No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

4

I....

LOCE

FILEDT 22 2C18 OF THE CL

EME COURT US

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI I IN RE DAVID DERRINGER UNDER US CODE TITLE 28 SECTION 1651(A), PETITION FOR SUPERINTENDING

CONTROL-DIRECTIVE TO SENATE AND DOJ INVOLVING RICO OF JUDICIARY; AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

DAVID DERRINGER,

Petitioner,

VS.

NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 10TH CIRCUIT

Respondents,

On Petition for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari Totally Intertwined With the In re David Derringer Petition for Extraordinary Writ for Superintending Control-Disclosure of RICO by judiciary Requested Ordered directive to the

FBI/DOJ for investigation of exposed public/judicial corruption of the State of New Mexico Judiciary and the 10' Circuit US District Court for the District of New

Mexico involving RICO RACKETEERING by judges in stopping due process and equal protection by Constitutional deprivations, judicial fraud, judicial bribery, and

conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law against targeted David Derringer With attached Addendum Appurtenant to both Petitions.

David Derringer Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

Oct

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether any court can deprive Constitutional 1st 2nd 4th 5th 8th 13th and 10

Amendment rights and violate the Supremacy Clause Constitution Article VI, US

Code Title 42 Sections 1981(a), to Order and sabotage no ability to use the US

Courts in violation of due process and equal protection and do RICO

RACKETEERING "pay to play" acts to stop legal court filings by illegal Order

by judicial dictatorship in unlawful schemes, and illegal Orders stating the "use of

the United States courts is a "privilege" not a "RIGHT" wrongly determined in a

Constitutional conspiracy and violations of Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial

Conduct and sedition and treason against America?

Whether either a State Judge or a Federal Judge in any US court can peruse and

view court filings before having "jurisdiction" prior to filing, and then deny such

filings by illegal Order to the court clerk not to file any Complaint or, other legal

court papers, when they disclose public/judicial corruption, disclose proven

judicial bribery, illegal Constitutional deprivations, criminal RICO acts, violations

of Oath, deprivations of due process and equal protection and injustices

perpetrated willfully by justices?

Whether, either a State Judge or a Federal Judge can set case law depriving a US

Citizen "free process"/"forma pauperis" when the citizen fully qualifies under

SNAP food assistance aid, Medicaid health aid, and SSI federal financial aid due

to disability in full violation of Act of July 20, 1892, Ch. 209, 27 Stat. 252

(codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1982)). Wherein the relevant parts of

the statute now read: (a) Any court of the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or

give security therefor that includes affidavit that shall state the nature of the

action, defense or appeal and affiants belief that he is entitled to redress, and use

such deprivation as a RICO RACKETEERING "TOOL" ["pay to play"] for

deliberate deprivations of due process and equal protection due to the pleadings of

the citizen Plaintiff disclosing judicial and public corruption?

Whether judges that violate RICO willfully while in judicial capacity are "above

the law" and can use their judicial power and position to undermine the rule of

law and integrity of the judicial branch of government under the parameters of the

US Constitution Section I Article III, and not be prosecuted for sedition and

treason against the United States of America pursuant to the 14 t Amendment

Section 3?

Whether the State of New Mexico can continue to receive Federal funding when

depriving citizens Constitutional deprivations and using judicial RICO ACTS to

stop due process and equal protection of a citizen?

Whether any judge, after being "recused for cause" of Constitutional, Rules of

Civil Procedure, Oath violations, bias, prejudice and other vile acts against the

rule of law, can then be assigned to multiple other cases against the Plaintiff and

whether the court can continue to force the Plaintiff to stand before and have

interaction with said judge in violation of US Code Title 28 Section 453 and 455

in perjury of Oath, and deprive due process and equal protection to be forcefully

subjected to involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment and against

mandates for due process and equal protection with a "fair and impartial

judiciary?

Whether the United States Supreme Court will exercise "superintending control"

over the entire judiciary of the State of New Mexico and the I01h Circuit US

District Court for the District of New Mexico and prosecute all involved judges

for deprivations in conspiracy of Constitution, and violations of Oath, Canon,

Judicial Standards, criminal acts of RICO and state and federal criminal code and

remove all involved in these atrocities against justice from the bench with

investigations by the FBI and Department of Justice?

LIST OF PARTIES

V

In the proceedings below, Party David Derringer hereafter may be referred to as

the Petitioner. The Real parties in this matter are the New Mexico Second Judicial

District Court, New Mexico Supreme Court, The State of New Mexico, US District Court

For The District Of New Mexico 10th Circuit.

As simultaneously filed, the "EXHIBITS" provided attached are appurtenant to both the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Petition for Special Writ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

OPINIONS BELOW.. . . . . . . 1

JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED. 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . 6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION. . . . 13

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . 17

REQEST FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . 19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . 20

VERIFICATION. . . . . . . 21

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Illegal Order of 1 Oth Circuit US District Court for the District of New Mexico

depriving use of the US courts "privilege".

Court docket Case No. CV-14-5329 Trial Court docket

Court docket Case No. CV-14-07755 Trial Court docket

Court docket Case No. CV-18-0514 Trial Court docket

Chief Judge Nan Nash illegal denial of free process of Case No. CV-18-0514

NM Court of Appeals Order on appeal of CV- 18-0514

NM Supreme Court "judicial notice" re: CV-18-0514

Recused illegal Judge Victor Lopez unlawful denial of free process Case No.

CV-18-4370

I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CITATIONS SUPPORTING DAVID DERRINGER IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

United States Constitution New Mexico Constitution US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242 US Code Title 18 Section 922 US Code Title 18 Section 1503 US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) US Code Title 42 Section 1982 US Code Title 42 Section 1983 US Code Title 42 Section 1985 US Code Title 42 Section 1986 US CONSTITUTION SUPREMACY CLAUSE ARTICLE VI 141h Amendment Section 3 1st, 2w', 4th, 5th, 8th,

9th, 10th, 13th, 14th Amendments

US Code Title 28 Section 455 Declaration of Independence Act of July 20, 1892, ch. 209, 27 Stat. 252 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1982)).

US Supreme Court decisions Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 1999 527 U.S. 706 119 S.Ct. 2240 Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 1992 505 U.S. 504 112 S.Ct. 2608 Supreme Court of the United States June 17, 1976 426 U.S. 572 96 S. Ct. 2264 Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 2010 559 U.S. 260 130 S. Ct. 1367 Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1979, 443 U.S. 55 99 S. Ct. 2642 Supreme Court of the United States May 17, 2004 541 US 509 124 S. Ct. 1978. Supreme Court of the United States April 30, 1951 341 US. 123, 71 S. Ct 624 Supreme Court of the United States February 25, 1946 327 US 220 66 S. Ct. 556 Supreme Court of the United States June 27, 1997 521 U.S. 898 117 S.Ct. 2365 Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2011 131 S.Ct. 2567 2011 WL 2472790 Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 2013 133 S.Ct. 2466 2013 WL 3155230 Supreme Court of the United States June 1, 1931 283 US 697 51 S. Ct. 625 Supreme Court of the United States June 29, 1972 408 US 606 92 S. Ct. 2614 Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 2013 133 S. Ct. 2466 2013 WL 3155230 Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2011 131 S. Ct. 2567 2011 WL 2472790 Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1979, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S. Ct. 2642 Supreme Court of the United States May 23, 1955 349 U.S. 190, 75 S. Ct. 687 Supreme Court of the United States May 07m 1945 325 US 91 65 S. Ct. 1031 Supreme Court of the United States April 30, 1951 341 US 123 71 S. Ct. 624

Alden v. Maine Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 1999 527 U.S. 706 119 S.Ct. 2240 American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O., v. Douds Supreme Court of the United States May 08, 1950 339 U.S. 38270 S.Ct. 674 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Supreme Court of the United States March 27, 1990 494 U.S. 652 110 S.Ct. 1391 Barry v. Barchi Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1979 443 U.S. 55 99 S.Ct. 2642. Boddie v. Connecticut Supreme Court of the United States March 02, 1971 401 U.S. 371 91 S.Ct. 780 Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri Supreme Court of the United States June 20, 2011 131 S.Ct. 2488 2011 WL2437008 Brown v. Hartlage Supreme Court of the United States April 05, 1982 456 U.S. 45 102 S.Ct.1 523

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 1992 505 U.S. 504 112 S.Ct. 2608 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 2008 554 U.S. 570 128 S.Ct. 2783 Elrod v. Burns Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 1976 427 U.S. 347 96 S.Ct. 2673 Emspak v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States May 23, 1955 349 U.S. 190 75 S.Ct. 687 Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero Supreme Court of the United States June 17, 1976 426 U.S. 572 96 S.Ct. 2264 Federal Election Com'n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 2001 533 U.S. 431 121 S.Ct. 2351 First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti Supreme Court of the United States April 26, 1978 435 U.S. 765 98 S.Ct. 1407

Gravel v. U. S. Supreme Court of the United States June 29, 1972 408 U.S. 606 92 S.Ct. 2614

Griffin v. Griffin Supreme Court of the United States February 25, 1946 327 U.S. 220 66 S.Ct. 556 Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath Supreme Court of the United States April 30, 1951 341 U.S. 123 71 S.Ct. 624 Lewis v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States February 27, 1980 445 U.S. 55100 S.Ct. 915 Lindsey v. Normet Supreme Court of the United States February 23, 1972 405 U.S. 56 92 S.Ct. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 1972 405 U.S. 538 92 S.Ct.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Com'n Supreme Court of the United States April 02, 2014 134 S.Ct. 1434 2014 WL 1301866 McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill. Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 2010 561 U.S. 742 130 S.Ct. 3020 Monroe v. Pape Supreme Court of the United States February 20, 1961 365 U.S. 167 81 S.Ct.

Muniz v. Hoffman Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1975 422 U.S. 454 95 S.Ct. 2178 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States April 05, 1999 526 U.S. 344 119 S.Ct. 1322 Mutual harmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett Supreme Court of the United States June 24, 2013 133 S.Ct. 2466 2013 WL 3155230 Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson Supreme Court of the United States. June 01, 1931 283 U.S. 697 51 S.Ct. 625 New York v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 19, 1992 505 U.S. 144 Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 20,553 New York Times Co. v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 30, 1971 403 U.S. 713 91 S.Ct. 2140 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC Supreme Court of the United States January 24, 2000 528 U.S. 377 120 S.Ct. 897 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States April 18, 1978 435 U.S. 589 98 S.Ct. 1306 PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2011 131 S.Ct. 2567 2011 WL 2472790 Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993) Printz v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 27, 1997 521 U.S. 898 117 S.Ct. 2365 Rice v. Rice Supreme Court of the United States April 18, 1949 336 U.S. 674 69 S.Ct. 751 Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board Supreme Court of the United States. June 08, 1925 268 U.S. 61945 S.Ct. 621 Scales v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States June 05, 1961 367 U.S. 203 81 S.Ct. 1469 Screws v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States May 07, 1945 325 U.S. 91 65 S.Ct. 1031 Settlemier v. Sullivan Supreme Court of the United States October 01, 1878 97 U.S. 444 7 Otto 444 Shapiro v. Thompson Supreme Court of the United States April 21, 1969 394 U.S. 618 89 S.Ct. 1322 Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985) Tennessee v. Lane Supreme Court of the United States May 17, 2004 541 U.S. 509 124 S.Ct. 1978 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 2010 559 U.S. 260 130 S.Ct. 1367 United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) S. Ct. (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). US Supreme Court in US Supreme Court No. 10-1521 U.S. v. International Union United Auto., Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) Supreme Court of the United States March 11, 1957 352 U.S. 567 77 S.Ct. 529 United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744

CASE LAW

Adamson v. C.I.R. CA9 1984, 745 F.2d 541 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975) Anderson v. U.S. U.S. W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 Andrews v. Steinberg, 122 Misc.2d 468, 471 NYS.2d 764, NY Supp. 1983 Arizona & C. R. Co. v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 84 P. 1018 N.M.Terr.,1906 Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand Barela v. Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966) Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. 120 NM 343, 901 P.2d 761 NM App. 1995 Birdo v. Rodriguez, 84 NM 207, 501 P.2d 195 (1972) Caffey v. Johnson, 883 F. Supp. 128 Cartello v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1937, 93 F.2d 412 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US 317, 324 (1986) Citizens State Bank of Barstow, Tex v. Vidal, 114 F.2d 380 C.A.10,N.M.,1940 City of Memphis v. Greene, Tenn. 1981 101 S. Court 1584, 451 US 100, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 rehearing denied 101 S. Ct. 3100, 452 US 955, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 "US Tex. 1992 Constitutional Stare Decisis 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1344, 1347 (1990) Fairchild v. United Serv. Corp., 52 NM 289, 197 P.2d 875 (1948) Federalist No. 47 by James Madison Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 F.Supp.2d 1245 Gonzales v. Oil Workers Int'l Union, 77 N.M. 61, 419 p.2d 257 (1966) Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 U5787 (1966) Hedrick v. Perry, 102 F.2d 802 Hill v. Silsbee Independent Scholl dist., 933 F. Supp. 616 ED Tex. 1996 Holmes v. Faycus, 85 NM 740, 516 P.2d 1123 (Ct. App. 1973). Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (lOth Cir. 1993) Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305 In re Aguinda, 241 F.3d 194 In re Rochkind, 128 B.R. 520 Mich. 1991 In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 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) Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 Lujan v. McCuistion, 232 P.2d 478, 55 NM 275 Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961) Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 opinion modified on denial of rehearing 778 F.2d 553, cert granted, vacated McKinney V. Gannett Co. Inc. 660 F. Supp 984, appeal dismissed, cause remanded 694 F.2d 1240 on remand 660 F.

Supp. 1037. Affirmed 817 F.2d 659 Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527-28 (10th Cir. 1988) Milliken v. Martinez, 159 P. 952,22 NM 61 Montgomery v. Cook, 76 NM 199, 413 P.2d 477 (1966) Montoya v. Blackhurst, 84 N.M. 91, 500 P.2d 176 (1972) Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M,,1972118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972) Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348, 651 P.2d 876 1982 Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981 524 F. Supp. 927 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527, 101 Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981) Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 118 S.Ct. 1925 U.S.Tex.,1998 Prei Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508U.S.49,113 S.Ct.1920, 1925,123L.Ed.2d 611 (1993) Rea v. State of Missouri, 84 U.S. 532 U.S.Mo.,1873 Robbins v. Wilkie, 433 F.3d 755 C.A.10.Wyo.,2006 Sena v. Montoya, 346 F.Supp. 5 (D.N.M. 1972) Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M., 1967 Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 U5 618, 52 L.Ed 647 Society National Bank v. Parson Partnership LTD., 122 F.3d 574 States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.) State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 74 N.M. 339, 343 393 p.2d 451, 454 (1964) State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 634, 107 P.2d 324, 331 (1940) State v. Southern Pacific Co., 281 P.29, 34 NM 306 "N.M. 1929 State ex rel Sandoval v. Taylor, 87 P.2d 681 N.M., 1939 State v. Tunnel!, 1982 99 NM 450 659 P.2d 902 rev 99 NM 446, 659 P.2d 989 State ex rel Stratton v. Sinks, 106 N.M. 213, 220, 741 P.2d 435, 442 (Ct. App. 1987) Stephenson v. Esguive!, 614 F. Supp. 986 "D.N.M. 1985 T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 885 (8th ed. 1927) Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CAI (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523 The Idaho, 93 U.S. 575 U.S.N.Y.,1876 Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 U!ibarri v. Geistenberger, 178 Az 151, 164, 891 P.2d 698, 71 1(App. 1993) US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.) 1986 US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ii!. 1998 US v. Barker, CADC 1976, 546 F.2d 940, 178 US App DC 174_30,31 U.S. v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, rehearing denied 113 F.3d 1253, cert. denied 118 Supreme Court 214, 139 L.Ed.2d 148 33,34,35 United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.) United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10t USCA United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305, 311 (10th Cir.1977) US v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 "CA6 (Ky.) 1997

US v. Ehrlichman, CADC 1976, 546 F.2d 910, 178 Us App. DC 144, cert denied 97 S. Ct. 1155, 429 US 1120, 51 Led.2d 570_25, US v. Ellis WDSC 1942,43 F.Supp. 321 U.S. v. Elwell, C.A. 1 (Mass.) 1993 984 F.2d 1289 cert denied 113 S. Ct. 2429, 508 US 945, 124 L.Ed.2d 650 United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966) US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789 US v. Kozminski, US Mich 1988, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 487 US 931, 101 L.Ed.2d 788, on remand 852 F.2d 1288 U.S. v. Maggitt, C.A. 5 (Miss.) 1986 784 F.2d 590 US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681,500U5904,114L.Ed.2d76 U.S. v. Pedreza 27 F.3d 1515 cert denied 115 Supreme Court 347, 513 U.S. 941, 130 L.Ed.2d 303 cert denied U.S. v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476 C.A.10.Kan.,1991 United States v. Taylor, 487U.S.326,108 S.Ct.2413,101 L.Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744 U.S.Tex.,1998 US v. Waddell, US Ark 1884, 5 S. Ct. 35, 112 US 76, 28 L.Ed 673 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 Village of Willow brookv. Olech, 528 US 562,120 Supreme Court 1073 (2000) Williams v. U.S. C.A.5 (Fla) 1950, 179 F.2d 644 cert. granted 71 S. Ct. 77, 340 U.S. 849, 95 L.Ed 622 affirmed 71 S.Ct. 581, 341 U.S. 70, 95 L.Ed 758 Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy District, 89 NM 516, 554 P.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1976) Wood v. Grau, 234 P.2d 362 N.M.,1951 Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1400 (10th Cir. 1992)

1

OPINIONS BELOW

Involved Cases CV-14-5329, CV-14-07755, CV-18-0514, CV-18-4370 are totally

intertwined, but 24 years of David Derringer New Mexico and Arizona Court records

show the same Constitutional depravations and RICO acts of the American judiciary as a

blight that is likely endemic in all states of the Union.

JURISDICTION

NOTICE: Although it is well known that the US Supreme Court takes only a

very small percentage of presented cases, these matters are "ripe" for stopping New

Mexico (American) judicial abuse and RICO by the judiciary and mandated to be

heard for the benefit of every citizen in the United States of America as these acts

are happening all across America and the US Supreme Court has a duty to protect

all citizens from RICO and obstruction of justice perpetrated by the judiciary. State

ex rel. Collier v. New Mexico Livestock Bd.,P.3d, 2013 WL 5288766, N.M.App.,

September 17, 2013 (NO. 32,191); U.S.v. Howard, C.A.5 (La.) 1978, 569 F.2d 1331,

certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 116, 439 U.S. 834, 58 L.Ed.2d 130.

The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction for considerations governing review on

Certiorari under Rule 10(a)(b)(c) and Special Writ under US Code Title 28 Section

1651(a). The New Mexico Supreme Court, as the court of last resort of the State of New

Mexico has violated the Constitution, the US Code, the Supremacy Clause, the statutory

scheme of New Mexico including the New Mexico Constitution, Oath, and rights of due

process and equal protection and violations of the Pt, 2nd 4th 5th 6th 8th 1 0th 13 th and 14th Amendments, and condones and endorses RICO "pay to play" violations against

David Derringer as a means of tool to stop David Derringer's legal use of the court

system so as to stop further Derringer disclosures in judicial records of public and judicial

fraud. After David Derringer legally sued NM State Judges in the US District Court for

the District of New Mexico 1 0th Circuit wherein such Judges were entirely liable working

outside of both jurisdiction and judicial capacity, the court acted in fraud and RICO to

2 Order David Derringer no further use of the court falsely claiming it is a "privilege" not a

RIGHT in order to hide, conceal judicial corruption from the public in violation of FOIA

and NM State IPRA. Clearly, with any judge making a decision who, if, and when a US

Citizen can or cannot use the United States Courts, each judge becomes a dictator despot

in absolutism to destroy the judicial branch of government, making justice impossible.

The judges have infiltrated the system, having corruption goods on one another to be able

to keep the integrity of their communal good ol' boy comradery intact by fear of each of

public exposure and instilling fear in all representing attorneys that careers will be ruined

by "black ball" of any attorney that chooses to bring a case against a judge. [SEE: EXHIBIT 1] As pro-se the judicial solution is to illegally Order a citizen filer to

unlawfully without any possible jurisdiction any judge to peruse a Complaint or pleading

before filing and if it contains any exposure of corruption of the judiciary (violation of

the 1st Amendment) then any judge Orders the court clerk not to allow legal filing. The

disgusting tyranny and oppression of judges above the law forcefully subjugating

and enslaving the public to cover their corruptions and indiscretions should make

any US Supreme Court justice want to puke. There are an extreme number of United

States Supreme Court case laws of already decided important federal questions, that have

already made decisions that entirely conflict with all of the crimes being perpetrated

against David Derringer by the State and Federal Courts, making both the State of New

Mexico and the US Government entirely liable for restitution and severe punitive

damages of which have ruined David Derringer's life for 24 years; David Derringer

making claim herein to 500 million ($500,000,000.00) damages against the State of New

Mexico. The US Supreme Court and the foundations of the "American Republic"

mandate decisions to stop the "rogue" judges whom believe they are in total power over

'WE THE PEOPLE". These Petitions are timely filed.

3 NOTE: A proper investigation by the Senate and DOJ will uncover 24 years of

judicial abuse against David Derringer in the NM State Courts, Arizona Courts,

Federal Courts, Federal Bankruptcy Courts, and docket will show that David

Derringer has brought these egregious judicial abuse of power several times to the

US Supreme Court and has been "ignored".

The original courts have a duty to provide use and due process and equal

protection to a pro-se citizen Under the 1st, 4th 5th and 14th Amendments, US Code Title

42 Section 1981(a) and throughout the appellate process. David Derringer has been

forced to litigate before a "recused" judge, persecuted, intimidated, denied RIGHTS

under Constitution, denied the Rules of Civil Procedure and harassed as a "targeted

individual" because David Derringer has exposed the corruption of the judiciary.

The U.S. Supreme Court now has jurisdiction to review the New Mexico Supreme

Court due to RICO and judicial fraud, and has "superintending control" over the NM

and 10th Circuit Judiciary that has violated all Constitution and law, including but not

limited to all law ever decided by the US Supreme Court as their superior court, and the

US Supreme Court has the ability to advise the US Senate and to Order an FBI and

Department of Justice investigation for prosecution of the NM and Federal 1 0th Circuit

judiciary. "Embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity is the right

to be free from unauthorized and unlawful physical abuse at the hands of the state by a

state official acting or claiming to act under color of law, when the alleged conduct is of

such a nature as to shock one's conscience." U.S. v. Giordano, D.Conn.2002, 260

F.Supp.2d 477. The US Supreme Court can Order a stop to all federal funds to the State

of New Mexico because the State has deprived citizens of Constitutional rights; and

redress and compensation to David Derringer for Constitutional deprivation and criminal

acts by public officials that "shock the conscience", and all judicial acts were in violation

of the Supremacy Clause. David Derringer has been "imprisoned" in the public

corruption of New Mexico functioning as a foreign State that has seceded from the Union

by depriving its citizens all Constitutional and other rights as US citizens, targeting and

forced involuntary servitude in violation of the 13 1h Amendment. New York Times Co.

v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 265 (1964) (finding that application of both statutory and

common law constitutes state action for purposes of Constitutional violations).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Petitioner has guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the 1st, 41h

5th and 10' Amendment. No court can peruse court pleadings without prior being filed

with the court and cannot prevent clerk filing when such pleading disclose public and

judicial corruption under the 1st Amendment; a violation of both jurisdiction and judicial

capacity.

Petitioner has guaranteed rights use of the US Court system pro-se without being

forced to have an attorney, and cannot be forced to submit his Complaints and other court

papers for perusal before the court has any jurisdiction before filing; violating "due

process and equal protection" under the 4th 5th and 14th Amendments. A pro-se citizen

cannot be prevented by Order from filing in any US court with any court clerk, and

judges cannot rob commit larceny and fraud to steal court pleadings before filing to

destroy them to taint the court record, and courts cannot bock appeals; violating "due

process and equal protection" under the 4th 5th and 14 th Amendments.

Courts cannot threaten, intimidate and coerce a litigant to stop litigation and to deny

1st Amendment rights of placing public records in a court record that can be accessed in

disclosure to the public through ("FOIA" and NM IPRA") exposing judicial corruption

by "intimidation", "threats", "coercion", and by falsely and illegally "convicting" a pro-

se party to incarceration by "criminal charges of harassment" in chambers of a civil court

with the presiding judge of such court legally unable to make such ruling; Fourth

Amendment: The right to be free from unlawful search or seizure. Fifth Amendment: The

right to due process. Eighth Amendment: The right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment. Fourteenth Amendment the right to due process and equal protection.

/

5

4. The Bill of Rights grants David Derringer rights as a "sovereign citizen of America"

with a right to freedom and liberty and happiness without enslavement or forced

involuntary servitude by others under violations of the 13 th Amendment in public

corruption and cannot be denied or enslaved to be required to "ask permission" to file suit

of Civil Rights deprivations by a single judge for future suits, not already assigned to

any particular case in mis us of FRCP Rule 11, and cannot be denied access and use of

the US Courts under US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a) for filing a Complaint against a

Judge when that Judge has violated Constitution and lacking jurisdiction and judicial

capacity without either judicial or public immunity in order for one judge to illegally

protect another judge in public corruption. Derringer thus cannot have his court records

destroyed by the justices and courts themselves to block and inhibit appeals of

deprivations of Constitution and all laws. David Derringer cannot be persecuted by

judges because he is poor and on public assistance. David Derringer cannot be singled

out as a "targeted individual" by "judicial terrorism" and persecuted for exercising his 1st

Amendment right to expose public corruption, and is thus protected by the federal

obstruction of justice, and obstruction of proceedings under United States Code Title 18

Sections 241, 242, and 1503, and protected additionally for exposing and "whistle-

blowing" on this public corruption by the Whistle-blowing act" of 1989. "But whenever

the Judicial Power is called into play. it is responsible to the fundamental law and no

other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it."

Yakus v. U.S 321 U.S. 414 pg. 468 (1944). David Derringer cannot be intimidated or

6

subjected to extortion by judicial use of RICO racketeering "pay to play" as a guise to

keep indigent persons exposing pubic corruption from use of the courts.

David Derringer has unalienable rights by Consent of Authority in the Declaration

of Independence and the Law. Sandin v. Conner, 515 US 472 - 1995 - United States

Supreme Court - Cited by 8158. Petitioner has all rights under Constitution as a

"sovereign citizen" in the American Republic as designed by Congress, Constitution,

Amendments, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.

Petitioner has guaranteed rights Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a) "rights to sue" to

equal protection and full and equal benefit of all laws, to file suit without court

"permission".

Petitioner is afforded the right to Pro-Se representation in any court of law in the

United States at any time, both civil and criminal, under the provisions of the 0, 5th and

14th Amendment and Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a), and cannot be stopped by

dictatorship of a particular justice in bias and prejudice against David Derringer in

particular, misuse judicial power to stop "future" suits not in the judicial capacity or

authority or jurisdiction of the particular judge, or against Derringer filing suit due to any

of Derringer's beliefs, religion, ethnical ties, or to be persecuted and harassed for former

use of any court not subject to res judicata, collateral estoppel or the law of some former

case, and David Derringer's court pleadings cannot be perused by any justice prior to the

jurisdiction and assignment of the judge 'after filing with the clerk of the court', and such

court papers to be filed cannot be denied before filing with the clerk of the court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE PREFACE: The only "question" before the Court in an Application for free process is

whether or not the applicant qualifies for indigence by having government assistance of

SNAP, SSI and Medicaid. (David Derringer has all three qualifications for free process)

There is no ability by law to deny free process because of what the Complaint or pleading

7

says by illegal perusal before filing, that being a different proceeding under Rules to

Strike, and there can be no denial of free process just because the Petitioner has been in a

court of law before so that a Judge cannot deny free process to the poor for purposes and

motives of deprivation of due process and equal protection. Act of July 20, 1892, Ch.

209, 27 Stat. 252 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1982)). The relevant parts of

the statute now read: (a) Any court of the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by

a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.

Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief

that he is entitled to redress.

The Party David Derringer hereafter may be referred to as the Petitioner,

undeniably qualifies for indigence forma pauperis for free process under qualifications

documented for SNAP, Medicaid and SSI government assistance. David Derringer is the

poor, pro-se Petitioner of multiple attempts at justice and due process denied with

Constitutional deprivations, intimidation, destruction of court records, the deprivation of

due- process and equal protection, and the blocking of appeals of violations of all laws in

underlying Cases CV-14-5329, CV-14-07755, CV-18-0514, CV-18-4370 and violations

of the 1Oth Circuit US District Court blocking legal filing Complaints pleading and any

court papers. All entails despot judges without jurisdiction and judicial capacity that

don't have judicial or public immunity, while perfecting Constitutional deprivations

against David Derringer, illegal seizure of property illegal intimidation threats of

E.

"criminal charges for 'contempt", and deprivation of use of US Courts. The New

Mexico judiciary deprived Constitutional 1st 2nd 4th 5th 6th 8th 10th 13th and 14th

Amendments, used intimidation, obstruction of justice, and persecuted with one NM

judges claiming illegal conviction of "crimfrial harassment" without any trial or due

process by the Civil Judge in "chambers".

The court docket of Case CV-14-5329 shows [Exhibit 2] that Plaintiff David

Derringer was properly granted forma pauperis. As assigned presiding Judge Fuller did

not get re-elected the case was then assigned to Judge Victor Lopez who immediately

sought to protect the "Mexican" Defendant by dismissing Judge Fuller's Order for

discovery and changing the Rules of Civil Procedure, stopping due process and equal

protection against Plaintiff David Derringer and violating Oath, all Constitution and all

"rule of law". Plaintiff David Derringer recused Judge Lopez for Cause, and Judge Lopez

recused under US Code Title 28 Section 455. Accordingly, Judge Lopez could not legally

have any further contact or preside in any manner over any cases involving David

Derringer. The violent and egregious acts of Judge Lopez are instilled in the court record

docket against all law.

Plaintiff David Derringer filed Case No. CV-14-07755 Court docket [Exhibit 3]

in December 2014 properly under qualifications of forma pauperis (SNAP, Medicaid and

SSI) and was granted free process properly by newly appointed Judge Victor Lopez

before he had taken over and been recused for cause on Case CV-14-5329. Judge Lopez

was then assigned to Case CV-14-07755 AFTER he had previously been recused for

cause on Case CV-14-5329 illegally the Second Judicial District Court abusing mandates

/

against US Code Title 28 Section 455. Judge Lopez started the same abuse of the Rules

of Civil Procedure, Constitutional deprivations and against all "rule of law" to again

protect the "Mexican" Defendants. Plaintiff David Derringer filed against Judge Lopez to

recuse for cause and for a separate judge to hear the motion to recuse. Judge Lopez

"refused". Plaintiff Derringer then filed for mandate to recuse Judge Lopez with the NM

Court of Appeals, and they "refused", forcing Plaintiff David Derringer to again stand

before the biased and abusive judge. Plaintiff David Derringer then filed writ to force

Judge Lopez to recuse with the NM Supreme Court and they too "refused", forcing

Plaintiff David Derringer to again stand before the biased and abusive judge. Judge

Lopez then set about destruction of the "already won" Derringer case (Defendants

already admitted to all allegations in January 15, 2015 "Answer" and NM Ct. App.

Former case law No. 29,853 fully sustained Plaintiff Derringer). Judge Lopez then

came up with the RICO plan to rescind the granted Derringer forma pauperis to force a

"Pay to play" scheme to force Plaintiff Derringer to pay court costs or Judge Lopez

would dismiss the case to rig a win for Defendants. ' Plaintiff defeated the RICO plan of

Judge Lopez by gaining fee payment from US Citizens so as to continue the case. Judge

Lopez then rigged the case by holding a biased trial for a win tainted for the Mexican

Defendants by denying Plaintiffs discovery, denying evidence and witnesses. Plaintiff

David Derringer filed notice of appeal taking all further jurisdiction and judicial capacity

Plaintiff David Derringer has filed numerous criminal complaints against Judge Victor Lopez with judicial standards, the NM Attorney General, the FBI and the DOJ; all "ignored". The FBI told David

Derringer not to ever come back to the Albuquerque office. David Derringer then filed a complaint with the FBI internal affairs in Washington DC and then illegally told David Derringer to go back to the

Albuquerque office, which of course would arrest David Derringer so he did not go. The FBI was covering up the known corruption of the NM Judiciary.

10

away from the biased trial court to the NM Court of Appeals wherein Judge Lopez had

overturned and defied their own case law No. 29,853. Docket will show Judge Lopez

threatened, intimidated, abused, Plaintiff David Derringer for over one year without any

jurisdiction or judicial capacity since appeal was taken. In this over a year Judge Lopez

Ordered no use of the courts. Ordered David Derringer to submit pleading before filing,

Ordered court clerks not to file anything from the Plaintiff, Ordered "forced permission"

for any future cases, and criminally harassed Plaintiff David Derringer by misuse of

power and authority. Plaintiff David Derringer constantly noticed the NM Court of

Appeals and the NM Supreme Court of which those courts had constant "knowledge" and

they ignored the abuse of Judge Lopez and allowed it to continue to single out Derringer

for persecution. Plaintiff David Derringer filed a Second and then a Third Notice of

Appeal. Finally, after noticing the DOJ and the Court constantly of RICO "pay to play"

violations by Judge Lopez, Judge Lopez reinstated the Plaintiff Derringer's forma

pauperis free process and stopped illegal actions on the "Third filed Notice of Appeal".

At that time the NM Court of Appeals had jurisdiction and a duty for forma pauperis

from the trial court reinstated, and then the NM Court of Appeals blocked the appeal of

CV-14-7755 by RICO "pay to play" trying to force David Derringer to pay court costs

already waived as a means of denial of appeal. This case is still pending in the NM court

of Appeals wherein they are blocking the legal appeal so that Plaintiff David Derringer is

defeated, even though they have to dismiss the validity of their own Case law No. 29,853

overturned illegally by lower trial court Judge Lopez, protecting the lower judge at all

cost.

11

Plaintiff David Derringer then filed CV-18-0514 Court docket [Exhibit 4] under

available forma pauperis and the court assigned the Petition for free process again

illegally to Judge Victor Lopez. Upon strenuous complaint that Judge Lopez could not

make any ruling under US Code Title 28 Section 455 as he had been "recused for cause"

by David Derringer, the Application for free process was sent to Chief Judge Nan Nash,

whom Judge Lopez had referenced in his former illegal Order of August, 2015. Judge

Nan Nash illegally denied Derringer's allowed forma pauperis illegally by persecution of

Derringer's former legal use of the Courts wherein he exposed public corruption of Judge

Lopez, [Exhibit 5] taking the lead from consulted Judge Victor Lopez to do more RICO

"pay to play" against David Derringer to stop his use of the US Courts. Plaintiff David

Derringer acquired court costs from concerned Americans to proceed with the case and

then filed an interlocutory appeal of the RICO "pay to play" criminal violations of Chief

Judge Nan Nash to the NM Court of Appeals. Plaintiff/Appellant David Derringer

correctly applied for forma pauperis for this appeal and was granted by the NM Court of

Appeals just so they could make a ruling that Chief Judge Nan Nash did not do RICO

"pay to play" illegally denying the forma pauperis; clearly un-supporting their own Order

where they granted free process and then claimed the lower court could not. [Exhibit 6]

Plaintiff/Appellant then appealed the illegal Order of the NM Court of Appeals to the

"court of last resort", the NM Supreme Court wherein they sat on the matter for months.

Clearly, if the NM Supreme Court would rule that Judge Lopez and Chief Judge Nan

Nash could deny forma pauperis when a citizen was qualified under law to deliberately

deny due process and equal protection and deny use of the US Courts to stope exposure

12

of judicial corruption by doing RICO "pay to play" against a citizen in a "conspiracy

against rights" and "deprivation of rights under color of law", the NM Supreme Court

would lawfully have convicted Judge Lopez and Chief Judge Nash to federal prison for

RICO racketeering. Plaintiff/Appellant Derringer then sent "judicial notice" to the NM

Supreme Court of no decisions forthcoming and they by procrastination had blocked the

legal law suit of CV-18-0514. [Exhibit 7] The NM Supreme Court then decided to do the

same RICO "pay to play" violations against David Derringer to block the appeal and thus

protect the NM Court of Appeal's illegal Order also protecting the RICO racketeering of

Judge Victor Lopez and the RICO Racketeering of Second Judicial District Court Chief

Judge Nan Nash.

Plaintiff David Derringer then applied for legal forma pauperis for Case No. CV-

18-4370, and again illegally the Application was sent to recused Judge Victor Lopez who

promptly denied it in again RICO "pay to play" to stop David Derringer's due process

and equal protection use of any US Court, giving the illegal "excuse" that David

Derringer had not supplied documents sustaining eligibility, when in fact the "affidavit"

notarized is for exactly that purpose not to have to supply the actual documents as clearly

stated in the Application. [Exhibit 8] Clearly, Judge Lopez could not be assigned the

Application in violation multiple times of US Code Title 28 Section 455, and having

done RICO "pay to play" against David Derringer several times past, did yet another

RICO act against David Derringer in Case No. CV-18-4370. Plaintiff David Derringer

was again forced illegally to gain fee money from US citizens that are appalled with the

disclosure of RICO by judges trying to block David Derringer's use of the US

Courts.

David Derringer now has full documentation of RICO racketeering by the New

Mexico judiciary to protect their corruption and the US District Court for the District of

New Mexico 10th Circuit, most all "judges" involved in RICO are Democrats , with full

violations against US Citizen David Derringer of TITLE 18 SECTIONS 241, 242, 1503,

1512 AND 1519; intertwined RICO violations under 901(A) of the organized crime

control act of 1970 (PUB.L. 91-452, 84 STAT. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and is

codified at 18 U.S.C. CH. 96 AS 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The state of New Mexico has usurped all authority and disregarded jurisdiction to

persecute and maliciously deny all rights to an American Republic citizen, subjecting

David Derringer to outrageous acts in sedition and treason and now criminal RICO

racketeering to stop use of the US Courts to deny due process and equal protection. This

should "shock the conscience" of the US Supreme Court wherein the NM Supreme Court

has total knowledge of judicial bribery, Constitutional deprivations and egregious acts of

the trial court and NM Ct. App. RICO acts and has now done RICO themselves, and has

disregarded extreme numbers of US Supreme Court prior decisions enforcing the laws to

the benefit of David Derringer and has discarded those laws in order to punish David

Derringer for legally continuing to exercise his Constitutional rights, which by doing

exposes the extreme judicial and public corruption and cocaine intertwining of RICO

violations of the NM State Judiciary and other politicians involved. Under Rule 10(a), the

US Supreme Court has a duty to uphold both Constitution and uphold their own former

rulings that conflict with the current egotistical errors of the NM Supreme Court; the NM

14 S.Ct. has decided federal questions in legal error, violated Oath and the 14th Amendment

Section 3 and violated the Supremacy Clause, and extremely departed from the accepted

and usual course of judicial proceedings and sanctioned and condoned the lower court's

persecution and punishment of a US citizen exercising Constitutional rights in retribution,

retaliation, and revenge against singled-out David Derringer that has stood up against the

judicial corruption of New Mexico, calling thus for the US Supreme Court's "supervisory

power". Under Rule 10(b), the US Supreme Court has a duty to stop and reverse the NM

S. Ct. that has decided multiple federal questions already decided by the US Supreme

Court; Order a DOJ investigation of the NM judiciary, indict and federally imprison such

judges doing RICO and grant David Derringer the extreme money due for restitution, and

compensation for the extreme deprivation of Constitutional rights, immunities and

privileges from the State of New Mexico (monetary amount of $500 million) and an

equal amount for the same deprivations by the US Government (monetary amount of

$500 million) by the 10th Circuit US District Court for the District of New Mexico. All

1st, 4th, 5th

, 8th

, 13th and 14th Amendment rights and US Code Title 42 Section 1981(a)

have been violated by RICO RACKETEERING of judges protecting their own judicial

and public corruption in order to deny David Derringer his rights to freedom of

expression, redress by legal use of the courts, and dutifully exposing governmental

corruption by exercising the 1st Amendment, and has done so to hide and cover up

exposed public corruption and treason against America by those justices that are a

domestic enemy of "WE THE PEOPLE". Under Rule 10(c), the US Supreme Court has

a duty to uphold its own case laws of important decisions already settled by this court and

now has a lower court denying, contesting, ignoring, and superseding established US

Supreme Court rulings in total conflict with the US Supreme Court and doing RICO to

intimidate and stop a citizen from exposure. The egregious acts of public corruption

occurring here is at total odds with Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct, Constitution

and in violation of the "Supremacy Clause" and all decisions underlying have been

15

against a citizen have been performed here in America in sedition and treason against the

United States; and justices involved are buried in this matter; showing how debased the

judicial system has become. The justice system has become a dictatorship against pro-se,

"poor" litigants with NM seceding from the Union, yet still accepting the federal monies

when depriving Constitutional rights to its citizens as a "foreign" State against America

in which David Derringer is "imprisoned". The 10th Circuit US District Court for the

District of New Mexico is disgusting without contest as despots against America.

The United States Constitution is the backbone of America and prevents, by the

14th Amendment Section 3, any Judicial immunity when attack on the Constitution. The

integrity of the judicial system cannot be maintained by criminals sitting on the bench

acting in Civil Rights conspiracies with private parties to ruin the lives of others without

any accountability for their evil actions. Canon: "Our legal system is based on the

principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the

laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice ad

the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges,

individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust

and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter

of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government

under the rule of law."

A quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark in Mapp V. Ohio, 367

U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), as follows: "Nothing can

destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its

disregard of the charter of its own existence. A, s Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent,

the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . .

If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every

man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.'" (Emphasis added). United States

16

Supreme Court Justice Scalia recently reminded us that our judicial system was built on

the Framers' understanding that "judges, like other government officers, could not always

be trusted to safeguard the rights of the people."

It is clearly seen in the underlying unscrupulous state violations of the Supremacy

Clause, and then the "enslavement" of David Derringer to this by ignoring all

Constitution and statutory rights, and then arbitrary and capricious misuse of power, that

these unlawful acts by knowingly conducting violations of Constitution and RICO by

court justices, and then the overall penchant of all justices to protect their own, when

violations of oaths are blatant, that there is a comradery of justices acting in violation of

Title 18 Section 241 and 242 to simply not allow a pro-se citizen to either prevail under

law, or gain any "justice" within the system. "Whistle-blowing on public corruption

makes one a "targeted individual" whose life will be destroyed by the acts of protection

of this unscrupulous element of our modern society, with Courts Orders to take unethical

and illegal precedent over justice, equity and law. Owen v. City of Independence, US

Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779 "Section 1983 provides a private right of

action against "[e]very person" acting under color of state law who imposes or causes to

be imposed a deprivation of constitutional rights. Although the statute does not refer to

immunities, this Court has held that the law "is to be read in harmony with general

principles of tort immunities and defenses rather then in derogation of them". The United

States Supreme Court has a duty to protect the American public against corruption and to

assure redress of Constitutional and statutory deprivations. The justices involved here

even disregard the rights of a citizen to utilize the court rules enacted by themselves, and

all unscrupulous justices herein are so embroiled with their power that they perceive a

berserk condition of "absolutism" and a dictatorship approach to their judicial system so

as to threaten and violate all Constitution and statutes under them without conscience,

with higher courts taking no "jurisdiction or responsibility" and with no judge in

discharge of Oath ever being accountable for damages to Americans. Scheuer v. Rhodes,

17

416 US 232, 241 (1974) "the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws

for the protection of the public." As it is clearly shown in this instance, the New Mexico

State Courts and their public corruption is intertwined with the lower federal 1 01h Circuit

courts to not allow the public to access the truth of the public corruption going on against

citizens of America, and disregards that a pro-se person in the United States never

receives due process, equal protection or any "justice". Cf.P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D.

Shapiro, & H. Wshsler, Hart and Weshsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal

System, 336 (2d.ed 1973)"[W]here constitutional rights are at stake, the courts are

properly astute, in construing statutes, to avoid the conclusion that Congress intended to

use the privilege of immunity.. .in order to defeat them.")

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of the United States has a duty to protect

America, even from those deviant and unscrupulous justices that have infiltrated the

judicial system for evil purposes to assist the small community of justices non-

accountability.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner Derringer always had a right to his "sovereign citizenship" and

Constitutional protection and unalienable rights as a human being. Although poor and

pro-se, David Derringer has a right to due process and equal protection and a right use

any and all of the US Courts without being regulated and prohibited filings wherein no

court has the right to read, peruse and deny such filings by forcing David Derringer to

submit his Complaints and court pleadings before the court or any particular judge has

any jurisdiction to read such pleadings, and only thereafter is appurtenant can a pleading

or filing be deemed stricken by "Rule 11". Despite allegations and facts exposing public

corruption and judicial fraud and judicial bribery, no judge can disregard those issues

simply to illegally protect another justice, and no judge can order the court clerks not to

take any legal filings from any particular individual at any time to deprive use of the US

Courts to a citizen. Any violation of the Supremacy Clause, causes the case to be

defective without jurisdiction to continue and the citizen is to be compensated for such

outrageous acts. Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980)

No. 78-1779 "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental

authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." David Derringer has and

will continue to expose this debased element of our United States until the Department of

Justice investigation is ordered against the judicial public corruption in the State of New

Mexico and other courts to expose these and other unlawful activities until some element

of the Government takes corrective action. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49,

113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611(1993).

Simply put, the United States Supreme Court cannot allow the State of New

Mexico to defy citizen's rights, immunities and privileges against Constitution and ignore

rights of the State of New Mexico's own Constitution and legislated laws for the

protection of David Derringer. For the United States Supreme Court to ignore this case

makes the entire system of Congressional laws mute, and makes worthless the US

Constitution. Under all circumstances the Constitution must be enforced against those

that would destroy it. "US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3-No person shall be an

elector.. or hold any office, under the United States, or under any State, who, having

previously taken an oath,. .as a judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of

the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or

given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

THEREFORE, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted and the

special writ; action should be directed to the US Senate and to the FBI/DOJ, and the State

of New Mexico must be mandated to enforce the "Supremacy Clause" and in the interim

be denied all federal funding.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

I]

David Derringer is legally entitled to be compensated for deprivation of all use of the

courts by RICO racketeering by judges of the public corruption of New Mexico and the

federal I 01h Circuit District Court, and granted restitution and redress by the following:

Order all Constitutional and Amendment rights restored in full for David

Derringer including, but not limited to "sovereign citizenship" not subject to

any governmental contractual obligations of which David Derringer denies

and refuses under UCC 1-308(a)(b). David Derringer is not to be subject to

any past, present and future "contracts" under Color of Law, Statutes,

Ordinances, Regulations or Customs (Executive Orders) pursuant to "under

protest" and "without prejudice" and both preserve and retain all

Constitutional rights pursuant to U.C.C. 1-308, and has legal use of US Courts

for redress.

Order restitution of the monetary amount of $500 million dollars from the

State of New Mexico tax free.

Order restitution of the monetary amount of $500 million dollars from the US

Government for the egregious illegal acts of the 1 0th Circuit US District Court.

Order a complete DOJ and US Senate investigation of all members of the

judiciary of the State of New Mexico and of the US District Court 10th Circuit

in any and all cases involving David Derringer, past and present, and

investigation and criminal prosecution of "conspiracy against rights" and

"deprivation of rights under color of law" and RICO RACKETEERING..

Any other and just punishment, sanctions, and disciplinary actions against any

20

and all that are involved in any past and present Constitutional deprivations

against David Derringer, including involved attorneys and others subject to

the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, and any other and further relief,

compensation and restitution to be awarded to David Derringer.

4' Respectfully submitted by_______ av'z-t~,qe--~_________ David Derringer

Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

19

21

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ) ) ss.

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )

I, David Derringer, being first duly sworn, upon my oath state that I have

knowledge and have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari and know the

contents thereof, and that the statements contained therein are true to my knowledge,

except for those statements made on information and belief, which I believe are true.

M/ David Derringer

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on October 18, 201 by David Derringer.

Z

Andrea Fernandez NOTARY PULJC !

OFFICIAL SEAL

NOTARY PUBLIC ATE OF NEW MEXICO

My Commission Expires: - - 2_2-

My Commission Expires: ---'-