◆ SpookStack

— O. % 9 CONCLUSION The Appellant,States that for all the reasons set forth above, and because the United States Supreme Court said in these op- inions,e.g., City of Los Angeles vs.Lyons,461 US 95,75 L Ed 2d 1_675,103 S Ct 1660(1983), that: .. “those who deliberately deprive a citizen of his constitutional’ rights R-I-S-K conviction under the federal criminal-laws." Further in Dennis vs.Sparks, 449 US 24,66 L Ed 2d 185,101 S Ct 183 at 101(1980), That: ",.ejudicial immunity was not designed to Insulate the judiciary from all aspects of public accountability. Judge(S) are...subject to C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L Prose- cutions as are other citizens." Further in Pulliam,Magistrate For The County Of Culpeper,Vir- Ginia vs.Allen, 466 US 522,80 L Ed 2d 565,104 S Gt 1970(1984), said that: ",..interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to R-E-A-C-H all...actors,including Judge(S)." ‘The--Court -went on to states,that in Ex Parte Virginia,100,US- 339(1879), § 4 of the Civil Rights Act of 1875,18 Stat.339, was employed to authorize a criminal indictment against a jud- ge for excluding persons from jury service on account of their Race.Federal judges are not above the law,United States vs. Nixon, 418 uS 683 at 705,707,41 L Ed 2d 1039,94 S Ct 3090 (1974), But in O'Shea vs.Littleton, 414 US 488 at 503,38 L Ed 2a ‘614, 94, 3 Ct 669 at 679, 680(1974),said: uguage(S) who would: willfully discriminate on the ground of race or otherwise would willfully dep- rive the citizen of his constitutional rights as this complaint alleges,..." as Appellant her- ein has shows by overwhelming evidence."...Must ~158~