Answer to their Response
Second Motion for Summary Judgement

              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 R. Duncan - pro se         )
The Law Firm of Turner, Reid,     )
Duncan Loomer and Patton, P.C.,   )
         defendants,              )



            REPLY TO RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S
                  SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
            ==============================================


COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marc Perkel, in reply to Defendants' response to
Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgement. Plaintiff would first
like to state for the record that he is shocked and amazed by the
Defendants response. In his state of shock and amazement, Plaintiff
states to the Court as follows:

1) On December 8th 1997, Plaintiff filed his second motion for summary
   judgement. This motion was based on the argument that the Defendant's
   had tampered with evidence by obliterating the date on their Exhibit
   "B" and that they were admitting through conduct that their case had
   no merit.

2) In response, Defendants filed an answer claiming that they had not in
   fact altered the fax to conceal the date, claiming that they had
   highlighted the date, photocopied it, which they claim copied to
   solid black, lost the original, and then made a typographical error
   in putting in the wrong date.

3) Defendants' response included a sworn affidavit of Mr. Sharp stating
   that his highlighting process often photocopies as black, in this
   case solid black, obscuring the date.

4) Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sharp's sworn affidavit is in fact a
   false affidavit pursuant to Missouri Statute 575.050 and constitutes
   Perjury pursuant to Missouri Statute 575.040 and is a Class D felony.



                               ARGUMENT
                               --------


The Obliterated Date
--------------------

Mr. Sharp in a sworn notarized affidavit stated that the black mark
through the date on Exhibit B was caused by a highlighter. What he
states is false because there is no copier or set of circumstances that
are capable of producing the results he claims. Attached is a sample of
what I'm talking about. Here are 6 colors of highlighters and a
photocopy. As you can see, these highlighters don't produce anything
close to the results Mr. Sharp claims.

If you look at Exhibit B you can see that Mr. Sharp's highlighter
produced a solid black copy, or so he claims. There is no color that
copies this black except black itself. In fact, if a black marking pen
is used and the marker isn't as dark as the print, it is often still
readable.

The Plaintiff sent the original fax by using a digital fax modem
and not a fax machine. A digital fax modem creates the fax perfectly.
Every black dot is black and every white dot is white. Not one dot is
out of place, a different size, or light. When the fax comes out of the
remote machine, it is not a copy of what was sent. It's a perfect
original. Both Exhibit A and B were faxed directly from the Plaintiff's
fax computer directly to the Defendant's fax machine.

Although copiers vary somewhat in the way they see color, the variation
is not that great. Yellow, for example, is virtually invisible, if not
totally invisible, to every copier made. Blue and Violet show up only as
light Grey. Most law firms use Yellow because it is invisible. Yellow
has become somewhat of a standard. The Plaintiff has seen documents
which came from the law offices of Wear and Sharp that were highlighted
in Yellow. Plaintiff believes that if the facts are investigated and the
employees are deposed that it will be revealed that Wear and Sharp use a
Yellow highlighter.

Although the Plaintiff is probably not an expert witness on the subject
of photocopiers, the Plaintiff has been in electronic repair for 26
years and has worked as a photocopier repairman and has a fairly
detailed understanding of how photocopiers work and what the
capabilities and limitations of a photocopier are. Plaintiff states that
there is no way possible that pens sold as highlighting pens can
photocopy on any copier under any conditions as solid black. You can't
make it do it on purpose if you tried.

Obviously the people who make highlighter pens wouldn't stay in business
very long if their pens photocopied as solid black. What lawyer would
buy highlighter pens that did that. Pen manufacturers go to great
lengths to ensure their products are as invisible to photocopiers as
possible. As you can see on the Web Sites of Bic and Magic Marker, they
feature the fact that their pens don't show up on faxes and photocopiers
as a selling feature.

You'll also notice the solid white areas at the ends of the obliterated
area and the thin lines at the ends. Marking pens don't leave this sort
of pattern. This pattern is more consistent with a person using a small
diameter felt tip marking pen, drawing a box around the date area, and
then filling in the box using a horizontal scribbling motion. This would
leave the ends white where the horizontal scribble didn't meet the
vertical box wall. A highlighting pen wouldn't have been able to make
the thin vertical lines on the left and right border. The white areas,
if they were light spots, would have photocopied as a dark Grey area
instead of solid white.

The Plaintiff encourages the Court and the Defendants to try it
yourselves. I challenge you to show me where it's possible to create the
effect you claim. Plaintiff contends that it can not be done.



Replying to Specific Denials
----------------------------

Defendant Duncan, in behalf of all Defendants relies on Mr. Sharp's
affidavit to support his contentions that the obliterated date was
unintentional. However, it can be proven that Mr. Sharp is lying about
how the date got to be obliterated. One must assume that he's lying to
cover up the fact that he deliberately altered the evidence to conceal
the date so that he could misrepresent it.

If he deliberately concealed the date then it can be inferred that he
believed that the date was in fact crucial to his defense and that his
claim denying it was crucial in Paragraph 9 is also not true. If the
order of the faxes doesn't matter, then why did he obliterate the date?
Is it a coincidence that they also made a clerical error switching the
order of the faxes? And is it also a coincidence that Exhibit A and B
are in reverse chronological order? And is it a coincidence that they
only "highlighted" Exhibit B and not Exhibit A?

In Paragraph 10 defendants state that they don't rely on the order of
the Exhibits although Plaintiff contends the order is important. If the
Defendants did obliterate the date then they are admitting through
conduct that the order of the faxes is crucial. If the order isn't
important then why switch the order?

In Paragraph 11 Defendants claim that the faxes contradict two of the
Plaintiff's original factual allegations. Even though Plaintiff admits
that Exhibit A addresses the Court, a copy was sent at the same time from
the Plaintiff to the office of Wear and Sharp. It was clear that when
the Plaintiff said, "Correct me if what I'm assuming is wrong", that it
was directed at all recipients.

Mr. Sharp clearly knew the Plaintiff believed the deposition to be
cancelled and he could have contacted the Plaintiff if he really wanted
to depose him. Mr. Sharp has already admitted this when he argued that
he had no duty to inform the Plaintiff that the deposition wasn't
cancelled. This argument clearly shows Mr. Sharp had actual knowledge
that the Plaintiff was confused about if he was required to attend. Thus
Mr. Sharp's claim that he relied on Exhibit B is untrue. And since fax A
supersedes fax B, fax B is meaningless.

Another point that disproves the Defendant's position that they relied
on Exhibit B is the date on which they filed sanctions. If the
Defendant's knew on December 21st, 1994, the day they now admit they
actually received Exhibit B, that the Plaintiff wasn't going to show up,
then why wait till January 4th 1995, the day of the deposition to file
for sanctions? Why didn't they file for sanctions the day they got the
fax?

The reason they waited till January 4th 1995 to file their motion is
because that's the day of the deposition. They wanted to see if the
Plaintiff was going to show up. And when the Plaintiff failed to show,
they filed sanctions. But the fact that they had to wait for the
Plaintiff to not show up implies that they knew there was a possibility
that the Plaintiff might show up. And if they knew the Plaintiff might
show up then they had a duty to have a court reporter present to take
the deposition.

Defendants claim they had no court reporter because they didn't want to
go to the expense if the Plaintiff wasn't going to be there. Since their
conduct and arguments indicate they were aware that there was a
possibility the Plaintiff was going to be there, all they had to do was
to pick up a telephone and ask me if I was coming. The Plaintiff didn't
have any duty to call ahead and confirm the deposition, but he did call
ahead and was told that the deposition was cancelled. And having told
the Plaintiff that the deposition was cancelled, and having no court
reporter present to take plaintiff's deposition, it is clear that it was
the Defendants who called off the deposition. And thus it was an act of
fraud upon the court for them to claim to Commissioner Tinsley that the
Plaintiff failed to appear for a deposition when there was no
deposition.

In their first response to summary judgement the Defendants tampered
with evidence to support their position. Now in this second response to
summary judgement the Defendants rely on Mr. Sharp's false affidavit to
explain the tampered evidence. The fact that they have now lied to the
Court under oath to beat an allegation of criminal conduct should be
construed by this Court as an admission by conduct that they did, in
fact, tamper with evidence.

Because they used a false affidavit to support their response to summary
judgement, and they tampered with physical evidence in their previous
response to summary judgement, this court should strike their response
and rule summarily in favor of the Plaintiff.



Disclaimer
----------

I am reasonably certain that my claim that Mr. Sharp's affidavit is
false. My only doubt comes from the idea that a sophisticated lawyer
would file a false affidavit, and therefore I must be missing something.
If I'm wrong about this then I ask that the Defendant's immediately show
me where I'm wrong, and I humbly apologize in advance.



Criminal Violations
-------------------

Missouri Revised Statute 575.040 states:

   "1. A person commits the crime of perjury if, with the purpose to
   deceive, he knowingly testifies falsely to any material fact upon
   oath or affirmation legally administered, in any official proceeding
   before any court, public body, notary public or other officer
   authorized to administer oaths."

I think that we all know that a false affidavit proffered to a court to
support a response to summary judgement is perjury. And perjury is a
Class D felony. Mr. Sharp is the one who made the affidavit so if it's
false, it's too late for him to run from it.

However, I'm going to assume that for the sake of protecting the
innocent that all the other Defendants may not yet know that no copiers
can photocopy yellow as solid black and may not yet know that Mr. Sharp
lied to the Court in his affidavit. In theory, the rest of you may as of
now be innocent parties to the perjury.

THIS A WARNING THAT YOU NOW HAVE NOTICE THAT MR. SHARP'S AFFIDAVIT IS
FALSE AND THAT YOUR MOTION RELIES ON HIS FALSE AFFIDAVIT. IF YOU DO NOT
TAKE IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION, YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF A PARTY TO
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

Your future may be dependent on making a copier copy yellow as solid
black. I strongly encourage you to try the attached sample and if you
can recreate the effect Mr. Sharp has sworn to, stick with him. If you
can't then run from him or share his fate.



Duty of the Judge
-----------------

Judge Syler:

You have a duty to investigate this for yourself. Try this on your
copier and see if you can get solid black. Your stay of this case does
not include the power to suspend the law. A false affidavit and perjury
are criminal violations and as a judge you have the duty to refer the
matter to the Prosecutor for criminal prosecution. It's time you stop
covering up for these lawyers and start doing your job.

Quite frankly, I consider Mr. Sharp's false affidavit to be a real
opportunity for me to make my case for external regulation of the court
system. This case will prove that self regulation doesn't work and that
it is in fact unconstitutional. The constitution contemplated a checks
and balance system to prevent any branch of government from usurping the
power of the monarchy. This issue will be my next Supreme Court case.
History is being made, and we are part of it.




__________________________________
Marc Perkel * Plaintiff * 01-12-98

Attached:
   Color Sample
   Copy of Color Sample
   Magic Marker Web Page
   Bic Web Page
   Missouri Statutes