◆ SpookStack

Paying Filing fee in any Court,State or Federal in the Unit- ed States,See en banc order,No.4:95MC00086 CDP(1995),despite totally Unconstitutional on its face,exceeds the scope of all power/authority under Article III of the Constitution,Racist, Grossly Discriminatory,criminal,because issued in attempt to coverup and conceal Class A Felony Crime(S) knowingly comm- itted by these same federal judges,attorneys,clerks,law-cle- rks,deputies and assistant,clerks.See copy of the twenty(20) page en banc order attached as Appendix(0). b-For the past Twenty one(21) Years the federal district court,Eastern district of Missouri,has routinely and system- atically Denied Appellant an Evidentiray Hearing pursuant to 28 USC § § 2255,2241,2242,2243, the all Writs Act,See above p.p-,6,7,and to Sanders vs.United. States, 373 US 1,10 L Ed 2d 148,83 S Ct 1068(1963); Townsend vs.Sain, 372 US 293,9 L Ed 2d770,83 S Ct 745(1963); McQueen vs.Swenson(1),498 F 2d 207(8th Cir.1974); McQueen vs.Swenson(II), 560 F 2d 959(8th Cir.1977); Strickland vs.Washington, 466 US 668,80 L Ed 24 674,104 S Ct 2052(1984),the fraudulent affidavit,that set for- th wall to wall unsupported L-I-E-S on ail four Corners,under the warrant cause of the Fourth Amendment,and Franks vs.Dela- are, 438 US 154,57 L Ed 2d 667,98 S Ct 2674(1978);Federal co- urts Must issue writs of Habeas Corpus,when it has been shown by independent [ Overwhelming Documentation Evidence,court re~ cords and files,affidavit(S) of witnesses and others J that Appellant were in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States,Peyton vs.Roew, 391 US 54,20 L Ed ~45-