◆ SpookStack

Page 2 Criminal Misconduct Complaint Against District judge, Catherine D.Parry. Complainant,Sylvester Jones: 3.In Complainant's cases,judge,Parry crimes dates back to when she were a United States magistrate,committing Hate Crimes against blacks that attempts to be heard in federal court pursuant to the 1964,and later the 1991 Civil Rights' Acts that in each case to Complainant's data,Parry acting as Attorney Counsel,and Representatives of Defendants,because they are White,ruch,famous or powerful,litigants,with influence with th- ese federal judicial officers,and the office of the United Sta- tes attorney,herein the Eastern district of Missouri.Complain- ant Has_been trying for the past Twenty(20) years to be Heard, by Trial or an Evidentiray~Hearéng, but has _ been Routinely and Systemically Denied, by the federal judges Sua Sponte Dismissing Complaints, without Complainant been Heard. 4.THE REASONS WHY THE DISTRICT COURT EN BANC _HAS_ CON- SPIRED TO FOREVER DENY COMPLAINANT ACCESS TO THE COURT,AND_AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE,AND HAVE THAT EVIDENCE CONSID- ERED AS TO GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS,AS IN ALL OTH- ER CASES DEMANDING JURY TRIALS: Complainant's criminal trial in June 1976,were falsely manuf- actured by officers of the federal courts,see Complaint's Appendix~AA,attached hereto,entitled: "Statement of Case." From that trial,in 1976 federal officials has engaged in a twenty(20) year .ongoing coverup conspiracies to protect the two court app- ointed attorneys, J.Martin Hadican and Michael A.Forst,See two separate letters from attorney Hadican to .Complainant,while he were in federal prison serving a total of forty six(46) year sentence,attached as Exhibits-2 and 3. These two letters are an attempt on the part of Hadican to justify depriving Compl- ainant's of a faire and.-impartial trial,based solely upon the evidence,which were Suppressed because it would have des- troyed the government's case against Complainant.Those lett— ers attempts to explained why no witnesses were interview or called to testify for the Complainant,and why Hadican deliber- ately failed to cross-examine Ronald L.Cannon,a Drug Addict, four time felon,prosecutor key witness,that testimony were not corroborated by any other evidence in the case, including federal agents' testimonies. It,to Complainant's knowledge,is that an unreliable witness' testimony had to be corroborated by independent evidence in the case,before an accused can be ., found guilty of a crime. But not in Complainant trial.See Appendix-AA,attached for details on this matter,and the Lie Sworn too by the Prosecutor,Richard E.Coughlin under Oath in which to block cross-examination of Cannon on Complainant's true business with him.See Exhibit-2,lower half of paragraph two of said letter.