◆ SpookStack

O O Page 3 Criminal Misconduct Complaint Against District—Jdudge, Catherine D.Parry Complainant Sylvester Jones: 5.The present crimes committed by Catherine D.Parry, against the Civil and Constitutional rights,of Complainant,the laws of the United States,e.g., the crimes and laws are: Title 18 USC § 8 1,2,3742241,242,1001,1961,1962,1963,2071, 2073,2075,and 2076,as a minimum (The Rico Act). - Defendants: Catherine D.Parry,Stephen N.Limbaugh,George F.Gunn, Jr.,dJean C.Hamilton,Donald J.Stohr,Carol E.dJackson,Charles A. Shaw,District judges,and Edward L.Filippinr,chief district judge. These judges are named as Defendants in each of the following cases,which Cpmplainant Paid the filing fees,and had Defendants served to professional process,servers,€.9-, herein St.Louis, and St Louis counties,by A.1 Guaranteed Process Serving-5674 Telegraph Rd.,Suite 206,St.Louis,Mo 63129( 464-8181) New York,New York, by Guaranteed Subpoena Service,Inc., 1000 Stuyvesnt Ave.Union,New Jersey,07083 (908-687-0056) Baltimore,Maryland and Washington,D.C., by Monumental Process Servers,iInc 221 West Joppa Rd:,,Towson,Maryland 21204,Complain- ant paid the costs,as other attorneys,white,rich,famous,and pow- erful, from a total monthly income of just $669.00. And Michael Buter Attorney Associates 850 Veice Blvd.-Los Ange- es,Ca. 90015-213-747-3322 Ext.401. les,Ca. 90015~-213-747-3522 EXt.@0i Whereas federal officials and employees involved, Complainant served neither by hand délivered to the office of United States attorney Edward L.Dowd Jr.,or Certified U.S.Mail Return Receipt Requested. . > Jones vs.ABC Television Network,et al. ,4:94-CV-1192 Jones vs-.American Civil Liberties Union,et al., 4:94-CV-899 Jones vs.Shaw Electronics,et al.,4:94-CV-1098 Jones vs.Chris Weatherford,et al.,4:94-CV-549 Jones vs.Suburban,Journal News Papers.et al.,4:94-CV-1107 Some Defendants in the above cases were served with copy of com- plaints,and requests to waiver service of summons,failed to re- spond,these were the named defendants Complainant requested that summonses be issued,but requests refused by deputy clerk,Cross‘°: on Friday May 5,1995 See p.p.,30,31,and 32 of Appendix-AA,attac-— hed hereto.After Complainant left the judge,Parry's office these defendants, judges,law clerks and clerks conspired to and did issued orders in each of the above cases,that Complainant be Denied the issuing of summonses.See copy of the five orders att- ached as Exhibits-4,5,6,7,and 8.These orders are as all other