◆ SpookStack

But instead of the Federal Government taking affirmative ac- tion against SEC and protect citizens of the United States from being defrauded by foreign Government's Corporations, these authorities ignored Appellant and his evidence against these Appellees,and the Federal Government turned on Appell- ant for exposing this Fraud upon Citizens of the United Stat- es,which the Federal officials knew of and permitted it to continue heretofore,with impunity. 6.Appellant P-A-I-D all C-O-S-T-S and F-E-E(S) to file and serve all Defendants in Sylvester Jones vs.Sharp Electr- ones..Corp.,et al.,No.4294-CV-1098 (USDC E:of Mo.1995),but after Appellant had served all Defendants,with Summons and copy of Complaints,Filed Motions/affidavits pursuant to Rule 4(da)(2) and (d)(5),Fed.R.Civ.P.,see e.g.,United States vs. First Midwest Bank,No.94-C-7365,(1995) WL 447762 (N.D.ILL. 1995); Mathon vs.Marine Midiand Bank,N.A., 875 F.Supp.986, (E.D.N.¥.1995),for collection of costs and attorney's fee. But district judge,Captherine D.Parry,despite a named Defen- dant in the amended. complaint under 42 USC § 1986,and despite Appellant had submitted Motion(S) pursuant to 28 USC § 455 et seq.,for each judge constituting the U.S.District Court En Banc,to disqualify him/herself,judge Parry denied the Motion and Without subject matter jurisdiction Sua Sponte Dismissed THE Complaints in favor of all Defendants,without Ruling on Appellant's Motion(S) under Rule 4(d)92) and (d)(5).Fed.R.Civ. P.See copy of that Complaint,demanding [ Trial by Jury ] att- ached hereto as Appendix(N).These crimes has been knowingly ~40-