◆ SpookStack

2076(2071,2073,2075) of Title 18 USC. 2.The district court,Eastern Missouri,in another dispa~ rate attempt to maintain the coverup of these crimes, by deny- ing Appellant access to court,to be heard,district court en banc issued another en bane order on April-10,1995,attempting frivolously to rescind its first en banc order issued June 1988,see Appendix(D),attached ‘hereto(In an unrelated appeal to the Eighth Circuit,that circuit affirmed the first en banc order,making it law in that circuit,therefore district court had no authority to rescind its first en banc order).However, because Appellant had paid all costs and fees in the sum of over [ $50,000 ],the second en banc order barred Appellant forever right to [ Pay Filing fee to file any pleading in any Court,State or Federal ],See en banc order NO.4:95MC00086(US-~ DC of Mo.1995).Appellant retained attorney,Appellee, Elbert A. Walton,a contract were entered into Appellee,Walton and Appe- tract agreement,Walton would charge SEC all court costs and attorney fees, copy of that contract were signed by Appellant, and copy of the same given to Appellant.(Please take notice, attorney,Walton had a Sharp 257 copier,and Appellant did de- monstrated in the person of Appellee,Walton the facts of the copier as set out above in Statement of Facts,),The same were witnessed and known by three(3) females in the office at that time.But after Appellant left the Appellee's office,It is all- eged that Appellees, juéges, district court,Missouri,entered in- to an agreement with Walton,SEC,that Walton file no action aga-