◆ SpookStack

669 at 679,680(1974): Harlow vs.Fitgerald, 457 US 800 at 808, 812,73 L Ed 2d 396,102 S Ct 2727 at 2733,2735,2736(1982),in situations of abuse of office,an action for damages may off- er the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutio- nal‘guarantees, Butz vs.Economou,spura. at 506,98 S Ct at 2910; Bivens vs.Six Unknown Named agents of Federal Bureau, of Narcotics, 403 US 388 at 410,99 S Ct 1999 at 2011(1971), Judges are subject to all court costs and attorney fees,see Pulliam vs.-Allen, 466 US 522,80 L Ed 2d 565,104 S Ct 1970, (1984).The conduct of these John Doe officers of the court, exceeds the accepted principles of established federal laws, sanctioning criminal conduct of its clerks,depriving Appell- ant of Equal Protection under the law.The Supreme Court sta- ted in Berger vs-United States, 295 US 78 at 81(1935),that: "Section 269 of the Judicial Code,as amended (28 USC § 391) provides: "tQOn the hearing of any appeal,certiorari,writ of error,or motion for a new trial,in any case,Civil or criminal,the court shall given judgment after an ex- amination of the entire record before the court, Without regard to technical errors,defects,or excep— tions,which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.'" Did the white cover,or the list of Defendants/Appellees on the briefs,affected, the substantial rights of appellees ? reason John Doe judge and/or issued the fraudulent so-call order herein,see Appendix(A) attached.The Supreme Court fur- ther stated in another opinion in Board of Regents of State Colleges vs-Roth, 403 US 564 at 573,33 L Ed 24 548,92 S Ct 2701 at 2707(1972),that: “t(wjhere a person's good name,reputation,honor,or -7-