◆ SpookStack

O O in cases dating back to June 1976,a mass of falsely manufactu- red Lie(S),e.g., each of these orders states that Complainant submitted a memorandum to the clerk to issue summonses for Fourteen(14) newly joined Defendants; the only clerk Complain- ant were involved in on Friday,May 4,1995 were Cross,and that Cross made such a statement,to which she knew were a lie.E.g., see attached as Exhibits-9,10,11,and the other filings were Motion(S) for collection of costs and attorneys fees for serv- ing Defendants that had ignored the requests to waiver service of summonses,this is in accordance with Rule 4(5),Fed.R.Civ.P. See copies as Exhibits-12,13,14,Complainant have followed not only the wording of the Rules and Statutes,also the spirit. In fact,the records of these cases will show,that it were the judges,and defendants that deliberately ignored their duties and the requirements of the Rules and Statutes. Judge,Parry,had already conspired with the:-clerks,and other judges of the district court,to and did issued an order, in each case cited above,not to issue any summonses to Complai- nant without she consent,on May 4,1995 before the court conspi- red to assigned all Complainant's Paid cases to judge,Parry on May 5,1995 a day after Parry had already issued a verbal order to all clerks of the district court. 6.dJudge,Catherine.D.Parry has routinely and systemica- lly acted on Complainant's cases,in the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter,and in cases which she is named as a Defendant,e.g., See Jones vs.Fernando J.Gaitan,et al.,4:95-CV-0222, now on appeal to this Court,in that issue, and Motion to Stay proceeding: until the Court Rule on said Mo- tion,Jones vs.Fernando J.Gaitan,et al., 95-1789 EMSL,Complaina- nt also filed in that appeal Petition for writ of Mandamun, against Robert D.St.Vrain,Clerk,Judges,Filippine,Limbaugh,Gunn, Jcv., Hamilton,Stohr,Jackson, Shaw, Parry,Cahill,and Nangle,filed April 25,1995,each of these individuals are named in--each -of the above cases as Defendants,and having an interest in the outcome of each case,therefore on their own motion-recur themselves, pur- suant to 28 USC § 455(a)(2)(3)94)(5)(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (d) (1) (2) (3)(4)(e), United States vs.Will1,449 US 200(1980); Jurisdiction, Stump vs.Sparkman, 435 US 349,55 L Ed 2d 331,98 S Ct 1099(1978), Liability of the judge in civil actions,Butz vs.Economou, 438 US 478,57 L Ed 2d 895,98 S Ct 2894(1978), Absolutely no person in this Country is so high that he/she is above the law,and subject to criminal prosecution,O'Shea vs-Littleton, 414 US 488 38 L Ed 2a 674,94 S Ct 669(1974)}; ‘Dennis vs.Sparks, 449 US 24, _ 66 L Ed 2d 185,101 S Ct 183(1980),The U.S.Supreme Court held in United States vs.James Daniel Good Real Property, Slip op-No.92- 1180 Decided. December 13;1993,that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,guarantees that "tf njo persons shall...be depri- ved of life,liberty,or property without due process of law.'" Our Precedent(S) establish the general rule that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be Heard,before the gover- nment deprive them of property,or any other right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.And in the Eighth Circuit, Page-4