◆ SpookStack

‘eo Oo ts,citing Stare Decisis.Number(2),the district court en banc were aimed with Rule 11 sanctions that could have been impo- sed upon Appellant if he had continuously abused the "integ- rity of the judicial process,the court has the power of dis- cretionary sanctions.Silva vs.Witschen,. 19 F 3d 725(1st Cir. 1994),monetary sanctions,Cooter & Gell vs.Hartnarx Corp.-, 496 US 384,110 S Ct 2447,110 L Ed 2d 359(1990),The Court may also issue Show-Cause orders to a offender,if the court has grounds to do so.,the U.S.Supreme Court indicated criminal sanctions,in Jones vs.ABC TV Network,et al., No.95-7186 Deci- ded February 26,1996,Not,the court take the advance of Rule 11 provisions ? Appellant would have been heard in his de- fense,and court's crimes uncovered. Appellant had the right to enforce the contract agreement,and a right to sue Appell- ees Vaicon Broadcasting of Missouri for using its TV Station to broadcast L-I-E(S) and Criminal Deception(S),of but not limited too: Assassination of Appellant's character,with Smare,Defamation of Character,Libelous and Slanderous State- ments,for the sole purposes of assisting the federal courts’ in Turning the Public against him,convicting him in Court of Public Opinion,in which to maintain the coverup 3 their Cri- me(S) by stating to the public that Appellant is a mental case,and cannot be believed. Appellee,Allnam;further broad- casted to its viewers that Appellant: "..-he keep a copy of the Pelecan brief around at all time(S),...-he got favorite cases, Powell vs-Alabama, 287 US 45(1932),..." falsely manu- factured L-I-E(S) totally unsupported by real evidence. -11-