Sunday, December 11, 2011

Stealing American citizen's personal property by the courts

No. 11-6554
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
___________________________________
New Mexico Supreme Court No. 33,067
New Mexico Court of Appeals No. 28,681
New Mexico Second Judicial District Court CV-07-6606

DAVID DERRINGER,
Petitioner,

vs.

FRANCES ELAINE BAXTER, LLAMAS ON
BOARD LLC, SOUTHWEST LLAMA RESCUE INC.
NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK BOARD, NEW MEXICO
LIVESTOCK BOARD DIRECTOR MYLES CULBERTSON,
and NEW MEXICO LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR BUDDY EBY,
Respondents,
____________________________________
PETITIONER’S TIMELY MOTION FOR REHEARING
PURSUANT TO US SUPREME COURT RULE No. 44(2) And
MOTION FOR DIRECTIVE TO THE FBI FOR INVESTIGATION
__________________________________________________________________

David Derringer Pro-Se under forma pauperis
Box 1205
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
December 8, 2011

INDEX
PAGE
MOTION FOR REHEARING 1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES AND CITATIONS SUPPORTING
DAVID DERRINGER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
US Code Title 18 Section 241, 242
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
14th Amendment Section 3
1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th Amendments
US Code Title 28 Section 455
US Code Title 28 Section 1655
Declaration of Independence
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
Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand
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
Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216
Federalist No. 47 by James Madison,
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. Raich, No. 03-1454
Green v. Clarendon County School Dist. Three, 923 F. Supp. 829
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971)
Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993)
Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305
In re Williamson, 43 BR 813
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645
Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2 651 (1985)
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961)
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172.
Montoya v. Blackhurst, 84 N.M. 91, 500 P.2d 176 (1972)
Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972
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)
Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993)
Production Credit Ass’n of Southern New Mexico v. Alamo Ranch Co., 989 F.2d 413
Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985)
Sena v. Montoya, 346 F.Supp. 5 (D.N.M. 1972)
Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647
Stephenson v. Esquivel, 614 F. Supp. 986 "D.N.M. 1985
Stoneking v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089
Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998)
Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523
Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230
US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998
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, 10th USCA.
United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966)
US v. Kilpatrick, 726 F. Supp. 789
US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288
US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76.
United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744
 
COMES NOW the Petitioner, David Derringer, with his Motion for Rehearing under US Supreme Court rules No. 44(2).
On November 14, the United States Supreme Court with one sentence simply denied the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court; and with such denial ratified and condoned the State of New Mexico working in conspiracy with private individuals Baxter to steal an American citizen’s personal property without due process of law or opportunity to be heard in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments preventing such atrocities, but also in violation of Derringer’s rights, privileges and immunities under the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th , 13th, and 14th Amendments and subjecting Derringer to "cruel and unusual punishment" and "imprisonment" to the public corruption of the State of New Mexico under the 13th Amendment, simply taking all rights as a "citizen" from Derringer born and raised in the United States; and the US Supreme Court denied Petition and facilitated these egregious acts, "without reasoning", including allowing the State of New Mexico to be in blatant violation of the "Supremacy Clause". "This Court previously has recognized–even with respect to another statute the legislative history of which indicated that courts were to have "wide discretion exercising their equitable powers," 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975)–that "discretionary choices are not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ " Id., at 416, quoting United States v. Burr , 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, a decision calling for the exercise of judicial discretion "hardly means that it is unfettered by meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review." Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S., at 416."" United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added).; Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985).
 
SHORT HISTORY OF DEPRIVATIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF ALL LAW
In the Spring of 2006 David Derringer made a written, binding "contract" with Frances Baxter, SW Llama Rescue LLC and Llamas On Board LLC to be "agistors" for very temporary "care-taking" of the Derringer livestock of 7 llamas and 2 goats. The term "agistor" is simply a person that care-takes an animal without any ownership or claims for liens for any reasons. Production Credit Ass’n of Southern New Mexico v. Alamo Ranch Co., 989 F.2d 413. "Under NM law, person who cares for and feeds animals belonging to another is called "agistor". These exclusively owned Derringer animals were Derringer’s "trade tools" for making a living as an outfitter, and were trained for packing, as well as used for income by breeding, weed control and clients hiking with llamas and goats. Derringer cannot be denied his "trade tools" for making a living. Roberts v. State Bd. of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 434 P.2d 61 N.M.,1967 "The right to practice a profession or vocation is a property right."; Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 498 P.2d 1357 N.M.,1972 "Right to engage in a licensed profession is a protected property right." Derringer had been run from his legal ranch at the gunpoint of automatic weapons by Order of Judge John Pope by the public corruption of New Mexico working in conspiracy with the cocaine ring of public officials in Santa Fe, NM and needed a temporary shelter/safe haven for Derringer’s livestock.
With refusal to return Derringer’s legal animals to Derringer, Baxter went to the NM Livestock Board Inspector Buddy Eby to investigate the taking of the Derringer livestock. The New Mexico Livestock Board was created under statute for protection of the New Mexico ranchers livestock from "rustling" and other theft or killing for meat. However, David Derringer had previously sued the NM Livestock Board for public corruption of falsifying records and failure and refusal to allow public inspection of public records to cover up their fraud and conspiracy of their Livestock Inspector Tommy Padilla stealing a stray horse without proper advertizement or auction to simply give it to his friend Steve Jensen of Quemado, New Mexico. Derringer "exposing" the public corruption of the NM Livestock Board was "motive" for retribution and retaliation against Derringer by a NM State agency, to violate all livestock laws, and direct Inspector Buddy Eby to conspire with Frances Baxter to steal/rustle the Derringer livestock of llamas and goats to get back at Derringer, with a value of $47,000.00 of Derringer’s "trade tools" and "personal property"that Derringer had exclusive rights. 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; Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645. Against all NM laws, Constitutional rights and other case laws, NM government employee Buddy Eby and the NM Livestock Board deprived 5th Amendment rights against Derringer and stole Derringer’s personal property without due process and against equal protection. United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103]. The "conspiracy" of NM and Buddy Eby directed Baxter to file a fraudulent "lien" against Derringer for caretaking with money due, despite the Baxter organizations being "non-profit" working with public money, so that Baxter could reap "unjust enrichment" of the value of Derringer’s livestock, doing criminal fraud against Derringer, the newspaper publications, NM State taxation and revenue and IRS, and to defraud Grant County in filing a fraudulent "lien". The Baxter lien was not supported by any affidavit or certified documents making the lien fraudulent on its face. Baxter then stole the Derringer livestock in multiple state and federal felonies and moved the Derringer livestock or resold in fraud, or killed the animals without Derringer being able to retrieve his animals despite numerous demands upon both Baxter and the NM Livestock Board. Simply put, a citizen worked in conspiracy with government officials and stole personal property of another in fraud and multiple felonies and neither government, law enforcement or the courts would stop these illegal and un-Constitutional acts. All of this is now applauded and condones in facilitation by the US Supreme Court by "having knowledge" and facilitating the acts. [SEE: Montoya v. Blackhurst, 84 N.M. 91, 500 P.2d 176 (1972); Sena v. Montoya, 346 F.Supp. 5 (D.N.M. 1972); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) pre-judgement seizure of property without opportunity to be heard is unconstitutional.]
Derringer sued both the State of New Mexico and Baxter with her two non-profit orgainizations in the District Court, wherein as Judge Clay Campbell learned of the public corruption of the NM State Livestock Board, Judge Campbell illegally dismissed the Complaint against the State of New Mexico in additional public corruption of a Judge violating Oath and mis-use of power to "protect" the State when the state was not immune to tort liability and had done criminal acts and acts against Constitution with hatred and maliciousness against Derringer well outside of any duty or official jurisdiction or ability under law; in fact acts that were known to be felonies and by the very agency enacted to protect a rancher’s livestock, not facilitate rustling. Green v. Clarendon County School Dist. Three, 923 F. Supp. 829.; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779. Judge Campbell simply gained "knowledge" of the illegal acts of state officials and used the "good o’l boy" system of "favors" to use his position of power as "judge" to protect and exonerate the criminal and rights deprivations in conspiracy by NM State officials for later "favors" if Campbell needed them in the future. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 172.
Derringer then produced multiple facts, documents and law in proof that the Defendants both acted in conspiracy of private parties with state officials, as well as documents showing "fraud" of the Baxter Defendants and their attorneys defrauding the court, introducing fraudulent documents to the court in "corruption of court records" and perjury of both Baxter and her attorneys. The Baxter "lien" was both fraudulent and would not hold to steal livestock in New Mexico as livestock is controlled by multiple statutes, and Baxter could not take legal possession. As the "lien" was fraudulently filed without affidavit, and with the NM Livestock Board "knowing" the owner of the animals, the statutory duty of both the Livestock Board and law enforcement was to return Derringer’s livestock to Derringer. The Baxter "lien" would not hold under 28 USC 1655. As Judge Clay Campbell became both intertwined with the corruption and in a hatred of both Pro-Se and "poor" parties, Campbell mis-used his power to first attempt to intimidate and threaten litigant Derringer to stop the Complaint litigation, and then chose to mis-use "Rule 11" to sanction Derringer by dismissing the Complaint with prejudice to protect the state and Baxter, and the non-profit corporations of Llamas On Board LLC and SW Llama Rescue LLC, and despite the Baxter attorneys working "pro-bono" awarded attorney fees outside of statutory and case law ability in a "persecution" of Derringer to force Derringer to shut his mouth against public corruption in violation of the 1st Amendment. Upon multiple appeals of the NM Court of Appeals and the NM Supreme Court, all justices worked in conspiracy against Oath, Constitution and all laws, to facilitate and condone the stealing/rustling of Derringer livestock and trade tools, depriving Derringer’s "personal property" of value $47,000.00 without due process and in blatant violations of "equal protection" and allowed multiple felonies and awarded Baxter "unjust enrichment".
Upon Petition to the US Supreme Court, the deprivations against Derringer are well known and the Court ignores Derringer’s Motion for an FBI investigation, despite the Defendant/Respondents moving stolen livestock across state lines in federal felonies. 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; US v. Andreas, the US Supreme Court refuses to stop Constitutional and statutory deprivation and persecution and "targeting" of Derringer and Constitutional and US Code and statutory "restrictions" and singling-out Derringer due to being both "poor" and "pro-se" in "persecution" of cruel and unusual punishment of deprivation of suit, burden of attorney fees awarded that did not exist, and "whatever it takes" to keep Derringer from further exposing the public corruption of New Mexico. US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76. Clearly, Canon and the Code of Professional Conduct mean nothing as the attorneys combine with the justices to lie, cheat and steal property from an American, and no court stops these acts in sedition and treason against the Constitution, and New Mexico continues to violate the "Supremacy Clause" with use of the dictatorship of "Rule 11" being the supreme law of America mis-used by all judges in all courts. The Petition to the US Supreme Court was to correct acts of deprivation as no justice exists in this court to stop the conspiracy against Derringer with attending criminal acts, and persecution of Derringer’s whistle-blowing on the public corruption involved and Derringer’s deprivation of personal property, income and ability to own, use and control his "personal property". Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230; Anderson v. U.S. U.S. W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20. Derringer is under the yoke of oppression, tyranny and dictatorship of the involuntary servitude against Derringer of justices unlawfully and in violation of Oath projecting their power with mis-use of power and "Rule 11" used to cover-up public corruption and persecute any who expose these illegal acts in order to stop Derringer from use of Constitutional rights to protect life and property, and use of 42 USC Title 1981(a) "rights to sue" with un-Constitutional "Orders" for mandated "permission" before exercising Constitutional, US Code and statutory "rights"; Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647; US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288. Clearly, 42 USC 1982 rights to "property" does not exist in the US Courts. Derringer has been forced to be without his "trade tools", "pets" and source of income for a period of 6 years due to violations and deprivations of Constitution; the corruption of the courts themselves causing Derringer to be without his legal property, without income, and in "inhumane" treatment of both physical and emotional abuse. Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779; Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305.
Derringer has been to the FBI, the Governor and law enforcement and no one will enforce laws against either the NM State or the justices or attorney involved in this corruption. Derringer also requested of this court for an "Ordered directive to the FBI" to investigate New Mexico public corruption and the "criminal" violations against David Derringer under 18 USC Sections 241, 242, 1503, and was "ignored". Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).
This denial of November 14, 2011 has the ramifications of simultaneously defeating Constitution, US Code, state statutes, former case laws, Canon, Oath, and enabling the only "law" to be supreme in the United States as the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and adaptations thereof of each state of: "RULE 11" as the judicial power overpowering all Constitution and laws, it is illegally used without jurisdiction or judicial capacity to "victimize" all citizens from any court in the United States, and used repeatedly on David Derringer as a "targeted individual". With the current penchant of justices to exceed their power without either jurisdiction or judicial authority, and without "accountability", some justices have determined that an easy way to oust the hated "pro-se" and "poor" of society is to mis-use their power perceived under "Rule 11".
RULE 11 STANDARDS Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b) Representations to Court. "By presenting to the court..a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or representing party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, for after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose , such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law..."
Clearly, the writing of ‘Rule 11' does not overpower the Constitution, Amendments, or US Code, and as it was conceived by the courts themselves without Congressional ratification as a "law" but only a "rule", it cannot be used to defeat use of the courts. Attorneys that "like to win" and gain unfair advantage over and against Pro-Se parties have constructed argument that a litigant without an attorney, thus depriving the "judicial industry" more revenue, should be barred from the courts, and justices, once attorneys, have agreed. Attorneys have been awarded this advantage despite the Code of Professional and Judicial Conduct with unethical justices violating Oath, that also want pro-se parties not on their docket. However, it is un-Constitutional the involuntary servitude against Derringer in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments of justices unlawfully and in violation of Oath projecting their power (without either jurisdiction or judicial capacity) into the future (when a particular justice has not even been assigned the "future case") against Derringer under mis-use of power and "Rule 11" to stop Derringer from use of Constitutional rights to protect life and property, and deprivation of 42 USC Title 1981(a) "rights to sue". In this matter, as in others against Derringer with "Rule 11", it is used to promote public corruption and cover up illegal act, and use to deny due process as "sanctions". Un-Constitutional "Orders" under Rule 11, for mandated "permission" before exercising Constitutional, US Code and statutory "rights" defies both law and mandates of Oath for sitting on the bench; as has repeatedly been done against Derringer. It is clear in this matter, the prosecution changed by the intervention of the "judge" as a party participant for the Defendants/Respondents as that Derringer was fighting the corruption as not Derringer v. Baxter et al, but Derringer v. Judge Clay Campbell, NM public corruption et al. Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647; US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288. "RULE 11" is mis-used as the judicial power overpowering to "victimize" all citizens; to illegally protect other branches of government, and unethical justices think that it grants exclusive and supreme power to each justice of any court of law from the lowest "justice of the peace" to the highest justice of the Supreme Court, to become a "law unto himself" as "JUDGE ROY BEAN" with power to stop due process and equal protection, deny opportunity to be heard, be "judge/jury/executioner" to punish and persecute, award attorney fees as punishment when they don’t exist, conceal bias and prejudice, rule for a preferred party, defeat any "pro-se" litigant, and that particular justice to wield that power as his preferred weapon against the public extended without mercy or rational knowledge into the future against any particular person to defeat and control any use of 42 USC Title 1981(a) "rights to sue" or Constitutional rights to "protect life and property" in defeat of 42 USC 1982 as has been done here. "Rule 11" is a manipulative way of the courts to regulate an area of law already controlled by Congress with the Constitution and Amendments and the US Code, thus upsetting the balance of power, and making the other two divisions of power "mute". United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. Court "orders" not to litigate under sanctions under "Rule 11" abound, with provisions to "ask permission" from a particular judge or court "if" an American can exercise his rights under Constitution and 42 USC Title 1981(a) "right to sue" and then be denied access to the courts by one dictator justice upon any whim or motive. "Any citizen having to have ‘permission’ to exercise Constitutional rights deprives those rights which don’t exist", muting the entire foundation of the United States as constructed by our forefathers. Congress did not establish Constitutional provisions or laws to be then be defeated by "Rule 11" by some arbitrary judge or system enacted by justices for their own mischievous motives and power. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 "US Tex. 1992; Federalist No. 47 by James Madison, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." In the current US and certainly under the egregious "abuse and imprisonment" against David Derringer, "rights" and "justice" and "private property rights" under 42 USC 1982 are merely a myth as defined by Websters as morality, rightness, and equity. Such "Rule 11", contrived by the court system itself, enables any justice to "relieve" a court docket without accountability or responsibility as to any particular litigant or merits of any case; abuse the system of power as an individual with therefore "unlimited" power to oust hated pro-se persons; defeat "poor" Americans without the money to feed attorneys in the judicial industry so as to stop lubricating the "judicial machinery" against the "poor"; project personal judicial power into the future deprivations of suits that may or may not ever be before that particular justice; self-appoint himself to decide without appeal if a case is "frivolous" without hearing the merits of the case; and do "mischief" beyond any accountability or repair against the American public; the "Oath" therefore becomes simply a tool for elections and then discarded along with the integrity of the judicial system. In re Williamson, 43 BR 813. "When an alleged constitutional rights is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary" (citing 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) see also Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998). "...the loss of Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury". Power corrupts, and "Rule 11" enables each judge to attain the corruption of his own absolute perceived power and ego without redress or accountability over-riding the 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments, and 42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983 and keeping "poor" parties from the courts. This dictatorship power from a public official is what 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241 and 242 are all about. 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. As 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).
Derringer’s suit for "replevin" of Derringer’s working livestock and personal property was mandated to be heard, and Derringer’s property could not be stolen without due process of law. Derringer has been violated against every law in the United States, and done so by a conspiracy of power and corruption that defeats America. Stealing Derringer’s $47,000.00 of "trade tools" of livestock is not a "frivolous suit"under 42 USC Section 1982. The "fundamental error" here is both fundamental error going to the very foundation of Derringer’s rights to replevin under statute NMSA 35-11-1 and rights for torts deprived trial or due process in the trial court essential to the case of CV-06-6606, and "fundamental rights" under the NM justices depriving Derringer all Constitutional, statutory, US Code and defying all case laws that allow Derringer to have "rights to income with trade tools" and all laws regarding foreclosure of personal property violated under both case laws and statutes, wherein there was no "foreclosure" of Derringer’s "personal property" by way of the fraudulent lien of Frances Baxter.
There has been a violent and malicious violation of the "Supremacy Clause" by the State of New Mexico allowing and facilitating deprivations of Derringer’s Constitutional and statutory rights enabling Derringer to retrieve "$millions in damages against the Defendants/Respondents. Oliver v. Foster, DC Tes. 1981 524 F. Supp. 927; Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305 ; Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2 651 (1985); Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 F.Supp.2d 1245. In this matter, Defendants need to be punished, Derringer’s property returned (as well as all offspring) damages awarded Derringer, lying attorneys removed from the bar and prosecuted for fraud and perjury, justices removed from the bench and prosecuted for fraud and perjury under Oath, and restitution granted Derringer for deprivation of all rights. The flagrant abuse of power of the system by those in power defeats entirely the United Sates and all that reside in this country. There is a clear "duty" here of the US Supreme Court for "superintending control", "supervisory duty" and to remove such errant justices under Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary responsibilities. Clearly a ruling is needed for public welfare to stop mis-use of "Rule 11" and persecution and manipulations of ability to persecute "poor" litigants, HATE Pro-Se persons without proper hearing in comparison to those rich persons that have attorneys, and to remove any justice that plays with the lives of victimizing Americans in such a fashion of evil. Stephenson v. Esquivel, 614 F. Supp. 986 "D.N.M. 1985 Mis-use of "Rule 11" is clearly a "conspiracy against rights". In Cordova v. Vaughn Mun. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. 3 F. Supp.2d 1216 Anyone can see the atrocious miscarriage of justice if the Supreme Court simply allows Respondents to achieve grand larceny of Derringer’s "personal property" and trade tools and keep Derringer homeless and destitute for the rest of his life by the unlawful stealing of $47,000.00 of Derringer’s property under deprivation against Derringer of 42 USC 1982 for "unjust enrichment" of others. Illegally detaining and "rustling" Derringer’s "personal property" without justice or legal order should shock the conscience of any Supreme Court justice that has any morality or duty under law. To allow a "State" to violate an American without compliance with federal laws defeats every American under the "Supremacy Clause". This court is bound by the "supremacy clause" that defeated Judge Campbell’s original dismissal of this suit in abuse of the Plaintiff and motive to protect state officials and "corporations" and the perjury and fraud of their attorneys, and the mis-use of "Rule 11" to punish exercise of Derringer’s Constitutional rights and statutory rights "to sue" under Title 42 Section 1981(a) and prohibits the exercise of "sanctions" and "award of attorney fees" for use of vindictive persecution of the Plaintiff. On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that.. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail..." in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 SEE United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA, where the court upheld that " the [rule] violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to regulate an area of federal law controlled. Dismissing the need to characterize the rule as either procedural or ethical, the court stated, ‘for purposes of determining whether [the rule] violates the Supremacy Clause, it matters not at all what the Board or Baylson choose to call it. What matters is whether the substance of [the rule] actually conflicts or is incompatible with federal law.’ The [rule] "does not suddenly become consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 as a state rule of professional conduct" "The Court held that the rule’s judicial approval requirement violated the Supremacy Clause because it was incompatible with the federal rules of criminal procedure". In the same manner, for this court to mis-use ‘rule 11' to persecute the Plaintiff for exercising his Constitutional and statutory rights to protect his personal property and to prevent illegal larceny, illegal seizure, illegal confiscation, illegal detention, illegal concealment of his "exempt" trade tools under NM law, is a blatant violation of the Supremacy Clause and meant for "cruel and unusual punishment" and "oppression" and "tyranny" against the Plaintiff where it destroys and is meant to kill the Plaintiff by attrition of deprivation of income and necessities for life itself. See also the parameters set forth in mis-use of a rule in Stoneking v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. "Under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land..any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". US Constitution Article VI Cl.2 "The Supremacy Clause prohibits the application of state laws which conflict with federal laws." Home Mortgage Bank v. Ryan, 986 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1993)." To know of these egregious acts and then have the highest court in the land simply "look the other way" and allow this to happen to an American is inconceivable. A Pro-Se party struggles past all of the illegal manipulations by both attorneys and lower justices, injustices due to poverty and self-representation, biases, prejudices and deprivations of all Constitutional and statutory rights, and with a State of New Mexico proven to deny their own statutes against the citizens, and when finally obtaining a docket of the U.S.S.C., finds a court without law or mercy that would both bully and disregard a citizen, poor and Pro-Se. 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."

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Petitioner respectfully requests the relief stated below: 1. Grant relief of original Complaint since Derringer was forever denied opportunity to be heard before stealing/rustling "personal property" with a conspiracy of private parties and government, and blocked and persecuted by the court abuse and government deprivation of due process, equal protection and illegally deprived legal use of the courts with mis-use of Rule 11 to cover-up public corruption.
Instant Order to all Respondents to release all of the Derringer "personal property" not encumbered, with accountability and restitution of all animals missing and all "offspring" and damages for years of loss of income and breeding ability due to age limitations and Order to be stipulated to be enforced by the United States Marshall.
Damages in restitution: Of illegal detention for 6 years of all Derringer "trade tools" deprived Derringer at least $50,000.00 income for each of 6 years.
Ordered directive: to the United States Marshall for search warrants against all Respondents and other conspirators to recover all Derringer "personal property" and Ordered directiver to the FBI to investigate and prosecute for concealment of stolen property; prosecution for fraud, perjury and inducement of criminal acts by state actors, attorneys and private parties involved, and investigation of the public corruption of New Mexico.
OR, in the alternative Petitioner respectfully requests the immediate remedy of:
1. Ordered Remand to the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico for immediate replevin of the Derringer property, and a full unbiased trial on the merits against all Defendants with an alternative fair and impartial justice, and the mandated removal of Judge Clay Campbell from the bench with attending investigation and prosecution of violations of Oath and criminal acts against Derringer without judicial immunity due to lack of jurisdiction and judicial capacity to violate Constitution against Derringer.
Ordered directive to the FBI to investigate the entire matter of New Mexico governmental corruption, judicial corruption, and New Mexico law enforcement corruption.

Respectfully submitted by___________________________________________
David Derringer
Box 1205
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Petitioner, David Derringer hereby certifies that this Motion for Reconsideration is under Supreme Court Rule 44(2) "rehearing" and is within the required 15 pages; is within the time frame of 25 days; was brought properly before this court, not for delay and is represented in "good faith" and that it is necessary due to the substantial grounds and controlling effect that the US Supreme Court is not abiding by, or following any Constitution, US Code, former case laws or other controlling laws in the United States and has allowed any US Court to simply use "Rule 11" of the FRCP to defeat Constitution, Congress and every other right, privilege and immunity that David Derringer has as a citizen of America, and has given no reasons for such deprivations. I have properly sent one original and 10 copies in forma pauperis under Rule 39.
_______________________________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 12-8-2011
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12-8-2011
I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the forgoing Motion to be sent via first class prepaid mail to the following counsel of record in this matter on the 17th day of November, 2011.
DEFENDANTS:
Attorney:
Joan Marsan
Bank of America Center
500 Fourth Street NW Suite 1000
Box 2168
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-2168
 
I hereby further certify that in forma pauperis I caused eleven one original and (10) true and correct copies of the forgoing Motion to be sent first class mail on the 8th day of December, 2011 for filing to:
The Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
By:_________________________________________________________________
David Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Constitution defeated for the poor and pro-se; the dictatorship you don't know about

Please read the following presented to the United States Supreme Court. This should shock the conscience of every American that believes in the Constitution and rights to sue and have use of the court system. Few know that the court rules themselves hold the only law to the land in America, called 'Rule 11' that any justice can decide when, where and "if" you can use any rights, privileges and immunities you hold under Constitution, US Code, statutes and can defy any former case laws to deny your access to the United States Court system.
"Rule 11" is used by all judges to block due process and equal protection and deny citizen's use of the court at any time they personally see fit.

Tell everyone you know about this matter.
Senators and Congressmen should be shocked by the courts helping steal $1/4 million in a citizen's trade tools exclusively owned and ruining an American's life. When law enforcement and the courts don't work, where does a citizen go in this country to get back his own legal property?



No.11-5936

_________________________________________________________________


IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

___________________________________


DAVID DERRINGER,

Petitioner, Ninth Cir. Ct. App. No. 11-15840
vs. D.C. No. 3:10-CV-08215-PCT/MHM
District of Arizona: Phoenix

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ROBERT SEWELL as an individual, JANET TERMAIN,
LORI CURTIS as an individual, DAVIS MILES LAW FIRM

Respondents,
___________________________________



PETITIONER’S TIMELY MOTION FOR REHEARING
PURSUANT TO US SUPREME COURT RULE No. 44(2) And
MOTION FOR DIRECTIVE TO THE FBI FOR INVESTIGATION









David Derringer Pro-Se under forma Pauperis
Box 1205
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103





INDEX
PAGE
MOTION FOR REHEARING 1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16

AUTHORITIES
PAGE
Constitution
1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th Amendments 14

US CODE
42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 14

Arizona state laws
ARS 33-1704(C), ARS 33-1123, ARS 33-1126, ARS 33-1130,
ARS 33-1133, ARS 33-1704(C) 3,11,13

CASE LAWS

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 416, 421 (1975) 416 5
Allen v. Allen, 48 F.3d 259, 261 (7th Circuit 1995) 11
Anderson v. U.S. U.S. W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211,
41 L.Ed.2d 20 4
Bandes supra note 9 11
Bank of Nova Scotia v. US, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 487 US 250,
101 L.Ed.2d 228 on remand 3
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 3
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061,
503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992 7
Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624 (11th Circuit 1997) 11
Federalist No. 47 by James Madison 7
Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton 14
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) 3
Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305 4
In re Williamson, 43 BR 813 8
Johnson v. Rodriques, 226 F.3d at 1109 11
Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645 3
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed.
2d 1081 (June 19, 1961) 8
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981) 14
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) 8
Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US
622 (1980) No. 78-1779 4
Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct.
1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993) 5
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 100 S.Ct. 2035
Formerly 148k2(1) U.S.Cal.,1980 11
Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied
28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647 4,6
Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998) 8
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985) 5
Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala)
1986, 799 F.2d 1523 4
Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US
1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230 4
US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.)1986 2
United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d)
(CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.) 5
US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931
101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288 4,6
US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied
111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 3
United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. 7
US v. Guest, US Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 US 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 3
United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413,
101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744 5
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 4














COMES NOW the Petitioner, David Derringer, with his Motion for Rehearing. As the underlying Respondents and involved court justices of both Arizona and federal courts have taken and deprived Derringer all rights, privileges and immunities, and the Respondents and US courts have raped and violated Derringer under Constitution, and defied all laws of the US Code, Arizona statutory laws and case laws, while those justices and those in ‘power’ themselves violating Oath, Canon, Code of Judicial Conduct, and both Arizona state and federal criminal codes in total violations of the “Supremacy Clause of Constitution Article VI” in a “conspiracy against rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law” targeting for annihilation thus Derringer, “American born and raised”, who continues to expose this atrocious attack on a New Mexico citizen, and who stands up legally under egregious circumstances of “poor” and “Pro-Se” for “rights” supposedly “guaranteed” by the Constitution and laws in the United States, and, as a US Citizen, deprived thereof all rights of “citizenship”and denial of a Federal Civil Right law suit; Derringer has a right to “reasoning” from the highest court in the US as to why this persecution, deprivation of rights, underlying blocking appeals, destruction of court records, depriving Derringer use of the FRCP, and “imprisonment” in the public and judicial corruption would continue taking illegally all Derringer’s worldly possessions (“personal property”) by stealing $1/4 million of Derringer’s “personal property” without any court Order so written [Exhibit 1], and stealing $1/4 million of “personal property” of trade tools and necessities of life (formerly confirmed and protected [Exhibit 2] ), in “unjust enrichment” for others and to facilitate the persecution and murder of Derringer by attrition, and taking all of Derringer’s liberty, enjoyment, happiness, security, freedoms, income, and life; all without this court’s defeat of this ultimate assault against a citizen or any intervention or ruling to protect Derringer by the US Supreme Court under mandates of Constitution, former Sup. Ct. case laws, US Code or “protection” afforded Derringer under the RICO Act or Whistle-Blowing Act of 1989. For court “public record” and to the world, this underlying “Federal Civil Rights” legal suit matter has never been opposed or defended by the Respondents, mandating the US Supreme Court to grant Derringer relief by “Complaint” as all laws reside with the Petitioner just as in a default judgement. One can see here by court record that the entire case has never been opposed, but it is the “justices” themselves that are blocking due process, equal protection, denying “forma pauperis” and malicious actions against the Petitioner, without impartiality, with bias, extreme prejudice, and intent on ruing Derringer’s life “with malice”, and intent on “defeating” Derringer arbitrarily and unreasonably under the particular circumstances to protect underlying justices and the State of Arizona and the “conspiracy” within this matter; justices that are prejudiced, have animosity, hostility, ill-will, and distrust directed towards Derringer and mis-use “Rooker-Feldman” when the “state judgement” [Exhibit 1] clearly does not allow any deprivation or stealing of Derringer’s “$1/4 million of exempt ‘personal property’ and trade tools”, nor does any US law (“Supremacy Clause”)allow deprivation of Arizona statutory laws of ARS 33-1123; ARS 33-1126; ARS 33-1130; ARS 33-1133, and ARS 33-1706(C) against David Derringer. Clearly, 42 USC 1982 is “meaningless” with regard to Derringer’s “personal property” and Constitutional rights to protect the same. Canon 3 (B)(2)(7). There is a ruthlessness to stop a Pro-Se party expose the truth that is very obvious with the HATE, persecution, deprivations, and lack of un-bias and un-prejudice lacking in the US District Court, even more animosity and vindictiveness in the 9th Circ. Ct. App. and dumping the case by the US Supreme Court. US v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 CA7 (Ind.)1986. However, it is clear that since this involves state justices in public corruption, the “circle of justices” would prefer to destroy the life of a citizen and illegally steal all Derringer’s $1/4 million in property to keep Derringer homeless and destitute rather than disrupt the career of any justice that violates all laws. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1). The Whistle-Blowing Act of 1989 does not function when the justices are the public corruption; making the Pro-Se citizen’s rights “expendable” in comparison to the judicial community. Petitioner, David Derringer has been both “abandoned” and “betrayed” by his United States government ruining his lifetime of work and acquisitions, to leave Derringer “homeless and destitute”, the “allegiance” to America rewarded by persecution and deprivations by Respondents and the government itself; and with this becoming a “case law”, against every American without attorney money.
The US Supreme Court refuses to honor Constitution or law to (1) refuses to Order “all” of Derringer’s exclusively owned without encumbrance “personal property” [Exhibit 1] of $1/4 million dollars that was stolen and illegally detained in Arizona (while under court protection of “injunction”) [Exhibit 2] returned by “replevin” under mandates of 42 USC 1982, and ARIZONA statutory rights under state laws ARS 33-1704(C), 33-1123, ARS 33-1126, ARS 33-1130, ARS 33-1133 making 42 USC 1982 and Constitution “worthless”; 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; Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S. Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645; (2) refuses to grant Derringer his rights under Constitution and US codes and state Arizona laws; United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966) due process clause, Footnote [102] equal protection clause, Footnote [103] (3) refuses to Order an FBI investigation of 18 USC Title 241, 242, 1503, and 922; 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; US v. Andreas, 39 F. Supp.2d 1048 ND Ill. 1998; (4) refuses to stop Constitutional and statutory deprivation and persecution and “targeting” of Derringer and Constitutional and US Code and statutory “restrictions” and singling-out Derringer due to being both “poor” and “pro-se”both now and into the future; US v. McDermott, CA2 (N.Y.) 1990, 918 F.2d 319 cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 1681, 500 US 904, 114 L.Ed.2d 76; (5) refuses to stop the conspiracy against Derringer with attending criminal acts, and persecution of Derringer’s whistle-blowing on the public corruption involved and Derringer’s deprivation of use of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compared to any other litigant; Tyus v. Martinez, 106 Supreme Court 1787, 475 US 1138, 90 L.Ed.2d 333 on remand 800 F.2d 230; Anderson v. U.S. U.S. W. Va 1974 94 S.Ct. 2253, 417 U.S. 211, 41 L.Ed.2d 20; (6) refuses to stop the involuntary servitude against Derringer of justices unlawfully and in violation of Oath projecting their power into the future against Derringer under mis-use of power and “Rule 11" to stop Derringer from use of Constitutional rights to protect life and property, and use of 42 USC Title 1981(a) “rights to sue” with un-Constitutional “Orders” for mandated “permission” before exercising Constitutional, US Code and statutory “rights”; Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647; US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288; (7) refuses to stop persecution of a “poor” and “pro-se” party “guaranteed” under “Oath” equality and due process and equal protection with justices illegally depriving Derringer “forma pauperis” even when Derringer is on proven public assistance due to the deprivations of the Respondents; 28 USC Section 453, 455; 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; and (8) refuses to Order restitution and relief of egregious and atrocious acts perpetrated against Derringer by Respondents and the “government” of both Arizona state and the United States causing Derringer to be without his legal property, without income, without necessities of life in “inhumane” treatment for a period of 4 ½ years; Terry Properties Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., (Ind) CA11 (Ala) 1986, 799 F.2d 1523; Owen v. City of Independence, US Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980) No. 78-1779; Hughes v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305.
On October 31, 2011 in one sentence without reasoning or motive, The Supreme Court stated of No. 11-5936: “The petition for writ of certiorari is denied”; thereby endorsing, applauding, condoning and allowing the complete destruction of not only Derringer as a citizen, but setting up a case law No. 11-5936, enabling such deprivations and conspiracy to flourish against any American similarly situated as Derringer; which includes all us “Americans”. 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972), quoted in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 416, 421 (1975) 416, quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.326, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 L. Ed. 2d 297,56 U.S.L.W. 4744. (Emphasis added); Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 08/01/1985). Due to the extreme deprivations and corruption involved underlying, Derringer also requested of this court for an “Ordered directive to the FBI” to investigate Arizona public corruption and the “criminal” violations against David Derringer under 18 USC Sections 241, 242, 1503, and 922, and was “ignored”. Prei, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993). This denial of October 31, 2011 has the ramifications of simultaneously defeating Constitution, US Code, state statutes, former case laws, Canon, Oath, and enabling the only “law” to be supreme in the United States as the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and adaptations thereof of each state of: “RULE 11" as the judicial power overpowering all Constitution and laws, it is illegally used without jurisdiction or judicial capacity to “victimize” all citizens from any court in the United States, and used repeatedly on David Derringer as a “targeted individual”. With the current penchant of justices to exceed their power without either jurisdiction or judicial authority, and without “accountability”, some justices have determined that an easy way to oust the hated “pro-se” and “poor” of society is to mis-use their power perceived under “Rule 11".
RULE 11 STANDARDS Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b) Representations to Court. “By presenting to the court..a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or representing party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, for after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose , such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law...”
Clearly, the writing of ‘Rule 11' does not overpower the Constitution, Amendments, or US Code, and as it was conceived by the courts themselves without Congressional ratification as a “law” but only a “rule”, it cannot be used to defeat use of the courts. Attorneys that “like to win” and gain unfair advantage over and against Pro-Se parties have constructed argument that a litigant without an attorney, thus depriving the “judicial industry” more revenue, should be barred from the courts, and justices, once attorneys, have agreed. Attorneys have been awarded this advantage despite the Code of Professional and Judicial Conduct with unethical justices violating Oath, that also want pro-se parties not on their docket. However, it is un-Constitutional the involuntary servitude against Derringer in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments of justices unlawfully and in violation of Oath projecting their power (without either jurisdiction or judicial capacity) into the future (when a particular justice has not even been assigned the “future case”) against Derringer under mis-use of power and “Rule 11" to stop Derringer from use of Constitutional rights to protect life and property, and deprivation of 42 USC Title 1981(a) “rights to sue”. Un-Constitutional “Orders” for mandated “permission” before exercising Constitutional, US Code and statutory “rights” defies both law and mandates of Oath for sitting on the bench; as has repeatedly been done in this case before the US Supreme Court. Smith v. US CCA8 (Mo) 1907 157 F.721, 85 CCA 353 Cert denied 28 S. Ct. 569, 208 US 618, 52 L.Ed 647; US v. Kozmisnski, U.S. Mich 1988 108 S. Ct. 2751 487 U.S. 931 101 L.Ed.2d 788 on remand 852 F.2d 1288. “RULE 11" is mis-used as the judicial power overpowering to “victimize” all citizens; to illegally protect other branches of government, and unethical justices think that it grants exclusive and supreme power to each justice of any court of law from the lowest “justice of the peace” to the highest justice of the Supreme Court, to become a “law unto himself” as “JUDGE ROY BEAN” with power to stop due process and equal protection, deny opportunity to be heard, be “judge/jury/executioner” to punish and persecute, conceal bias and prejudice, rule for a preferred party, defeat any “pro-se” litigant, and that particular justice to wield that power as his preferred weapon against the public extended without mercy or rational knowledge into the future against any particular person to defeat and control any use of 42 USC Title 1981(a) “rights to sue” or Constitutional rights to “protect life and property” in defeat of 42 USC 1982 as has been done here. “Rule 11" is a manipulative way of the courts to regulate an area of law already controlled by Congress with the Constitution and Amendments and the US Code, thus upsetting the balance of power, and making the other two divisions of power “mute”. United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA. Court “orders” not to litigate under sanctions under “Rule 11" abound, with provisions to “ask permission” from a particular judge or court “if” an American can exercise his rights under Constitution and 42 USC Title 1981(a) “right to sue” and then be denied access to the courts by one dictator justice upon any whim or motive. “Any citizen having to have ‘permission’ to exercise Constitutional rights deprives those rights which don’t exist”, muting the entire foundation of the United States as constructed by our forefathers. Congress did not establish Constitutional provisions or laws to be then be defeated by “Rule 11" by some arbitrary judge or system enacted by justices for their own mischievous motives and power. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex. 112 Supreme Court 1061, 503 US 115, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 “US Tex. 1992; Federalist No. 47 by James Madison, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In the current US and certainly under the egregious “abuse and imprisonment” against David Derringer, “rights” and “justice” are merely a myth as defined by Websters as morality, rightness, and equity. Such “Rule 11", contrived by the court system itself, enables any justice to “relieve” a court docket without accountability or responsibility as to any particular litigant or merits of any case; abuse the system of power as an individual with therefore “unlimited” power to oust hated pro-se persons; defeat “poor” Americans without the money to feed attorneys in the judicial industry so as to stop lubricating the “judicial machinery” against the “poor”; project personal judicial power into the future deprivations of suits that may or may not ever be before that particular justice; self-appoint himself to decide without appeal if a case is “frivolous” without hearing the merits of the case; and do “mischief” beyond any accountability or repair against the American public; the “Oath” therefore becomes simply a tool for elections and then discarded along with the integrity of the judicial system. In re Williamson, 43 BR 813. “When an alleged constitutional rights is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary” (citing 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2948.1 (2d.ed 1995) see also Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 533 (1998). “...the loss of Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury”. Power corrupts, and “Rule 11" enables each judge to attain the corruption of his own absolute perceived power and ego without redress or accountability over-riding the 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments, and 42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983 and keeping “poor” parties from the courts. This dictatorship power from a public official is what 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241 and 242 are all about. 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. As 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).
Derringer’s underlying Civil Rights law suit exposing the public corruption of Arizona and rights to “replevin” and retrieval of Derringer’s “personal property” unencumbered by the Final Judgement of CV-07-0178 April 14, 2008 is a “right” deprived by Rule 11, deprived by denial of legal available “forma pauperis” and blatantly and maliciously denied by ousting the valid suit under mis-use of a simply “doctrine” of “Rooker-Feldman”. The Derringer valid suit underlying this matter of litigating to protect and retrieve “personal property” of value $1/4 million stolen by Janet Termain and Respondents, facilitated by the justices of Arizona without any legal ability is not “frivolous” (US Ct. App. 9th Cir. July, 8, 2011) under 42 USC Section 1982. However, to stop any further exposure of the illegal acts in Arizona justice system that perpetrates this upon a Pro-Se citizen, and an Order that the FRCP would not be available for Derringer is both illegal and shows the animosity and vengeance against both Pro-Se parties and those that expose the judicial underlying corruption. (“No motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial of appellant’s in forma pauperis status shall be filed or entertained”) [Exhibit 3] The “poor” of the United States simply will receive no justice, proper use of the courts, or “unbiased opportunity to be heard” in a trial on the merits. What happened in the 9th Cir. Ct. App. Order of July 8, 2011 by Judge Kozinshi and Wardlaw is “criminal extortion”. First, Derringer is illegally denied “forma pauperis” (US Ct. App. 9th Cir. Order July 8, 2011) when public assistance is proven [Exhibit 4] as a way simply to deny due process, opportunity to be heard and equal protection. Second, however, is to attempt to “extort” a fee of $455.00 that is known cannot be paid, but “if” payed, the Appellant could then file additional pleadings. In the meantime FRCP Rules are “denied” Derringer so as to keep further exposure of the truth of the injustice of the court system at bay. If such justices are allowed to remain on the bench, after such a violent act of “conspiracy against rights” the flagrant abuse of power of the system by those in power defeats entirely the United Sates and all that reside in this country. There is a clear “duty” here of the US Supreme Court for “superintending control”, “supervisory duty” and to remove such errant justices under Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (D)(1) Disciplinary responsibilities. Clearly a ruling is needed for public welfare to stop mis-use of “Rule 11" and persecution and manipulations of ability to persecute “poor” litigants, HATE Pro-Se persons without proper hearing in comparison to those rich persons that have attorneys, and to remove any justice that plays with the lives of victimizing Americans in such a fashion of evil. Mis-use of “Rule 11" is clearly a “conspiracy against rights”. Anyone can see the atrocious miscarriage of justice if the Supreme Court simply allows Respondents to achieve grand larceny of Derringer’s “personal property” and trade tools and keep Derringer homeless and destitute for the rest of his life by the unlawful stealing of $1/4 million of Derringer’s property under deprivation against Derringer of 42 USC 1982 for “unjust enrichment” of others, while the “Judgement” for only $11,000.00 did not ever allow any lien except on “real property”. [Exhibit 1] This high court does know that no American can be denied his “personal property” of $1/4 million stolen by the lower court corruption, and there could be no mistake made to ever allow anyone with an $11,000.00 judgement against “real property” to also steal $1/4 million in additional “personal property”. There should be no justice on the bench so calloused as to allow Derringer’s family photos, photos of children, photos and memorabilia of deceased parents, and “private” information to be simply discarded with the grand larceny accompanying the underlying acts of Respondents. This entire matter of invading privacy, inhumane treatment of a senior citizen who worked his entire life to attain his few possessions, stealing exempt and trade tool and other “personal property” without justice or legal order should shock the conscience of any Supreme Court justice that has any morality or is a parent him/her self. To know of these egregious acts and then have the highest court in the land simply “look the other way” and allow this to happen to an American is inconceivable. A Pro-Se party struggles past all of the illegal manipulations by both attorneys and lower justices, injustices due to poverty and self-representation, biases, prejudices and deprivations of all Constitutional and statutory rights, and with a State of Arizona proven to deny their own statutes against the citizens, and when finally obtaining a docket of the U.S.S.C., finds a court without law or mercy that would both bully and disregard a citizen, poor and Pro-Se.
The “mis-use” of “Rooker-Feldman” is “malicious” and a total miscarriage of the law. The FDC used “Rooker-Feldman” simply to oust Derringer without facts. “Facts” show that “although” the Derringer “personal property”stored with Janet Termain and Termain storage “was litigated” in the Arizona state courts, Janet Termain “lost” any legal ability to further detain, steal, keep, vandalize, peruse, or invade Derringer’s storage units and upon the ‘Final Judgement’ of April 14, 2008 of CV-07-0178 [Exhibit 1] and “all” of Derringer’s “personal property” had to be instantly returned to Derringer under 42 USC 1982 and other appurtenant rights under Constitution. When, instead, Janet Termain and others, protected by Arizona law enforcement “looking the other way” and moonlighting police man Mike Nuttall assisted breaking and entering Derringer’s storage as a “mercenary” facilitating and as “accessory” for Janet Termain to gain $1/4 million in “unjust enrichment” of Derringer’s “personal property” not awarded in ‘Final Judgement’ of April 14, 2008 of CV-07-0178 and while actually under “protection” of CV-08-144 “injunction” of May 29, 2008, a “new and valid” cause of action arose, that could not have been litigated in the original suit of state court, that when facilitated and protected further by the Arizona courts in deprivation of Derringer’s rights under Arizona statutes ARS 33-1704(C), 33-1123, ARS 33-1126, ARS 33-1130, ARS 33-1133 made the Civil Rights suit “valid” and non-dismiss able under mis-use of “Rooker-Feldman”.Johnson v. Rodriques, 226 F.3d at 1109; Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624 (11th Circuit 1997) Since many of the “Defendants/Respondents” were not “parties” to the original suit Derringer v. Termain CV-07-0178, Rooker-Feldman cannot bar the Federal suit Derringer v. State of Arizona et al. Allen v. Allen, 48 F.3d 259, 261 (7th Circuit 1995); Bandes supra note 9, at 1207 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine...offers federal courts the option of lightening their dockets without taking the responsibility for ousting any particular federal claimant.” The District Court judge is probably not “incompetent” to not know the legal difference between “real” and “personal property” but “malicious” to deny Derringer due process and equal protection. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 100 S.Ct. 2035 Formerly 148k2(1) U.S.Cal.,1980 “Essential stick in bundle of property rights is right to exclude others. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14". Derringer is not fighting the opposition of Defendants/Respondents in any of this suit, with a fair, impartial, “finder of facts” as justices, but fights the corruption of the courts only to attempt to achieve the due process and equal protection constantly denied against Derringer.
Underlying, David Derringer is a New Mexico citizen, who had to store $1/4 million dollars of “personal property” in Arizona. This property was stolen by “self storage” greed and mis-use of perceived storage laws, and fraud by Janet Termain. Derringer properly sued and was met with both fraud and “public corruption collusion” of Termain’s attorney and the “Justice of the Peace” intertwined with the public corruption of Arizona. In CV-07-0178, Derringer was sanctioned illegally under “Rule 11" $9,000.00 to shut his mouth of this exposed corruption, concealed in record as some bogus Derringer violation of “discovery”. The JP ruled in a “Final Judgement” of CV-07-0178 that Janet Termain et al only was able to place a lien on any and all Derringer “real property” in Arizona. Janet Termain then hired moonlighting mercenary police officer to rob and burglarize Derringer’s storage of “personal property” not legally able to access, detain, or claim lien upon and stole $1/4 million in Derringer’s exempt “personal property”, “trade tools” and invaded all of Derringer’s privacy records of medical, education, employment, and other personal and sensitive records, violating every aspect of American citizenship. Derringer appealed, and filed new suits for “torts” and damages and “replevin” to retrieve his legal property under 42 USC 1982 “rights”, while being rendered homeless and destitute due to the deprivations, and without income due to the stealing of all Derringer’s “trade tools”. These acts included stealing Derringer’s firearms depriving Derringer’s 2nd Amendment rights, and also stealing a Derringer FFL handgun in violation of 18 USC Section 922. The Arizona Courts and Arizona justices continuously deprived Derringer due process and equal protection, destroyed court records, blocked appeals, “declined jurisdiction” on appeal; all meant to both stop Derringer’s pro-se litigation and “facilitate” the stealing of Derringer’s $1/4 million dollars in “personal property” exclusively owned by David Derringer with no legal encumbrances. The public corruption of the State of Arizona with both private parties and governmental employees including justices became obvious violators under 18 USC 241/242, when Arizona “refused” to allow Derringer his Arizona statutory rights under ARIZONA STATE LAWS ARS 33-1704(C), 33-1123, ARS 33-1126, ARS 33-1130, ARS 33-1133, refused to grant Derringer “replevin” of Derringer’s “personal property” and was intent on ruining Derringer’s life and stealing all of Derringer’s “personal property” for unjust enrichment of Janet Termain and the law firm of Davis Miles and involved justices and graft and pay-offs of others. David Derringer, under Constitutional rights to protect his life and property and “rights to sue” under 42 USC Title 1981(a) properly brought the Civil Rights action of US Fed. D.C. No. 3:10-CV-08215-PCT/MHM. Derringer proved “public assistance” and provided affidavit, court application and Motion for “forma pauperis” that was mandated to be granted for a “poor” Pro-Se litigant seeking due process and equal protection. It was clear that the “Complaint” involved exposing and prosecuting deprivation of rights, immunities and privileges by “conspiracy” against Derringer with the “Respondents” including severe exposure of the “public corruption” of justices and officials in the State of Arizona; a possible political disaster for the State of Arizona. As the “federal justice” of Dist. Ct. is in Phoenix, and Derringer is “pro-se” immediate decision was made to violate Oath, mis-use power of “Rule 11" and dump Derringer’s legal case to protect the public corruption officials of Arizona and to stem any publicity or harm of the proven conspiracy that involved cover-ups of stealing Derringer’s firearms and an FFL handgun and other firearms listed as “stolen” with BATF and NCIC ; mis-use of a Springerville police officer off duty to be an “accessory” to the multiple acts of felonies against Derringer involving also stealing in grand larceny $1/4 million of New Mexico citizen Derringer’s “personal property” not included in any “CV-07-0178 Final Judgement” [Exhibit 1] and other corrupt and illegal acts of deprivation of Constitutional rights and subjecting Derringer to deprivation of the very Arizona statutory laws enabling Derringer to retrieve all of his “personal property”. To assume that Derringer will simply give up his lifetime acquisitions of “personal property” and not be able to make any income to be permanently rendered homeless is “irrational”, yet condoned by the US Sup. Ct.. The Sup. Ct. allowing in any way for Derringer to be violated in such a manner with “knowledge”, was not the intent of Congress under 42 USC 1982 nor the intent of the forefather’s charter to create the “courts” under Article III, nor ability of Arizona and other Respondents to do this to Derringer under Article VI. Malicious acts by justices that knowingly ruin the lives of American citizens cannot be tolerated. To deny the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and not address these system errors and subjugation is an atrocity against the public. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 731, 763 (1981). Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton.
Unless it is the position of this court that the instant case possesses such unique qualities that the Constitution and Arizona statutes protecting Derringer’s personal property, trade tools, and exempt items, and Derringer’s rights under Arizona ARS 33-1123; ARS 33-1126; ARS 33-1130; ARS 33-1133, ARS 33-1706(C), the Constitution and Federal law Title 42 Section 1982 providing rights to Derringer to own, control and possess his personal property, have no purpose, it is clear that the basic District Court here has acted maliciously and in abandon of all Derringer’s rights for litigation for egregious acts against Derringer under 42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 with attending violations of Constitutional Amendments 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 13th, and 14th, and required ‘replevin’ Derringer’s personal property, rights to live and use personal property for that life, and that Derringer cannot be persecuted for protecting his personal property and life itself by legal suit. What is clear is that Derringer has contested the illegal acts of judges ignoring that the Termain’s “Final Judgement” of CV-07-0178 of April 14, 2001 only allows a “lien” [Exhibit 1] to be placed upon “real property” and all courts ignore maliciously that Derringer is entitled to “exempt personal property” of items exempt under law, trade tools for making a living, and items of necessity for life, and that no one in America is entitled to steal $1/4 million from another in grand larceny without accountability under torts; that coupled with the egregious acts of simply depriving any statutory law for replevin and redemption, the “Civil Rights” violations are clear for anyone. The District Court had no right to mis-use Rule 11 to dismiss “due process and equal protection”;deny 42 USC 1981(a) in order to protect Defendants; then persecute the Plaintiff for exercising Constitutional and statutory rights, or to punish and vindictively persecute the Plaintiff for “speaking out” against government in violation of the 1st Amendment. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Petitioner respectfully requests the relief stated below: 1. Grant relief of Complaint since never opposed by any Defendant/Respondent, and only blocked and persecuted by the court abuse and government deprivation of due process, equal protection and illegally deprived legal use of the courts with mis-use of Rule 11, deprivation of forma pauperis and mis-use of Rooker-Feldman.
2) Instant Order to all Respondents to release all of the Derringer “personal property” not encumbered, with accountability replacement of any missing, damaged, or stolen, discarded items Order to be stipulated to be enforced by the United States Marshall.
3) Damages in restitution: Of illegal detention for 4 ½ years of all Derringer “exempt” items and trade tools under all Civil Judgements; of depriving Derringer $1/4 million in income over a period of 4 ½ years; all acts in violation of Arizona laws ARS 33-1123, ARS 33-1126, ARS 33-1130, ARS 33-1133; of depriving Derringer any ability under Arizona laws ARS 33-1704(C); of deprivation to recover any of his trade tools and personal effects; for depriving Derringer’s “necessities” of life; and for rendering David Derringer “homeless and destitute” for 4 ½ years.
4) Ordered directive: to the United States Marshall for search warrants against all Respondents and other conspirators to recover all Derringer “personal property” and prosecution for concealment of stolen property including Derringer firearms listed on NCIC; to BATF for arrest and prosecution of Janet Termain and Robert Sewell for stealing the Derringer FFL handgun that cannot be in “possession” under US Code Title 18 Section 922; and Ordered directive to the FBI to investigate the entire matter of Arizona governmental corruption.
OR, in the alternative Petitioner respectfully requests the immediate remedy of:
1. Ordered Remand to the US District Court in Phoenix for a full trial and due process upon the merits of the Civil Rights suit, with an alternative fair and impartial justice.
2) Ordered directive to the FBI to investigate the entire matter of Arizona governmental corruption, judicial corruption, and Arizona law enforcement corruption, and Injunction or “stay” under Rule 23(1)(2) {SEE: 28 USC 2101(f)}.
Respectfully submitted By:______________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
_____________
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Petitioner, David Derringer hereby certifies that this Motion for Reconsideration is under Supreme Court Rule 44(2) “rehearing” and is within the required 15 pages; is within the time frame of 25 days; was brought properly before this court, not for delay and is represented in “good faith” and that it is necessary due to the substantial grounds and controlling effect that the US Supreme Court is not abiding by, or following any Constitution, US Code, former case laws or other controlling laws in the United States and has allowed any US Court to simply use “Rule 11" of the FRCP to defeat Constitution, Congress and every other right, privilege and immunity that David Derringer has as a citizen of America, and has given no reasons for such deprivations. I have properly sent one original and 10 copies in forma pauperis under Rule 39.

_______________________________________________________
David Derringer Pro-Se, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 11-17-2011


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 11-17-2011

I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the forgoing Motion to be sent via first class prepaid mail to the following counsel of record in this matter on the 17th day of November, 2011.

DEFENDANTS:

Robert Sewell/Lori Curtis/Davis Miles Janet Termain,
80 E. Rio Salado Pkwy Ste. 401 5 North E. St,
Tempe, AZ 85281 Springerville, AZ 85938

State of Arizona c/o Attorney General-Terry Goddard
1275 West Washington ST.
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

I hereby further certify that in forma pauperis I caused eleven one original and (10) true and correct copies of the forgoing Motion with four exhibits per copy to be sent first class mail on the 17th day of November, 2011 for filing to:

The Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

By:_______________________________________________________________
David Derringer, Box 1205, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103