COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marc Perkel to ask the court to reconsider its decision of dismissal. In support thereof, the Plaintiff states:

1. That on July 29^th 1998 Federal Case # 98-3040-CV-S-RGC was dismissed because it was (improperly) classified by Judge Clark to be a "domestic" case for lack of jurisdiction. In that case the Plaintiff's ex-wife was a party.
2. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the 8^th circuit court of appeals. Plaintiff moved to dismiss his ex-wife as a party to the suit and proceeded to argue that the case was not a domestic case since his ex-wife was no longer a party. The Defendants filed a respondent's brief.
3. The plaintiff realized that since his dismissal was without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) that he could just file a new suit rather than burden the Court of Appeals with an unnecessary decision. Because he had dismissed his ex-wife as a party, the pleading would have to be amended to remove any issues referencing her. A new lawsuit also had the advantage of starting with a clean file rather than building on the previous confusion. Therefore the Plaintiff dismissed his appeal, without prejudice, for the purpose of judicial economy so as to file this suit.
4. The new lawsuit, this suit, was filed on April 22^nd 1999 and, being that it was a refiling of the original claim corrected to conform to the jurisdiction of the court, admittedly was, as it should be, very similar to the suit that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
5. The new suit had several significant differences. It no longer had the Plaintiff's ex-wife as a party nor any issues relating to a domestic case and could now survive a jurisdictional challenge based on the same issues that supposedly caused the first case to be dismissed.
6. This new suit also named Judge Clark specifically as an immune conspirator in his complaint against the defendants (Paragraphs 61-65) accusing him specifically of conspiring with the defendants to conceal criminal conduct.
7. Because Judge Clark was named specifically as a conspirator, he had not business hearing this case and should have recused himself.
8. Since a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits, this case should not be dismissed because it is similar. It's supposed to be similar.
9. Judge Clark also misstates the subject matter of this case. The issues he states are the State case and not this Federal case. This case is about a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice for which Judge Clark is a named party to the conspiracy. The Plaintiff therefore contends that he hasn't even read the pleading or that he has this case confused with some other case.

Upon filing this lawsuit less than a week ago, plaintiff complained to the Clerk of the Court that Judge Clark can not possibly hear this case because he was named in this suit. As a named conspirator, Judge Clark had an absolute duty to recuse himself and is now acting in the absence of all jurisdiction to decide this case. The Plaintiff is willing to give Judge Clark the benefit of the doubt in that it appears that he failed to read the pleading and familiarize himself with the subject matter of this case. The Plaintiff understands that the United States Senate has failed in its duty to confirm judges and has left the judiciary overworked to the point of confusion. I also know that Judge Clark is getting up in years and isn't as sharp as he used to be. I hope that I can still get around when I get to be his age. That must be what's happening here.

If that isn't what's happening here then Judge Clark has improperly assumed jurisdiction to dismiss a case that would expose his own improper conduct. It would mean that he is now acting in this case in the furtherance of the conspiracy the Plaintiff is complaining about. Such a situation shocks the conscience and would be an ethical violation so great as to undermine the very integrity of the federal judiciary to the extent that it would rise to the level of treason to the constitution. If such a situation were to occur, the Plaintiff would be compelled as a loyal citizen of the United States of America to take all necessary steps to defend his country from judicial acts that deliberately undermine the Constitution and the rule law.

The Plaintiff therefore will presume that Judge Clark made an honest mistake as all of us sometimes do, and therefore moves that Judge Clark rescind his Order of dismissal and to recuse himself from this case and allow it to be heard by an impartial judge.

________________________________

Marc Perkel - Plaintiff - 04-27-99