◆ SpookStack

a = 2 Page 5 Complaint to FBI James W.Nalson From Complainant Sylvester Jones complaints,pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(2)(6),and Rule 8,Fed.R. Civ.P.,disregarding overwhelming-documentary-evidence support- ing each claim,in the petition and complaints,while heading the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice,here- in Eastern district of Missouri.Copy of motion attached as Exhibit-E. 7.After Defendant,Moore returned all summonses issued for federal officials to Complainant,began to have the clerks to sign and seal second summonses,which Complainant began to serve all federal officials for the four(4) time,costing him $1000s of dollars,Complainant had received the return certify mail receipts,from some federal officials and filed the same with the clerk,Complainant had in his possession 25 or 30 retu- rn summonses to file with the clerk,and summonses and complain- ts mailed certified,awaiting on the returns,and other returns to file with the clerk.Meanwhile Defendant, judge,Gaitan,were conspiring with two of the private attorneys/defendants in the case,Nodiff,and Alan Farkas,in an colluded agreement,to trick Complainant into believing that judge,Gaitan were going to hold a "Teleconference" on January 20,1995,but dJater changed to Jan- uary 24,1995,see copies or said court orders attached as Exhib- its-F, and G. The Teleconference were to be at telephone number (816) 426-6308,Complainant did not receive the information from judge,Gaitan,rather private attorney,Alen Farkas,on each occas- ion,and on each occasion,Complainant had to go to the office of the clerk in which to get copy of the court's orders. 8.Judge,Gaitan,had absolutely no intentions of holding a teleconference,at the same time judge,Gaitan,were lying to Complainant,concerning the teleconference,he and its law clerks were preparing an order to dismiss the entire case "With-Preju- dge," in favor of all defendants,which said order of dismissal were filed on January 23,1995,one day prior to the scheduled teleconference on January 24,1995.And despite,not one federal Defendant had appeared _and plead as required under the Fed.R. Civ.P.,each federal Defendant,had remaining on the summons 30 days or more,in which to appear and plea.Even if all the fed- eral defendants had appeared and plead,based upon the totality of the evidence filed with the complaints,and petition,no order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),could lawfully be issue by any feder- al judge,without knowingly violating Precedent(S) of the United State Supreme Court in Conley vs.Bibson, 355 US 41(1957); Haines vs.Kerner,404 US 519,(1972),reafirmed in Estelle vs. Gamble, 429 US 97(1976);United States vs.James Daniel Good Real Property, Ship op.,No.92-1180,decided December 13,1993; Leatherman vs.Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coor ., dination Unit, US 113 S$ Ct 1160(1993); Bivens vs.Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388(1971),Here are same of the other Federal Rules of Civil Procedural,which judge,Gaitan,knowingly discriminated against Complainant,deprived him of Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws,based entirely upon Complainant's Race,Class and because,Complainant attempted to enjoy and exercise his Const- itutional rights to be "Heard" offer evidence,petition his