◆ SpookStack

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE 8TH CIRCUIT ‘COMPLAIN ‘OF -JUDICIAL ‘MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY May 8,1995 Criminal Misconduct of: Catherine D.Parry United States District Judge. Eastern District of Missouri 1114 Market Street St.Louis,Missouri 63101: The Complainant,Sylvester Jones Pro Se pursuant to 28 USC § 1654,commence this Criminal misconduct complaint, Catherine D.Parry,in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 96-458, 94 Stat.2035,S 1873 ( 1980. ),Judicial Councils REform And Jud- icial Conduct And Disability Act( 28 USC 1 note.). 1.Judge,Catherine D.Parry,should be impeached and remov- ed from office,pursuant to the Good Behavior Clause of Article III § I of the Constitution,for an ongoing pattern of Criminal conduct aimed against Complainant,and members of his race,class, and because he and others,such as Dorothy M.Jones,See e.g., Jones vs.City of Jennings,et al., 4:93-CV-1947 (CDP),in that case,dismissed With-Prejudice,sua sponte by Parry's use of the wrong statute,42 USC § 1983, when on the face of the Complaint reflects ( 42 USC §§ 1981,1985(3), and 1986 ).: Judge Parry also stated in her twelve page memorandum and order on p.2,f00- tnote,1 that "Defendants Robert Fabry, "'other persons/corpora- tion Unknown to plaintiff at this time,'" When in fact, Defendant,Robert Fabry is named in the caption of the complaint, name,and address of employment,that is the manager of the Apart- ment building where Ms.Jones resides,and that Ms.Jones had fil- ed Motion with judge,Parry to hold Defendant,Bagry in contempt of court,and have the United States attorney to indict Sabry pursuant to 18 USC § 1001,for lying to the, U.S.Marshal that att~ empted to serve him with summons,but Fabry told the marshal that he was "Not Fabry" See Jones vs.City of Jennings,supra.,this were a deliberate criminal act of judge,Parry to coverup a crime,and punish the victim,by inter alia,disregarding filed evidence with the complaint,and sanctioned conduct acts of Defendants,contrary to 42 usc § § 1981,Patterson vs.McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 105 L Ed 2d 132,109 S Ct 2363(1989), 1985(3),Griffin vs.Breck- enridge, 403 Us 88,91 S Ct 1970,29 L Ed 2d 338(1971): Jones vs Alfred H.Mayer Co.,392 US 409,88 S Ct 2186,20 L Ed 2a 1189 (1968). This conduct has been the police and practice in the federal courts herein St.Louis Missouri,to Complainant's data,. for more that Thirty(30) Years, See attached hereto as Exhibit (1), copy of news paper article on the subject matter. 2.That based upon a documented hisbory,supporting tang- ible evidence(Documentation),judge Parry is out of control and too "Incompetent" to carry out her ’.Sworn(28 USC § 453) ,dut— ies,as an Article III judge. .