COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marc Perkel, to move the court for a new trial in both the case of 198CC1666 and 198CC1753 and to ask that the judge recuse himself on his own motion in both cases.

In the case of 198CC1753, the case of the unsigned order, the Missouri Rules of court state that orders of the court shall be signed by a judge. The order in question wasn't signed, and the person who is supposed to be the author is not a judge. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgement in his favor.

In the case of 198CC1666, the case of Fraud upon the Court, Rule 74.06(d) states that a judgement can be overturned in a court of equity for fraud upon the court. Plaintiff pleaded fraud upon the court and sufficient facts to support fraud upon the court. Plaintiff contends his suit was proper according to the Rules. The case of Sanders v. Insurance Company of North America, 904 S.W.2d 397 states:

These cases have two orders each. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay $1500 in attorney's fees for frivolous lawsuits. Plaintiff contends that attorney's fees are an improper sanction. The original orders indicated the attorney's fees applied to both cases, which were heard at the same time. Then the defendant sent the judge new orders applying the attorney's fees to only case 198CC1666. The new orders were entered without a second hearing or any reference to the original order. Plaintiff contends that the amendment was procedurally improper. However, since the original judgement of this court was never signed, then it would be void on its face. The only thing that it indicates is that it appears that the judge doesn't know how to write an order.

Plaintiff also complains that the award for attorney's fees lacks any findings of misconduct or any reasoning as to why a fee is justified or that special circumstances existed. In both of these cases, the plaintiff presented a justiciable question. Plaintiff contends that attorney's fees is a violation of the "American Rule" and amounts to an improper sanction. Attorney's fee awards are only done for punitive reasons when an attorney brings a suit that is so obviously frivolous that any reasonable person should know better. In these cases, the plaintiff complied with the rules and brought cases that were similar to other winning cases in common law. The rules say that judges shall sign orders. The order in question wasn't signed and the presumed author of the order isn't a judge. Certainly a reasonable person would see where one could make the argument that the order doesn't comply with the rules. Perhaps the Missouri Supreme Court should be required to put a warning label on the rules stating, "These Rules are for entertainment and advertising purposes only and should not be taken seriously." That way the Plaintiff will know that the real rule is that "you got to go along to get along."

Plaintiff also contends that it is a violation of his due process rights under the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution. Plaintiff contends that the judge is usurping the power of the legislature and the Missouri Supreme Court in deciding that the Missouri Rules of Court requiring judges to sign orders do not apply in his court.

The original order entered into the docket in this case was a hand written order and was not signed by the judge. The amended order, written by the defendant's lawyer was signed. It appears that if not for the defendant's lawyer's help, that this judge appears to not know that judges are supposed to sign orders. If Judge McBeth doesn't know he's supposed to sign his own order, how is he going to be able to decide a case involving a commissioner not signing his order? Judge McBeth appears to not know and/or not care what the Missouri Rules of Court say. He just does whatever he wants to do. Plaintiff therefore contends that Judge McBeth is not qualified to hear this case.

The Mr. Sharp's order that he wrote for the judge is an interesting piece of work in itself. It's denominated as "Judgement of Dismissal" which seems to be a contradiction on its face. The plaintiff can't find any reference in case law to judgements of dismissal. If a case is dismissed there is no judgement. If there is a judgement then the case wasn't dismissed. It seems as if Mr. Sharp is being very creative here, conspiring with the judge to find a way to get both his dismissal and keep the attorney fee award.

Not only did the judge order the payment of attorney's fees, but also the judge suggested to the defendant's lawyer that he should falsify his billing and raise the request for attorney's fees from $1500 to $5000. Apparently this judge has no problem with attorneys making false fee claims and encourages them in open court to do so. If the judge is going to suggest false numbers, why stop at $5000? Why not say $50,000 or $5,000,000? Why not just hold the plaintiff in contempt of court and sentence him to life without parole? If the judge is going to usurp the power of the king, then why not just order the plaintiff's head be chopped off? Plaintiff contends this behavior is highly improper and violates the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

Additionally, it was apparent that Judge McBeth had no intention of hearing these two cases. He scheduled them for trial rather than just having a hearing on the motions to dismiss. The proper procedure would have been to have a hearing on the motions rather than to schedule a trial at the first hearing. Plaintiff pointed this out to Judge McBeth in a letter, which the judge apparently ignored. Plaintiff then, on the basis that the scheduled trial was a denial of the motion to dismiss, asked for a directed verdict in his favor because the defendant failed to answer the pleadings in either case. Plaintiff contends that he was entitled to a directed verdict in his favor. Plaintiff contends that the judge's decision to schedule a trial was, in effect, a denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss. How else would it be possible for the judge to schedule a trial without denying the motion to dismiss?

Plaintiff contends that an involuntary dismissal is a non-suit. When a case is dismissed, there is no judgement, and the judge lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgement against either the plaintiff or the defendant. Without jurisdiction, the judgement of attorney's fees is void.

Plaintiff also contends that these cases are two separate cases and were never joined, and therefore it was improper for them to be treated as if they were one case.

Plaintiff contends that the judge's conduct was at least highly irregular, if not judicial misconduct. Plaintiff contends that this judge is unfit to conduct further proceedings in these two cases and that the judge should recuse himself and order a new trial. Plaintiff would normally ask for a hearing on this motion, but under the circumstances, Plaintiff doesn't consider this judge to have sufficient respect for the Missouri Rules of Court, his oath of office, or the Missouri and United States Constitutions, to hold a hearing. The plaintiff will not dignify this judge with his presence in his court. Plaintiff therefore requests only a ruling on this motion without a hearing so that he can take his case to the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiff also states for the record that it is shameful that judicial misconduct and attorney misconduct is not only tolerated in Missouri courts, but actually encouraged. Plaintiff contends that for a judge to encourage a lawyer in open court to lie about his attorney's fees is an act of treason to the constitution. Plaintiff contends that Judge McBeth acted in an irrational manner, conducting himself so as not to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary, and contrary to the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

Plaintiff also states that this is the kind of behavior that causes members of the public to feel contempt for the judicial process and demonstrates the need to end self regulation of the courts. How do you get to be a judge without knowing how to write an order?

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order for a new trial, and that Judge McBeth should recuse himself on his own motion and allow another judge to hear these cases.

Marc Perkel * Plaintiff * 01-13-99

Attached: Judges handwritten orders with no signatures.