WEAPONIZED NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD ATTACKS PUBLIC TO PROTECT HORSE RUSTLING SINALOA CARTEL

arrest fence NMLB 6-22-2023 DISMISSAL.docx

Download DOCX • 49KB

IN THE METROPOLITAN COURT

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

State of New Mexico Case No. T-4-CR-2023-002115

V. .

David Derringer

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Defendant, David Derringer, represented by counsel ________________________with Motion to Dismiss Case No. T-4-CR-2023-002115 for the following legal reasons:

1. The issues herein of court record preserve all matters for any necessary appeal. .

2. Failure to serve Criminal Complaint, in violation of due process and equal protection of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments constitutes FUNDAMENTAL ERROR mandating dismissal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 US 306 (1950). “The fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding that is to be accorded finality of notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the actions and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” In this matter, Defendant was never served any notice of any pending Criminal Complaint by either personal service (wherein both the Courts and NMLB have full knowledge of both the physical residence and Post Office Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194). Pringle v. Pringle, 283 AD2d 966, 723 NYS 2d 911,”failure to comply with the rudiments of due process.” Since the instigator of the fraudulent complaint to the NMLB, Benjamin Benavidez Jr. and Benavidez Ranch are and have been stealing/rustling Defendant Derringer’s personal property horses for many years, admitted to in the January 15th, 2015 Answer to Derringer v. Benavidez et. al. : D-202-CV-2014-07755, and wherein both NMLB and Benavidez (Plural) are Defendants to Defendant Derringer in Cases 13th District Court: D-1314-CV-2021-00541 -Derringer v. Davis & Derringer v. State of New Mexico et. al. and Court Cases: 2nd District Court: D-202-CV-2014-07755; CV-2022-03437, and New Mexico Supreme Court NO. S-1-SC-39680 directly exposing the NM Judicial public corruption and cocaine and human trafficking involved with both the invading Mexican National Sinaloa Cartel members Benavidez (plural) and the direct witnessed Sinaloa Cartel connections with the NMLB, protecting both the Sinaloa Cartel and the Benavidez (plural). The non-service to orchestrate both the illegal aftermath bench warrant and the illegal arrest and illegal imprisonment in direct violation of the Defendant’s 13th Amendment was not “inadvertent error” but willful and malicious prosecution, deliberately to “put the Plaintiff in the Civil cases in jail in hate crimes, obstruction of justice [1], intimidation, in a conspiracy against rights, and deprivation of rights under color or law in retaliation and retribution only available by NMLB being clothed under color of law. 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.” ; Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971). The proof of this matter is that when Defendant was pulled over for arrest, Defendant questioned the illegal detainment wherein NMLB addressed illegal warrant. Defendant Derringer stated no notice or service or knowledge to any criminal complaint, nor any knowledge of any bench warrant. Defendant immediately stated sought resolution of going with officers to the Court to resolve any issues of warrant, whereas with solution. The NMLB preferred the illegal and false arrest and false imprisonment, as planned motive with the Defendant disclosed knowledge to them that if Defendant is illegally incarcerated they were doing malicious animal abuse of deprivation of water to all Defendants’ animals of horses, dog and cat and to an abandoned baby filly, whereas Benavidez had stolen its mother mare necessitating bottle feeding the baby every two hours; such “knowledge” by officers NMLB disregarded to abuse and kill the Defendant’s livestock and pets. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 S 41 (1999). Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law if it fails to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits, or if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

3. Lack of NMLB jurisdiction of false arrest and false imprisonment. Marchbanks v. Young, 139 P.2d 594, 47 N.M. 213 N.M. 1943 NMLB had full knowledge of the criminal Benavidez acts past and present of larceny of Defendant Derringer horses over the last 3 year period, whereas repeatedly NMLB failed and refused each time notified to perform under discharge of duties of NMSA 77-9-22(F) to arrest and prosecute Sinaloa Cartel member Benavidez and refused to obey NMSA 29-1-1 and refused to abide by mandates of NMSA 29-1-2 to “recover” Defendants’ stolen livestock. NMLB is well aware of the dividing Pararito fence being non-compliant with NMSA 77-16-1 for the last 110 years whereas defined and sustained legally as “FENCE THEM OUT” by NM Court of Appeals No. 12-8853, the grazing permit of Benzvidez on the Santolina becomes “open range” in congruence with the “open range” of the Pajarito as the home and water supply of the Defendant’s horses, whereas the NMLB cannot act as “weaponized” without jurisdiction to falsely file criminal charges for the forced release of Defendant’s personal property horses from the larceny of the Benavidez when despite constant demand and request under NMSA 29-1-2, the NMLB refuses to obey Legislated law in order to protect the Benavidez and Sinaloa Cartel in treason against the United States. Clearly, there is lack of NMLB jurisdiction in constructive fraud of falsified criminal Complaint to having forced Defendant’s release of his own living animals to save from death of lack of ability to access Defendant’s water as Defendant being the only source of water for his livestock, meaning unlawful interference of the Statutory rights of the Defendant by mis-use of power in revenge of Defendants Benavidez and NMLB contrary to duties of NMSA 29-1-2 and both government and personal acts against Defendant’s rights of personal property under US Code Title 42 Section 1982. 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.”

4. Fraud on the court. NMLB without jurisdiction and enabled by mis-use of power sought illegally to claim 11 counts of alleged injuring the fence on the same day at the same time for only one alleged act of retrieving stolen livestock, and enabling the livestock not to die from deprivation of water by Benavidez acts of larceny and abuse of animals not of his legal possession. 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.") This illegal presentation for fraud on the court was to inflate the counts in malicious prosecution so as to attempt to create a felony and distort the court record as well as conceal the damaging information that the Defendant was forced to retrieve his dying livestock deprived of water by the larceny of the Benavidez due to the “refusal” of the NMLB to release and recover stolen property under the duties and mandates of performance by NMLB under NMSA 29-1-2. 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).

For the above legal reasons the entire Case No. T-4-CR-2023-002115 must be dismissed under rule of law WITH PREJUDICE.

[1] 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