Motion to Strike Appearance - Vicki

              IN THE CIRCUIT COURT GREENE COUNTY MISSOURI


Marc Perkel - pro se              )
         plaintiff,               )
                                  )
vs.                               )  No. 197CC0170
                                  )
William A. Wear Jr.               )
James R. Sharp                    )
The Law Firm of Wear and Sharp    )
Vicki Stringfellow                )
Donald A. Duncan                  )
The Law Firm of Turner, Reid,     )
Duncan Loomer and Patton, P.C.,   )
         defendants,              )



                       SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF
        MOTION TO STRIKE APPEARANCE AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
                      AGAINST VICKI STRINGFELLOW
        -------------------------------------------------------


Plaintiff herein adopts the same arguments, where appropriate, that
he used to argue the appearance of the other defendants should be
stricken for improper representation. New arguments presented here may
apply to the other defendants as well.



Motion to Dismiss not Timely
----------------------------

Besides the obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Sharp failed to file his
motion to dismiss for his client, Ms. Stringfellow in a timely manner.
Even if you allow an extra 3 days for service by mail he was still four
days late. I'm sure Mr. Sharp will make some kind of "dog ate my
homework" kind of excuse to explain himself, but he has a whole law firm
down there and I'm pro se working on this suit while having to earn a
living and if I can file in a timely manner, why can't he?


I fully realize that even though in theory that I could win this case
just on the basis on Mr. Sharp being late, I know that isn't going to
happen. I'm sure that the court will allow it to slide as it should. It
would hardly be fair to Ms. Stringfellow if she had to pay $5,000,000
just because her lawyer can't maintain a calendar. So even though I'm
asking the court to strike and for default judgement on the basis of
timeliness, I know it's not going to be granted.


However, as I have already stated many times, Mr. Sharp and Mr. Wear's
representation of Ms. Stringfellow is improper and they know it's
improper. They have been asked repeatedly to justify their improper
representation and have made no response. Mr. Duncan at least went to
the trouble to make a misleading argument to support his invalid
position for his triple role as lawyer/defendant/witness. Mr. Sharp has
made no attempt to explain it. Is this the proper way to represent a
client and to address issues brought before the court?


Mr. Wear and Mr. Sharp are on very thin ice already in their
representation of Ms. Stringfellow in the first place. I would assume
that some time in the future they are going to attempt to explain their
conflict of interest, however, it seems that their failure to file a
motion to dismiss in a timely manner sure doesn't help their anticipated
argument that they can provide competent legal counsel to their client
under these unusual circumstances.


Their failure to dismiss isn't the only thing that isn't timely. Since
this suit was filed on 01-15-97 I have filed many motions as you can see
dealing with a number of issues in this case. Do you know how many of
these motions he's responded to in behalf of his client? ZERO! Is that
taking care of his client properly?


The reason I raise these issues, your honor, isn't in defense of my
ex-wife. The reason is because I want to win this cleanly. What would be
the point of going through a trial just to have her file an appeal on
the basis of incompetent counsel? How would I defend and argument like
that? If you allow Ms. Stringfellow to be represented by a lawyer who
has an obvious conflict of interest, can't file his motion to dismiss in
a timely manner, and ignores all other motions from the Plaintiff you're
giving her an automatic appeal and I doubt any appeals court could deny
her a new trial under the circumstances. For all I know that may be
their legal strategy.


One can only guess why Mr. Wear and Mr. Sharp failed to file a timely
response. These are both seasoned lawyers with years of law practice.
They have represented hundreds of clients. One must assume that they
know how to deal with the calendar. This is not just another case like
all the others. This case is probably the only case where they are
personally named as codefendants. Since Wear and Sharp are personally
being sued here I would think they should be more aware of this case
than the average case.


Assuming that Mr. Wear and Mr. Sharp are involved in their own defense,
I noticed they wasted no time working with Mr. Duncan to get their
motion to dismiss prepared and filed in a timely manner. So obviously
they were aware of time in preparing their own defense. So how can they
now come before the court and make any kind of claim that they forgot or
they didn't know what the rules are. Assuming, that is, that they even
go to the trouble to make a claim.


If there's any conclusion that can be drawn from the untimely filing is
that it further raised the issue that Mr. Wear and Mr. Sharp are so
distracted with saving their own butts that their ability to properly
represent their client is at least compromised. In fact, if Ms.
Stringfellow were in the future to claim that she got an unfair trial
because of conflict of interest and incompetent representation, I now
preconcede here that she would be right that if she is represented by
Wear and Sharp and loses, that she would have the right to an automatic
appeal. I don't think that even informed consent would be a defense.



Default Judgement Appropriate?
------------------------------

Granted the default judgement isn't appropriate for untimely filing of a
response alone. And perhaps in the case of Ms. Stringfellow who is not a
lawyer that the issue of improper representation alone shouldn't warrant
default judgement. But when you combine the two I would think that it
should at least take a lot of explaining and use up all her favors with
the court to allow her to not get default judgement when there's two
different reasons why she should.


If Ms. Stringfellow is granted more time retroactively and she is
granted more time to find new counsel and file new motions then I would
think the Plaintiff is owed something in return. It seems appropriate
that I should get my injunction to stay the execution of judgement
against me until this case comes to trial. Plaintiff asks the court also
that Mr. Wear and Mr. Sharp return the money they swiped from the
Plaintiff's corporation. Plaintiff also asks that the injunction to
prohibit him from entering his land in Fair Grove be lifted.