Case Name: Public Minister William Lord PUNCHARD; Royal Continental Sudan Africa Government; Public Minister Denece Williams; Eddy Wright; Agent Will Banks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The Sixth Judicial State District Court Judge Garry JEFFRIES; The Sixth Judicial State District Court; The Sixth Judicial District Attorney Office; N.M. State Governor Bill Richardson; The State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-30
Citations: 298 F. App'x 775
Docket Number: No. 08-2147
Parties: Public Minister William Lord PUNCHARD; Royal Continental Sudan Africa Government; Public Minister Denece Williams; Eddy Wright; Agent Will Banks, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. The Sixth Judicial State District Court Judge Garry JEFFRIES; The Sixth Judicial State District Court; The Sixth Judicial District Attorney Office; N.M. State Governor Bill Richardson; The State of New Mexico, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 775–776

Head Matter:
Public Minister William Lord PUNCHARD; Royal Continental Sudan Africa Government; Public Minister Denece Williams; Eddy Wright; Agent Will Banks, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. The Sixth Judicial State District Court Judge Garry JEFFRIES; The Sixth Judicial State District Court; The Sixth Judicial District Attorney Office; N.M. State Governor Bill Richardson; The State of New Mexico, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-2147.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 30, 2008.
William Lord Punchard, Deming, NM, pro se.
Patricia J. Turner, Canepa & Vidal, PA, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is wholly frivolous. Appellant's brief is gibberish. The appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is therefore DISMISSED. Plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis is DENIED.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.