingly in violation of NMRA Rule 7-506© that states refiled complaints shall be filed in the court in which the original charges were filed and under the same case file number of the dismissed charges. NMSA Rule 7-506(D). Accordingly, attorney D’Amato Jr. acts in fraud with his clients wherein all know the Motion to Dismiss is for improper purposes and extreme 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).

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND FOR SANCTIONS

The entire Motion by Defendants is extreme fraud on the court wherein all NM law, specifically NMSA 77-14-3 has already defeated the Defendants, proving without doubt that Defendants Benavidez did criminal acts in collusion with Justin Gray, both in violation of NMSA 30-39-1 to set up the orchestration of extreme horse rustling, all knowing that NMSA 77-14-3 would not support any posing of legality under duties of the NMLB or exempt them from all criminal code of NMSA Chapter 30. They come to this court in fraud with complicity of attorney D’Amato Jr. all being in treason with the Sinaloa Cartel mandating this court under Canon duties and case law to notify authorities and disbar D’Amato Jr. Schear v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1984-NMSC-079, 101 N.M. 671, 687 P.2d 728.; Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333. Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984) “In dismissing a Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 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.”; 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. Indeed, Derringer has several pending cases against Benavidez (Plural) as he has stolen now with the Sinaloa Cartel and Justin Gray 285 + horses of value damages for the horses let alone other torts of lifetime value $28,500,000.00 ONGOING.

  2. This court should take judicial notice of the treason of Judge Ortega being bribed by the Sinaloa Cartel, to rig the case No. CV-2022-03437 wherein she was docketed RECUSED, yet refused to vacate the case, denied all jury, trial, due process in criminal treason, and held hearings without the necessary and indispensable PLAINTIFF, against all law. The FBI and DOJ are involved as is the Pentagon for TREASON under US Code Article 18 Section 2381.

  3. (mislabeled 2) In case No. CV-2022-03437 all Defendants, including horse rustler Sinaloa Cartel Dennis Chavez. DC Livestock, SW Livestock, and SW Event Center and all Sinaloa Cartel Defendants did not answer the Complaint with ex-parte secret meeting with Judge Ortega and knew thus she would illegally rig the case for no need to answer. Same attorney D’Amato Jr. did similar fraud on the court in that case. Hall v. Budagher, 76 N.M. 591, 417 P.2d 71 (1986) The Motion to dismiss a complaint should be granted only if it appears that upon no facts provable under the complaint could plaintiff recover or be entitled to relief.” Clearly this instant case is not dismissed with new courts of new larceny and new parties before the court. 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.”

  4. (mislabeled 3) This instant case cannot be dismissed based on an entirely different case as the instant case was over different counts with different Defendants, all proven by sustaining appurtenant law to be true. Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999) “all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

  5. (mislabeled 4) this action for which relief can be granted entails different actions, different, sustaining laws, different parties and different circumstances. Pattison v. Ford, 82 N.M. 605, 485 P.2d 361 (Ct. App. 1971) “Possibility of recovery bars dismissal.” ; McCasland v. Prather, 92 N.M. 192, 585 P.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1978) “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a 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.”

  6. (mislabeled as 5) as the larceny-conversion has been ongoing and extreme sedition and treason embedded with the Sinaloa Cartel providing the cocaine and contraband and minor children to the Judiciary, Justin Gray is used as a vehicle with Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez and employees to do intimidation, obstruction of justice, RICO racketeering for the Cartel and do domestic terrorism against Derringer to ruin Derringer life and force Derringer to stop litigation in violation of all Constitutional rights. This instant case entails different actions, different, sustaining laws, different parties and different circumstances. Las Luminarian of N M Council of Blind v. Insengard, 92 N.M. 297, 587 P.2d 444 (Ct. App. 1978) “Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is granted infrequently. Only when there is total failure to allege matter essential to relief sought should a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by granted.”

  7. (mislabeled as 6) Because of the extreme cocaine use and exposure by Derringer of the extreme public corruption of New Mexico, Derringer is a targeted individual properly using the court for legal redress, hated by the Deep State of New Mexico that a pro-se person knows law enough to properly use the courts without an attorney stealing all money as a financial deterrent. Derringer has legally won all cases by Default of UNDERLYING: New Mexico Court of NMSC S-1 SC-39680, Appeals No. A-1-CA-40690, New Mexico District Court Cases: 7th District Court: CV-94-10; CV-02-19; D-727-CV-2021-00028, 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: D-202-CV-2014-07755; CV-2022-03437; CV-2018-00514. ALL BLOCKEDD BY JUDGES REFUSAL TO GRANT LEGAL JUDGEMENTS. NOTE: WEB SITE https://d2bowman4570.wixsite.com/notices/blog sent to the United States Supreme Court efilingsupport@supremecourt.gov for request to sua sponte take action to enforce the integrity of Article III of the United States Constitution and penalty for treason. This court has jurisdiction over this subject matter and over the Defendant persons involved. Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 953 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678, 682-83 (1946)“ Jurisdiction..is not defeated. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law, and just as issues of fact, it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.”

  8. (mislabeled as 7) Clearly, this matter is legally won by application of laws NMSA 29-1-1, 29-1-2, 30-16-1, 30-18-1, 30-39-1, PENAL CAODE 118.1, 77-16-1, 77-16-4, 77-9-22(f), 77-14-3, and multiple state criminal codes under appurtenant Article 30 and federal code treason, obstruction of justice, intimidation, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law and more. Gonzales v. Oil Workers Int’l Union, 77 N.M. 61, 419 P.2d 257 (1966) “Allegation of agency sufficient to withstand dismissal. Where the amended complaint alleges that the acts complained of were done by the defendant and by their agents, the pleading was sufficient to give defendants a fair idea of what the Plaintiff is complaining. No distinct forms are necessary to state a claim and the allegations of the agency are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”

  9. (mis labeled as 8) this matter is not available under res judicata. Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 652 P.2d 240 (1982) “Res Judicata may not be raised in a motion to dismiss.”; Buhler v. Marrujo, 86 N.M. 399, 524 P.2d 1015 (Ct. App. 1974) “For purposes of motion to dismiss, material allegations of complaint are admitted.” This instant case is different in content, parties and circumstances of collusion with a specific Justin Gray working as a citizen aiding and abetting the Sinaloa Cartel in violation of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Three Rivers Land Co, v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 652 P.2d 240 (1982) The application of the doctrine of res judicata or “claim preclusion” depends upon identity of prior and subsequent actions in four respects. (1) parties or privies, (2) capacity of character of persons for or against whom the claim is made, (3) cause of action, and (4) subject matter.

  10. (mis laberled as 9) The actions stem from different roots and different actions of different and some same parties and are not the same as former suits even though Benavidez is a party in similar horse larceny. Adams v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 97 N.M. 369, 640 P.2d 475 (1982) “When the duty sued upon stems from different roots in the prior and subsequent actions, even if both actions involve essentially the same course of wrongful conduct, it is indicated that the suits arise from different causes of action.”

  11. (mis labeled as 10) this instant litigation involved direct violations of NMSA 77-14-3 that by Legislated intent bar Justin Gray and Benavidez’ from any legal assertion without any herd permit lands, without ownership of the stolen horses, without any legal ability to claim trespass due to faulty Pajarito fence and ruling by the NM Ct. App. Fence them our No. 12-8853 as gross extreme horse larceny by a state employee working with the Sinaloa Cartel Benavidez and other conspirators hiding behind a badge of public employee “moonlighting” as a criminal horse rustler. C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank, 93 NM 150, 160-61, 597 P.2d 1190, 1200-01 (Ct. App. 1979) “In deciding whether to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the trial judge may determine that its application would fundamentally unfair and would not further the aim of the doctrine. Fundamental fairness requires that the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.”

  12. (mis labeleld as 11) This matter involves a new attempt of domestic terrorism against the Plaintiff misusing a specific law NMSA 77-14-3 not allowed in an attempt to condone horse rustling larceny. Adams v. United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, 97 N.M. 369, 640 P.2d 475 (1982) “When the duty sued upon stems from different roots in the prior and subsequent actions, even if both actions involve essentially the same course of wrongful conduct, it is indicated that the suits arise from different causes of action.”

  13. (mis labeled as 12) The subject matter is different, the motives and domestic terrorism is a new approach to obstruction of justice, and the parties are different. There is no good faith here as all Defendants know they weaponized NMSA 77-14-3 to claim they could steal horses, wherein the Statutory scheme directly stated in the law specifically mandated they could not claim any trespass since their Pajarity fence line was not fence them out of NMSA 77-16-1. McKay v. Farmers & Stockmans Bank, 92 NM 181, 585 P.2d325 (Ct. App.) Cert denied 92 N.M. 79, 582 P.2d 1292 (1978) “Good faith is usually a question of fact.” This if fraud on 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." Oxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int'l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); 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).

  14. (mis labeled as 13) Plaintiff has correctly filed a specific suit against different parties working as co-conspirators with a past party in a new approach to domestic terrorism against the Plaintiff. Law of the Case doctrine is merely one of practice or court policy, and not of inflexible law, so that court are not absolutely bound thereby”Advance Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court, Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998.

  15. (mis labeled as 14) Defendants have engaged in a new domestic terrorism action against the Plaintiff encompassing new and added co-conspirators. Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard 587 p.2d 444, 92 NM 297 “Existence of civil conspiracy must be pled either by direct allegations or by allegations of circumstances from which a conclusion may be reasonably inferred.”

  16. (mis labeled as 15) The Defendants seek to escape all accountability for horse larceny by mis use of the courts alleging they can simply strike the entire case and continue thus to steal more Derringer horses. 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.”

  17. (mis labeled as 16) Defendants seek to destroy the integrity of the judicial system and use as a permit to continue larceny. 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.”; In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

  18. (mis labeled as 17) There is nothing scandalous in exposing the violations of Legislated law preventing the Defendants use to do horse rustling based erroneously alleging trespass barred claim by statute NMSA 77-14-3. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or 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).

  19. (mis labeled as 18) Plaintiff’s allegations are succinct, corre4ct under prevailing law and no specific allegation is disputed by the Defendants.

  20. (mis labeled as 19) Defendant Benavidez Jr. admitted and confessed in CV-2014-07755 to being a horse thief and stealing 2 Derringer horses with his own truck and trailer illegally transported them across a county line to Valencia horse thief Dennis Chaves and sold stolen property in his Answer of January 15, 2015. Wherein thus Derringer has every right to “call a spade a spade” ie. Call an admitted horse rustler, a horse rustler.

  21. (mis labeled as 20) A horse rustler as all Defendants are indeed the scum of society wherein worse in this matter as also traitors to the United States of America assisting the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel.

  22. (mis labeled as 21) The Court has no jurisdiction to strike the facts and truth presented to the Court under mandates of Canon and NMRA Rule 1-090. Canon 3 (B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

  23. (mis labeled as 22) Violations proven by statutory law are not irrelevant. Canon 3 (B)(7): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.”

  24. (mis labeled as 23) Benavidez and all Defendants don’t abide by the laws of New Mexico “called out” in this litigation which they do not contest or disagree with any allegations, only in a woke culture take childish offense of the truth presented while attempting to deprive Derringer due process and equal protection in defiance of the 5th and 14th Amendments. This court Judge cannot abide by the frivolous superficial contentions attempting to whine about being caught as horse rustlers and take offense thinking the court will allow them to commit larceny continuing as poor offended woke persons. Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789 “Even a sensible and efficient use of supervisory power by federal court is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.”

  25. (mis labeled as 24) Derringer has won this matter by proof of law misused to commit horse larceny under the guise of a state employee hiding behind a badge moonlighting as a horse thief, trying to get horses for black market sales of stolen property for perks of bribes, kickbacks, use of Cartel whores and other revenge against Plaintiff Derringer suing Justin Gray as an individual horse thief in bed with the Benavides admitted horse rustlers. State v. Padilla 879 P.2d 1208, 118 N.M. 189 Cert. Denied 877 P.2d 1105, 117 N.M. 802 “Agreement is gist of crime of conspiracy; overt act is not required, and crime is complete when felonious agreement is reached.”

  26. (mis labeled as 25) This court cannot dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint based entirely on violations of statutory law wherein the Court cannot make law. State ex rel. Rodriquez v. American Lefion Post No. 99, 106 N.M. 784, 788, 750 P.2d 1110, 1114 (Ct. App. ) “Act may be changed through legislative therapy, not judicial surgery., cert denied, 106 N.M. 588, 746 P.2d 1120 (1987) and 107 N.M. 16, 751 P.2d 700 (1988).

  27. (mis labeled as 26) Neither Defendants illegally claiming sanctions in fraud, nor the seditious attorney illegally claiming attorney fees for fraud on the court is not allowed to reward such treason against US Constitution Article III. "[b]ecause corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms," Aoude v. Mobile Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989), and courts take each case on its facts. See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir. 1956).

  28. (mis labeled as 27) Defendants cannot violate the Constitution against Derringer’s rights of due process and equal protection. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.”

  29. (mis labeled as 28) Defendants and attorney D’Amato Jr. do extreme fraud on the court attempting to limit the due process and equal protection of the Plaintiff in federal crimes. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] Sec. 5 empowers Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies to interfere with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, whether or not state officers or others acting under the color of state law are implicated in the conspiracy.” Title 18 Section 241-Conspiracy against rights Title 18 Section 241 provides:“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised same”.

  30. (nis labeled as 29) Defendants and attorney D’Amato Jr. do extreme fraud on the court attempting to limit the due process and equal protection of the Plaintiff in federal crimes. Title 18 Section 242-Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, ..than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..”: Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that a new matter "clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and emphasized that an Article III court can grant relief where a judgment "would be against conscience for the person who has obtained it to avail himself." Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied).Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332.

  31. (mis labeled as 30) Defendants must be denied any award of attorney fees, sanctions or any other reward for doing larceny, fraud on the court, sedition, treason and attempting to bribe sand coerce the court into violation of all the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT BOUNDARIES

This pleading in fraud presented by the Defendants and their attorney D’Amato Jr. 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 285 + horses worth themselves $28,500,000.00 and extreme other damages. Defendants 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 supercedes the instant attack on the Plaintiff, and is an attack upon the integrity of the US Constitution Article III as it’s 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 each Defendant and attorney D’Amato Jr. separately in abuse of process, and malicious prosecution to knowingly producing pla=eadings intended 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 each Defendant and attorney D’Amato Jr. 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.”

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 this matter under the Legislated laws of New Mexico wherein all actions of the Defendants were in direct conflict with all criminal statutes of NMSA Article 30, Article 77 and all appurtenant case law. Defendants Benjamin Benavidez Jr., Benavidez Ranch, John Doe, Justin Gray and attorney D’Amato Jr. have attempted to coerce and bribe the Judge to dismiss and strike the entire Complaint so as to keep stealing Derringer horses with an attempt to prevent instant and future litigation. However, in such coercion, Defendants have not disputed and without any contest of the allegations 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 deny due process and equal protection in their main goal of their responsive pleading to the Complaint, the content doing FRAUD ON THE COURT vitiates their response entirely leaving them with no valid response to the valid Complaint. 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."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation,362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). The rule of law must be followed to grant summary Judgment against all Defendants. 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 have no dispute with the allegations 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 Complaint with fraud on the court to stop Derringer’s Constitutional rights to use the court system for legal redress in 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, allegations uncontested by any Defendant, and undermining actions of fraud by Defendants. 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

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

EXHIBIT 1



















EXHIBIT 2




EXHIBIT 3





EXHIBIT 4






EXHIBIT 5



[1] Benavidez Ranch Employee John Doe [Exhibit 1] name unknown will be found in Court Discovery [2] [Exhibit 1] [3] Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216 “Private party is “willful participant” in joint action with state or its agents, for actions jointly taken, where state officials and private party act in concert in effecting particular deprivation of constitutional rights. [4] 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.. [5] US v. Baum, 32 F. Supp.2d 642 “SCNY 1999 Obstruction statute is intended to prevent the obstruction of the administration of justice in any court of the United States, corruptly by threats of force and extortion.” 18 USCA 1503(a) [6] 77-14-3. Trespass on lands. A. It is unlawful for a person or his agents or employees having charge of livestock to permit or allow the livestock to go upon the lands of others in this state for the purpose of grazing or watering upon any waters upon the lands without the permission of the owner or legal claimant or his agent. 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 and shall apply not only to titled lands in this state but to any lands upon which a person may have a valid existing filing under the laws of the United States or any lands that may be leased by any person from the state. [7] 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."). [8] 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.” 18 USCA 1503

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

NOTICES:

bottom of page